In a Democracy, the Rule of Law Transcends Time

Every year on Law Day (May 1), events are held to recognize our entire legal system with a focus on the importance of the rule of law and judicial independence.

In the 1960s, Catherine’s father, John B. Friedrich, a judge in the First Judicial District, was asked to write a commentary for Law Day. It was published in the Republican Eagle. Here are his words which could have been written today.

Country’s Survival Dependent on Rule of Law

Law Day, U.S.A. has been designated as the 1st of May each year. It is a day when we ought to look inward, look at ourselves, and examine our institutions to determine where we are going and what we are seeking to achieve.

Ours is a democracy. It was founded many years ago by people who strongly believed in the rights of the individual – so strongly, indeed, that they were willing to fight for what they believed was right and after achieving the right to go it alone were not content to let “George” do it.

They fashioned for themselves a government that reflected their wishes, and to see to it that it was not led away from this cherished goal, wrote into their basic charter a number of important rules, which the government shall never set aside.

The basic premise upon which this government was founded is “the rule of law.” This is not a government of wish, will, whim, or edict, but one of law! The rule applies equally to the high and the low.

It is not a government based upon efficiency, although it ought not to countenance waste for waste’s sake. If one wanted to have a government that was “efficient” and do the greatest good for the greatest number, without regard to the individual, then one ought to support a dictatorship with frequent assassination.

However, ours is a government which, while promoting the general welfare, is assiduous in guaranteeing the rights of the individual.

Ours, then, is a government based on law. This is a tenuous principle for it is one not based on force, but rather on a reasoned application of the spirit of cooperation and understanding to the conduct of the individual.

It is a principle that takes some degree of understanding which cannot be acquired overnight. It has a tendency to fall by the wayside when a group of people, rightly or wrongly, feel they have been ignored and run over. When passions arise, it is thrust into the background and ignored when its application is most needed.

There has been a great deal of talk recently that we are not applying this principle today. In fact, there is conversation in some quarters that maybe we ought to do away with it.

We are not unique. This phenomenon has occurred many times in the past. In fact, right after the Constitution was adopted, at a time when you would have thought that there would have been a zealous attachment to the spirit which was the guiding light to the formation of the government, a grave constitutional crisis arose over the right of the Courts to interpret the law.

When John Marshall, then Chief Justice of the U. S. Supreme Court, authored an opinion setting forth the law on an issue, those dissatisfied with the decision commented, “John Marshall has made a decree, now let him enforce it.” Wiser heads prevailed and the Republic continued its existence.

If the rule of law is not supported by the consent of those governed, this government, as we know it, cannot continue. Nobody can argue that we are perfect. No one can claim that we have always honestly faced our problems. But we have, under our constitution, the opportunity to improve and better ourselves without overrunning the individual.

To accomplish this requires that we obey the law. Like it or not, we must apply the law as we find it.

We have no right, as some claim, to choose which laws we will obey. As long as the law remains upon the statute books, we must obey it. This requires a discipline that in an age of permissiveness, is not easy to achieve, but achieve it we must.

If we do not agree with a law, or a principle which it embodies, we have a right to make our feelings known, to peaceably assemble and to petition the government for a redress of grievances. This we must do. To stand idly by when erroneous, imprudent, or improvident legislation exists is as wrong as to violently object or revolt against existing law.

Our democracy requires that we act in an intelligent manner and obey the rule of law. This may be asking too much of human beings, but ask it we must if we are going to continue.