Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

Rule of Law: Why it matters

Opinion

Rule of Law: Why it matters

A courthouse.

Getty Images, StanRohrer

“Rule of Law.” I remember my first in-depth conversation about the phrase while working in Latin America—which says a lot since I took that job immediately AFTER law school.

The concept is, of course, integral to the U.S. Constitution, our founding documents, and our ideals—but I’d simply not heard the phrase, “rule of law”, used so often. Instead, we'd focused on branches of government, separation of powers, and checks and balances.


In other words, we talked about the form and structure of implementation, not the broader concept. The broader concept of no individual being above the law, regardless of level of office or level of wealth, was in the air we breathed—we deeply took the concept for granted, so much that we didn’t even name it.

Then, outside of my own country, I began to see what had once been invisible. Once I saw it, I began to wonder: “Where does one even begin to implement respect for the rule of law if widespread respect doesn’t already exist?”

We take for granted that we stop at traffic lights because order means safety; our trip may be slower, but our odds of arriving alive are greater—and that’s good for you, me, and everyone else. We take for granted that we pay our taxes because they fund the sidewalks we walk on and the bridges we drive over. Those taxes mean our savings are smaller but also that the support we may need someday will be there—and that’s good for you, me, and everyone else.

We sign leases and contracts because we trust the other party will uphold their end of the bargain—and we’ll have recourse if they don’t. Yes, we’ve reached a point where most people agree to terms on their phones without reading a word but, generally, we want to be able to trust agreements will be upheld and enforced—and that’s good for you, me, and everyone else.

We respect other people's property, to borrow a phrase from Naughty By Nature. The respect for property—physical and financial—allows us a sense of security, a foundational element in Maslow’s hierarchy of needs. When we feel secure in our property, we can focus our attention, creativity, and finances on bigger matters—and that’s good for you, me, and everyone else.

When a crime is committed, we want to have a place to turn to report that and know that our bodies and our property will be defended. If we are accused of a crime, we want to know that our bodies and our property will be defended throughout the process of determining whether or not we’re guilty—and that’s good for you, me, and everyone else.

When we buy food, we want to be pretty darn sure that food won’t sicken or kill us. Sure, we could grow everything ourselves but the vast majority of us rely on the current supply chains and, particularly during and after the pandemic, the convenience of restaurant delivery. Upholding food safety standards promotes public health—and that’s good for you, me, and everyone else.

We respect public spaces—not smoking on planes or in hospitals anymore, not defecating on a sidewalk or office hallway, not exposing ourselves on public transportation. One could try to argue those rules are inconvenient but they promote public health and safety—and that’s good for you, me, and everyone else.

Many years after my time in Costa Rica, I worked in Liberia and saw messages on faded posters encouraging people to pay their taxes. From an outsider’s perspective, the contrast between those printed pleas and the widespread agreement (and yes, dread) of April 15 felt stark. While tax compliance rates in Liberia have inched up slightly over decades of effort, they remain low, compared to global standards. I share this, not to pick on the Land of Liberty, but simply because it’s one of MANY examples of how hard it is to build a system and nationwide mindset that aren’t already in place.

Rule. Of. Law. The term is ancient, as is the desire to have systems that are transparent, fair, and accessible. Usage of the term grew, following World War II, as the world debated governance structures, particularly in efforts to fight corruption, ensure accountability, and build spaces that are good for you, me, and everyone else. We don’t have physical enforcement for civil court decisions because we have the rule of law. We don't allow a single ruler to enact or change laws because we have the rule of law.

Losing the rule of law would be like losing the air we breathe and that would be bad for you, me, and everyone else.

Piper Hendricks is the founder and CEO of Stories Change Power. Piper supports hearts and minds that need to reach hearts and minds. Through Stories Change Power, she equips people who want to make a difference in their neighborhoods, communities, and country. Stories Change Power provides the tools, strategy, and network to be an effective, empathetic, and trusted advocate for a just and peaceful world for everyone - no exceptions.

Read More

Trump’s Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy Once Defended Congress’ Power of the Purse. Now He Defies It.

Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy at a press conference in August

Eric Lee/Bloomberg via Getty Images

Trump’s Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy Once Defended Congress’ Power of the Purse. Now He Defies It.

Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy has been one of the most vociferous defenders of President Donald Trump’s expansive use of executive authority, withholding billions of dollars in federal funding to states and dismissing protests of the White House’s boundary-pushing behavior as the gripings of “disenfranchised Democrats.”

But court documents reviewed by ProPublica show that a decade ago, as a House member, Duffy took a drastically different position on presidential power, articulating a full-throated defense of Congress’ role as a check on the president — one that resembled the very arguments made by speakers at recent anti-Trump “No Kings” rallies around the country.

Keep ReadingShow less
Killing Suspected Traffickers Won’t Win the War on Drugs

Killing suspected drug traffickers without trial undermines due process, human rights, and democracy. The war on drugs cannot be won through extrajudicial force.

Getty Images, SimpleImages

Killing Suspected Traffickers Won’t Win the War on Drugs

Life can only be taken in defense of life. That principle is as old as civilization itself, and it remains the bedrock of justice today. To kill another human being is justifiable only in imminent self‑defense or to protect the lives of innocent people. Yet the United States has recently crossed a troubling line: authorizing lethal strikes against suspected drug traffickers in international waters. Dozens have been killed without trial, without legal counsel, and without certainty of guilt.

This is not justice. It is punishment without due process, death without defense or judicial review. It is, in plain terms, an extrajudicial killing. And it is appalling.

Keep ReadingShow less
USA, Washington D.C., Supreme Court building and blurred American flag against blue sky.

Americans increasingly distrust the Supreme Court. The answer may lie not only in Court reforms but in shifting power back to states, communities, and Congress.

Getty Images, TGI /Tetra Images

The Supreme Court Has a Legitimacy Problem—But Washington’s Monopoly on Power Is the Real Crisis

Americans disagree on much, but a new poll shows we agree on this: we don’t trust the Supreme Court. According to the latest Navigator survey, confidence in the Court is at rock bottom, especially among younger voters, women, and independents. Large numbers support term limits and ethical reforms. Even Republicans — the group with the most reason to cheer a conservative Court — are losing confidence in its direction.

The news media and political pundits’ natural tendency is to treat this as a story about partisan appointments or the latest scandal. But the problem goes beyond a single court or a single controversy. It reflects a deeper Constitutional breakdown: too much power has been nationalized, concentrated, and funneled into a handful of institutions that voters no longer see as accountable.

Keep ReadingShow less
A person putting on an "I Voted" sticker.

The Supreme Court’s review of Louisiana v. Callais could narrow Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act and limit challenges to racially discriminatory voting maps.

Getty Images, kali9

Louisiana v. Callais: The Supreme Court’s Next Test for Voting Rights

Background and Legal Landscape

Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 is one of the most powerful tools for combatting racial discrimination in voting. It prohibits any voting law, district map, or electoral process that results in a denial of the right to vote based on race. Crucially, Section 2 allows for private citizens and civil rights groups to challenge discriminatory electoral systems, a protection that has ensured fairer representation for communities of color. However, the Supreme Court is now considering whether to narrow Section 2’s reach in a high profile court case, Louisiana v. Callais. The case focuses on whether Louisiana’s congressional map—which only contains one majority Black district despite Black residents making up almost one-third of the population—violates Section 2 by diluting Black voting power. The Court’s decision to hear the case marks the latest chapter in the recent trend of judicial decisions around the scope and applications of the Voting Rights Act.

Keep ReadingShow less