Intuitive Notions About the Rule of Law

Altman begins his discussion of the value of the rule of law by suggesting the problems with the conceptual structure of civil society that are implied by its absence. Citing the Iran-Contra scandal of the mid-1980s, which drew strength from the deliberate and programmatic flouting of black-letter law on the part of high government officials, Altman explains that the strength of American society comes from "the willingness to abide by the law [which] is the principal force that prevents it from splitting apart" (2). The rule of law itself derives from five principles, each of which is conceptualized as an outgrowth of the other. First, government by rule of law contrasts with arbitrary government, wherein certain individuals are conceived as functioning above the law, not subject to rules. Secondly there are the rules themselves, which are meant to be systematically created and applied on one hand and systematically and authoritatively

. . .
won the theoretical debate about social cohesiveness and the structure of government. But this does not mean that the rule of law is perfect. Indeed, it provokes conceptual and practical difficulties on account of the civil society's adherence to it. The form that these difficulties take is a conflict between the rule of law, associated with what Altman terms "legal justice," and morality, associated with "substantive justice" (17ff). To put it another way, something may be legal without being just, and something may be just but not legal. And in the tension between what is just and what is legal, the hard fact is that societies governed by the rule of law most often side with what is legal. As Altman puts it: "you must accept the law's decision, even if it violates your sense of substantive justice" (19). A consequence is that overtly illegal actions may be protected to the extent those defending themselves can force legal interpretations that have the effect of freeing them from suffering the consequences of such action. This helps explain why architects of Iran-Contra, convicted of obstructing justice, perjury, and other crimes in a much publicized trial, were exonerated on appeal because "the trial court had not done enough to
. . .

Some common words found in the essay are:
Madison Federalist, Altman Nazi, Citing Iran-Contra, According Altman, Bosnian Serb, Western American, rule law, Montesquieu Kant, Third Reich, Bosnia Cambodia, , arbitrary government, civil society, nazi regime, substantive justice, unjust actions, commitment rule law, absolute monarchy, government rule, law government, government rule law, altman's discussion, nazi war criminals, mean rule law, deny legitimacy nazi,
Approximate Word count = 2026
Approximate Pages = 8 (250 words per page)

More Essays on Intuitive Notions About the Rule of Law