You are on page 1of 96


Deny the past deny the present deny a future

British Roman Elusive Enslaver Demonic Sovereignty
Struggle of Humankind
Humans inherently bias of a diverse society of innumerable perceptions and interests born to a world of
Personal Interest Groups
influenced by the traditions of family and financial environment reared under the
Satanic Spirit Roman Empire Ipso Facto Prima Facia Evidence Exposed

Deranged righteous Mental retards

Dr Mr

Serpentine Evil-angel-ist Leveraging Frauds Genocidal Oligarchy Demon-strative Imperialist Capitalist

One for Money Two for Show
Refuse to produce Cancer Cure irrefutable proof

While the Cancer Societies BP- Bottom-feeder Piranha request donations to help them fight cancer

The Immaculate Con

Christian Crusades

1. Belief in Empire Building
The policy of extending the rule or influence of a country over other countries or colonies
2. Domination by Empire
The political, military, or economic domination of one country over another
3. Takeover and Domination
The extension of power or authority over others in the interests of domination

Governments of the SEE - Satanic Elite Entrepreneur of the SSRE - Satanic Spirit Roman Empire
Capitalist Democracy administered and enforced by Tyrannical Imperialists
Once In There Is No Getting Out
Satanic Sucker Sandwich
1st 2nd Party/3rd Party
"Thy kingdom come"
Deranged righteous Mental retards

Fear of Pope Fear of God
"It is only the wisest and the stupidest that cannot change"

Never Ending War Story

PRICK inciting FIBIB

Political Religious Intellectual Charlatan Kleptocracy ... Fickle Inherent Bias Ignorant Bliss
A Lie told often enough becomes the Reality

Equal Rights of Satanic Elite Exploiters of their Sovereign Humanic
Iraq War

Banked into submission

The battle of Good over Evil never fought by the warring

Constant struggle for
Enslavement Power Imperialist Capitalism
Along the route Jesus got in the way did their thing

Called it good Friday and told the Humans to pray

The people may be made to follow a course of action, but they may not be made to understand
The gradual, often
unconscious, absorption of knowledge or ideas through continual exposure

rather than deliberate learning

Message well received by all

Know well not to mess with tradition
Humans Enslaved adopt FIBIB

Can't afford to get any thinner
Vatican Rome Italy - The Crown Corporate State of London, London England - District of Columbia
Washington USA

Implicit Complicit Explicit

Insidious Capitalist Emperors
Like other financial empires in history, Smith claims the contemporary model forms alliances
necessary to develop and control wealth,
as peripheral nations remain impoverished providers of cheap resources for the imperial-centers-ofcapital.[1]
Belloc estimated that, during the British Enclosures, "perhaps half of the whole population was
while roughly the other "half" owned and controlled the means of production. Now, under modern
Capitalism, J.W. Smith claims
fewer than 500 people possess more wealth than half of the earths population,
as the wealth of 1/2 of 1-percent of the United States population roughly equal that of the lower 90percent.

Mens natures are alike; it is their habits that carry them far apart
The gradual, often unconscious, absorption of knowledge or ideas through continual exposure

rather than deliberate learning

Popular sovereignty or the sovereignty of the people


the belief
that the legitimacy of the state is created by the will or consent of its people, who are the source of all
political power.
It is closely associated to the social contract philosophers, among whom are Thomas Hobbes, John
Locke and Jean-Jacques Rousseau.
Popular sovereignty expresses a concept and does not necessarily reflect or describe a political


It is often contrasted with the concept

of parliamentary sovereignty, and with individual sovereignty.
In his essay Politics and the English Language (1946), Orwell wrote about the importance of honest
and clear language and said that vague

writing can be used as a powerful tool

of political manipulation. In Nineteen Eighty-Four he described how the state controlled

thought by controlling language, making certain ideas literally unthinkable. The adjective Orwellian
refers to the frightening world of Nineteen Eighty-Four, in which the state controls thought and
misinformation is widespread. Several words and phrases from Nineteen Eighty-Four have entered
popular language.

Newspeak is a simplified and obfuscatory language designed to make

independent thought impossible.
Doublethink means holding two contradictory beliefs simultaneously.
The Thought Police are those who suppress all dissenting opinion. Prolefeed is homogenised,
manufactured superficial literature, film and music, used to control and indoctrinate the populace
through docility. Big Brother is a supreme dictator who watches everyone.

Majority rule is often listed as a characteristic of democracy.

However, it is also possible for a minority to be oppressed by a "tyranny of the majority"
in the absence of governmental or constitutional protections of individual and/or group rights.
An essential part of an "ideal" representative democracy is competitive elections that are fair both
substantively [15] and procedurally.[16]
Furthermore, freedom of political expression, freedom of speech, and freedom of the press are
considered to be essential, so that citizens are adequately informed
and able to vote according to their own best interests as they see them.[17][18]
It has also been suggested that a basic feature of democracy is the capacity of individuals to participate
freely and fully in the life of their society.[19]
Vatican Rome Italy - The Crown Corporate State of London, London England - District of Columbia
Washington USA

Implicit Complicit Explicit

Insidious Capitalist Emperors
Like other financial empires in history, Smith claims the contemporary model forms alliances
necessary to develop and control wealth,
as peripheral nations remain impoverished providers of cheap resources for the imperial-centers-ofcapital.[1]
Belloc estimated that, during the British Enclosures, "perhaps half of the whole population was
while roughly the other "half" owned and controlled the means of production. Now, under modern
Capitalism, J.W. Smith claims
fewer than 500 people possess more wealth than half of the earths population,
as the wealth of 1/2 of 1-percent of the United States population roughly equal that of the lower 90percent.


There were no dates in this history, but scrawled this way and that across every page were the words
finally I began to make out what was written between the lines; the whole volume was filled a single

Democracy is a form of government in which all citizens have an equal say in the decisions that affect
their lives.
Ideally, this includes equal (and more or less direct) participation in the proposal, development and
passage of legislation into law.
It can also encompass social, economic and cultural conditions that enable the free and equal practice
of political self-determination.
The term comes from the Greek: (dmokrata)

"rule of the people",[1]

which was coined from (dmos)

"people" and (Kratos) "power",

in the middle of the 5th-4th century BC to denote the political systems then existing in some Greek city-states,
notably Athens
following a popular uprising in 508 BC.[2]
According to some theories of democracy, popular sovereignty is the founding principle of such a
However, the democratic principle has also been expressed as

"the freedom to call something into being which did not exist before,
which was not given and which therefore, strictly speaking, could not be known."[4]
This type of freedom, which is connected to human "natality," or the capacity to begin anew, sees
democracy as "not only a political system
[but] an ideal, an aspiration, really, intimately connected to and dependent upon a picture of what it is
to be human

of what it is a human should be to be fully human."[5]

While there is no specific, universally accepted definition of 'democracy',[6]
equality and freedom have both been identified as important characteristics of democracy

since ancient times.[7]

These principles are reflected in all citizens being equal before the law and having equal
access to legislative processes.
For example, in a representative democracy, every vote has equal weight, no unreasonable restrictions
can apply to anyone seeking to become a representative,
and the freedom of its citizens is secured by legitimized rights and liberties which are generally
protected by a constitution.[8][9]
There are several varieties of democracy, some of which provide better representation and more
freedom for their citizens than others.[10][11]
However, if any democracy is not structured
so as to prohibit the government from excluding the people from the legislative process,
or any branch of government

from altering the separation of powers in its

own favor,
then a branch of the system can accumulate
too much power
and destroy the democracy.[12][13][14]


Representative Democracy, Consensus Democracy, and Deliberative Democracy

are all

major examples of attempts at a form of government

that is both practical and responsive to the needs and desires of

Many people use the term "democracy" as shorthand for liberal democracy,
which may include elements such as political pluralism; equality before the law; the right to petition
elected officials for redress of grievances;
due process;civil liberties; human rights; and elements of civil society outside the government.

In the United States, separation of powers is

often cited as a central attribute,
but in other countries, such as the United Kingdom, the dominant principle is that of
parliamentary sovereignty (though in practice

judicial independence
is generally maintained).
In other cases, "democracy" is used to mean direct democracy.
Though the term "democracy" is typically used in the context of a political state, the principles are
applicable to private organizations and other groups as well.
Majority rule is often listed as a characteristic of democracy.
However, it is also possible for a minority to be oppressed by a "tyranny

of the majority"

in the absence of
governmental or constitutional protections of individual and/or group rights.
An essential part of an "ideal" representative democracy is competitive elections that are fair both
substantively[15] and procedurally.[16]
Furthermore, freedom of political expression, freedom of speech, and freedom of the press
are considered to be essential, so that citizens are adequately informed
and able to vote according to their own best interests as they see them.[17][18]
It has also been suggested that a basic feature of democracy is the capacity of individual participate
freely and fully in the life of their society.[19]
Democracy has its formal origins in Ancient Greece,[20][21] but democratic practices are evident in
earlier societies including Mesopotamia, Phoenicia and India.[22]
Other cultures since Greece have significantly contributed to the evolution of democracy such as
Ancient Rome,[20] Europe,[20] and North and South America.[23]
The concept of representative democracy arose largely from ideas and institutions that developed
during the
European Middle Ages and the Age of Enlightenment and in the American and French

Democracy has been called the "last form of government" and has spread considerably across the
The right to vote has been expanded in many jurisdictions over time from relatively narrow groups
(such as wealthy men of a particular ethnic group),
with New Zealand the first nation to grant universal suffrage for all its citizens in 1893.
Popular sovereignty or the sovereignty of the people is the belief that the legitimacy of the state is
created by the will or consent of its people, who are the source of all political power.
It is closely associated to the social contract philosophers, among whom are Thomas Hobbes, John
Locke and Jean-Jacques Rousseau.
Popular sovereignty expresses a concept and does not necessarily reflect or describe a political

It is often contrasted with the concept of

parliamentary sovereignty,
and with individual sovereignty.
Benjamin Franklin expressed the concept when he wrote,
"In free governments, the rulers are the servants and the people their superiors and

508 BC
Referenced above [2]
509 BC Overthrow of Roman monarchy, and beginning of Republican period. First pair of Roman
consuls elected. Tarquinian conspiracy formed, but discovered and the conspirators executed. Forces
of Veii and Tarquinii, led by the deposed king Lucius Tarquinius Superbus defeated in the Battle of
Silva Arsia by the Roman army. Consul Publius Valerius Publicola celebrates the first republican
triumph on 1 March.
September 13, 509 BCThe temple of Jupiter on Rome's Capitoline Hill is dedicated on the ides of
508 BCWar between Rome and Clusium
508 BCWar between Clusium and Aricia
508 BCOffice of pontifex maximus created in Rome.
508 BCCleisthenes reorganizes Athens. He creates the deme, a local unit to serve as the basis of his
political system. Citizenship is tightly linked to the deme, for each deme keeps the roll of those within
its jurisdiction, who are admitted to citizenship. He groups all the demes into 10 tribes, which thus
form the link between the demes and the central government. The central government includes an
assembly of all citizens and a new council of 500 members. This is a very early form of democracy.
507 BCCleisthenes, Greek reformer, takes power and increases democracy.
506 BCBattle of Boju: The forces of the State of Wu under commander and strategist Sun Tzu
defeat the forces of Chu in Zhou Dynasty China, destroying the Chu capital of Ying and causing King
Jing of Zhou to flee.
December 4, 502 BCSolar eclipse darkens Egypt. (computed by modern astronomers, no clear
historical record of observation exists)
502 BCNaxos rebels against Persian domination sparking the Ionian Revolt.

501 BCNaxos is attacked by the Persian Empire.

501 BCIn response to threats by the Sabines, Rome creates the office of dictator.
501 BCConfucius is appointed governor of Chung-tu.
501 BCGadir (present-day Cdiz) is captured by Carthage. (approximate date)
500 BCBantu-speaking people migrate into south-west Uganda from the west. (approximate date)
500 BCRefugees from Teos resettle Abdera.
500 BCDarius I of Persia proclaims that Aramaic be the official language of the western half of his
500 BCSignifies the end of the Nordic Bronze Age civilization in Oscar Montelius periodization
system and begins the Pre-Roman Iron Age.
500 BCFoundation of first republic in Vaishali Bihar India.
c. 500 BC She-Wolf, with late 15th century or early 16th century additions (twins), is made. It is now
kept at Museo Capitolino, Rome.
500 BCWorld population: 100,000,000[1]
c. 500 BCVulca makes Apollo of Veii, from Portonaccio Temple. It is now kept at Museo Nazionale
di Villa Giulia, Rome.
c. 500 BC - Yayoi period starts in Ancient Japan.
The Gutaii tribe began around this time, in Middle and Southern Africa.
Satanic Self-proclaimed
"Learned and Honorable"
Manner of PRICK thinking excruciating obtrusively Stinking
Satanic Intellectual Revenues
One for Money ... Two for Show
Sense in Common Personal Interest Groups
Holy Roman Empire
First Reich
Medieval - 1718
That would be amid evil
Satanic Godic
Christian Crusades
1095 - 1291
Roman Catholics Expand Empire Western Europe
Similar campaigns continued 15th century Eastern Europe

100 Years's War
The Hundred Years' War was a series of conflicts waged from 1337 to 1453 between the Kings of
England and the King ofFrance and their various allies for control of the French throne, which had

become vacant upon the extinction of the seniorCapetian line of French kings. The House of Valois
controlled France in the wake of the House of Capet; a Capetian cadet branch, the Valois claimed the
throne under Salic Law. This was contested by the King of England, the Angevin family that had ruled
England since 1154, who claimed the throne of France through the marriage of Edward II of England
and Isabella of France.
The war owes its historical significance to a number of factors. Although primarily a dynastic conflict,
the war gave impetus to ideas of both French and English nationalism. Militarily, it saw the
introduction of new weapons and tactics which eroded the older system of feudal armies dominated by
heavy cavalry in Western Europe. The first standing armies in Western Europe since the time of the
Western Roman Empire were introduced for the war, thus changing the role of the peasantry. For all
this, as well as for its long duration, it is often viewed as one of the most significant conflicts in the
history ofmedieval warfare. In France, civil wars, deadly epidemics, famines and marauding mercenary
armies turned to banditry reduced the population by about one-half.[1]

Imperialist Pope sends them west to Genocide

1. Member of Roman Catholic religious order
A member of the Society of Jesus, a Roman Catholic religious order engaged in missionary and
educational work worldwide.
The order was founded by Saint Ignatius Loyola in 1534 with the objective of defending Catholicism
against the Reformation.
2. Offensive Term
An offensive term for somebody regarded as crafty or scheming, especially somebody who uses
deliberately ambiguous or confusing words to deceive others
Church of England
Henry VIII
The first Act of Supremacy was a piece of legislation that granted King Henry VIII of England Royal Supremacy, which
means that he was declared the supreme head of the Church of England.

It is still the legal authority of the Sovereign of the United Kingdom.

Royal Supremacy is specifically used to describe the legal sovereignty of the civil laws over the laws
of the Church in England.
The Act of Supremacy of November 1534 (26 Hen. 8, c. 1) was an Act of the Parliament of England
under King Henry VIII declaring that he was "the only supreme head on earth of the Church in
England" and that the English crownshall enjoy "all honours, dignities, preeminences, jurisdictions,
privileges, authorities, immunities, profits, and commodities to the said dignity.".[1] By the wording of

the Act, it was made clear that Parliament was not granting the King the title (thereby suggesting that
they had the right to later withdraw them) but rather it was stated as a recognized fact. In the Act of
Supremacy, Henry abandoned Rome completely. He then went on to found a new church called
Ecclesia Anglicana. He appointed himself and his successors as the supreme rulers of this new church.
Henry had many successors. One in particular, Sir Thomas More, was trapped between conflicting
loyalties. He was the king's humble servant more than anything, but he was also a devout Catholic.
His personal crisis reached a climax in the spring of 1534.
This was the time when the king demanded his subjects to take an oath to obey the Act of Succession,
and he was asking more than More could give.
More didn't protest; he remained mute. He didn't condemn the oath or anyone who had taken it, but he
remained loyal to the crown.
He refused to renounce Rome, which was a devastating silence since Henry was taking such an
enormous risk. In the end, Henry didn't ever gain the support of his humble servant. More had already
opposed Henry's marriage to Anne and refused to attend her coronation. Any further tolerance by
Henry would be interpreted as weakness, especially since the former chancellor, garlanded with royal
honors was the most influential man in English public life. The king could be merciless or he could
forfeit his crown, and for this king that was no choice. More was then charged with treason and
imprisoned in the Tower of London. At his trial More finally spoke out. Splitting the Church was a
tragic crime, he said; and he could not be an accomplice to it. Nor could he bring himself to believe
that, "any temporal man could be the head of spirituality." The hearing was merely a formality because
the verdict had already been decided.
He was condemned to be hanged, drawn and quartered.[2]
Chicken before the Egg or vice versa
One hanging or four?
I reckon after that More did not find himself hanging around beside himself any More for decidedly
More was no More
One cannot remain fully human Loyal to Satanic Crown as devout Satanic Catholic
Henry was declared "Defender of the Faith" (Fidei Defensor) in 1521 by Pope Leo X for his pamphlet
accusing Martin Luther of heresy.[3] Parliament later conferred this title upon Henry in 1544.[4]
The 1534 Act made official the English Reformation that had been brewing since 1527.
The main purpose of this act was so that Henry could get an annulment of his marriage to Catherine of
Aragon, because Henry had fallen in love with Anne Boleyn.
However, Pope Clement VII still refused to grant the annulment,
due to the familial relations Catherine had with the Holy Roman Emperor at the time.
The Treasons Act was later issued saying that to disavow the Act of Supremacy and to deprive the
King of his "dignity, title, or name" was to be considered treason.[5]
Bloody Mary with a pinch of assault salt please

This act was repealed in 1554 by king Henry's eldest daughter, Queen Mary I.[6]
Mary had a delicious little lamb whose fleece made a lovely stole
[edit] Second Act of Supremacy 1558
Main article: Act of Supremacy 1558


Henry's Act of Supremacy was repealed (1554) in the reign of his staunchly Catholic daughter,
Mary I.
It was reinstated by Mary's Protestant half-sister, Elizabeth I, when she ascended the throne.
Elizabeth declared herself Supreme Governor of the Church of England, and instituted an Oath of
Supremacy, requiring anyone taking public or church office to swear allegiance to the monarch as head
of the Church and state. Anyone refusing to take the Oath could be charged with treason." [7]
The use of the term Supreme Governor as opposed to Supreme Head pacified Catholics and those
Protestants concerned about a female leader of the Church of England. Elizabeth, who was a politique,
did not prosecute lay man non conformists, or those who did not follow the established rules of the
Church of England unless their actions directly undermined the authority of the English monarch, as
was the case in the vestments controversy.
The consolidation of church and state under Royal Supremacy, as established by the Tudors, instigated
political and religious strife in the succeeding centuries.
This strife, along with similar struggles in Europe, is one reason there is a constitutional separation of
church and state in many jurisdictions now.
In the United Kingdom, however, the Crown, through the government, still retains a significant
involvement in the established Church of England.
POPE sets Imperialist on West
Invade Murder Rape Ransack and Enslave
Church of England
The Church of England is the officially established Christian church[3] in England and the Mother
Church of the worldwide Anglican Communion.
The Church of England separated from the Roman Catholic Church in 1534 with the Act of Supremacy
understands itself to be both Catholic and Reformed:[4]
(The Satanic adeptness to understand SELF separated yet fully intact unreformed and reformed in the
name of God for Christ sakes misappropiately informed maintaining Satanic tradition)
Catholic in that it views itself as a part of the universal church of Jesus Christ in unbroken continuity
with the early apostolic church.
This is expressed in its emphasis on the teachings of the early Church Fathers, as formalised in the
Apostles', Nicene, and Athanasian creeds.[5]
Reformed in that it has been shaped by some of the doctrinal principles of the 16th century Protestant
Reformation, in particular in the Thirty-Nine Articles and the Book of Common Prayer.[5]
English Reformation
The English Reformation was the series of events in 16th-century England by which the Church of
England broke away from the authority of the Pope and the Roman Catholic Church.
These events were, in part, associated with the wider process of the European Protestant Reformation,
a religious and political movement
which affected the practice of Christianity across most of Europe during this period.
Many factors contributed to the process: the decline of feudalism and the rise of nationalism, the rise of
the common law, the invention of the printing press and increased circulation of the Bible, the
transmission of new knowledge

and ideas among scholars and the upper and middle classes.
However, the various phases of the English Reformation, which also covered Wales and Ireland, were
largely driven by changes in government policy, to which public opinion gradually accommodated
Based on Henry VIII's desire
for an annulment of his marriage,
the English Reformation was at the outset more of a political affair than a theological dispute. The
reality of political differences between Rome and England allowed growing theological disputes to
come to the fore.[1] Immediately before the break with Rome, it was the Pope and general councils of
the church that decided doctrine. Church law was governed by the code of canon law with final
jurisdiction in Rome. Church taxes were paid straight to Rome and it was the Pope who had the final
say over the appointment of bishops. The split from Rome made the English monarch the Supreme
Governor of the English church by "Royal Supremacy", thereby making the Church of England the
established church of the nation. Doctrinal and legal disputes now rested with the monarch, and the
papacy was deprived of revenue and the final say on the appointment of bishops.
The structure and theology of the church was a matter of fierce dispute for generations.
These disputes were finally ended by a coup d'tat (the "Glorious Revolution") in 1688,
from which emerged a church polity with an established church and a number of non-conformist
churches whose members at first suffered various civil disabilities which were only removed over
time,as did the substantial minority who remained Roman Catholic in England, whose church
organization remained illegal until the 19th century.
Protestant Reformation
xyu The Protestant Reformation, also known as the Protestant Revolt or the Reformation, was the
European Christian reform movement that established Protestantism as a constituent branch of
contemporary Christianity. It was led by Martin Luther, John Calvin and other early Protestants. The
efforts of the self-described "reformers", who objected to ("protested") the doctrines, rituals and
ecclesiastical structure of the Catholic Church, led to the creation of new national Protestant churches.
The Catholics responded with a Counter-Reformation, led by the Jesuit order, which reclaimed large
parts of Europe, such as Poland. In general, northern Europe, with the exception of Ireland and pockets
of Britain, turned Protestant, and southern Europe remained Catholic, while fierce battles that turned
into warfare took place in the central Europe. The largest of the new denominations were the
Anglicans (based in England), the Lutherans (based in Germany and Scandinavia), and the Reformed
churches(based in Germany, Switzerland, the Netherlands and Scotland). There were many smaller
bodies as well. The most common dating begins in 1517 when Luther published The Ninety-Five
Theses, and concludes in 1648 with the Treaty of Westphalia that ended years of European religious
Treaty of Westpahalia
The Peace of Westphalia was a series of peace treaties signed between May and October of 1648 in
Osnabrck and Mnster.
These treaties ended the Thirty Years' War (16181648) in the Holy Roman Empire, and the Eighty
Years' War (15681648) between Spain and the Dutch Republic.
The Satanic go balistic "Dutch" their Humanic pick up the Tab


The Peace of Westphalia treaties involved the Holy Roman Emperor, Ferdinand III of the House of
Habsburg, the Kingdoms of Spain, France, Sweden, the Dutch Republic, the Princes of the Holy
Roman Empire, and sovereigns of the Free imperial cities and can be denoted by two major events.
The signing of the Peace of Mnster[1] between the Dutch Republic and the Kingdom of Spain on 30
January 1648, officially ratified in Mnster on 15 May 1648.
The signing of two complementary treaties on 24 October 1648, namely:
The Treaty of Mnster (Instrumentum Pacis Monasteriensis, IPM),[2] concerning the Holy Roman
Emperor and France and their respective allies.
The Treaty of Osnabrck (Instrumentum Pacis Osnabrugensis, IPO),[3] concerning the Holy Roman
Emperor, the Empire and Sweden and their respective allies.
The treaties resulted from the first modern diplomatic congress[4][5], thereby initiating a new system
of political order in central Europe,
later called Westphalian sovereignty, based upon the concept of a sovereign state governed by a
In the event, the treaties regulations became integral to the constitutional law of the Holy Roman
The treaties did not restore the peace throughout Europe, however.
France and Spain remained at war for the next eleven years, making peace only in the Treaty of the
Pyrenees of 1659.
Retired Major-General when coherent admits war racket
It's all about money in their 14M24S accounting
One for Money Two for Show
Common Law
Common law (also known as case law or precedent), is law developed by judges through decisions of
courts and similar tribunals rather than through legislative statutes or executive branch action. A
"common law system" is a legal system that gives great precedential weight to common law,[1] on the
principle that it is unfair to treat similar facts differently on different occasions.[2] The body of
precedent is called "common law" and it binds future decisions. In cases where the parties disagree on
what the law is, an idealized common law court looks to past precedential decisions of relevant courts.
If a similar dispute has been resolved in the past, the court is bound to follow the reasoning used in the
prior decision (this principle is known as stare decisis). If, however, the court finds that the current
dispute is fundamentally distinct from all previous cases (called a "matter of first impression"), judges
have the authority and duty to make law by creating precedent.[3] Thereafter, the new decision becomes
precedent, and will bind future courts.
In practice, common law systems are considerably more complicated than the idealized system
described above. The decisions of a court are binding only in a particular jurisdiction, and even within
a given jurisdiction, some courts have more power than others. For example, in most jurisdictions,
decisions by appellate courts are binding on lower courts in the same jurisdiction and on future
decisions of the same appellate court, but decisions of lower courts are only non-binding persuasive
authority. Interactions between common law, constitutional law, statutory law and regulatory law also
give rise to considerable complexity. However stare decisis, the principle that similar cases should be
decided according to consistent principled rules so that they will reach similar results, lies at the heart
of all common law systems.

Common law legal systems are in widespread use, particularly in England where it originated in the
Middle Ages,[4] and in nations or regions that trace their legal heritage to England as former colonies of
theBritish Empire, including the United States, Malaysia, Singapore, Bangladesh, Pakistan, Sri Lanka,
India,[5] Ghana, Cameroon, Canada, Ireland, New Zealand, South Africa, Zimbabwe, Hong Kong,
Second Reich
Age of Enlightenment
The Age of Enlightenment (or simply the Enlightenment or Age of Reason) was a cultural
movement of intellectuals in 18th century Europe to mobilize the power of reason to reform society
and advance knowledge. It promoted intellectual interchange and opposed intolerance and abuses in
Church and state. It originated about 1650-1700, sparked by philosophers Baruch Spinoza (1632
1677), John Locke (16321704), Pierre Bayle (16471706) and scientistIsaac Newton (16431727).
Ruling princes often endorsed and fostered Enlightenment figures and even attempted to apply their
ideas of government. The Enlightenment was an elite movement of intellectuals that flourished until
about 1790-1800, after which the emphasis on reason gave way to Romanticism's emphasis on
emotion, and a Counter-Enlightenment gained force.
The center of the Enlightenment was France, where it was based in the salons and culminated in the
great Encyclopdie (175172) edited by Denis Diderot (17131784) with contributions by hundreds of
leading philosophes(intellectuals) such as Voltaire (16941778) and Montesquieu (16891755). Some
25,000 copies of the 35 volume set were sold, half of them outside France. The new intellectual forces
spread to urban centers across Europe, notably England, Scotland, the German states, the Netherlands,
Russia, Italy, Austria, and Spain, then jumped the Atlantic into the European colonies, where it
influenced Benjamin Franklin and Thomas Jefferson, among many others, and played a major role in
the American Revolution. The political ideals influenced the American Declaration of Independence,
the United States Bill of Rights, the French Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen, and
the PolishLithuanian Constitution of May 3, 1791.[1]
"Shall I tell you what knowledge is?
When you know a thing, to hold that you know it,
And when you do not know a thing, to allow that you do not know it.
This is knowledge"
"Learning without thought is labor lost, thought without learning is perilous"
"A little learning is a dangerous thing;
Drink deep and taste not the Pierian spring;
There shallow draughts intoxicate the brain;
And drinking largely sobers us again."
Alexander Pope 1688-1744

Third Reich
Himmler a devout Catholic


Sovereignty is the quality of having supreme, independent authority over a geographic area, such as a
It can be found in a power to rule and make law that rests
on a political fact for which no purely legal explanation can be provided.
In theoretical terms, the idea of "sovereignty", historically, from Socrates to Thomas Hobbes, has
always necessitated a moral imperative on the entity exercising it.
Satanic Truth Prohibition
Bright Light of Truth
Fact political organized criminals
To United Nations
United Nations
The United Nations currently only requires that a sovereign state has an effective and independent
government within a defined territory.
According to current international law norms, states are only required to have an effective and
independent system of government pursuant to a community within a defined territory.[2]
For centuries past, the idea that a state could be sovereign was always connected to its
ability to guarantee the best interests of its own citizens.
Thus, if a state could not act in the best interests of its own citizens,
it could not be thought of as a sovereign state.[3]
The concept of sovereignty has been discussed, debated and questioned throughout history, from the
time of the Romans through to the present day.
It has changed in its definition, concept, and application throughout, especially during the Age of
The current notion of state sovereignty is often traced back to the Peace of Westphalia (1648), which,
in relation to states, codified the basic principles:

territorial integrity
border inviolability
supremacy of the state (rather than the Church)
a sovereign is the supreme lawmaking authority within its jurisdiction.

Sovereignty reemerged as a concept in the late 16th century, a time when civil wars had created a
craving for stronger central authority, when monarchs had begun to gather power into their own hands
at the expense of the nobility, and the modern nation state was emerging. Jean Bodin, partly in reaction
to the chaos of the French wars of religion; and Thomas Hobbes, partly in reaction to the English Civil

War, both presented theories of sovereignty calling for strong central authority in the form of absolute
monarchy. In his 1576 treatise Les Six Livres de la Rpublique ("Six Books of the Republic") Bodin
argued that it is inherent in the nature of the state that sovereignty must be:[citation needed]

Absolute: On this point he said that the sovereign must not be hedged in with obligations and
conditions, must be able to legislate without his (or its) subjects' consent, must not be bound by
the laws of his predecessors, and could not, because it is illogical, be bound by his own laws.

Perpetual: Not temporarily delegated as to a strong leader in an emergency or to a state

employee such as a magistrate. He held that sovereignty must be perpetual because anyone
with the power to enforce a time limit on the governing power must be above the governing
power, which would be impossible if the governing power is absolute.

Bodin rejected the notion of transference of sovereignty from people to sovereign; natural law and
divine law confer upon the sovereign the right to rule. And the sovereign is not above divine law or
natural law. He is above (ie. not bound by) only positive law, that is, laws made by humans. The fact
that the sovereign must obey divine and natural law imposes ethical constraints on him. Bodin also
held that the lois royales, the fundamental laws of the French monarchy which regulated matters such
as succession, are natural laws and are binding on the French sovereign. How divine and natural law
could in practice be enforced on the sovereign is a problematic feature of Bodin's philosophy: any
person capable of enforcing them on him would be above him.[citation needed]
Despite his commitment to absolutism, Bodin held some moderate opinions on how government
should in practice be carried out. He held that although the sovereign is not obliged to, it is advisable
for him, as a practical expedient, to convene a senate from whom he can obtain advice, to delegate
some power to magistrates for the practical administration of the law, and to use the Estates as a means
of communicating with the people.[citation needed]
With his doctrine that sovereignty is conferred by divine law, Bodin predefined the scope of the divine
right of kings.[citation needed]
[edit] Age of Enlightenment
Hobbes, in Leviathan (1651) introduced an early version of the social contract (or contractarian)
theory, arguing that to overcome the "nasty, brutish and short" quality of life without the cooperation
of other human beings, people must join in a "commonwealth" and submit to a "Soveraigne [sic]
Power" that is able to compel them to act in the common good. This expediency argument attracted
many of the early proponents of sovereignty. Hobbes deduced from the definition of sovereignty that it
must be:[citation needed]

Absolute: because conditions could only be imposed on a sovereign if there were some outside
arbitrator to determine when he had violated them, in which case the sovereign would not be
the final authority.


Indivisible: The sovereign is the only final authority in his territory; he does not share final
authority with any other entity. Hobbes held this to be true because otherwise there would be
no way of resolving a disagreement between the multiple authorities.

Hobbes' hypothesis that the ruler's sovereignty is contracted to him by the people in return for his
maintaining their safety, led him to conclude that if the ruler fails to do this, the people are released
from their obligation to obey him.
Bodin's and Hobbes's theories would decisively shape the concept of sovereignty, which we can find
again in the social contract theories, for example, in Rousseau's (17121778) definition of popular
sovereignty (with early antecedents in Francisco Surez's theory of the origin of power), which only
differs in that he considers the people to be the legitimate sovereign. Likewise, it is inalienable
Rousseau condemned the distinction between the origin and the exercise of sovereignty, a distinction
upon which constitutional monarchy or representative democracy are founded. Niccol Machiavelli,
Thomas Hobbes, John Locke, and Montesquieu are also key figures in the unfolding of the concept of
Constitution of the United Kingdom
The constitution of the United Kingdom is the set of laws and principles under which the United
Kingdom is governed.[1]
Unlike many nations, the UK has no single core constitutional document. It is therefore often said that
the country has an uncodified, or de facto constitution.[2]
However, much of the British constitution is embodied in the written form, within statutes, court
judgments, and treaties.
The constitution has other unwritten sources, including
parliamentary constitutional conventions
royal prerogatives.
Since the English Civil War, the bedrock of the British constitution has traditionally been the doctrine
parliamentary sovereignty,
according to which the statutes passed by Parliament are the UK's supreme and final source of law.[3]
It follows that Parliament can change the constitution simply by passing new Acts of Parliament.
There is some debate about whether this principle remains entirely valid today,[4]
in part due to the UK's European Union membership.[5]
Rule of Law
The rule of law is a legal maxim which provides that no person is above the law, that no one can be
punished by the state except for a breach of the law, and that no one can be convicted of breaching the
law except in the manner set forth by the law itself.
The rule of law stands in contrast to the idea that the leader is above the law a feature of Roman Law, Nazi law, and certain other legal systems.


The phrase has been used since the 17th century, but the concept is older. For example, the Greek
philosopher Aristotle said,
"Law should govern".[2]
One way to be free from the rule of law
by denying
that an enactment has the necessary attributes of law.
The rule of law has therefore been described as
"an exceedingly elusive notion"[3]
giving rise to a

"rampant divergence of understandings".[4]

At least two principal conceptions of the rule of law can be identified: a formalist or "thin"
a substantive or "thick"
definition of the rule of law.
Formalist definitions of the rule of law
do not make a judgment about the
"justness" of law itself,
but define specific procedural attributes that a legal framework must have in order to be in compliance
with the rule of law.
Substantive conceptions of the rule of law go beyond this and include certain substantive rights that are
said to be based on, or derived from, the rule of law.[5]
Although credit for popularizing the expression
"the rule of law"
in modern times is usually given to A. V. Dicey,[6][7] development of the legal concept can be traced
through history to many ancient civilizations,
including Ancient Greece, Ancient China, ancient Mesopotamia, and Ancient Rome.[citation needed]
[edit] Antiquity
In Western philosophy, the Ancient Greeks initially regarded the best form of government as
rule by the best men, such as Plato's idealized philosopher king.[8]
Plato nevertheless hoped that the best men would be good at respecting established laws, and he
explained why:
Where the law is subject to some other authority and has none of its own,
the collapse of the state,
in my view, is not far off;
but if law is the master of the government and the government is its slave,
then the situation is full of promise and men enjoy all the blessings that the gods shower on a state.[9]
More than Plato attempted to do,
Aristotle flatly opposed letting the highest officials wield power beyond guarding and serving the
[8] In other words, Aristotle advocated the rule of law:
It is more proper that law should govern than any one of the citizens: upon the same principle,
if it is advantageous to place the supreme power in some particular persons,
they should be appointed to be only guardians, and the servants of the laws.[2]

1st Party
According to the Ancient Roman statesman Cicero,
"We are all servants of the laws in order that we may be free."[10]
During the Roman Republic, controversial magistrates might be put on trial when their terms of office
Under the Roman Empire,
the sovereign was personally immune (legibus solutus),

those with grievances

2nd Party
could sue the
Human treasury
Humans (known
as Homo sapiens,[3][4] Latin for "wise man" or "knowing man")[5] are the only living species in the
Homogenus. Anatomically modern humans originated in Africa about 200,000 years ago, reaching full
behavioral modernity around 50,000 years ago.[6]
Humans have a highly developed brain and are capable of abstract reasoning, language, introspection,
and problem solving. This mental capability, combined with an erect body carriage that frees the hands
for manipulating objects, has allowed humans to make far greater use of tools than any other living
species on Earth.
Other higher-level thought processes of humans, such as
self-awareness, rationality, and sapience,[7][8][9]
are considered to be defining features of what constitutes a
"person".[citation needed]

Burning of the books and burying of the scholars (traditional Chinese: ; simplified Chinese:
; pinyin: Fnsh Kngr) is a phrase that refers to a purported policy and a sequence of
events in the Qin Dynasty of Ancient China, between the period of 213 and 206 BC. During these
events, the Hundred Schools of Thought were pruned;legalism survived. One side effect was the
marginalization of the thoughts of the school of Mozi and the survival of the thoughts of Confucius.
It is important to note, however, that few scholars today believe that Sima Qian's account of the bookburning in the Records of the Grand Historian -- the source of our knowledge about this event -reflects what actually happened.[1]


1 Book burning
2 Burial of the scholars
3 See also
4 References
5 External links
[edit]Book burning
According to the Records of the Grand Historian, after Qin Shi Huangdi, the first emperor of China,
unified China in 221 BC, his chancellor Li Si suggested suppressing the intellectual discourse to unify
all thoughts and political opinions. This was justified by accusations that the intelligentsia sang false
praise and raised dissent through libel.
Beginning in 213 BC, all classic works of the Hundred Schools of Thought except those from Li
Si's own school of philosophy known as legalism were subject to book burning.
Qin Shi Huangdi burned the other histories out of fear that they undermined his legitimacy, and wrote
his own history books. Afterwards, Li Si took his place in this area.
Li Si proposed that all histories in the imperial archives except those written by the Qin historians be
burned; that the Classic of Poetry, the Classic of History, and works by scholars of different schools be
handed in to the local authorities for burning; that anyone discussing these two particular books be
executed; that those using ancient examples to satirize contemporary politics be put to death, along
with their families; that authorities who failed to report cases that came to their attention were equally
guilty; and that those who had not burned the listed books within 30 days of the decree were to be
banished to the north as convicts working on building the Great Wall. The only books to be spared in
the destruction were books on war, medicine, agriculture and divination.[2]
[edit]Burial of the scholars
After being deceived by two alchemists while seeking prolonged life, Qin Shi Huangdi ordered more
than 460 scholars in the capital to be buried alive in the second year of the proscription, though an
account given by Wei lan jiao in the 2nd century added another 700 to the figure. As some of them
were also Confucian scholars, Fusu counselled that, with the country newly unified, and enemies still
not pacified, such a harsh measure imposed on those who respect Confucius would cause instability.[3]
However, he was unable to change his father's mind, and instead was sent to guard the frontier in a de
facto exile.
The quick fall of the Qin Dynasty was attributed to this proscription. Confucianism was revived in the
Han Dynasty that followed, and became the official ideology of the Chinese imperial state. Many of
the other schools had disappeared.

Rule of Law

The Rule of law in its most basic form is no one is above the law.
Perhaps the most important application of the rule of law is the principle that
governmental authority is legitimately exercised only in accordance with,
publicly disclosed laws, adopted and enforced in accordance with established
procedural steps that are referred to as due process.
The rule of law is hostile to dictatorship and to anarchy.
According to modern Anglo-American thinking, hallmarks of adherence to the rule
of law commonly include
a clear separation of powers,
legal certainty, the principle of legitimate expectation and equality of all before the law.
The concept is not without controversy, and it has been said that
"the phrase the rule of law has become meaningless thanks to ideological abuse and general
over- use"
General Over-use Proclamations Only Elusivity
Publicly disclosed laws
Canadian Constitution
Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms
Whereas Canada is founded upon principles that recognize the supremacy of God and the Rule of Law
52.(1) The Constitution of Canada is the supreme law of Canada,
and any law that is inconsistent with the provisions of the Constitution is, to the extent of the
of no force or effect.
15. (1) Every individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to the equal protection and
equal benefit of the law
without discrimination
and, in particular,
without discrimination
based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability.
Different people have different interpretations about exactly what "rule of law" means.
According to political theorist Judith N. Shklar, "the phrase 'the Rule of Law'
has become meaningless thanks to ideological abuse and general over-use",
but nevertheless this phrase has in the past had specific and important meanings.[22]
Among modern legal theorists, most views on this subject fall into three general categories: the formal
(or "thin") approach,

the substantive (or "thick") approach,


the functional approach.[23][24]
The "formal" interpretation is more widespread than the "substantive" interpretation.
Formalists hold that the law must be prospective, well-known, and have characteristics of generality,
equality, and certainty.
Other than that, the formal view contains no requirements as to the content of the law.[23]
This formal approach allows laws that protect democracy and individual rights, but recognizes the
existence of
"rule of law"
in countries that do not necessarily have such laws protecting democracy or individual rights.
The substantive interpretation holds
that the rule of law intrinsically protects some
all individual rights.
The functional interpretation of the term "rule of law",
consistent with the traditional English meaning,
the "rule of law" with the "rule of man."[24]
According to the functional view, a society
in which government officers
have a great deal of discretion has
a low degree of
"rule of law",
whereas a society in which government officers have little discretion has a high degree of "rule of
The rule of law is thus somewhat at odds with flexibility, even when flexibility may be preferable.[24]
The ancient concept of rule of law can be distinguished from
rule by law,
according to political science professor Li Shuguang:
"The that, under the rule of law, the law is preeminent and can serve as a check against
the abuse of power.
Under rule by law, the law is a mere tool for a government, that suppresses in a legalistic fashion."[25]
All government officers of the United States, including the President, the Justices of the Supreme
Court, and all members of Congress,
pledge first and foremost to uphold the Constitution.
Iraq War
US broke every law in the book of UN Charter and Us Constitution one and same

These oaths affirm that the rule of law is superior to the rule of any human leader.
[28] At the same time, the federal government
does have considerable discretion:
(Censorship freedom of speech, Marshall Law ... screw UN charter US Constitution)
the legislative branch is free to decide what statutes it will write, as long as it stays within its
enumerated powers and respects the constitutionally protected rights of individuals.
Likewise, the judicial branch has a degree of judicial discretion,[29] and the executive branch also has
various discretionary powers including prosecutorial discretion.
Scholars continue to debate whether the U.S. Constitution adopted a particular interpretation of the
"rule of law," and if so, which one.
For example, Law Professor John Harrison asserts that the word "law" in the Constitution is simply
defined as that which is legally binding, rather than being "defined by formal or substantive criteria,"
and therefore judges do not have discretion to decide that laws fail to satisfy such unwritten and vague
criteria.[30] Law Professor Frederick Mark Gedicks disagrees, writing that Cicero, Augustine, Thomas
Aquinas, and the framers of the U.S. Constitution believed that an unjust law was not really a law at
Legal Certainty????
James Wilson said during the Philadelphia Convention in 1787 that,
"Laws may be unjust, may be unwise, may be dangerous, may be destructive;
yet not be so unconstitutional
as to justify the Judges in refusing to give them effect."
George Mason agreed that judges "could declare an unconstitutional law void.
But with regard to every law, however unjust, oppressive or pernicious, which did not come plainly
under this description,
they would be under the necessity as judges to give it a free course."[32]

Truth kills truth saves Save yourself and the world

In this lecture by Michel Chossudovsky, he blows away the smokescreen put up by the
mainstream media, that 9/11 was an attack on America by "Islamic terrorists". Through
meticulous research, he has uncovered a military-intelligence ploy behind the September 11
attacks, and the cover-up and complicity of key members of the Bush Administration.
According to Chossudovsky, the "war on terrorism" is a complete fabrication based on the
illusion that one man, Osama bin Laden, outwitted the $40 billion-a-year American
intelligence apparatus. The "war on terrorism" is a war of conquest. Globalisation is the final
march to the "New World Order", dominated by Wall Street and the U.S. military-industrial
complex. September 11, 2001 provides a justification for waging a war without borders.
Washington's agenda consists in extending the frontiers of the American Empire to facilitate
complete U.S. corporate control, while installing
within America the institutions of the Homeland Security State.
Truth Kills
Fema Detention Camps Marshall Law
9/11 Bush
10 Years if you think USA Government corrupt

[edit] Asia
East Asian cultures are influenced by two schools of thought, Confucianism, which advocated good
governance as rule by leaders who are benevolent and virtuous, and Legalism, which advocated strict
adherence to law. The influence of one school of thought over the other has varied throughout the
centuries. One study indicates that throughout East Asia, only South Korea, Japan, Taiwan and Hong
Kong have societies that are robustly committed to a law-bound state.[33] According to Awzar Thi, a
member of the Asian Human Rights Commission, the rule of law in Thailand, Cambodia, and most of
Asia is weak or nonexistent:
Apart from a number of states and territories, across the continent there is a huge gulf between the rule
of law rhetoric and reality. In Thailand, the police force is an organized crime gang. In Cambodia,
judges are proxies for the ruling political party.That a judge may harbor political prejudice or apply
the law unevenly are the smallest worries for an ordinary criminal defendant in Asia. More likely ones
are: Will the police fabricate the evidence? Will the prosecutor bother to show up? Will the judge fall
asleep? Will I be poisoned in prison? Will my case be completed within a decade?[34]
In countries such as China and Vietnam, the transition to a market economy has been a major factor in
a move toward the rule of law, because a rule of law is important to foreign investors and to economic
development. It remains unclear whether the rule of law in countries like China and Vietnam will be
limited to commercial matters or will spill into other areas as well, and if so whether that spillover will


enhance prospects for related values such as democracy and human rights.[35]. The rule of law in
China has been widely discussed and debated by both legal scholars and politicians in China.
In India, the longest constitutional text in the history of the world has governed that country since
1950. Although the Constitution of India may have been intended to provide details that would limit
the opportunity for judicial discretion, the more text there is in a constitution the greater opportunity
the judiciary may have to exercise judicial review.[36] According to Indian journalist Harish Khare,
"The rule of law or rather the Constitution [is] in danger of being supplanted by the rule of judges."[37]
Japan had centuries of tradition prior to World War II during which there were laws, but they were not
a central organizing principle for society, and they did not constrain the powers of government. As the
twenty-first century began, the percentage of people who were lawyers and judges in Japan remained
very low relative to western Europe and the United States, and legislation in Japan tended to be terse
and general, leaving much discretion in the hands of bureaucrats.[38]
[edit] Organizations and scholarly works
Many organizations and scholars have advocated for the rule of law, and have taken positions
regarding which interpretation of that concept they prefer.
[edit] International Commission of Jurists
In 1959, an international gathering of over 185 judges, lawyers, and law professors from 53 countries,
meeting in New Delhi and speaking as the International Commission of Jurists, made a declaration as
to the fundamental principle of the rule of law. This was the Declaration of Delhi. They declared that
the rule of law implies certain rights and freedoms,

that it implies an independent judiciary,

and that it implies social, economic and cultural conditions conducive to human dignity.
The Declaration of Delhi did not, however, suggest that the rule of law requires legislative power to be
subject to judicial review.[39]
[edit] United Nations
The Secretary-General of the United Nations defines the rule of law as:[40]
a principle of governance in which all persons, institutions and entities, public and
private, including the State itself,
are accountable to laws that are publicly promulgated,
equally enforced and independently adjudicated, and which are consistent with
international human rights norms and standards.
It requires, as well, measures to ensure adherence to the principles of supremacy of law,
equality before the law, accountability to the law, fairness in the application of the law,

separation of powers, participation in decision-making, legal certainty, avoidance of

arbitrariness and procedural and legal transparency.
The following was extracted from
the Law Society of Upper Canada - Lawyers Rules of Conduct
103) Interpretation
(f) rules of professional conduct cannot address every situation, and a lawyer should observe
the rules in the spirit as well as in the letter.
Before pen to paper surfaces the reason to do so being the PSI - Purpose Spirit Intent that
governs the letter

15. (1) Every individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to the equal protection and
equal benefit of the law

without discrimination
and, in particular,

without discrimination
based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability.


In 1797 the Upper Canada government now Ontario instructed their Attorney General educated in
Satanic British Empire Imperialist ways to form the
Law Society Legal Scam
Proclaiming self a monopoly to propagate "Learned and Honorable" to administer the laws of Ontario
who have infested Canada never intending to be Responsible ergo Accountable
Mulroney 4 Democracy Coherency Acceleration
Twenty years the RCMP investigated Mulroney self admitted tax evader acceptance of bribery by
armaments conglomerate with them all war mongers and vested interest to support the armaments
Bribery does not set well with the Humanic in FIBIB so they call it Lobbyism and legalize with
briberists responsible to register so all political SIC PIG know who are the gamers
Ontario Attorney General in clear violation of the mandatory Rule of Law "Clear separation of
powers" advises all government department, so called independent agencies, and police heads and
administers the Law Society Act as a bencher with precedence second only to the Minister of Justice


and Attorney General of Canada who advises all federal departments, so called independent agencies
and RCMP heads.
The Ontario Attorney General appoints the chair and four others selecting 5 more from a list provided
by the Law Society
Responsibilities Attorney General
Published on Ontario Government web site
The Attorney General does not, however, direct or cause charges to be laid.
While the Attorney General and the Attorney General's agents may provide legal
advice to the police,
the ultimate decision whether or not to lay charges is for the police.
Once the charge is laid the decision as to whether the prosecution should proceed, and in what manner,
is for the Attorney General and the Crown Attorney.
Momentarily appears to be a separation of powers, but then follows with a wipe out
Responsibly Unaccountable Nefarious Substantive
Law Society Act
Attorney General, guardian of the public interest
13. (1) The Attorney General for Ontario shall serve as the guardian of the public interest in all matters
within the scope of this Act or having to do in any way with the practice of law in Ontario or the
provision of legal services in Ontario, and for this purpose he or she may at any time require the
production of any document or thing pertaining to the affairs of the Society. R.S.O. 1990, c. L.8, s. 13
(1); 1998, c. 21, s. 7 (1); 2006, c. 21, Sched. C, s. 13.
(2) No admission of any person in any document or thing produced under subsection (1) is admissible
in evidence against that person in any proceedings other than proceedings under this Act. R.S.O. 1990,
c. L.8, s. 13 (2); 1998, c. 21, s. 7 (2).
Protection of Minister
(3) No person who is or has been the Attorney General for Ontario is subject to any proceedings of the
Society or to any penalty imposed under this Act for anything done by him or her while exercising the
functions of such office.
R.S.O. 1990, c. L.8, s. 13 (3); 1998, c. 21, s. 7 (3).
13.(1)For public purpose is responsible as guardian of the public interest, 13.(2) but evidence against
them not permitted in the public interest, and 13.(3) strokes and out believing not accountable ergo not
As chief law officer, the Attorney General has a
special responsibility
to be the
of that most elusive concept
the rule of law.
The rule of law is a well established legal principle,
but hard to easily define.

Legal Certainty???
It is the rule of law that protects individuals, and society as a whole,
from arbitrary measures and safeguards personal liberties.
The General Assembly has considered rule of law as an agenda item since 1992, with renewed interest
since 2006 and has adopted resolutions at its last three sessions.[41] The Security Council has held a
number of thematic debates on the rule of law,[42] and adopted resolutions emphasizing the
importance of these issues in the context of women, peace and security,[43] children in armed
conflict,[44] and the protection of civilians in armed conflict.[45] The Peacebuilding Commission has
also regularly addressed rule of law issues with respect to countries on its agenda.[46]

[edit] International Bar Association
The Council of the International Bar Association passed a resolution in 2009
endorsing a substantive or "thick" definition of the rule of law:[47]

An independent, impartial judiciary; the presumption of innocence; the right to a fair and public trial
without undue delay;
a rational and proportionate approach to punishment; a strong and independent legal profession;
strict protection of confidential communications between lawyer and client;
equality of all before the law;
these are all fundamental principles of the Rule of Law. Accordingly, arbitrary arrests; secret trials;
indefinite detention without trial;
cruel or degrading treatment or punishment; intimidation or corruption in the electoral process, are all
The Rule of Law is the foundation of a civilized society.
It establishes a transparent process accessible and equal to all. It ensures adherence to principles that
both liberate and protect.
The IBA calls upon all countries to respect these fundamental principles.
It also calls upon its members to speak out in support of the Rule of Law within their respective


It is the responsibility of the Attorney General to be the "Guardian of the Public Interest" structuring
the system to keep all responsible
A key component of the Attorney General's responsibilities to ensure the administration of justice in
the province is the administration of the courts and as a result the responsibility for maintaining liaison
with the judiciary.

In addition to the specific responsibilities to conduct civil litigation on behalf of the Government
and its agencies (s. 5(h)),
the Attorney General has broader litigation responsibilities
flowing from the historical powers of the Attorney General referred to in s. 5(d) of the Act.
These powers are based on the Crown's parens patriae (parental) authority. The Attorney General's
authority, therefore,
is not only to conduct litigation in cases directly affecting the government or its agencies,
but also to litigate cases where there is a clear matter of public interest or public rights at stake.


An important part of the Crown's - and thus the Attorney General's - responsibility in conducting
criminal prosecutions is associated with
the responsibility to represent the public interest which includes not only the community as a whole and the victim, but also the accused.
The Crown has a distinct responsibility to the court to present all the credible evidence available.

The police requiring warrants are illegal adverse to their prerequisite independence put in place by the
Satanic to prevent investigations into their financial portfolios and pertinent evidence as in 13.(2) and
the illegitimate Privacy Act
The responsibility is to present the case fairly - not necessarily to convict. This is a fundamental
precept of criminal law, even if it is not a particularly well-understood concept among the general
One of the Attorney General's responsibilities in fostering public respect for the rule of law, is to assist
the public in understanding the nature and limits of the prosecutorial function.

This has been characterized as a constitutional responsibility to ensure that the public interest is well
and independently represented.
It may involve interventions in private litigation or Charter challenges to legislation, even
if the arguments conclude that the legislation does contravene constitutionally protected rights.
Ultimately the Attorney General is accountable to the people of the province, through the Legislature,
for decisions relating to criminal prosecutions. Such accountability can only occur, of course, once the
prosecution is completed or when a final decision has been made not to prosecute. The sub judicae rule
bars any comment on a matter before the courts that is likely to influence the matter. The sub judicae
rule strictly prohibits the Attorney General from commenting on prosecutions that are before the
courts. Given the stature of the Attorney General's position, any public comment coming from the
office would be seen as an attempt to influence the case.
The entire system personnel whose e-mail addresses are published in the GLIST that includes my
MPP, and MP have been provided the evidence refusing to hold the Attorney General accountable, for
they feel protected by their Satanic predecessors 13. (3) Law Society Act.
Organized Crime personified
[edit] World Justice Project
As used by the World Justice Project a non-profit organization committed to advancing the rule of
law around the world the rule of law refers to a rules-based system in which the following four
universal principles are upheld:[48]
1. The government and its officials and agents are accountable under the law;
2. The laws are clear, publicized, stable, fair, and protect fundamental rights, including
the security of persons and property;

3. The process by which the laws are enacted, administered, and enforced is accessible,
fair, and efficient;
4. Access to justice is provided by competent, independent, and ethical adjudicators,
attorneys or representatives, and judicial officers who are of sufficient number, have
adequate resources, and reflect the makeup of the communities they serve.
The World Justice Project has developed an Index to measure the extent to which countries adhere to
the rule of law in practice.
The WJP Rule of Law Index is composed of 10 factors and 49 sub-factors, and covers a variety of
dimensions of the rule of law such as whether government officials are accountable under the law,
and whether legal institutions protect fundamental rights and allow ordinary people access to
[edit] Albert Dicey
British jurist A. V. Dicey popularized the phrase "rule of law" in 1885.[6][50] Dicey emphasized three
aspects of the rule of law :[51]
1. No one can be punished or made to suffer except for a breach of law proved in an ordinary
2. No one is above the law and everyone is equal before the law

regardless of social, economic, or political status.

3. The rule of law includes the results of judicial decisions determining the rights of private
[edit] Joseph Raz
In 1977, the influential political theorist Joseph Raz identified several principles that may be associated
with the rule of law in some (but not all) societies.[52] Raz's principles encompass the requirements of
guiding the individual's behaviour and minimizing the danger that results from the exercise of
discretionary power in an arbitrary fashion, and in this last respect he shares common ground with the
constitutional theorists A. V. Dicey, Friedrich Hayek and E. P. Thompson. Some of Raz's principles
are as follows:

That laws should be prospective rather than retroactive.

Laws should be stable and not changed too frequently, as lack of awareness of the law prevents
one from being guided by it.
There should be clear rules and procedures for making laws.
The independence of the judiciary has to be guaranteed.
The principles of natural justice should be observed, particularly those

concerning the right to a fair hearing.

The courts should have the power of judicial review over the way in which the other principles
are implemented.

The courts should be accessible;

The discretion of law enforcement and crime prevention agencies

no man may be denied justice.

should not be allowed to pervert the law.


According to Raz, the validity of these principles depends upon the particular circumstances of

"is not to be confused with

different societies, whereas the rule of law generally

democracy, justice, equality (before the law or otherwise), human rights of any kind or respect for
persons or for the dignity of man".[52]
[edit] In relation to economics
One important aspect of the rule-of-law initiatives is the study and analysis of the rule of laws impact
on economic development. The rule-of-law movement cannot be fully successful in transitional and
developing countries without an answer to the question:
Shadow Government
Sustainable Growth
does the rule of law matter for economic development or not?[53]
Constitutional economics is the study of the compatibility of economic and financial decisions within
existing constitutional law frameworks, and such a framework includes government spending on the
judiciary which in many transitional and developing countries is completely controlled by the

It is useful to distinguish between

the two methods of corruption of the judiciary: corruption by the executive branch,

in contrast to corruption by private actors.

The standards of constitutional economics can be used during annual budget process,
and if that budget planning is transparent then the rule of law may benefit.
The availability of an effective court system, to be used by the civil society
in situations of unfair government spending and executive impoundment of previously authorized
is a key element for the success of the rule-of-law endeavor.[54]
The Rule of Law is especially important as an influence on the economic development in developing
and transitional countries. To date, the term rule of law has been used primarily in the Englishspeaking countries, and it is not yet fully clarified even with regard to such well-established
democracies as, for instance, Sweden, Denmark, France, Germany, or Japan. A common language
between lawyers of common law and civil law countries as well as between legal communities of
developed and developing countries is critically important for research of links between the rule of law
and real economy.[55]
[edit] In schools
The rule of law is generally acknowledged to be a cornerstone of orderly, organized society, including
within schools. The Sudbury School is an example of a school where laws are always promulgated in


writing, and careful records are kept of the body of precedents surrounding each rule. There is no
opening, however small, for arbitrary or capricious authority to step in.[56][57][58]
[edit] In conflict with natural law
Upholding the rule of law can sometimes require the punishment of those who commit offenses that
are justifiable under natural law but not statutory law. Heidi M. Hurd raises the example of a battered
woman who rightly believes that there is a strong probability that her husband will eventually attempt
to kill her and her children unless she preemptively kills him. If the law does not permit the acquittal of
those who claim self-defense in the absence of an imminent threat of harm, then the woman must be
punished, or "what will become of the rule of law? For law seemingly ceases to be law if judges are
entitled to rethink its wisdom in every case to which it applies and to disregard it whenever it is
inferior to the rule that they would fashion."[59]
[edit] See also

Legal certainty
Sovereign immunity
Equality before the law
Judicial activism
Mob rule
Violent non-state actor
Constitutional economics
Separation of powers
Civil society
Nuremberg Principles
Public interest litigation
Rule According to Higher Law
State secrets privilege

^ Cole, John et al. The Library of Congress, page 113 (W. W. Norton & Company 1997).
^ a b Aristotle,Politics 3.16
^ Tamanaha, Brian Z. (2004). On the Rule of Law. Cambridge University Press. p. 9.^ Tamanaha
2004, p. 9.
^ Craig, Paul P. (1997). "Formal and substantive conceptions of the rule of law: an analytical
framework". Public Law: 467.
^ a b c Wormuth, Francis. The Origins of Modern Constitutionalism, page 28 (1949).
^ Bingham, Thomas. The Rule of Law, page 3 (Penguin 2010).
^ a b David Clarke, "The many meanings of the rule of law" in Kanishka Jayasuriya, ed., Law,
Capitalism and Power in Asia (New York: Routledge, 1998).
^ Cooper, John et al. Complete Works By Plato, page 1402 (Hackett Publishing, 1997).
^ In Latin, Omnes legum servi sumus ut liberi esse possumus.
^ Xiangming, Zhang. On Two Ancient Chinese Administrative Ideas: Rule of Virtue and Rule by Law,
The Culture Mandala: Bulletin of the Centre for East-West Cultural and Economic Studies (2002):

Although Han Fei recommended that the government should rule by law, which seems impartial, he
advocated that the law be enacted by the lords solely. The lords place themselves above the law. The
law is thereby a monarchical means to control the people, not the people's means to restrain the lords.
The lords are by no means on an equal footing with the people. Hence we cannot mention the rule by
law proposed by Han Fei in the same breath as democracy and the rule of law advocated today.
^ Bevir, Mark. The Encyclopedia of Political Theory, page 162.
^ Munro, Donald. The Concept of Man in Early China. Page 4.
^ Guo, Xuezhi. The Ideal Chinese Political Leader: A Historical and Cultural Perspective. Page 152.
^ Peerenboom, Randall (1993). Law and morality in ancient China: the silk manuscripts of Huang-Lao.
SUNY Press. pp. 171.
^ Weeramantry, C. Justice without Frontiers, page 132 (Martinus Nijhoff Publishers 1997).
^ U.S. National Archives.
^ Hallam, Henry. The Constitutional History of England, Volume 1, page 441 (1827)
^ Tamanaha, Brian. On the Rule of Law, page 47 (Cambridge University Press, 2004).
^ Lieberman, Jethro. A Practical Companion to the Constitution, page 436 (University of California
Press 2005).
^ Massachusetts Constitution, Part The First, art. XXX (1780).
^ Shklar, Judith and Hoffman, Stanley. Political Thought and Political Thinkers, page 21 (University
of Chicago Press, 1998).
^ a b Tamanaha, Brian. The Rule of Law for Everyone?, Current Legal Problems, volume 55, via
SSRN (2002):
Most legal theorists believe that the rule of law has purely formal characteristics, meaning that the law
must be publicly declared, with prospective application, and possess the characteristics of generality,
equality, and certainty, but there are no requirements with regard to the content of the law. Others,
including a few legal theorists, believe that the rule of law necessarily entails protection of individual
rights. Within legal theory, these two approaches to the rule of law are seen as the two basic
alternatives, respectively labelled the formal and substantive approaches. But there are other views as
well. Some believe that democracy is part of the rule of law.
^ a b c d Stephenson, Matthew. "Rule of Law as a Goal of Development Policy", World Bank
Research (2008).
^ Tamanaha, Brian. On the Rule of Law, page 3 (Cambridge University Press, 2004).
^ a b Kaufman, Daniel et al. "Governance Matters VI: Governance Indicators for 1996-2006, World
Bank Policy Research Working Paper No. 4280" (July 2007).
^ "Governance Matters 2008", World Bank.
^ Vile, John. A Companion to the United States Constitution and its Amendments, page 80
(Greenwood Publishing Group, 2006).
^ Osborn v. Bank of the United States, 22 U. S. 738 (1824): "When [courts] are said to exercise a
discretion, it is a mere legal discretion, a discretion to be exercised in discerning the course prescribed
by law; and, when that is discerned, it is the duty of the court to follow it."
^ Harrison, John. "Substantive Due Process and the Constitutional Text," Virginia Law Review,
Volume 83, page 493 (1997).
^ Gedicks, Frederick. "An Originalist Defense of Substantive Due Process: Magna Carta, Higher-Law
Constitutionalism, and the Fifth Amendment", Emory Law Journal, Vol. 58, pages 585-673 (2009).


See also Edlin, Douglas "Judicial Review without a Constitution", Polity, Volume 38, pages 345-368
^ Snowiss, Sylvia. Judicial Review and the Law of the Constitution, pages 41-42 (Yale University
Press 1990).
^ Chu, Yun-Han et al. How East Asians View Democracy, pages 31-32.
^ Thi, Awzar. Asia needs a new rule-of-law debate, United Press International, (200808-14).
^ Peerenboom, Randall in Asian Discourses of Rule of Law, page 39 (Routledge 2004).
^ Baxi, Upendra in Asian Discourses of Rule of Law, pages 336-337 (Routledge 2004).
^ Robinson, Simon. For Activist Judges, Try India, Time Magazine (2006-11-08).
^ Green, Carl. "Japan: 'The Rule of Law Without Lawyers' Reconsidered", Speech to the Asia Society
^ Goldsworth, Jeffrey. Legislative Sovereignty and the Rule of Law" in Sceptical Essays on Human
Rights, page 69 (Tom Campbell, Keith D. Ewing, Adam Tomkins eds. Oxford University Press
2001).^What is the Rule of Law?, United Nations Rule of Law.
^ See United Nations General Assembly Resolutions A/RES/61/39, A/RES/62/70, A/RES/63/128.
^ See United Nations Security Council debates S/PRST/2003/15, S/PRST/2004/2, S/PRST/2004/32,
S/PRST/2005/30, S/PRST/2006/28.
^ See United Nations Security Council Resolutions 1325 and 1820.
^ E.g. see United Nations Security Council Resolution 1612.
^ E.g. see United Nations Security Council Resolution 1674.
^ United Nations and the Rule of Law.
^ Resolution of the Council of the International Bar Association of October 8, 2009, on the
Commentary on Rule of Law Resolution (2005).
^ About the WJP.
^ Agrast, Mark et al. The World Justice Project Rule of Law Index (2010).
^ Dicey, Albert. An Introduction to the Study of the Law of the Constitution (1885).
^ Palekar, S. Comparative Politics and Government 64-65 (PHI Learning 2009).
^ a b Raz, Joseph. "The Rule of Law and It's Virtue", The Law Quarterly Review, volume 93, page 195
(1977); reprinted by Culver, Keith. Readings in the Philosophy of Law, page 13 (Broadview Press,
^ Luis Flores Ballesteros. "Corruption and development. Does the rule of law factor weigh more than
we think?" 54 Pesos May. 2008:54 Pesos 15 Nov 2008. <>
^ Peter Barenboim, Defining the rules, The European Lawyer, Issue 90, October 2009
^ Peter Barenboim, Natalya Merkulova. "The 25th Anniversary of Constitutional Economics: The
Russian Model and Legal Reform in Russia, in The World Rule of Law Movement and Russian Legal
Reform", edited by Francis Neate and Holly Nielsen, Justitsinform, Moscow (2007).
^ The Sudbury Valley School (1970). Law and Order: Foundations of Discipline, The Crisis in
American Education An Analysis and a Proposal. (p. 49-55). Accessed, August 18, 2010.
^ Greenberg, D. (1987). One Person One Vote, Free at Last, The Sudbury Valley School. Accessed,
August 18, 2010.


^ Greenberg, D. (1987). Back to Basics, The Sudbury Valley School Experience. Accessed, August 18,
^ Heidi M. Hurd (Aug., 1992). "Justifiably Punishing the Justified". Michigan Law Review (The
Michigan Law Review Association) 90 (8): 22032324.
External links
Articles Tagged "Rule of Law" in The Global Herald
"Economics and the Rule of Law" The Economist (2008-03-13).
Hague Journal on the Rule of Law, includes academic articles, practitioner reports, commentary, and
book reviews.
International Network to Promote the Rule of Law, United States Institute of Peace.
Dicey, Albert. Introduction to the Study of the Law of the Constitution (Eighth Edition, Macmillan,
Rule of Law Resource Center, LexisNexis
Bingham, Thomas. "The Rule of Law", Centre for Public Law, Faculty of Law, University of
Cambridge (2006-11-16).
"The Rule of Law Inventory Report", Hague Institute for the Internationalisation of Law (HiiL), Hague
Academic Coalition (2007-04-20).
"UN Rule of Law, Security Officials Outline Key Priorities for 2008", UN News Centre, United
Nations (2008-01-21).
Yu, Helen et al. "What is the Rule of Law?", Center for International Finance and Development,
University of Iowa (2007-08-29)
The World Justice Project A multinational, multidisciplinary initiative to strengthen the rule of law
World Justice Map Map-based information exchange platform facilitating networking among Rule of
Law promoters globally.
"The Worldwide Governance Indicators (WGI) Project", World Bank
Movement for Rule of Law, Related to Lawyers Movement Pakistan.
"Understandings of the Rule of Law in various Legal Orders of the World", Wiki-Project of Freie
Universitaet Berlin.
Eau Claire County Bar Association rule of law talk
Frithjof Ehm "The Rule of Law: Concept, Guiding Principle and Framework"
Retrieved from ""
Categories: Law | Theories of law | Philosophy of law | Political philosophy | Philosophical
Hidden categories: All articles with unsourced statements | Articles with unsourced statements from
April 2011
Legal Certainty
Legal certainty is provided by the legal system to those subject to the law. As such the legal system
needs to permit those subject to the law to regulate their conduct with certainty and as such protecting
those subject to the law from arbitrary use of state power. As such legal certainty entails a requirement
for decisions to be made according to legal rules, ie be lawful. The concept of legal certainty may be
strongly linked to that of individual autonomy in national jurisprudence. The degree to which the
concept of legal certainty is incorporated into law varies depending on national jurisprudence. Though
legal certainty frequently serves as the central principle for the development of legal methods by which
law is made, interpreted and applied.[1]

Legal certainty is an established legal concept both in the civil law legal systems and common law
legal systems. In the civil law tradition, legal certainty is defined in terms of maximum predictability
of officials' behaviour. In the common law tradition legal certainty is often explained in terms of
citizens' ability to organise their affairs in such a way that does not break the law. In both legal
traditions is regarded as grounding value for the legality of legislative and administrative measures
taken by public authorities.[2]
Rule of law
The legal philosopher Gustav Radbruch regarded legal certainty, justice and policy as the three
fundamental pillars of law.[1] Today legal certainty is internationally recognised as central requirement
for the rule of law.[1] According to the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development[
(OECD) the concept of the rule of law "first and foremost seeks to emphasize the necessity of
establishing a rule-based society in the interest of legal certainty and predictability." At the G8 Foreign
Ministers' Meeting in Potsdam in 2007 the G8 committed to the rule of law as a core principle and that
adherence to the principle of legal certainty.[1]
European nations regard legal certainty as fundamental quality of the legal system and guiding
requirement for the rule of law. The concept can be traced through English common law[1] and is
recognised in all European legal systems.[3] The concept is recognised in Germany as Rechtssicherheit,
in France as securite juridique, in Spain as seguridad juridica, in Italy as certezza del diritto, in the
Benelux countries as rechtszekerheid, in Sweden asrattssakerhet, in Poland as do obowiazujacego
prawa, and in Finland as oikeusvarmuuden periaate. Legal certainty is now recognised as one of the
general principles of European community law and "requires that all law be sufficiently precise to
allow the person - if need be, with appropaite advice - to forresee, to a degree that is reasonable in the
circumstances, the consequences which a given action may entail".[1] The principle of legal certainty,
and as such the rule of law, requires that:

laws and decisions must be made public

laws and decisions must ne definite and clear
the decisions of courts must be regarded as binding
the retroactivity of laws and decisions must be limited
legitimate interests and expectations must be protected.[1]

General principle of European Union law

The concept of legal certainty is recognised one of the general principles of European Union law by
the European Court of Justice since the 1960s.[4] It is a important general principle of international law
and public law, which predates European Union law. As a general principle in European Union law it
means that the law must be certain, in that it is clear and precise, and its legal implications foreseeable,
specially when applied to financial obligations. The adoption of laws which will have legal effect in
the European Union must have a proper legal basis. Legislation in member states which implements
European Union law must be worded so that it is clearly understandable by those who are subject to
the law.[5]
In European Union law the general principle of legal certainty prohibits retroactive laws, ie laws
should not take effect before they are published. The general principle also requires that sufficient
information must be made public to enable parties to know what the law is and comply with it. For

example in Opel Austria v Council [1997] ECR II-39 Case T-115/94 The European Court of Justice
held that European Council Regulation did not come into effect until it had been published. Opel had
brought the action on the basis that the Regulation in question violated the principle of legal certainty,
because it legally came into effect before it had been notified and the regulation published.[6] The
doctrine of legitimate expectation, which has its roots in the principles of legal certainty and good
faith, is also a central element of the general principle of legal certainty in European Union law.[7] The
legitimate expectation doctrine holds that and that "those who act in good faith on the basis of law as it
is or seems to be should not be frustrated in their expectations".[8] This means that a European Union
institution, once it has induced a party to take a particular course of action, must not renege on its
earlier position if doing so would cause the party to suffer loss. The European Court of Justice has
considered the legitimate expectation doctrine in cases where violation of the general principle of legal
certainty was alleged in numerous cases involving agricultural policy and European Council
regulations, with the leading case being Mulder v Minister van Landbouw en Visserij [1988] ECR 2321
Case 120/86.[9] The misuse of powers test is another significant element of the general principle of
legal certainty in European Union law. It holds that a lawful power must not be exercised for any other
purpose than that for which it was conferred. According to the misuse of power test a decision by a
European Union institution is only a misuse of power if "it appears, on the basis of objective, relevant
and consistent evidence, to have been adopted with the exclusive or main purpose of achieving end
other than those stated." A rare instance where the European Court of Justice has held that a European
Union institution has misused its powers, and therefore violated the general principle of legal
uncertainty, is Giuffrida v Commission [1976] ECR 1395 Case 105/75.[10] The general principle of
legal certainty is particularly stringently applied when European Union law imposes financial burdens
on private parties.[11]
European human rights law
The concept of legal certainty is recognised by the European Court of Human Rights.[1]
In US law the principle of legal certainty is phrased as fair warning and the void for vagueness
Natural Law

Natural law or the law of nature (Latin: lex naturalis) has been described as a law whose content is set
by nature and is thus universal.[1] As classically used, natural law refers to the use of reason to analyze
human nature and deduce binding rules of moral behavior. The phrase natural law is opposed to the
positive law (meaning "man-made law", not "good law"; cf. posit) of a given political community,
society, or nation-state, and thus can function as a standard by which to criticize that law.[2] In natural
law jurisprudence, on the other hand, the content of positive law cannot be known without some
reference to the natural law (or something like it). Used in this way, natural law can be invoked to
criticize decisions about the statutes, but less so to criticize the law itself. Some use natural law
synonymously with natural justice or natural right (Latin ius naturale)[citation needed]
Although natural law is often conflated with common law, the two are distinct in that natural law is a
view that certain rights or values are inherent in or universally cognizable by virtue of human reason or
human nature, while common law is the legal tradition whereby certain rights or values are legally
cognizable by virtue of judicial recognition or articulation.[3] Natural law theories have, however,

exercised a profound influence on the development of Englishcommon law,[4] and have featured
greatly in the philosophies of Thomas Aquinas, Francisco Surez, Richard Hooker, Thomas Hobbes,
Hugo Grotius, Samuel von Pufendorf, John Locke, Francis Hutcheson, Jean Jacques Burlamaqui, and
Emmerich de Vattel. Because of the intersection between natural law and natural rights, it has been
cited as a component in United States Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United
States. The essence of Declarationism is that the founding of the United States is based on Natural law.
Equality before the law
Equality before the law or equality under the law or legal egalitarianism is the principle under which
each individual is subject to the same laws.[1]
Article 7 of the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights states that "All are equal before the law
and are entitled without any discrimination to equal protection of the law."[1]
According to the UN, this principle is particularly important to the minorities and to the poor.[1]
Thus, the law and the judges must treat everybody by the same laws regardless of their gender,
ethnicity, religion, socio-economic position etc.
Equality before the law is one of the basic principles of classical liberalism. [2][3]
Golden Rule
The Golden Rule or ethic of reciprocity is a maxim,[1] ethical code, or morality[2] that essentially states
either of the following:
1. One should treat others as one would like others to treat oneself (positive form)[1]
2. One should not treat others in ways that one would not like to be treated (negative/prohibitive
form, also called the Silver Rule)
Not Debatable Perpetuity
The Golden Rule is arguably the most essential basis for the modern concept of human rights, in which
each individual has a right to just treatment, and a reciprocal responsibility to ensure justice for
others.[3] A key element of the Golden Rule is that a person attempting to live by this rule treats all
people with consideration, not just members of his or her in-group. The Golden Rule has its roots in a
wide range of world cultures, and is a standard which different cultures use to resolve conflicts.[1][4]
The Golden Rule has a long history, and a great number of prominent religious figures and
philosophers have restated its reciprocal, bilateral nature in various ways (not limited to the above
forms).[1] As a concept, the Golden Rule has a history that long predates the term "Golden Rule" (or
"Golden law", as it was called from the 1670s).[1][5] The ethic of reciprocity was present in certain
forms in the philosophies of ancient Babylon, Egypt, Persia, India, Greece, Judea, and China.[citation

Legal Maxim
A legal maxim is an established principle or proposition. The Latin term, apparently a variant on
maxima, is not to be found in Roman law with any meaning exactly analogous to that of a legal maxim
in the Medieval or modern sense of the word, but the treatises of many of the Roman jurists on Regular
definitiones, and Sententiae juris are, in some measure, collections of maxims. Most of the Latin
maxims developed in the Medieval era in European countries that used Latin as their language for law
and courts.


The attitude of early English commentators towards the maxims of the law was one of unmingled
adulation. In Thomas Hobbes, Doctor and Student (p. 26), they are described as of the same strength
and effect in the law as statutes. Not only, observes Francis Bacon in the Preface to his Collection of
Maxims, will the use of maxims be in deciding doubt and helping soundness of judgment, but, further,
in gracing argument, in correcting unprofitable subtlety, and reducing the same to a more sound and
substantial sense of law, in reclaiming vulgar errors, and, generally, in the amendment in some
measure of the very nature and complexion of the whole law.[1]
A similar note was sounded in Scotland; and it has been well observed that a glance at the pages of
Morrisons Dictionary or at other early reports will show how frequently in the older Scots law
questions respecting the rights, remedies and liabilities of individuals were determined by an
immediate reference to legal maxims.
In later times, less value has been attached to the maxims of the law, as the development of civilization
and the increasing complexity of business relations have shown the necessity of qualifying the
propositions which they enunciate. But both historically and practically, they must always possess
interest and value.
The principal collections of legal maxims are:
English Law,

Bacon, Collection of Some Principal Rules and Maxims of the Common Law (1630);
Noy, Treatise of the principal Grounds and Maxims of the Law of England (1641, 8th ed.,
Wingate, Maxims of Reason (1728);
Francis, Grounds and Rudiments of Law and Equity (2nd ed. 1751);
Lofft (annexed to his Reports, 1776);
Broom, Legal Maxims (yth ed. London, 1900).

Scots Law

Lord Trayner, Latin Maxims and Phrases (2nd ed., 1876);

Stair, Institutions of the Law of Scotland, with Index by More (Edinburgh, 1832).

American Treatises

A. I. Morgan, English Version of Legal Maxims (Cincinnati, 1878);

S. S. Peloubet, Legal Maxims in Law and Equity (New York, 1880).
John Bouvier, A Law Dictionary: Adapted to the Constitution and Laws of the United States of
America and of the Several States of the American Union, Revised Sixth Edition, 1856. A long
list of maxims is contained in the section for the letter "M".
Anonymous, Latin for Lawyers, Chapter II, "A Collection of over one thousand Latin maxims,
with English translations, explanatory notes, and cross-references", Sweet and Maxwell, 1915.

[edit] See also

List of legal Latin terms


Maxims of equity

[edit] Notes
1. ^ Combined with a tract entitled The Use of the Common Law, for preservation of our Persons,
goods, and good Names, in a book entitled The Elements of the Common Lawes of England,
facsimile reprint by Da Capo Press, 1969, may be viewed at Constitution Society
This article incorporates text from a publication now in the public domain: Chisholm, Hugh, ed
(1911). Encyclopdia Britannica (Eleventh ed.). Cambridge University Press.
Retrieved from ""
This page was last modified on 11 February 2011 at 18:56.
Legal Maxins of Equity
The maxims of equity evolved, in Latin and eventually translated into English, as the principles
applied by courts of equity in deciding cases before them.[1]
Among the traditional maxims are:

[edit] Equity regards done what ought to be done

This maxim means that when individuals are required, by their agreements or by law to have done
some act of legal significance, Equity will regard it as having been done as it ought to have, even
before it has actually happened. This makes possible the legal phenomenon of equitable conversion.
Sometime this is phrased as "equity regards as done what should have been done."
The consequences of this maxim, and of equitable conversion, are significant in their bearing on the
risk of loss in transactions. When parties enter a contract for a sale of real property, the buyer is
deemed to have obtained an equitable right that becomes a legal right only after the deal is completed.
Due to his equitable interest in the outcome of the transaction, the buyer who suffers a breach may then
be entitled to the equitable remedy of specific performance (although not always, see below). It also is
reflected in how his damages are measured if he pursues a legal, substitutionary remedy instead of an
equitable remedy. At law, he is entitled to the value at the time of breach, whether it has appreciated,
or depreciated.
The fact that the buyer may be forced to suffer the depreciation means that he bears the risk of loss if,
for example, the improvements on the property he bought burn down while he is still in escrow.
Additional Examples: Problems may sometimes arise because, through some lapse or omission, cover
is not in force at the time a claim is made. If the policyholder has clearly been at fault in this
connection, because, for example, he has not paid premiums when he should have, then it will
normally be quite reasonable for an insurer to decline to meet the claim. However, it gets more
difficult if the policyholder is no more at fault than the insurer. The fair solution in the circumstances
may be arrived at by applying the principle that equity regards that as done that ought to be done [See
para 1, above]. In other words, what would the position have been if what should have been done had

been done?
Thus, in one case, premiums on a life policy were overdue. The insurer' s letter to the policyholder
warning him of this fact was never received by the policyholder, who died shortly after the policy
consequently lapsed. It was clear that if the notice had been received by the policyholder, he or his
wife would have taken steps to ensure the policy continued in force, because the policyholder was
terminally ill at the time and the cover provided by the policy was something his wife was plainly
going to require in the foreseeable future. Since the policyholder would have been fully entitled to pay
the outstanding premium at that stage, regardless of his physical condition, the insurer (with some
persuasion from the Bureau) agreed that the matter should be dealt with as if the policyholder had done
so. In other words, his widow was entitled to the sum assured less the outstanding premium. In other
similar cases, however, it has not been possible to follow the same principle because there has not been
sufficiently clear evidence that the policy would have been renewed.
Another illustration of the application of this equitable principle was in connection with motor
insurance. A policyholder was provided with cover on the basis that she was entitled to a ' no claims'
discount from her previous insurer. Confirmation to this effect from the previous insurer was required.
When that was not forthcoming, her cover was cancelled by the brokers who had issued the initial
cover note. This was done without reference to the insurer concerned, whose normal practice in such
circumstances would have been to maintain cover, but to require payment of the full premium until
proof of the no claims discount was forthcoming. Such proof was eventually obtained by the
policyholder, but only after she had been involved in an accident after the cancellation by the brokers
of the policy. Here again, the fair outcome was to look at what would have happened if the insurer's
normal practice had been followed. In such circumstances, the policyholder would plainly have still
had a policy at the time of the accident. The insurer itself had not acted incorrectly at any stage.
However, in the circumstances, it was equitable for it to meet the claim.
[edit] Equity will not suffer a wrong to be without a remedy
When seeking an equitable relief, the one that has been wronged has the stronger hand. The stronger
hand is the one that has the capacity to ask for a legal remedy (judicial relief). In equity, this form of
remedy is usually one of specific performance or an injunction (injunctive relief). These are superior
remedies to those administered at common law such as damages. The Latin legal maxim is ubi jus ibi
remedium ("where there is a right, there must be a remedy"), sometimes cited as ubi jus ibi remediam.
The maxim is necessarily subordinate to positive principles and cannot be applied either to subvert
established rules of law or to give the courts a jurisdiction hitherto unknown, and it is only in a general
not in a literal sense that maxim has force.
Case law dealing with this maxim is include Ashby v White and Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents,
403 U.S. 388 (1971). The principle was key in the decision of Marbury v. Madison, wherein it was
necessary to establish that Marbury had a right to his commission in the first place in order for Chief
Justice Marshall to make his more wide-ranging decision.

[edit] Equity delights in equality


Where two persons have an equal right, the property will be divided equally. Thus Equity will presume
joint owners to be tenants in common unless the parties have expressly agreed otherwise. Equity also
favours partition, if requested, of jointly held property.
[edit] One who seeks equity must do equity
To receive equitable relief, the party must be willing to complete all of their own obligations as well.
The applicant to a court of equity is as subject to the power of that court as the defendant. This may
also overlap with the clean hands maxim (see below).
[edit] Equity aids the vigilant, not those who slumber on their rights
Vigilantibus non dormientibus aequitas subvenit.
Once the party knows they have been wronged, they must act relatively swiftly to preserve their rights.
Otherwise, they are guilty of laches. Laches is a defense to an action in equity. This maxim is often
displaced by statutory limitations, but even where a limitation period has not yet run, equity may apply
the doctrine of "laches," an equitable term used to describe delay sufficient to defeat an equitable
claim. In Chief Young Dede v. African Association Ltd.the equitable rule of laches and acquiescence
was introduced.

Delay defeats equity

Equity aids the vigilant, not those who sleep on their rights

[edit] Equity imputes an intent to fulfill an obligation

Generally speaking, near performance of a general obligation will be treated as sufficient unless the
law requires perfect performance, such as in the exercise of an option. Text writers give an example of
a debtor leaving a legacy to his creditor equal or greater to his obligation. Equity regards such a gift as
performance of the obligation so the creditor cannot claim both the legacy and payment of the debt.
[edit] Equity acts in personam.

In England, there was a distinction in the type of adjudicatory jurisdiction of the courts and the
chancery. Courts of law had jurisdiction over property, and their coercive power arose out of their
ability to adjust ownership rights. Courts of equity had power over individuals. Their coercive power
was the ability, on authority of the crown, to hold a violator in contempt, and take away his or her
freedom (or money) until he obeyed. This distinction helped preserve a separation of powers between
the two courts.
Nevertheless, courts of equity also developed a doctrine that an applicant must assert a "property
interest." This was a limitiation on their own power to issue relief. It does not mean that the courts of
equity had taken jurisdiction over property. Rather, it required that the applicant be asserting a right of
some significance, as opposed to emotional and dignitary interests.

[edit] Equity abhors a forfeiture

Today, a mortgagor refers to his interest in the property as his "equity." The origin of the concept,
however, was actually a mirror-image of the current practice. At common law, a mortgage was a
conveyance of the property, with a condition subsequent, that if the grantor paid the secured
indebteness to the grantee on or before a date certain (the "law" day) then the conveyance would be
void, otherwise to remain in full force and effect. As was inevitable, debtors would be unable to pay on
the law day, and if they tendered the debt after the time had passed, the creditor owed no duty to give
the land back. So then the debtor would run to the court of equity, plead that there was an
unconscionable forfeiture about to occur, and beg the court to grant an equitable decree requiring the
lender to surrender the property upon payment of the secured debt with interest to date. And the equity
courts granted these petitions quite regularly and often without regard for the amount of time that had
lapsed since the law day had passed. The lender could interpose a defense of laches, saying that so
much time had gone by (and so much improvement and betterment had taken place) that it would be
inequitable to require undoing the finality of the mortgage conveyance. Other defenses, including
equitable estoppel, were used to bar redemption as well. This unsettling system had a negative impact
on the willingness of lenders to accept real estate as collateral security for loans. Since a lender could
not re-sell the property until it had been in uncontested possession for years, or unless it could show
changed circumstances, the value of real estate collateral was significantly impaired. Impaired, that is,
until lawyers concocted the bill of foreclosure, whereby a mortgagee could request a decree that unless
the mortgagor paid the debt by a date certain (and after the law date set in the mortgage), the
mortgagor would thereafter be barred and foreclosed of all right, title and equity of redemption in and
to the mortgaged premises. To complete the circle, one needs to understand that when a mortgagor
fails to pay an installment when due, and the mortgagee accelerates the mortgage, requiring immediate
repayment of the entire mortgage indebtedness, the mortgagor does not have a right to pay the past-due
installment(s) and have the mortgage reinstated. In Graf v. Hope Building Corp., 254 NY 1 (1930), the
New York Court of Appeals observed that in such a case, there was no forfeiture, only the operation of
a clause fair on its face, to which the mortgagor had freely assented. In the latter 20th Century, New
York's lower courts eroded the Graf doctrine to such a degree that it appears that it is no longer the
law, and that a court of conscience has the power to mandate that a default be excused if it is equitable
to do so. Of course, now that the pendulum is swinging in the opposite direction, we can expect courts
to explain where the limits on the newly expanded equity of redemption lie...and it is probably not a
coincidence that the cases that have eroded Graf v. Hope Building Corp. have been accompanied by
the rise of arbitration as a means for enforcing mortgages. See, generally, Osborne, Real Estate
Finance Law (West, 1979), Chapter 7.
[edit] Equity does not require an idle gesture
Also: Equity will not compel a court to do a vain and useless thing. It would be an idle gesture for the
court to grant reformation of a contract and then to deny to the prevailing party an opportunity to
perform it as modified.
[edit] One who comes into equity must come with clean hands
It is often stated that one who comes into equity must come with clean hands (or alternatively, equity
will not permit a party to profit by his own wrong). In other words, if you ask for help about the
actions of someone else but have acted wrongly, then you do not have clean hands and you may not
receive the help you seek. For example, if you desire your tenant to vacate, you must have not violated

the tenant's rights.

However, the requirement of clean hands does not mean that a "bad person" cannot obtain the aid of
equity. "Equity does not demand that its suitors shall have led blameless lives." Loughran v. Loughran,
292 U.S. 215, 229 (1934) (Brandeis, J.). The defense of unclean hands only applies if there is a nexus
between the applicant's wrongful act and the rights he wishes to enforce.
For instance, in Riggs v. Palmer (1889) 115 N.Y. 506, a man who had killed his grandfather to receive
his inheritance more quickly (and for fear that his grandfather may change his will) lost all right(s) to
the inheritance.
In D&C Builders v. Rees (1966), a small building firm did some work on the house of a couple named
Rees. The bill came to 732, of which the Rees had already paid 250. When the builders asked for the
balance of 482, the Rees announced that the work was defective, and they were only prepared to pay
300. As the builders were in serious financial difficulties (as the Rees knew), they reluctantly
accepted the 300 'in completion of the account'. The decision to accept the money would not normally
be binding in contract law, and afterwards the builders sued the Rees for the outstanding amount. The
Rees claimed that the court should apply the doctrine of equitable estoppel, which can make promises
binding when they would normally not be. However, Lord Denning refused to apply the doctrine, on
the grounds that the Rees had taken unfair advantage of the builders' financial difficulties, and
therefore had not come 'with clean hands'.

Further reading: The 'Lectric Law Library's Lexicon On Clean Hands Doctrine

[edit] Equity delights to do justice and not by halves

When a court of equity is presented with a good claim to equitable relief, and it is clear that the
plaintiff also sustained monetary damages, the court of equity has jurisdiction to render legal relief,
e.g., monetary damages. Hence equity does not stop at granting equitable relief, but goes on to render a
full and complete collection of remedies.
[edit] Equity will take jurisdiction to avoid a multiplicity of suits
Thus, "where a court of equity has all the parties before it, it will adjudicate upon all of the rights of the
parties connected with the subject matter of the action, so as to avoid a multiplicity of suits."
Burnworth v. Hughes, 670 P.2d 917, 922 (Kan. 1983). This is the basis for the procedures of
interpleader and the more rarely used Bill of Peace.
[edit] Equity follows the law
Equity will not allow a remedy that is contrary to law. The court of Chancery never claimed to
override the courts of common law. In Story on Equity third English edition 1920 page 34,"where a
rule, either of the common or the statute law is direct, and governs the case with all its circumstances,
or the particular point, a court of equity is a much bound by it as a court of law, and can as little justify
a departure from it." it is only when there is some important circumstance disregarded by the common
law rules that equity interferes. As per Cardozo in Graf v. Hope Building Corporation, 254 N.Y 1 at 9
(1930), "Equity works as a supplement for law and does not supersede the prevailing law."
[edit] Equity will not aid a volunteer

Equity cannot be used to take back a benefit that was voluntarily but mistakenly conferred without
consultation of the receiver. This maxim protects the doctrine of choice.
This maxim is very important in restitution. Restitution developed as a series of writs called special
assumpsit, which were later additions in the courts of law, and were more flexible tools of recovery,
based on Equity. Restitution could provide means of recovery when people bestowed benefits on one
another (such as giving money or providing services) according to contracts that would have been
legally unenforceable.
However, pursuant to the equitable maxim, restitution does not allow a volunteer or "officious
intermeddler" to recover. A volunteer is not merely someone who acts selflessly. In the legal (and
equitable) context, it refers to someone who provides a benefit regardless of whether the recipient
wants it. For example, when someone mistakenly builds an improvement on a home, neither equity nor
restitution will allow the improver to recover from the homeowner.
The exception is if the doctrine of estoppel applies.
Maxim 2 == Equity follows the law Meaning: Latin term Acquits sequitur legem. The equity court
observed common law while administering justice according to conscience. Maitland says that,
We ought not to think of common law & equity as of two rival systems. Equity has come not to
destroy the law but to fulfill it, to supplement it, to explain it. Every jot & every title of law was to be
bayed, but when all this had been done yet something might be needed, something that equity would
require & that was added by equity. There goal was the same but due to historical reason they chose
different path. Equity respected every word of law & every right at law but where the law was
defective, in those cases, equity provides equitable right & remedies. According to Snell,
If some important point is disregarded by common law court, then equity interferes. Thus, Equity
follows the law but not always. Recognition in Bangladesh: Bangladesh has not recognized the
distinction between equitable and legal interest. Equity rules therefore in Bangladesh can not override
the specific provisions of law. As for example, every suit in Bangladesh has to be brought within the
limitation period and no judge can create can exception to this or can prolong the time limit.
Similarly no court can confer rights, which can be acquired only by registration of a document, on a
party, without getting the document registered
[edit] Where equities are equal, the law will prevail
Equity will provide no specific remedies where the parties are equal, or where neither has been
The significance of this maxim is that applicants to the chancellors often did so because of the formal
pleading of the law courts, and the lack of flexibility they offered to litigants. Law courts and
legislature, as lawmakers, through the limits of the substantive law they had created, thus inculcated a
certain status quo that affected private conduct, and private ordering of disputes. Equity, in theory, had
the power to alter that status quo, ignoring the limits of legal relief, or legal defences. But, they were
hesitant to do so. This maxim reflects the hesitancy to upset the legal status quo. If in such a case, the
law created no cause of action, equity would provide no relief; if the law did provide relief, then the


applicant would be obligated to bring a legal, rather than equitable action. This maxim overlaps with
the previously mentioned "equity follows the law."
[edit] Between equal equities the first in order of time shall prevail
This maxim operates where there are two or more competing equitable interests; when two equities are
equal the original interest will succeed.
[edit] Equity will not complete an imperfect gift
If a donor has made an imperfect gift, i.e. lacking the formalities required at common law, equity will
not assist the intended donee. A subset of equity will not assist a volunteer.
Note the exception in Strong v Bird (1874) LR 18 Eq 315. If the donor appoints the intended donee as
executor of his/her will, and the donor subsequently dies, equity will perfect the imperfect gift.
[edit] Equity will not allow a statute to be used as a cloak for fraud
Equity prevents a party from relying upon an absence of a statutory formality if to do so would be
unconscionable and unfair. This can occur in secret trusts and also constructive trusts and so on.
[edit] Equity will not allow a trust to fail for want of a trustee
If there is no trustee, whoever has title to the trust property will be considered the trustee. Otherwise, a
court may appoint a trustee, or in Ireland the trustee may be any administrator of a charity to which the
trust is related.
[edit] See also

Brocard (legal term)

Legal maxim

[edit] References

^ Richard Edwards, Nigel Stockwell (2005). Trusts and Equity. Pearson Education. pp.
34. ISBN 1405812273.
Retrieved from ""
Categories: Equity | Legal doctrines and principles | Legal history of England

This page was last modified on 5 June 2011 at 15:35.

Rule According to a higher law
The rule according to a higher law means that no written law may be enforced by the government
unless it conforms with certain unwritten, universal principles of fairness, morality, and justice. [1]
Thus, the rule according to a higher law may serve as a practical legal criterion to qualify the instances
of political or economical decision-making, when a government, even though acting in conformity
with clearly defined and properly enacted legal rules, still produces results which many observers find
unfair or unjust.[2] "Higher law" can be interpreted in this context as the divine or natural law or basic

legal values, established in the international law, the choice depending on the viewpoint. But this is
definitely a Law above the law. [3] And it is in this capacity that it possesses the equal legal value for
both the common and civil law jurisdictions, as opposed to natural law which is largely associated with
common law. [4] "To recognize the necessary connection between the rule of law as an ideal and wellconstructed constitutional government does not and should not be taken to imply that all states can or
should mantain the same constitutional structures in practice".[5]
Human rights are commonly understood as "inalienable fundamental rights to which a person is
inherently entitled simply because she or he is a human being."[1] Human rights are thus conceived as
universal (applicable everywhere) and egalitarian (the same for everyone). These rights may exist as
natural rights or as legal rights, in both national and international law.[2] The doctrine of human rights
in international practice, within international law, global and regional institutions, in the policies of
states and in the activities of non-governmental organizations, has been a cornerstone of public policy
around the world. The idea of human rights[3] states, "if the public discourse of peacetime global
society can be said to have a common moral language, it is that of human rights."
Tacit: Unspoken, implicit, inferred, implied, understood, unstated
Inalienable: unchallengeable, absolute, immutable, not able to be forfeited, unassailable,
incontrovertible, indisputable, undeniable
Essential: Necessary, vital, indispensable, important, crucial, critical
Demonstrably: Obviously, palpably, patently, evidently, noticeably, perceptibly, discernibly,

Sane: Rational, sensible, reasonable, sound, normal, wise, commonsensical (Antonymn) Mad

Despite this, the strong claims made by the doctrine of human rights continue to provoke considerable
debates about the content, nature and justifications of human rights to this day. Indeed, the question of
what is meant by a "right" is itself controversial and the subject of continued philosophical debate.[4]


Complicit: It was clear that some of the staff were complicit in the attempt to cover up the scandal.
considered legally incompetent or irresponsible because of a psychiatric disorder
showing a complete lack of reason or foresight
people legally considered as psychiatrically disordered
people who are considered legally incompetent or irresponsible because of a psychiatric disorder
Many of the basic ideas that animated the movement developed in the aftermath of the Second World
War and the atrocities of The Holocaust, culminating in the adoption of theUniversal Declaration of
Human Rights in Paris by the United Nations General Assembly in 1948. The ancient world did not
possess the concept of universal human rights.[5]Ancient societies had "elaborate systems of duties...
conceptions of justice, political legitimacy, and human flourishing that sought to realize human
dignity, flourishing, or well-being entirely independent of human rights".[6] The modern concept of
human rights developed during the early Modern period, alongside the European secularization of
Judeo-Christian ethics.[7] The true forerunner of human rights discourse was the concept of natural
rights which appeared as part of the medieval Natural law tradition that became prominent during the
Enlightenment with such philosophers as John Locke, Francis Hutcheson, and Jean-Jacques
Burlamaqui, and featured prominently in the political discourse of the American Revolution and the
French Revolution.
From this foundation, the modern human rights arguments emerged over the latter half of the twentieth
century. Gelling as social activism and political rhetoric in many nations put it high on the world
All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and
conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.
Article 1 of the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR)[9
The rule according to higher law is a practical approach to the implementation of the higher law theory
which creates a bridge of mutual understanding (with regard to universal legal values) between the
English language doctrine of the rule of law, traditional for the countries of common law, and the
originally German doctrine of Rechtsstaat, translated into other languages of continental Europe as
Etat de droit (Fr.), Estado de derecho (Sp.), Stato di diritto (It.), and (Ru.).[6]
The latter doctrine is the product of continental European legal thought which had adopted it from
German legal philosophy. Its name can be translated into English as legal state or "state of law" or
"state of rights" or "constitutional state" consistently meaning the state in which the exercise of
governmental power is kept in check by the higher law. Amartya Sen mentioned that the legal theorists
in ancient India used term of classical Sanscrit "nyaya" in the sense of not just a matter of judging
institutions and rules, but of judging the societites themselves. [7]

[edit] Examples
Before the Civil War, African Americans were legally denied equal rights and freedoms pursuant to
formally valid codes prescribing the relations between master and slave. Even though these codes were
de jure fully suitable for application in legal practice, yet their enforcement by the then U.S.
government de facto violated basic human rights of a significant part of the population.


Generally speaking, the occurrence of such "justly enacted unjust laws" fully depends on the stance
taken by the country's political leadership towards the rule of law principle.
In some countries, the political leaders assert that the rule of law is a totally void concept. Therefore,
they argue that any government may strip its subjects of their fundamental freedoms or infringe their
vital interests so long as this is done by way of a duly implemented legal mechanism. For example, at
the Nuremberg trials, in an attempt to justify their abominable crimes against Jewish and Romany
population of Europe during World War II, some of the former leaders of Nazi Germany argued that
they had broken none of the laws effective when Hitler had been in power. And it is only by invoking
the rule according to a higher law that the Allied prosecutors were able to legitimately overcome such
In other countries, conversely, the political leaders assert that all written laws must be kept in line with
the universal principles of morality, fairness, and justice. These leaders argue that, as a necessary
corollary to the axiom that "no one is above the law," the rule of law requires the government to treat
all persons equally under the law. However, the proclaimed right to equal treatment is susceptible to
instantly becoming void each time the government denies a sufficient level of respect, dignity, and
autonomy to a certain class of individuals or to human rights in general. ".[9] Therefore, the unwritten
and universally self-explanatory principles of equality, autonomy, dignity, and respect are said to
overrule conventional written laws enacted by the government. It is these principles that are often
referred to as "natural law." They also constitute the basis of the "higher law theory."
[edit] Constitutional government as enforcement of the higher law
The Rechtsstaat doctrine (Legal state, State of right, Constitutional state, Constitutional government)
was first introduced by the great German philosopher Immanuel Kant (17241804) in his latest works
completed after the U.S. and French constitutions had been adopted in the late 18th century. Kants
approach is based on the supremacy of countrys written constitution created using principles of the
Higher Law. This supremacy meant creating guarantees for the implementation of his central idea: a
permanently peaceful life as a basic condition for the happiness and prosperity of the citizens. Kant
was basing his doctrine exclusively on the idea of constitutionalism and constitutional government.
Kant had formulated the main problem of constitutionalism as an instrument for the practical
implementation of the Higher Law as follows, The constitution of a state is eventually based on the
morals of its citizens, which, in its turn, is based on the goodness of this constitution. This Kants idea
has become the foundation for the constitutional theory of the 21st century. The Legal state concept is
based on the ideas introduced by Immanuel Kant, for example, in hisGroundwork of the Metaphysic of
Morals: The task of establishing a universal and permanent peaceful life is not only a part of theory of
law within the framework of pure reason, but per se an absolute and ultimate goal. To achieve this
goal, a state must become the community of a large number of people, living provided with legislative
guarantees of their property rights secured by a common constitution. The supremacy of this
constitution must be derived a priori from the considerations for achievement of the absolute ideal
in the most just and fair organization of peoples life under the aegis of public law.[10]
The Russian legal system, born in the 19th century as a result of the transformations initiated by the
reforms of the Emperor Alexander II, was (and still is) based primarily upon the German legal
tradition. It was from the latter that Russia had adopted the doctrine of Rechtsstaat, which literally
translates as "Legal State." Its closest English analogue is "the rule of law."[11] The Russian Legal state

concept adopts the written constitution as the country's supreme law (the rule of constitution). It is a
fundamental but undefined principle that appears in the very first dispositive provision of Russias
post-Communist constitution: The Russian Federation Russia constitutes a democratic federative
legal state with a republican form of governance. Similarly, the very first dispositive provision of
Ukraines Constitution declares that Ukraine is a sovereign and independent, democratic, social, legal
state. Hence, the effort to invest meaning to the Legal State definition is anything but theoretical.
President of the Constitutional Court of Russia Valery Zorkin wrote in 2003, Becoming a legal state
has long been our ultimate goal, and we have certainly made serious progress in this direction over the
past several years. However, no one can say now that we have reached this destination. Such a legal
state simply cannot exist without a lawful and just society. Here, as in no other sphere of our life, the
state reflects the level of maturity reached by the society."[12]
The Russian concept of Legal state has adopted many segments of constitutional economics which
serves as a practical implementation of the higher law theory in economics.
The 1986 recipient of the Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences and one of the founders of
constitutional economics James M. Buchanan argues that, in the framework of constitutional
government, any governmental intervention or regulation must be conditioned by the three following
assumptions. First, every failure of the market economy to function smoothly and perfectly can be
corrected by governmental intervention. Second, those holding political office and manning the
bureaucracies are altruistic upholders of the public interest, unconcerned with their own personal
economic well-being. And third, changing the government responsibilities towards more intervention
and control will not profoundly and perversely affect the social and economic life.
Buchanan rejects any organic conception of the state as superior in wisdom, to the individuals who
are its members. This philosophical position is, in fact, the very subject matter of constitutional
economics. A constitutional economics approach allows for a combined economic and constitutional
analysis, helping to avoid a one-dimensional understanding. Buchanan, together with Kant, believes
that a constitution in its capacity as the Higher Law, intended for use by at least several generations of
citizens, must be able to adjust itself for pragmatic economic decisions and to balance interests of the
state and society against those of individuals and their constitutional rights to personal freedom and
private happiness.
Buchanan also outlines importance of protection of the moral principles underlying constitutional
norms. He writes that "the ethics of constitutional citizenship is not directly comparable to ethical
behavior in interaction with other persons within the constraints imposed by the rules of an existing
regime. An individual may be fully responsible, in the standard ethical sense, and yet fail to meet the
ethical requirement of constitutional citizenship."[13]
[edit] See also
[edit] Notes


^ West's Encyclopedia of American Law (in 13 volumes), 2nd Ed., edited by Jeffrey
Lehman and Shirelle Phelps. Publisher: Thomson Gale, 2004. ISBN 0787663670.



^ M.N.S. Sellers, Republican Legal Theory: The History, Constitution and Purposes of
Law in a Free State, Basingstoke, 2004
^ Edward S. Corwin, The Higher Law Background of American Constitutional Law
^ Leslie F. Goldstein, Popular Sovereignty, the Origins of Judicial Review, and the
Revival of Unwritten Law, Journal of Politics 48 (1986): 5171
^ Mortimer Sellers, An Introduction. The Rule of Law in Comparative Perspectives,
edited by Mortimer Sellers and Tadeusz Tomaszewski, Springer, Heidelberg - London - New
York, 2010, pp. 45.ISBN 978-904813749-7.
^ Peter Barenboim, Naeem Sidiqi, Bruges, the Bridge between Civilizations: The 75
Anniversary of the Roerich Pact, Grid Belgium, 2010. ISBN 978-5-98856-114-9
^ Amartya Sen, Global justice in Global Perspectives on the Rule of Law, edited by
James J. Heckman, Robert L. Nelson,and Lee Cabatingan,Routledge, London and New York,
^ Introductory note by Antonio Cassese for General Assembly resolution 95(I) of 11
December 1946 (Affirmation of the Principles of International Law recognized by the Charter
of the Nrnberg Tribunal) on the website of theUN Audiovisual Library of International Law
^ Augusto Zimmermann, Constitutions Without Constitutionalism: The Failure of
Constitutionalism in Brazil, The Rule of Law in Comparative Perspectives, edited by Mortimer
Sellers and Tadeusz Tomaszewski, Springer, Heidelberg - London - New York, 2010,
p.101.ISBN 978-904813749-7.
^ Immanuel Kant, History of Political Philosophy, edited by Leo Strauss and Joseph
Cropsey, University of Chicago Press, Chicago and London, 1987.
^ Peter Barenboim, Defining the rules, The European Lawyer, Issue 90, October 2009.
^ The World Rule of Law Movement and Russian Legal Reform, edited by Francis Neate
and Holly Nielsen, Justitsinform, Moscow, 2007.
^ Buchanan, J., Logical Formulations of Constitutional Liberty, Vol. 1., Indianapolis,
1999. P. 372.
[edit] References

West's Encyclopedia of American Law (in 13 volumes), 2nd Ed., edited by Jeffrey Lehman and
Shirelle Phelps. Publisher: Thomson Gale, 2004. ISBN 0787663670.
Kants Principles of Politics, including his essay on Perpetual Peace. A Contribution to
Political Science, translation by W. Hastie, Edinburgh: Clark, 1891. In Perpetual Peace: A
Philosophical Sketch
Dicey, Albert. Introduction to the Study of the Law of the Constitution (8th Edition, Macmillan,
Bingham, Thomas. "The Rule of Law", Centre for Public Law, Faculty of Law, University of
Cambridge (2006-11-16).
Edward S. Corwin, The "Higher Law" Background of American Constitutional Law (Ithaca,
N.Y.: Cornell University Press, 1955)
Buchanan, James M., 1986. "The Constitution of Economic Policy," Nobel Prize lecture,
reprinted in American Economic Review, 77(3), p p. 243-250.
_____, 1990a. "The Domain of Constitutional Economics," Constitutional Political Economy,
1(1), pp. 1-18. Also as at 1990b & [1].
"Economics and the Rule of Law" The Economist (2008-03-13).
Philip P. Wiener, ed., "Dictionary of the History of Ideas: Studies of Selected Pivotal Ideas",
(David Fellman, "Constitutionalism"), vol 1, p. 485 (1973-74).

Herman Belz, "A Living Constitution or Fundamental Law? American Constitutionalism in

Historical Perspective" (Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc. 1998), ISBN 9780847686438
Louis Michael Seidman, "Critical Constitutionalism Now", 75 Fordham Law Review 575, 586
(Nov. 2006).
[edit] External links
"Democracy Conference".
=198. Retrieved 2010-08-22.

Retrieved from ""

Categories: Law | Philosophy of law | Theories of law
This page was last modified on 19 May 2011 at 18:14.

In India Public Interest Litigation

In Indian law, public interest litigation means litigation for the protection of the public interest. It is
litigation introduced in a court of law, not by the aggrieved party but by the court itself or by any other
private party. It is not necessary, for the exercise of the court's jurisdiction, that the person who is the
victim of the violation of his or her right should personally approach the court. Public interest litigation
is the power given to the public by courts through judicial activism. However, the person filing the
petition must prove to the satisfaction of the court that the petition is being filed for a public interest
and not just as a frivolous litigation by a busy body.
Such cases may occur when the victim does not have the necessary resources to commence litigation
or his freedom to move court has been suppressed or encroached upon. The court can itself take
cognisance of the matter and proceed suo motu or cases can commence on the petition of any publicspirited individual.
Sovereign Immunity
Sovereign immunity, or crown immunity, is a type of immunity that in common law jurisdictions
traces its origins from early English law. Generally speaking it is the doctrine that the sovereign or
state cannot commit a legal wrong and is immune from civil suit or criminal prosecution; hence the
saying, In many cases, states have waived this immunity to allow for suits; in some cases, an individual
may technically appear as defendant on the state's behalf.

[edit] In the Middle Ages

Pope Gelasius I opined on the general principles that underlie sovereign immunity:
There are two powers, august Emperor, by which this world is chiefly ruled, namely, the sacred
authority of the priests and the royal power. Of these that of the priests is the more weighty,
since they have to render an account for even the kings of men in the divine judgment. You are
also aware, dear son, that while you are permitted honorably to rule over human kind, yet in

things divine you bow your head humbly before the leaders of the clergy and await from their
hands the means of your salvation. In the reception and proper disposition of the heavenly
mysteries you recognize that you should be subordinate rather than superior to the religious
order, and that in these matters you depend on their judgment rather than wish to force them to
follow your will.[1]
[edit] In constitutional monarchies
In a constitutional monarchy the sovereign is the historical origin of the authority which creates the
courts. Thus the courts had no power to compel the sovereign to be bound by the courts, as they were
created by the sovereign for the protection of his or her subjects.
[edit] Australia
There is no automatic Crown immunity in Australia, although the Crown may be explicitly or
implicitly immune from any particular statute. There is a rebuttable presumption that the Crown is not
bound by a statute: Bropho v State of Western Australia. The Crown's immunity may also apply to
other parties in certain circumstances: see Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v Baxter
[edit] Belgium
Article 88 of the Constitution of Belgium states: The Kings person is inviolable; his ministers are
[edit] Denmark
Article 13 of the Constitution of Denmark states: The King shall not be answerable for his actions; his
person shall be sacrosanct. The Ministers shall be responsible for the conduct of the government; their
responsibility shall be determined by Statute.[3] Accordingly the monarch cannot be sued in his or her
personal capacity, but this immunity from lawsuits does not extend to the state as such.
[edit] Holy See
The Holy See, of which the current pope is head (often referred to incorrectly as the Vatican or Vatican
City State, a distinct entity) claims sovereign immunity for the pope, supported by many international
See pope#International position.
[edit] Malaysia
In Malaysia, an amendment to the constitution in 1993 made it possible to bring proceedings against
the king or any ruler of a component state in the Special Court. Prior to 1993, rulers, in their personal
capacity, were immune from any proceedings brought against them.[4]
[edit] Nigeria


Section 308 of the Nigerian constitution of 1999 provides immunity from court proceedings, i.e.,
proceedings that will compel their attendance in favour of elected executive officers, namely the
President and his vice and the Governors of the states and the deputies. This immunity extends to acts
done in their official capacities so that they are not responsible for acts done on behalf of the state.
However, this immunity does not extend to acts done in abuse of the powers of their office of which
they are liable upon the expiration of their tenure. But does the elected executive constitute the
sovereign in Nigeria? it seems that the judiciary will be better described as the sovereign in Nigeria if
the sovereign is the person who in the last resort is able to decide his own competence and that of other
contender in the event of any conflict of authority. Failing this, the constitution as an expression of the
will of Nigerians is the sovereign.It is important to note that the judiciary has absolute immunity for
actions decisions taken in their official capacity.
[edit] Norway
Article 5 of the Constitution of Norway states: The King's person is sacred; he cannot be censured or
accused. The responsibility rests with his Council.[5] Accordingly the monarch cannot be prosecuted or
sued in his or her personal capacity, but this immunity does not extend to the state as such.
[edit] Spain
The Spanish monarch is personally immune from prosecution for acts committed by government
ministers in the King's name, according to Title II, Section 56, Subsection 3 of the Spanish
Constitution of 1978.[6][7]
The Person of the King of Spain is inviolable and shall not be held accountable. His
acts shall always be countersigned in the manner established in section 64. Without
such countersignature they shall not be valid, except as provided under section
La persona del Rey de Espaa es inviolable y no est sujeta a responsabilidad. Sus
actos estarn siempre refrendados en la forma establecida en el artculo 64, careciendo
de validez sin dicho refrendo, salvo lo dispuesto en el artculo 65,2.[6][7]
[edit] Sri Lanka

By the Constitution of Sri Lanka, the President of Sri Lanka has sovereign immunity.

[edit] Sweden

Article 7, Chapter 5, of the Swedish Instrument of Government states: "The King may not be
prosecuted for his actions. Nor may a Regent be prosecuted for his actions as Head of State." This only
concerns the King as a private person, since he does not appoint the government, nor do any public

officials act in his name. It does not concern other members of the Royal Family, except in such cases
as they are exercising the office of Regent when the King is unable to serve. It is a disputed matter
among Swedish constitutional lawyers whether the article also implies that the King is immune against
lawsuits in civil cases, which do not involve prosecution.

[edit] Singapore

The President of Singapore does to a certain extent have sovereign immunity subjected to clause
22k(4).[1](See Part V under government regarding the President of Singapore)

[edit] United Kingdom

The position was drastically altered for the United Kingdom by the Crown Proceedings Act 1947
which made the government generally liable, with limited exceptions, in tort and contract. Even before
then it was possible to claim against the Crown with the Attorney-General's fiat (i.e., permission) (a
petition of right). Alternatively, Crown servants could be sued in place of the Crown, and the Crown as
a matter of course paid any sums due. Further, mandamus and prohibition were always available
against ministers because they derive from the royal prerogative.

However, as of 2011 lawsuits against the sovereign in his or her personal and private capacity remain
inadmissible in British law. The State Immunity Act 1978 regulates the extent to which foreign states
are subject to the jurisdiction of British courts.

[edit] In Iceland

According to article 11 of the constitution of Iceland the president is not accountable and cannot be
prosecuted without parliament's consent.

[edit] In Italy


According to the Italian Constitution, the President of the Italian Republic is not accountable, and he is
not responsible for any act of his office, unless he has committed high treason or attempted to subvert
the Constitution. The Italian penal law makes it a criminal offense to give the President responsibility
for actions of the Italian Government in public.

The Italian Constitutional Court has declared the partial incompatibility with the Italian Constitution of
a law that forced courts to delay all trials against the Italian Prime Minister while he is in office. The
revised version says that the trial hearings have to be scheduled in agreement between the Judge and
the Government

[edit] In the United States

Main article: Sovereign immunity in the United States

In the United States, the federal government has sovereign immunity and may not be sued unless it has
waived its immunity or consented to suit. The United States has waived sovereign immunity to a
limited extent, mainly through theFederal Tort Claims Act, which waives the immunity if a tortious act
of a federal employee causes damage, and the Tucker Act, which waives the immunity over claims
arising out of contracts to which the federal government is a party.

[edit] State sovereign immunity

In Hans v. Louisiana (1890), the Supreme Court of the United States held that the Eleventh
Amendment (1795) re-affirms that states possess sovereign immunity and are therefore generally
immune from being sued in federal court without their consent. In later cases, the Supreme Court has
strengthened state sovereign immunity considerably. In Blatchford v. Native Village of Noatak (1991),
the court explained that
we have understood the Eleventh Amendment to stand not so much for what it says, but
for the presupposition of our constitutional structure which it confirms: that the States
entered the federal system with their sovereignty intact; that the judicial authority in
Article III is limited by this sovereignty, and that a State will therefore not be subject to
suit in federal court unless it has consented to suit, either expressly or in the "plan of the
convention." [Citations omitted.]

In Alden v. Maine (1999), the Court explained that while it has


sometimes referred to the States immunity from suit as "Eleventh Amendment

immunity[,]" [that] phrase is [a] convenient shorthand but something of a misnomer,
[because] the sovereign immunity of the States neither derives from nor is limited by
the terms of the Eleventh Amendment. Rather, as the Constitution's structure, and its
history, and the authoritative interpretations by this Court make clear, the States
immunity from suit is a fundamental aspect of the sovereignty which the States enjoyed
before the ratification of the Constitution, and which they retain today (either literally or
by virtue of their admission into the Union upon an equal footing with the other States)
except as altered by the plan of the Convention or certain constitutional Amendments.

Writing for the court in Alden, Justice Anthony Kennedy argued that in view of this, and given the
limited nature of congressional power delegated by the original unamended Constitution, the court
could not "conclude that the specific Article I powers delegated to Congress necessarily include, by
virtue of the Necessary and Proper Clause or otherwise, the incidental authority to subject the States to
private suits as a means of achieving objectives otherwise within the scope of the enumerated powers."
However, a "consequence of [the] Court's recognition of pre-ratification sovereignty as the source of
immunity from suit is that only States and arms of the State possess immunity from suits authorized by
federal law." Northern Insurance Company of New York v. Chatham County (2006 emphases added).
Thus, cities and municipalities lack sovereign immunity, Jinks v. Richland County (2003), and counties
are not generally considered to have sovereign immunity, even when they "exercise a 'slice of state
power.'" Lake Country Estates, Inc. v. Tahoe Regional Planning Agency (1979).
[edit] International law
Sovereign immunity is available to countries in international court but if they are acting more as a
contracting body (example: making agreements in regards to extracting oil and selling it), then
sovereign immunity may not be available to them.
Under international law, and subject to some conditions, countries are immune from legal proceedings
in another state. This stems from customary international law.[8] The US recognizes this concept under
the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (1976).
[edit] See also

Command responsibility
Diplomatic immunity
Other forms of immunity
Public Duty Doctrine
[edit] References

^ Duo sunt



^ Legal Department of the House of Representatives, with the collaboration of Mr A.

MacLean (2009-01). "The Belgian Constitution".
retrieved 2009-05-31.
^ Folketinget (2009-08-06). "Unofficial translation of the Constitutional Act of
^ Lawyerment - Document Library - Laws of Malaysia - Constitution
^ The Constitution of Norway in English Retrieved 21 November 2006
^ a b c Ttulo II. De la Corona, Wikisource
^ a b c The Royal Household of H.M. The King website
^ Akehurst's modern introduction to international law, by Peter Malanczuk, Michael
Barton Akehurst, Routledge 7 ed., 1997, ISBN 041511120X, Page 118

Retrieved from ""

Categories: Sovereign immunity
Hidden categories: Articles to be merged from March 2011 | All articles to be merged | Articles
containing potentially dated statements from 2011 | All articles containing potentially dated statements
This page was last modified on 12 June 2011 at 08:56.
Constitutional economics
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Constitutional economics is a research program in economics and constitutionalism that has been
described as extending beyond the definition of 'the economic analysis of constitutional law' in
explaining the choice "of alternative sets of legal-institutional-constitutional rules that constrain the
choices and activities of economic and political agents." This is distinct from explaining the choices of
economic and political agents within those rules, a subject of "orthodox" economics.[1] Constitutional
economics studies the "compatibility of effective economic decisions with the existing constitutional
framework and the limitations or the favorable conditions created by that framework."[2] It has been
characterized as a practical approach to apply of the tools of economics to constitutional matters. [3]
For example, a major concern of every nation is properly allocated of available national economic and
financial resources. The legal solution to this problem falls within the scope of constitutional
Constitutional economics takes into account the significant impacts of political economic decisions as
opposed to limiting analysis to economic relationships as functions of the dynamics of distribution of
marketable goods and services. "The political economist who seeks to offer normative advice, must,
of necessity, concentrate on the process or structure within which political decisions are observed to be
made. Existing constitutions, or structures or rules, are the subject of critical scrutiny".[4]

[edit] Origins

The term constitutional economics was coined in 1982 by the U.S. economist Richard McKenzie to
designate the main topic of discussion at a conference held in Washington, D.C. Mackenzies
neologism was then adopted by another American economist James M. Buchanan as a name for a
new academic sub-discipline. It was Buchanans work on this sub-discipline that in 1986 brought him
the Nobel Prize in Economic Sciences for his "development of the contractual and constitutional bases
for the theory of economic and political decision-making."
Buchanan rejects any organic conception of the state as superior in wisdom, to the individuals who
are its members. This philosophical position is, in fact, the very subject matter of constitutional
economics. A constitutional economics approach allows for a combined economic and constitutional
analysis, helping to avoid a one-dimensional understanding. Buchanan believes that a constitution,
intended for use by at least several generations of citizens, must be able to adjust itself for pragmatic
economic decisions and to balance interests of the state and society against those of individuals and
their constitutional rights to personal freedom and private happiness.
Buchanan introduced rich cross-disciplinary concepts of "constitutional citizenship" and
"constitutional anarchy". Constitutional anarchy is a modern policy that may be best described as
actions undertaken without understanding, or taking into account the rules that define the constitutional
order. This policy is justified by references to strategic tasks formulated on the basis of competing
interests regardless of their subsequent impact on political structure. At the same time Buchanan
introduces the concept of "constitutional citizenship", which he designates as compliance of citizens
with their constitutional rights and obligations that should be considered as a constituent part of the
constitutional policy. Buchanan also outlines importance of protection of the moral principles
underlying constitutional norms.
James Buchanan wrote "the ethics of constitutional citizenship is not directly comparable to ethical
behavior in interaction with other persons within the constraints imposed by the rules of an existing
regime. An individual may be fully responsible, in the standard ethical sense, and yet fail to meet the
ethical requirement of constitutional citizenship." [5] Buchanan considered the term "constitutionality"
in the broad sense and applied it to families, firms and public institutions, but, first of all, to the state.
Buchanans Nobel lecture quoted the work of the late 19th century Swedish economist Knut Wicksell,
who greatly influenced Buchanans research: "If utility is zero for each individual member of the
community, the total utility for the community cannot be other than zero". In epigraph to the chapter of
Nobel lecture entitled "The Constitution of Economic Policy" Wicksell states that "whether the
benefits of the proposed activity to the individual citizens would be greater than its cost to them, no
one can judge this better than the individuals themselves."[4]
There is an important opinion of Ludwig Van den Hauwe that constitutional economics draws
substantial inspiration from the reformist attitude which is characteristic of Adam Smiths vision, and
that Buchanans concept can be considered the modern-day counterpart to what Smith called the
science of legislation[6].
The growing public interest in the theory and practice of constitutional economics has already spawned
specialized academic periodicals, such as Constitutional Political Economy[7] (established in 1990).
[edit] Legal approach


Judge Richard Posner emphasized the importance of a constitution for economic development. He
examines the interrelationship between a constitution and the economic growth. Posner approaches
constitutional analysis mainly from the perspective of judges, who constitute a critical force for
interpretation and implementation of a constitution, thus de facto in common law countries
creating the body of constitutional law. He emphasizes the importance of constitutional provisions "in
setting broader outer bounds to the exercise of judicial discretion". Thus a judge, when trying a case, is
guided firstly by the spirit and letter of the constitution. The role of economics in this process is to help
"identify the consequences of alternative interpretations" of the constitution. He further explains that
"economics may provide insight into questions that bear on the proper legal interpretation". In the end,
as Judge Posner emphasizes, "the limits of an economic approach to deciding constitutional cases [are]
set by the Constitution". In addition, he argues that "effective protection of basic economic rights
promotes economic growth."[8]
Concurrently with the rise of academic research in the field of constitutional economics in the U.S. in
the 1980s, the Supreme Court of India for almost a decade had been encouraging public interest
litigation on behalf of the poor and oppressed by using a very broad interpretation of several articles of
the Indian Constitution. This is a vivid example of a de facto practical application of the methodology
of constitutional economics.[9]
The President of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation Valery Zorkin made a special
reference to the educational role of constitutional economics, "In Russia, the addition of such new
academic disciplines as constitutional economics to the curricula of university law and economics
departments becomes critically important."[10]
[edit] Russian school
The Russian school of constitutional economics was created in the early twenty-first century with the
idea that the constitutional economics allows for a combined economic and constitutional analysis in
the legislative (especially budgetary) process, thus helping to overcome arbitrariness in the economic
and financial decision-making. For instance, when military expenses (and the like) dwarf the budget
spending on education and culture. Constitutional economics studies such issues as the proper national
wealth distribution. This also includes the government spending on the judiciary, which in many
transitional and developing countries is completely controlled by the executive. The latter undermines
the principle of checks and balances, instrumental in the separation of powers, as this creates a
critical financial dependence of the judiciary. It is important to distinguish between the two methods of
corruption of the judiciary: the state corruption (through budget planning and various privileges
being the most dangerous), and the private corruption. The former makes it almost impossible for any
business to optimally facilitate the growth and development of national market economy. In the
English language, the word constitution possesses a whole number of meanings, encompassing not
only national constitutions as such, but also charters of corporations, unwritten rules of various clubs,
informal groups, etc. The Russian model of constitutional economics, originally intended for
transitional and developing countries, focuses entirely on the concept of constitution of state. This
model of the constitutional economics is based on the understanding that it is necessary to narrow the
gap between practical enforcement of the economic, social and political rights granted by the
constitution and the annual (or mid-term) economic policy, budget legislation and administrative
policies conducted by the government. In 2006, the Russian Academy of Sciences has officially
recognized constitutional economics as a separate academic sub-discipline.[11]


Since many a country with a transitional political and economic system continues treating its
constitution as an abstract legal document disengaged from the economic policy of the state, practice
of constitutional economics becomes there a decisive prerequisite for democratic development of the
state and society.
[edit] See also

Civil society
Constitutional law
Institutional economics
Independence of the judiciary
James M. Buchanan
Justification for the state
Law and economics
Legal reform
Public Interest Litigation
New political economy
Rule of Law
[edit] Notes

^ Ludwig Van den Hauwe, 2005. "Constitutional Economics II," The Elgar Companion
to Law and Economics, pp. 223-24.
^ Peter Barenboim, 2001. "Constitutional Economics and the Bank of Russia," Fordham
Journal of Corporate and Financial Law, 7(1), p. 160.
^ Christian Kirchnez, The Principles of Subsidiary in the Treaty on European Union: A
Critique from a Perspective of Constitutional Economics, 6 TUL. J.INTL. & COMP. L. 291,
293 (1998)
^ a b James M. Buchanan, 1986. "The Constitution of Economic Policy," Nobel Prize
^ Buchanan, J. Logical Formulations of Constitutional Liberty. Vol. 1. Indianapolis,
1999. P. 372.
^ Ludwig Van den Hauwe, 2005. "Constitutional Economics II," The Elgar Companion
to Law and Economics, pp. 223-24.
^ Posner R., 1987. "The Constitution as an Economic Document," George Washington
Law Review, 56(1), pp. 4-38. Reprinted in J. W. Ely, ed., 1997, Main Themes in the Debate
over Property Rights, pp. 186-220.
^ Jeremy Cooper, Poverty and Constitutional Justice, in Philosophy of Law: Classic
and Contemporary Readings, edited by Larry May and Jeff Brown, Wiley-Blackwell, UK,
^ Valery Zorkin, Twelve Theses on Legal Reform in Russia in The World Rule of Law
Movement and Russian Legal Reform, edited by Francis Neate and Holly Nielsen,
Justitsinform, Moscow, 2007]
^ Peter Barenboim, Natalya Merkulova, The 25th Anniversary of Constitutional
Economics: The Russian Model and Legal Reform, in The World Rule of Law Movement and

Russian Legal Reform, edited by Francis Neate and Holly Nielsen, Justitsinform, Moscow,
[edit] References

McKenzie, Richard, ed., 1984. Constitutional Economics, Lexington, Mass.

Backhaus, Jrgen G., ed. The Elgar Companion to Law and Economics:
Farina, Francesco, 2005. "Constitutional Economics I," pp. 184-222.
Van den Hauwe, Ludwig, 2005. "Constitutional Economics II," pp. 223-38.

James A. Dorn, 2004. "Creating a Constitutional Order of Freedom in Emerging Market

Economies," Economic Affairs, 24(3), pp. 5863. Abstract.
Brennan, Geoffrey and James M. Buchanan, 1985. The Reason of Rules: Constitutional
Political Economy , Chicago. In The Collected Works of James M. Buchanan, Vol. 10, chapter
links, Library of Economics and Liberty.
Buchanan, James M., 1974. The Limits of Liberty: Between Anarchy and Leviathan. Chicago.
In The Collected Works of James M. Buchanan, Vol. 7. Chapter links at left menu, Library of
Economics and Liberty.
_____, 1986. "The Constitution of Economic Policy," Nobel Prize lecture, reprinted in
American Economic Review, 77(3), pp. 243-250.
_____, 1987. "constitutional economics," The New Palgrave Dictionary of Economics, v. 1, pp.
_____, 1990a. "The Domain of Constitutional Economics," Constitutional Political Economy,
1(1), pp. 1-18. Also as at 1990b & [1].
_____, 1990b. The Economics and the Ethics of Constitutional Order, University of Michigan
Press. Description & chapter links.
_____ and Gordon Tullock, 1962. The Calculus of Consent. University of Michigan Press.
Chapter-preview links.
Constitutional Political Economy. Description and abstract links.
Frey, Bruno S., 1997, "A Constitution for Knaves Crowds out Civic Virtues," Economic
Journal, 107(443), pp. 1043-1053.
Hayek, Friedrich A., 1960. The Constitution of Liberty. Chicago. "The Rule of Law," ch. 11.
_____. Law, Legislation and Liberty. Chicago. 3 v.:
1973. v. 1. Rules and Order. Scroll down to chapter-preview links.
1976. v. 2. The Mirage of Social Justice. Links.
1979. v. 3. The Political Order of a Free People. Links.

Mueller, Dennis C., 2008. "constitutions, economic approach to,' The New Palgrave Dictionary
of Economics, 2nd Edition. Abstract.
Persson, Torsten, and Guido Tabellini, 2005. The Economic Effects of Constitutions.
Description and chapter links.
Sutter, Daniel, 1995. "Constitutional Politics within the Interest-Group Model," Constitutional
Political Economy, 6(2), p p. 127-137.
"Economics and the Rule of Law" The Economist (2008-03-13).
Voigt, Stefan, 1997. "Positive Constitutional Economics: A Survey," Public Choice, 90(1-4),
pp. 11-53.

Hernando de Soto, "Law connects", International Bar News, December 2008

Retrieved from ""
Categories: Constitutional law | Law and economics
This page was last modified on 7 May 2011 at 10:51.

State Secret Privilege

Bush 9/11 Cover - up
The state secrets privilege is an evidentiary rule created by United States legal precedent. Application
of the privilege results in exclusion of evidence from a legal case based solely on affidavits submitted
by the government stating that court proceedings might disclose sensitive information which might
endanger national security.[1][2][3][4][5][6] United States v. Reynolds,[7] which involved military secrets,
was the first case that saw formal recognition of the privilege.
Following a claim of "state secrets privilege", the court rarely conducts an in camera examination of
the evidence to evaluate whether there is sufficient cause to support the use of this doctrine. This
results in court rulings in which even the judge has not verified the veracity of the assertion.[1] The
privileged material is completely removed from the litigation, and the court must determine how the
unavailability of the privileged information affects the case.[3][5]
[edit] Function
The purpose of the state secrets privilege is to prevent courts from revealing state secrets in the course
of civil litigation (in criminal cases, the Classified Information Procedures Act serves the same
purpose). The government may intervene in any civil suit, including when it is not a party to the
litigation, to ask the court to exclude state secrets evidence. While the courts may examine such
evidence closely, in practice they generally defer to the Executive Branch. Once the court has agreed
that evidence is subject to the state secrets privilege, it is excluded from the litigation. Often, as a
practical matter, the plaintiff cannot continue the suit without the privileged information, and drops the
case. Recently, courts have been more inclined to dismiss cases outright, if the subject matter of the
case is a state secret.
[edit] Distinguished from other legal doctrines
The state secrets privilege is related to, but distinct from, several other legal doctrines: the principle of
non-justiciability in certain cases involving state secrets (the so-called "Totten Rule");[8] certain
prohibitions on the publication of classified information (as in New York Times Co. v. United States,
the Pentagon Papers case); and the use of classified information in criminal cases (governed by the
Classified Information Procedures Act).
[edit] History
[edit] Origins
The doctrine was effectively imported from British law which has a similar privilege.[1][2] It is
debatable whether the state secrets privilege is based upon the President's powers as commander-in72

chief and leader of foreign affairs (as suggested in United States v. Nixon) or derived from the idea of
separation of powers (as suggested in United States v. Reynolds)[1] It seems that the US privilege "has
its initial roots in Aaron Burr's trial for treason." In this case, it was alleged that a letter from General
James Wilkinson to President Thomas Jefferson might contain state secrets and could therefore not be
divulged without risk to national security.[1]
[edit] Supreme Court recognition in United States v. Reynolds
The privilege was first officially recognized by the Supreme Court of the United States in the 1953
decision United States v. Reynolds (345 U.S. 1). A military airplane, a B-29 Superfortress bomber,
crashed. The widows of three civilian crew members sought accident reports on the crash but were told
that to release such details would threaten national security by revealing the bomber's top-secret
mission.[1][2][3][4][5][6][9][10] The court held that only the government can claim or waive the privilege, and
it is not to be lightly invoked, and last there must be a formal claim of privilege, lodged by the head
of the department which has control over the matter, after actual personal consideration by that
officer.[1] The court stressed that the decision to withhold evidence is to be made by the presiding
judge and not the executive.[1]
In 2000, the accident reports were declassified and released, and it was found that the assertion that
they contained secret information was fraudulent. The reports did, however, contain information about
the poor condition of the aircraft itself, which would have been very compromising to the Air Force's
case. Many commentators have alleged government misuse of secrecy in this landmark case.[11]
Despite this ruling, a case might still be subject to judicial review since the privilege was intended to
prevent certain, but not all, information to be precluded.[1]
[edit] Recent use
According to former White House Counsel, John Dean:
While precise numbers are hard to come by (because not all cases are reported), a recent
study reports that the "Bush administration has invoked the state secrets privilege in 23
cases since 2001." By way of comparison, "between 1953 and 1976, the government
invoked the privilege in only four cases."[9]
While Henry Lanman reports in Slate:
"... the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press reported that while the
government asserted the privilege approximately 55 times in total between 1954 (the
privilege was first recognized in 1953) and 2001, it's asserted it 23 times in the four
years after Sept. 11."[10][12]
However, at least one article has retracted these figures, finding they were based on erroneous
"Correction: In this article, we incorrectly reported that the government invoked the
state secrets privilege in 23 cases since 2001. The figure came from the 2005 Secrecy
Report Card published by The privilege was actually

invoked seven times from 2001 to 2005, according to the corrected 2005 report card,
which is not an increase from previous decades"[13]
Lanman continues to cite two political science professors at the University of Texas-El Paso who
concluded that
"courts have examined the documents' underlying claims of state secrecy fewer than
one-third of the times it has been invoked. And, ..., courts have only actually rejected
the assertion of the privilege four times since 1953."[10]
Following the September 11, 2001 attacks, the privilege is increasingly used to dismiss entire court
cases, instead of only withholding the sensitive information from a case.[1] Also in 2001, George W.
Bush issued Executive Order 13233extending the accessibility of the state secrets privilege to also
allow former presidents, their designated representatives, or representatives designated by their
families, to invoke it to bar records from their tenure.[5]

An article in the NYT, in August 2007, on a lawsuit involving Society for Worldwide Interbank
Financial Telecommunication concludes that it would seem that the unprecedented frequency with
which the Bush administration invoked and invokes this principle has made judges more skeptical and
willing to ask the government to validate its claims. In the words of Tom Blanton, director of the
National Security Archive at George Washington University
"What seems clear is that until a year or two ago, the judges rarely even questioned it
when the government raised the 'state secrets' claim. It was a neutron bomb no
plaintiffs left standing. But we're now seeing that judges are starting to actually look
behind the government's secrecy claims and see what's really there."[14]
[edit] Criticism
Since 2001, there has been mounting criticism of the state secrets privilege. Such criticism generally
falls into four categories:
[edit] Weak external validation of executive assertion of privilege
Many commentators have expressed concern that the courts never effectively scrutinize executive
claims of privilege.[1] Lacking independent national security expertise, judges frequently defer to the
judgment of the executive and never subject executive claims to meaningful scrutiny.
[edit] Executive abuse of the privilege to conceal embarrassing facts
Commentators have suggested that the state secrets privilege might be used as often to prevent
disclosure of embarrassing facts as to protect legitimate secrets.[1][2][3][4][5][10][15][16] Or, in the words of
Professors William G. Weaver and Robert M. Pallitto in an article in the Political Science Quarterly:


"[T]he incentive on the part of administrators is to use the privilege to avoid

embarrassment, handicap political enemies, and to prevent criminal investigation of
administrative action."[13][17]
In several prominent cases, the evidence that the government successfully excluded was later revealed
to contain no state secrets. i.e. United States v. Reynolds, Sterling v. Tenet, Edmonds v. Department of
Justice and the Pentagon Papers.
[edit] Expansion into a justiciability doctrine
Some academics and practitioners have criticized the expansion of the state secrets privilege from an
evidentiary privilege (designed to exclude certain pieces of evidence) to a justiciability doctrine
(designed to exclude entire lawsuits). Under its original formulation, the state secrets privilege was
meant only to exclude a very narrow class of evidence whose revelation would harm national security.
However, in a large percentage of recent cases, courts have gone a step further, dismissing entire cases
in which the government asserts the privilege, in essence converting an evidentiary rule into a
justiciability rule. The government response has been that in certain cases, the subject of the case is
itself privileged. In these cases, the government argues, there is no plausible way to respond to a
complaint without revealing state secrets.
[edit] Elimination of judicial check on executive power
Glenn Greenwald alleges that the Bush administration attempted to expand executive power, as
evidenced by the unitary executive theory propagated by John Yoo. The theory suggests that the
President, as Commander-in-Chief, cannot be bound by Congress or any law, national or international.
By invoking the state secrets privilege in cases involving actions taken in the war on terror (i.e.
extraordinary rendition, allegations of torture, allegedly violating the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance
Act)[18] Greenwald opines the administration tried to evade judicial review of these claims of
exceptional war powers. In effect, this is preventing a judicial ruling determining whether there is a
legal basis for such expansive executive power.[12][19] With that in mind, applying this privilege makes
impeachment the only possible means left for Congress to exercise their duty to uphold the checks and
balances constitutionally intended to prevent abuse of power.[2][13][16]
[edit] Calls for reform
See also: State Secrets Protection Act
In recent years, a number of commentators have called for legislative reforms to the state secrets
privilege.[20][21][22] These reforms center around several ideas:
1. Requiring judges to review each piece of evidence that the executive claims is subject to the
2. Requiring the executive to craft alternative evidence that is not subject to the privilege, for the
opposing party to use in place of the original, privileged evidence.[23] Such substitute evidence
should only be required when it is possible to do so without harming national security.
3. Prohibiting courts from dismissing claims on the basis of the state secrets privilege until after
they have reviewed all available evidence.


4. Permitting the court to appoint an outside expert to scrutinize the evidence for national security
5. Excluding illegal government action from the definition of "state secrets," or otherwise
allowing the court to address the legality (instead of just the secrecy) of government conduct.
This would prevent the government from using the state secrets privilege to conceal its illegal
On January 22, 2008, Senators Edward Kennedy and Arlen Specter introduced S. 2533, the State
Secrets Protection Act.[25]
[edit] Court cases
[edit] United States v. Reynolds
Main article: United States v. Reynolds
In United States v. Reynolds (1953), the widows of three crew members of a B-29 Superfortress
bomber that had crashed in 1948 sought accident reports on the crash, but were told the release such
details would threaten national security by revealing the nature of the bomber's top-secret mission. The
Supreme Court ruled that the executive branch could bar evidence from the court if it deemed that its
release would impair national security. In 1996, the accident reports in question were declassified and
released, and when discovered in 2000 were found to contain no secret information. They did,
however, contain information about the poor condition of the aircraft itself, which would have been
very compromising to the Air Force's case. Many legal experts have alleged government abuse of
secrecy in this landmark case.[2][3][5][9][10]
[edit] Richard Horn
Main articles: Richard Horn and Horn v. Albright
Former DEA agent Richard Horn brought a suit against the CIA for bugging his home. The case was
dismissed because of the privilege.[1][6]
Richard Horn's case was reinstated on July 20, 2009 by USDC Judge Royce C. Lambreth on the basis
that the CIA had engaged in fraud on the court.
On 30 March 2010, as a result of a multi-million dollar settlement agreement between Horn and the
government, Lamberth dismissed the underlying case with prejudice. Subsequently, later that same
year, in a 22 September order, Lamberth issued a final order vacating his earlier opinions and orders
finding that CIA lawyers, Tenet, and Brown had committed fraud on the court. Lamberth also
specifically ordered that a sentence be removed from his 30 March 2010 Memorandum. The removed
sentence had stated that "allegations of wrongdoing by the government attorneys in this case are not
only credible, they are admitted."
[edit] Notra Trulock
In February 2002 it was invoked in the case of Notra Trulock, who launched a defamation suit against
Los Alamos scientist Wen Ho Lee, charged with stealing nuclear secrets; President Bush stated that

national security would be compromised if Trulock were allowed to seek damages from Lee; though it
resulted in the case being dismissed, another suit was launched directly attacking then-FBI Director
Louis Freeh for interfering and falsely invoking the state secrets privilege.
[edit] Sibel Edmonds
Main article: Sibel Edmonds
The privilege was invoked twice against Sibel Edmonds.[1][2][6] The first invocation was to prevent her
from testifying that the Federal Government had foreknowledge that Al-Qaeda intended to use airliners
to attack the United States on September 11, 2001; the case was a $100 trillion action filed in 2002 by
six hundred 9/11 victims' families against officials of the Saudi government and prominent Saudi
citizens. The second invocation was in an attempt to derail her personal lawsuit regarding her dismissal
from the FBI, where she had worked as a post-9/11 translator and had been a whistleblower.
[edit] Thomas Burnett
The privilege was invoked in Thomas Burnett vs. Al Barka Investment & Development Corporation
(Civil No. 04ms203) a motion to quash a subpoena for the testimony of Sibel Edmonds. The
government's motion to quash based on state secrets privilege was granted in part.
[edit] Sterling v. Tenet
Main articles: Sterling v. Tenet and Jeffrey Alexander Sterling
Jeffrey Sterling was a black CIA agent who started a racial discrimination suit. It was thrown out on
account of this privilege.[1][6]
[edit] Nira Schwartz
The privilege was invoked in Schwartz vs. TRW (Civil No. 96-3065, Central District, Cal) a Qui-Tam
claim by Schwartz. Intervention and assertion of the state secrets privilege, by the government,
resulted in case dismissal.
[edit] Crater Corporation
The privilege was invoked in the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit case of Crater
Corporation vs. Lucent Technologies Inc. and AT&T Company, (Crater Corp. v. Lucent Technologies,
September 7, 2005). Crater was prevented from proceeding with discovery in its patent infringement
case (U.S. Patent No. 5,286,129) by the United States' assertion that discovery could cause "extremely
grave damage to national security". The infringement case centered on WetMate underwater fiber optic
coupling devices beneath the sea.
[edit] ACLU vs. NSA/CIA
On May 26, 2006, the U.S. Justice Department filed a motion to dismiss ACLU v. NSA, the ACLU's
lawsuit against the NSA by invoking the state secrets privilege. On July 26, 2006, the case was
dismissed. In a different case in Michigan, brought by the ACLU against the NSA on behalf of various

scholars, journalists, attorneys, and national non-profit organizations, Judge Anna Diggs Taylor ruled
on August 17, 2006, that the program was unconstitutional and should be halted. She upheld the
doctrine, but ruled that the government's public statements concerning the operation were admissible
and constituted sufficient proof for the case to continue without any privileged evidence or discovery.
On July 6, 2007, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals threw out Taylor's decision, ruling 2-1 that the
ACLU could not produce evidence to prove that the ACLU had been wrongfully wiretapped by the
NSA, and therefore did not have the standing to bring such a case to court, regardless of the legality
question. On February 19, 2008, the Supreme Court declined to hear the ACLU's appeal. See ACLU v.
[edit] Center for Constitutional Rights et al. v. Bush et al.
On May 27, 2006 the Justice Department moved to preempt the Center for Constitutional Rights
(CCR) challenge to warrantless domestic surveillance by invoking the state secrets privilege. The Bush
Administration is arguing that CCR's case could reveal secrets regarding U.S. national security, and
thus the presiding judge must dismiss it without reviewing the evidence.
[edit] AT&T and NSA wire-tap case
Main articles: NSA call database, NSA warrantless surveillance controversy, and Hepting v. AT&T
In April 2006, the Bush administration took initial steps to use the state secrets rule to block a lawsuit
against AT&T and the National Security Agency brought by the Electronic Frontier Foundation. The
EFF alleged that the government has secret computer rooms conducting broad, illegal surveillance of
U.S. citizens.[5][10] Testifying at a January 29, 2008 House Judiciary Committee hearing on reform of
the state secrets privilege, EFF attorney Kevin Bankston contended that the administration's
interpretation of the privilege was overly broad, and failed to properly consider the evidentiary
procedures provided for by Section 1806(f) of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.[26] However,
the case was dismissed on June 3, 2009,[27] citing retroactive legislation (section 802 of FISA) stating
that in the case of a covered civil action, the assistance alleged to have been provided by the electronic
communication service provider was in connection with an intelligence activity involving
communications that was authorized by the President during the period beginning on September 11,
2001, and ending on January 17, 2007; designed to detect or prevent a terrorist attack, or activities in
preparation for a terrorist attack, against the United States; and the subject of a written request or
directive, or a series of written requests or directives, from the Attorney General or the head of an
element of the intelligence community (or the deputy of such person) to the electronic communication
service provider indicating that the activity was authorized by the President; and determined to be

[edit] Khalid El-Masri

Main articles: Khalid El-Masri and Extraordinary rendition


In May 2006, the illegal detention case of Khalid El-Masri was dismissed based on the privilege,
which was invoked by the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA). Khalid El-Masri alleged that he was
falsely held by the CIA for several months (which the CIA acknowledges) and was beaten, drugged,
and subjected to various other inhumane activity while in captivity. He was ultimately released by the
CIA with no charge ever being brought against him by the United States government. Judge T.S. Ellis,
III of the U.S. District Court dismissed the case because, according to the court, the simple fact of
holding proceedings would jeopardize state secrets, as claimed by the CIA.[3] [2]. On March 2, 2007,
the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed. [3] On October 9, 2007, the
Supreme Court declined to hear an appeal of the Fourth Circuit's decision, letting the doctrine of state
secrets privilege stand.[29]
[edit] Maher Arar
Main articles: Maher Arar and Extraordinary rendition
The privilege was invoked against a case where Maher Arar, a wrongfully-accused and tortured victim,
sought to sue Attorney General John Ashcroft for his role in deporting Arar to Syria to face torture and
extract false confessions. It was formally invoked by Deputy Attorney General James B. Comey in
legal papers filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York. The
invocation read, "Litigating [the] plaintiff's complaint would necessitate disclosure of classified
information", which it later stated included disclosure of the basis for detaining him in the first place,
the basis for refusing to deport him to Canada as he had requested, and the basis for sending him to
[edit] Jane and John Doe
On January 4, 2007 District Court Judge Laura Taylor Swain ordered the dismissal of Jane Doe et al.
v. CIA, 05 Civ. 7939 based on the state secrets privilege. Jane Doe and her children sued the CIA for
money damages after her husband's covert employment with the CIA was "terminated immediately for
unspecified reasons".[4].
[edit] Quotes

"Because it is so powerful and can trample legitimate claims against the government, the state
secrets privilege is not to be lightly invoked" (United States v. Reynolds, 345 U.S. 1, 7
(1953)) [5]

"The state secrets privilege is a common law evidentiary rule that allows the government to
withhold information from discovery when disclosure would be inimical to national security."
Zuckerbraun v. General Dynamics Corp., 935 F.2d 544, 546 (2d Cir. 1991).
[edit] See also

Espionage Act of 1917

Executive privilege
Extraordinary rendition by the United States
Mosaic theory
Unitary executive theory

Federal Tort Claims Act
Classified Information Procedures Act, Silent witness rule
State Secrets Protection Act
Silent witness rule

[edit] External links

In The Name Of National Security: Unchecked Presidential Power And The Reynolds Case,
Louis Fisher. Lawrence: University Press of Kansas, 2006, ISBN 0700614648.
State Secrets and the Limits of National Security Litigation Robert Chesney, Wake Forest
University School of Law
The State Secrets Privilege and Separation of Powers AMANDA FROST, American University
Washington College of Law
Selected Case Files Involving "State Secrets" Project on Government Secrecy, Federation of
American Scientists
[edit] References
^ a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o The state secrets privilege: Expanding Its Scope Through
Government Misuse by Carrie Newton Lyons, the Lewis & Clark Law Review, published by
Lewis & Clark Law School, Volume 11 / Number 1 / Spring 2007.
The State Secrets Privilege and executive Misconduct by Shayana Kadidal,
one of the lead attorneys on the Center for Constitutional Rights, JURIST, May 30, 2006
^ a b c d e f Dangerous Discretion: State Secrets and the El-Masri Rendition Case by Aziz
Huq, Director of the Liberty and National Security Project at the Brennan Center for Justice at
NYU School of Law, JURIST, March 12, 2007
The Suit Challenging the NSA's Warrantless Wiretapping Can Proceed, Despite
the State Secrets Privilege

The Suit Challenging the NSA's Warrantless Wiretapping Can Proceed, Despite
the State Secrets Privilege: Why The Judge Made the Right Call By JULIE HILDEN,
FIndLaw, August 15, 2006

Examining Two Recent Rulings Allowing Suits Against the NSA's Warrantless
Wiretapping To Proceed, Despite the State Secrets Privilege: Part Two in a Series By
JULIE HILDEN, FindLaw, August 23, 2006
Building the Secrecy Wall higher and higher by Glenn Greenwald,
Unclaimed Territory, April 29, 2006
^ a b c d e Bush Wielding Secrecy Privilege to End Suits By Andrew Zajac, The Chicago
Tribune, March 3, 2005
^ United States v. Reynolds, 345 U.S. 1, paragraph 8 (1953) (the privilege against
revealing military secrets, a privilege which is well established in the law of evidence). Text
^ Tenet v. Doe, 544 U.S. 1 (2005)
ACLU v. National Security Agency: Why the "State Secrets Privilege" Shouldn't
Stop the Lawsuit Challenging Warrantless Telephone Surveillance of Americans By JOHN W.
DEAN, FindLaw, June 16, 2006
^ a b c d e f Secret GuardingThe new secrecy doctrine so secret you don't even know
about it By Henry Lanman, Slate, May 22, 2006,



^ Stephens, Hampton. Supreme Court Filing claims Air Force, government fraud in
1953 case: Case could affect 'state secrets' privilege Inside the Air Force March 14, 2003.
Retrieved May 3, 2007.
^ a b Rechecking the Balance of Powers The Bush administration has finally been
rebuked for its repeated efforts to evade judicial review By Glenn Greenwald, In These Times,
July 21, 2006
^ a b c [1] By Susan Burgess, The News Media and the Law, Fall 2005
^ Lichtblau, Eric (August 31, 2007). "U.S. Cites Secrets Privilege as It Tries to Stop
Suit on Banking Records". The New York Times. Retrieved 200907-09.
^ Congress and Judges Gagged Arlen Specter and a CIA torture victim know Only the
Oval Office decides what the law is by Nat Hentoff, Village Voice, June 19th, 2006
^ a b Closing Our Courts Crying 'state secrets,' the administration seals the courts to
avoid scrutiny by Nat Hentoff, Village Voice, June 9th, 2006
^ House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform Whistleblower Protection
Enhancement Act of 2007 Testimony of William G. Weaver, J.D., Ph.D. Senior Advisor,
National Security Whistleblowers Coalition and Associate Professor University of Texas at El
Paso, Inst. for Policy and Econ. Development and Dept. of Political Science, February 13, 2007
^ Secrecy and Foreign Policy by Robert Pallitto, Foreign Policy In Focus (FPIF),
December 8, 2006
^ Snapshots of the U.S. under the Bush administration by Glenn Greenwald, Unclaimed
Territory, May 23, 2006
^ a b Florence, Justin and Gerke, Matthew: "State Your Secrets: The smart way around
telecom immunity."
"State Secrets and the Limits of National Security Legislation" by Robert
Chesney. George Washington Law Review (2007).
^ "The State Secrets Privilege: Expanding Its Scope Through Government Misuse" by
Carrie Newton Lyons, 11 Lewis & Clark L. Rev. 99 (2007).
^ Report on Reforming the State Secrets Privilege, American Bar Association, 2007.
^ "State Your Secrets" by Lou Fisher. Legal Times, 2006.
^ "Introduction of the State Secrets Protection Act". Federation of American Scientists.
2008-01-22. Retrieved 2008-02-08.
^ "Statement of Kevin S. Bankston, Senior Staff Attorney Electronic Frontier
Foundation" (PDF). Oversight Hearing on Reform of the State Secrets Privilege by the U.S.
House of Representatives Committee on the Judiciary, Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil
Rights, and Civil Liberties. 2008-01-29. Retrieved 2008-02-08.
^ Hepting v. AT&T, U.S. District Court (U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California 3 June 2009). Text
^ Bazan, Elizabeth B. (7 July 2008). "The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act: An
Overview of Selected Issues" (PDF). Congressional Research Service.
^ Greenhouse, Linda (2007-10-10). "Supreme Court Refuses to Hear Torture Appeal".
The New York Times.
Retrieved 2007-10-10.
Retrieved from ""

Categories: United States government secrecy | Evidence law | George W. Bush administration
controversies | Executive branch of the United States government | Classified information
This page was last modified on 20 May 2011 at 06:09.
Political Corruption
Political corruption is the use of legislated powers by government officials for illegitimate private gain.
Misuse of government power for other purposes, such as repression of political opponents and general
police brutality, is not considered political corruption. Neither are illegal acts by private persons or
corporations not directly involved with the government. An illegal act by an officeholder constitutes
political corruption only if the act is directly related to their official duties.
Forms of corruption vary, but include bribery, extortion, cronyism, nepotism, patronage, graft, and
embezzlement. While corruption may facilitate criminal enterprise such as drug trafficking, money
laundering, and human trafficking, it is not restricted to these activities.
The activities that constitute illegal corruption differ depending on the country or jurisdiction. For
instance, certain political funding practices that are legal in one place may be illegal in another. In
some cases, government officials have broad or poorly defined powers, which make it difficult to
distinguish between legal and illegal actions. Worldwide, bribery alone is estimated to involve over 1
trillion US dollars annually.[1] A state of unrestrained political corruption is known as a kleptocracy,
literally meaning "rule by thieves".
Political corruption

Corruption Perceptions Index, 2010


Electoral fraud Economics of corruption

Nepotism Bribery Cronyism Slush fund

Corruption by country

Angola Armenia Canada

Chile China (PRC) Colombia
Cuba Ghana India Iran Kenya
Ireland Nigeria Pakistan
Paraguay Philippines Russia
South Africa Venezuela United States
This box: view talk edit



1 Effects
o 1.1 Effects on politics, administration, and institutions
o 1.2 Economic effects
o 1.3 Environmental and social effects
o 1.4 Effects on Humanitarian Aid
1.5 Other areas: health, public safety, education, trade unions, etc.
2 Types
o 2.1 Bribery
o 2.2 Trading in influence
o 2.3 Patronage
o 2.4 Nepotism and cronyism
o 2.5 Electoral fraud
o 2.6 Embezzlement
o 2.7 Kickbacks
o 2.8 Unholy alliance
o 2.9 Involvement in organized crime
3 Conditions favorable for corruption
o 3.1 Size of public sector
4 Governmental corruption
5 Fighting corruption
6 Whistleblowers
7 Campaign contributions
8 Measuring corruption
9 See also
10 References
11 Further reading
12 External links

[edit] Effects
[edit] Effects on politics, administration, and institutions


Detail from Corrupt Legislation (1896) by Elihu Vedder. Library of Congress Thomas Jefferson
Building, Washington, D.C.

Corruption poses a serious development challenge. In the political realm, it undermines democracy and
good governance by flouting or even subverting formal processes. Corruption in elections and in
legislative bodies reduces accountability and distorts representation in policymaking; corruption in the
judiciary compromises the rule of law; and corruption in public administration results in the inefficient
provision of services. It violates a basic principle of republicanism regarding the centrality of civic
virtue. More generally, corruption erodes the institutional capacity of government as procedures are
disregarded, resources are siphoned off, and public offices are bought and sold. At the same time,
corruption undermines the legitimacy of government and such democratic values as trust and tolerance.
[edit] Economic effects
See also: Corporate crime
Corruption undermines economic development by generating considerable distortions and inefficiency.
In the private sector, corruption increases the cost of business through the price of illicit payments
themselves, the management cost of negotiating with officials, and the risk of breached agreements or
detection. Although some claim corruption reduces costs by cutting bureaucracy, the availability of
bribes can also induce officials to contrive new rules and delays. Openly removing costly and lengthy
regulations are better than covertly allowing them to be bypassed by using bribes. Where corruption
inflates the cost of business, it also distorts the playing field, shielding firms with connections from
competition and thereby sustaining inefficient firms.[2]
Corruption also generates economic distortions in the public sector by diverting public investment into
capital projects where bribes and kickbacks are more plentiful. Officials may increase the technical
complexity of public sector projects to conceal or pave the way for such dealings, thus further
distorting investment. Corruption also lowers compliance with construction, environmental, or other
regulations, reduces the quality of government services and infrastructure, and increases budgetary
pressures on government.
Economists argue that one of the factors behind the differing economic development in Africa and
Asia is that in the former, corruption has primarily taken the form of rent extraction with the resulting
financial capital moved overseas rather than invested at home (hence the stereotypical, but often

accurate, image of African dictators having Swiss bank accounts). In Nigeria, for example, more than
$400 billion was stolen from the treasury by Nigeria's leaders between 1960 and 1999.[3] University of
Massachusetts researchers estimated that from 1970 to 1996, capital flight from 30 sub-Saharan
countries totaled $187bn, exceeding those nations' external debts.[4] (The results, expressed in retarded
or suppressed development, have been modeled in theory by economist Mancur Olson.) In the case of
Africa, one of the factors for this behavior was political instability, and the fact that new governments
often confiscated previous government's corruptly-obtained assets. This encouraged officials to stash
their wealth abroad, out of reach of any future expropriation. In contrast, Asian administrations such as
Suharto's New Order often took a cut on business transactions or provided conditions for development,
through infrastructure investment, law and order, etc.
[edit] Environmental and social effects
Corruption facilitates environmental destruction. Corrupt countries may formally have legislation to
protect the environment, it cannot be enforced if officials can easily be bribed. The same applies to
social rights worker protection, unionization prevention, and child labor. Violation of these laws rights
enables corrupt countries to gain illegitimate economic advantage in the international market.
The Nobel Prize-winning economist Amartya Sen has observed that "there is no such thing as an
apolitical food problem." While drought and other naturally occurring events may trigger famine
conditions, it is government action or inaction that determines its severity, and often even whether or
not a famine will occur. Governments with strong tendencies towards kleptocracy can undermine food
security even when harvests are good. Officials often steal state property. In Bihar, India, more than
80% of the subsidized food aid to poor is stolen by corrupt officials.[5] Similarly, food aid is often
robbed at gunpoint by governments, criminals, and warlords alike, and sold for a profit. The 20th
century is full of many examples of governments undermining the food security of their own nations
sometimes intentionally.[6]
[edit] Effects on Humanitarian Aid
The scale of humanitarian aid to the poor and unstable regions of the world grows, but it is highly
vulnerable to corruption, with food aid, construction and other highly valued assistance as the most at
risk.[7] Food aid can be directly and physically diverted from its intended destination, or indirectly
through the manipulation of assessments, targeting, registration and distributions to favour certain
groups or individuals.[7] Elsewhere, in construction and shelter, there are numerous opportunities for
diversion and profit through substandard workmanship, kickbacks for contracts and favouritism in the
provision of valuable shelter material.[7] Thus while humanitarian aid agencies are usually most
concerned about aid being diverted by including too many, recipients themselves are most concerned
about exclusion.[7] Access to aid may be limited to those with connections, to those who pay bribes or
are forced to give sexual favours.[7] Equally, those able to do so may manipulate statistics to inflate the
number beneficiaries and syphon of the additional assistance.[7]
[edit] Other areas: health, public safety, education, trade unions, etc.
See also: Police corruption
Corruption is not specific to poor, developing, or transition countries. In western countries, there have
been cases of bribery and other forms of corruption in all possible fields: under-the-table payments

made to reputed surgeons by patients willing to be on top of the list of forthcoming surgeries,[8] bribes
paid by suppliers to the automotive industry in order to sell poor quality connectors used for instance
in safety equipment such as airbags, bribes paid by suppliers to manufacturers of defibrillators (to sell
poor quality capacitors), contributions paid by wealthy parents to the "social and culture fund" of a
prestigious university in exchange for it to accept their children, bribes paid to obtain diplomas,
financial and other advantages granted to unionists by members of the executive board of a car
manufacturer in exchange for employer-friendly positions and votes, etc. Examples are endless. These
various manifestations of corruption can ultimately present a danger for the public health; they can
discredit certain essential institutions or social relationships.
Corruption can also affect the various components of sports activities (referees, players, medical and
laboratory staff involved in anti-doping controls, members of national sport federation and
international committees deciding about the allocation of contracts and competition places).
There have also been cases against (members of) various types of non-profit and non-government
organisations, as well as religious organisations.
Ultimately, the distinction between public and private sector corruption sometimes appears rather
artificial and national anti-corruption initiatives may need to avoid legal and other loopholes in the
coverage of the instruments.
[edit] Types
[edit] Bribery
Main article: Bribery
A bribe is a payment given personally to a government official in exchange of his use of official
powers. Bribery requires two participants: one to give the bribe, and one to take it. Either may initiate
the corrupt offering; for example, a customs official may demand bribes to let through allowed (or
disallowed) goods, or a smuggler might offer bribes to gain passage. In some countries the culture of
corruption extends to every aspect of public life, making it extremely difficult for individuals to stay in
business without resorting to bribes. Bribes may be demanded in order for an official to do something
he is already paid to do. They may also be demanded in order to bypass laws and regulations. In
addition to using bribery for private financial gain, they are also used to intentionally and maliciously
cause harm to another (i.e. no financial incentive). In some developing nations, up to half of the
population has paid bribes during the past 12 months.[9]

In recent years, efforts have been made by the international community to encourage countries to
dissociate and incriminate as separate offences, active and passive bribery. Active bribery can be
defined for instance as the promising, offering or giving by any person, directly or indirectly, of any
undue advantage [to any public official], for himself or herself or for anyone else, for him or her to act
or refrain from acting in the exercise of his or her functions.(article 2 of the Criminal Law Convention
on Corruption (ETS 173) of the Council of Europe). Passive bribery can be defined as the request or
receipt [by any public official], directly or indirectly, of any undue advantage, for himself or herself or
for anyone else, or the acceptance of an offer or a promise of such an advantage, to act or refrain from

acting in the exercise of his or her functions (article 3 of the Criminal Law Convention on Corruption
(ETS 173)). The reason for this dissociation is to make the early steps (offering, promising, requesting
an advantage) of a corrupt deal already an offence and, thus, to give a clear signal (from a criminal
policy point of view) that bribery is not acceptable. Besides, such a dissociation makes the prosecution
of bribery offences easier since it can be very difficult to prove that two parties (the bribe-giver and the
bribe-taker) have formally agreed upon a corrupt deal. Besides, there is often no such formal deal but
only a mutual understanding, for instance when it is common knowledge in a municipality that to
obtain a building permit one has to pay a "fee" to the decision maker to obtain a favourable decision. A
working definition of corruption is also provided as follows in article 3 of the Civil Law Convention
on Corruption (ETS 174): For the purpose of this Convention, "corruption" means requesting,
offering, giving or accepting, directly or indirectly, a bribe or any other undue advantage or prospect
thereof, which distorts the proper performance of any duty or behavior required of the recipient of the
bribe, the undue advantage or the prospect thereof.

[edit] Trading in influence

Trading in influence, or influence peddling in certain countries, refers to the situation where a person is
selling his/her influence over the decision process involving a third party (person or institution). The
difference with bribery is that this is a tri-lateral relation. From a legal point of view, the role of the
third party (who is the target of the influence) does not really matter although he/she can be an
accessory in some instances. It can be difficult to make a distinction between this form of corruption
and certain forms of extreme and poorly regulated lobbying where for instance law- or decisionmakers can freely "sell" their vote, decision power or influence to those lobbyists who offer the highest
retribution, including where for instance the latter act on behalf of powerful clients such as industrial
groups who want to avoid the passing of certain environmental, social, or other regulations perceived
as too stringent, etc. Where lobbying is (sufficiently) regulated, it becomes possible to provide for a
distinctive criteria and to consider that trading in influence involves the use of "improper influence", as
in article 12 of the Criminal Law Convention on Corruption (ETS 173) of the Council of Europe.
[edit] Patronage
Main article: Patronage
Patronage refers to favoring supporters, for example with government employment. This may be
legitimate, as when a newly elected government changes the top officials in the administration in order
to effectively implement its policy. It can be seen as corruption if this means that incompetent persons,
as a payment for supporting the regime, are selected before more able ones. In nondemocracies many
government officials are often selected for loyalty rather than ability. They may be almost exclusively
selected from a particular group (for example, Sunni Arabs in Saddam Hussein's Iraq, the
nomenklatura in the Soviet Union, or the Junkers in Imperial Germany) that support the regime in
return for such favors. A similar problem can also be seen in Eastern Europe, for example in Romania,
where the government is often accused of patronage (when a new government comes to power it
rapidly changes most of the officials in the public sector).


[edit] Nepotism and cronyism

Main articles: Nepotism and Cronyism

Favoring relatives (nepotism) or personal friends (cronyism) of an official is a form of illegitimate

private gain. This may be combined with bribery, for example demanding that a business should
employ a relative of an official controlling regulations affecting the business. The most extreme
example is when the entire state is inherited, as in North Korea or Syria. A milder form of cronyism is
an "old boy network", in which appointees to official positions are selected only from a closed and
exclusive social network such as the alumni of particular universities instead of appointing the
most competent candidate.
Seeking to harm enemies becomes corruption when official powers are illegitimately used as means to
this end. For example, trumped-up charges are often brought up against journalists or writers who
bring up politically sensitive issues, such as a politician's acceptance of bribes.
In the Indian political system, leadership of national and regional parties are passed from generation to
generation creating a system in which a family holds the center of power, some examples are most of
the Dravidian parties of south India and also the largest party in India Congress.
[edit] Electoral fraud
Main article: Electoral fraud

Electoral fraud is illegal interference with the process of an election. Acts of fraud affect vote counts to
bring about an election result, whether by increasing the vote share of the favored candidate,
depressing the vote share of the rival candidates, or both. Also called voter fraud, the mechanisms
involved include illegal voter registration, intimidation at polls, and improper vote counting.
[edit] Embezzlement
Main article: Embezzlement
Embezzlement is outright theft of entrusted funds. It is a misappropriation of property.
Another common type of embezzlement is that of entrusted government resources; for example, when
a director of a public enterprise employs company workers to build or renovate his own house.
[edit] Kickbacks
See also: Anti-competitive practices and Bid rigging

A kickback is an official's share of misappropriated funds allocated from his or her organization to an
organization involved in corrupt bidding. For example, suppose that a politician is in charge of
choosing how to spend some public funds. He can give a contract to a company that is not the best

bidder, or allocate more than they deserve. In this case, the company benefits, and in exchange for
betraying the public, the official receives a kickback payment, which is a portion of the sum the
company received. This sum itself may be all or a portion of the difference between the actual
(inflated) payment to the company and the (lower) market-based price that would have been paid had
the bidding been competitive. Kickbacks are not limited to government officials; any situation in
which people are entrusted to spend funds that do not belong to them are susceptible to this kind of
corruption. Kickbacks are also common in the pharmaceutical industry, as many doctors and
physicians receive pay in return for added promotion and prescription of the drug these pharmaceutical
companies are marketing.
[edit] Unholy alliance
An unholy alliance is a coalition among seemingly antagonistic groups, especially if one is
religious,[10] for ad hoc or hidden gain. Like patronage, unholy alliances are not necessarily illegal, but
unlike patronage, by its deceptive nature and often great financial resources, an unholy alliance can be
much more dangerous to the public interest. An early, well-known use of the term was by Theodore
Roosevelt (TR):
"To destroy this invisible Government, to dissolve the unholy alliance between corrupt business
and corrupt politics is the first task of the statesmanship of the day." 1912 Progressive Party
Platform, attributed to TR[11] and quoted again in his autobiography[12] where he connects trusts
and monopolies (sugar interests, Standard Oil, etc.) to Woodrow Wilson, Howard Taft, and
consequently both major political parties.
[edit] Involvement in organized crime
An illustrative example of official involvement in organized crime can be found from 1920s and 1930s
Shanghai, where Huang Jinrong was a police chief in the French concession, while simultaneously
being a gang boss and co-operating with Du Yuesheng, the local gang ringleader. The relationship kept
the flow of profits from the gang's gambling dens, prostitution, and protection rackets undisturbed.
The United States accused Manuel Noriega's government in Panama of being a "narcokleptocracy", a
corrupt government profiting on illegal drug trade. Later the U.S. invaded Panama and captured
[edit] Conditions favorable for corruption
It is argued that the following conditions are favorable for corruption:
Information deficits
Lacking freedom of information legislation. The Indian Right to Information Act 2005
has "already engendered mass movements in the country that is bringing the lethargic,
often corrupt bureaucracy to its knees and changing power equations completely."[13]
o Lack of investigative reporting in the local media.
o Contempt for or negligence of exercising freedom of speech and freedom of the press.
o Weak accounting practices, including lack of timely financial management.
o Lack of measurement of corruption. For example, using regular surveys of households
and businesses in order to quantify the degree of perception of corruption in different


parts of a nation or in different government institutions may increase awareness of

corruption and create pressure to combat it. This will also enable an evaluation of the
officials who are fighting corruption and the methods used.
Tax havens which tax their own citizens and companies but not those from other nations
and refuse to disclose information necessary for foreign taxation. This enables large
scale political corruption in the foreign nations.[14][citation needed]
Lacking control of the government.
Lacking civic society and non-governmental organizations which monitor the
o An individual voter may have a rational ignorance regarding politics, especially in
nationwide elections, since each vote has little weight.
o Weak civil service, and slow pace of reform.
o Weak rule of law.
o Weak legal profession.
o Weak judicial independence.
o Lacking protection of whistleblowers.
o Lack of benchmarking, that is continual detailed evaluation of procedures and
comparison to others who do similar things, in the same government or others, in
particular comparison to those who do the best work. The Peruvian organization
Ciudadanos al Dia has started to measure and compare transparency, costs, and
efficiency in different government departments in Peru. It annually awards the best
practices which has received widespread media attention. This has created competition
among government agencies in order to improve.[15]

Opportunities and incentives

Individual officials routinely handle cash, instead of handling payments by giro or on a
separate cash deskillegitimate withdrawals from supervised bank accounts are much
more difficult to conceal.
o Public funds are centralized rather than distributed. For example, if $1,000 is embezzled
from a local agency that has $2,000 funds, it is easier to notice than from a national
agency with $2,000,000 funds. See the principle of subsidiarity.
o Large, unsupervised public investments.
o Sale of state-owned property and privatization.[citation needed]
o Poorly-paid government officials.
o Government licenses needed to conduct business, e.g., import licenses, encourage
bribing and kickbacks.
o Long-time work in the same position may create relationships inside and outside the
government which encourage and help conceal corruption and favoritism. Rotating
government officials to different positions and geographic areas may help prevent this;
for instance certain high rank officials in French government services (e.g. treasurerpaymasters general) must rotate every few years.
o Costly political campaigns, with expenses exceeding normal sources of political
funding, especially when funded with taxpayer money.
o Less interaction with officials reduces the opportunities for corruption. For example,
using the Internet for sending in required information, like applications and tax forms,
and then processing this with automated computer systems. This may also speed up the
processing and reduce unintentional human errors. See e-Government.


A windfall from exporting abundant natural resources may encourage corruption.[16]

(See Resource curse)
o War and other forms of conflict correlate with a breakdown of public security.
Social conditions
o Self-interested closed cliques and "old boy networks".
o Family-, and clan-centered social structure, with a tradition of nepotism/favouritism
being acceptable.
o A gift economy, such as the Soviet blat system, emerges in a Communist centrally
planned economy.
o Lacking literacy and education among the population.
o Frequent discrimination and bullying among the population.
o Tribal solidarity, giving benefits to certain ethnic groups

According to a study of the conservative think tank The Heritage Foundation, lack of economic
freedom explains 71% of corruption[17]
[edit] Size of public sector
It is a controversial issue whether the size of the public sector per se results in corruption. As
mentioned above, low degree of economic freedom explains 71% of corruption. The actual share may
be even greater, as also past regulation affects the current level of corruption due to the slowing of
cultural changes (e.g., it takes time for corrupted officials to adjust to changes in economic
freedom).[18] The size of the public sector in terms of taxation is only one component of economic unfreedom, so the empirical studies on economic freedom do not directly answer this question.
Extensive and diverse public spending is, in itself, inherently at risk of cronyism, kickbacks, and
embezzlement. Complicated regulations and arbitrary, unsupervised official conduct exacerbate the
problem. This is one argument forprivatization and deregulation. Opponents of privatization see the
argument as ideological. The argument that corruption necessarily follows from the opportunity is
weakened by the existence of countries with low to non-existent corruption but large public sectors,
like the Nordic countries.[19] However, these countries score high on the Ease of Doing Business Index,
due to good and often simple regulations, and have rule of law firmly established. Therefore, due to
their lack of corruption in the first place, they can run large public sectors without inducing political
Like other governmental economic activities, also privatization, such as in the sale of governmentowned property, is particularly at the risk of cronyism. Privatizations in Russia, Latin America, and
East Germany were accompanied by large scale corruption during the sale of the state owned
companies. Those with political connections unfairly gained large wealth, which has discredited
privatization in these regions. While media have reported widely the grand corruption that
accompanied the sales, studies have argued that in addition to increased operating efficiency, daily
petty corruption is, or would be, larger without privatization, and that corruption is more prevalent in
non-privatized sectors. Furthermore, there is evidence to suggest that extralegal and unofficial
activities are more prevalent in countries that privatized less.[20]
There is the counter point, however, that oligarchy industries can be quite corrupt ( "competition" like
collusive price-fixing, pressuring dependent businesses, etc. ), and only by having a portion of the
market owned by someone other than that oligarchy, i.e. public sector, can keep them in line ( if the

public sector gas company is making money & selling gas for 1/2 of the price of the private sector
companies... the private sector companies won't be able to simultaneously gouge to that degree & keep
their customers: the competition keeps them in line ). Private sector corruption can increase the
poverty/helplessness of the population, so it can affect government corruption, in the long-term.
In the European Union, the principle of subsidiarity is applied: a government service should be
provided by the lowest, most local authority that can competently provide it. An effect is that
distribution of funds into multiple instances discourages embezzlement, because even small sums
missing will be noticed. In contrast, in a centralized authority, even minute proportions of public funds
can be large sums of money.
[edit] Governmental corruption
If the highest echelons of the governments also take advantage from corruption or embezzlement from
the state's treasury, it is sometimes referred with the neologism kleptocracy. Members of the
government can take advantage of the natural resources (e.g., diamonds and oil in a few prominent
cases) or state-owned productive industries. A number of corrupt governments have enriched
themselves via foreign aid, which is often spent on showy buildings and armaments.
A corrupt dictatorship typically results in many years of general hardship and suffering for the vast
majority of citizens as civil society and the rule of law disintegrate. In addition, corrupt dictators
routinely ignore economic and social problems in their quest to amass ever more wealth and power.
The classic case of a corrupt, exploitive dictator often given is the regime of Marshal Mobutu Sese
Seko, who ruled the Democratic Republic of the Congo (which he renamed Zaire) from 1965 to 1997.
It is said that usage of the termkleptocracy gained popularity largely in response to a need to accurately
describe Mobutu's regime. Another classic case is Nigeria, especially under the rule of General Sani
Abacha who was de facto president of Nigeria from 1993 until his death in 1998. He is reputed to have
stolen some US$34 billion. He and his relatives are often mentioned in Nigerian 419 letter scams
claiming to offer vast fortunes for "help" in laundering his stolen "fortunes", which in reality turn out
not to exist.[21] More than $400 billion was stolen from the treasury by Nigeria's leaders between 1960
and 1999.[22]
More recently, articles in various financial periodicals, most notably Forbes magazine, have pointed to
Fidel Castro, General Secretary of the Republic of Cuba since 1959, of likely being the beneficiary of
up to $900 million, based on "his control" of state-owned companies.[23] Opponents of his regime claim
that he has used money amassed through weapons sales, narcotics, international loans, and confiscation
of private property to enrich himself and his political cronies who hold his dictatorship together, and
that the $900 million published by Forbes is merely a portion of his assets, although that needs to be
[edit] Fighting corruption
Mobile telecommunications and radio broadcasting help to fight corruption, especially in developing
regions like Africa,[25] where other forms of communications are limited.
In the 1990s, initiatives were taken at an international level (in particular by the European Community,
the Council of Europe, the OECD) to put a ban on corruption: in 1996, the Committee of Ministers of

the Council of Europe, for instance, adopted a comprehensive Programme of Action against
Corruption and, subsequently, issued a series of anti-corruption standard-setting instruments:

the Criminal Law Convention on Corruption (ETS 173);

the Civil Law Convention on Corruption (ETS 174);
the Additional Protocol to the Criminal Law Convention on Corruption (ETS 191);
the Twenty Guiding Principles for the Fight against Corruption (Resolution (97) 24);
the Recommendation on Codes of Conduct for Public Officials (Recommendation No. R
(2000) 10); and
the Recommendation on Common Rules against Corruption in the Funding of Political Parties
and Electoral Campaigns (Rec(2003)4)

The purpose of these instruments was to address the various forms of corruption (involving the public
sector, the private sector, the financing of political activities, etc.) whether they had a strictly domestic
or also a transnational dimension. To monitor the implementation at national level of the requirements
and principles provided in those texts, a monitoring mechanism the Group of States Against
Corruption (also known as GRECO) was created.
Further conventions were adopted at the regional level under the aegis of the Organization of
American States (OAS or OEA), the African Union, and in 2003, at the universal level under that of
the United Nations.
[edit] Whistleblowers
Main article: Whistleblower
[edit] Campaign contributions
In the political arena, it is difficult to prove corruption. For this reason, there are often unproven
rumors about many politicians, sometimes part of a smear campaign.
Politicians are placed in apparently compromising positions because of their need to solicit financial
contributions for their campaign finance. If they then appear to be acting in the interests of those
parties that funded them, it could be considered corruption. Though donations may be coincidental, the
question asked is, why are they funding politicians at all, if they get nothing for their money.
Laws regulating campaign finance in the United States require that all contributions and their use
should be publicly disclosed. Many companies, especially larger ones, fund both the Democratic and
Republican parties. Certain countries, such as France, ban altogether the corporate funding of political
parties. Because of the possible circumvention of this ban with respect to the funding of political
campaigns, France also imposes maximum spending caps on campaigning; candidates that have
exceeded those limits, or that have handed in misleading accounting reports, risk having their
candidacy ruled invalid, or even being prevented from running in future elections. In addition, the
government funds political parties according to their successes in elections.
In some countries, political parties are run solely off subscriptions (membership fees).


Even legal measures such as these have been argued to be legalized corruption, in that they often favor
the political status quo. Minor parties and independents often argue that efforts to rein in the influence
of contributions do little more than protect the major parties with guaranteed public funding while
constraining the possibility of private funding by outsiders. In these instances, officials are legally
taking money from the public coffers for their election campaigns to guarantee that they will continue
to hold their influential and often well-paid positions.
As indicated above, the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe recognised in 1996 the
importance of links between corruption and political financing. It adopted in 1837 the
Recommendation on Common Rules against Corruption in the Funding of Political Parties and
Electoral Campaigns (Rec(2003)4). This text is quite unique at international levels as it aims i.a. at
increasing transparency in the funding of political parties and election campaigns (these two areas are
difficult to dissociate since parties are also involved in campaigning and in many countries, parties do
not have the monopoly over the presentation of candidates for elections), ensuring a certain level of
control over the funding and spending connected with political activities, and making sure
infringements are subject to effective, proportionate, and dissuasive sanctions. In the context of its
monitoring activities, the Group of States Against Corruption has identified a great variety of possible
improvements in those areas (see the country reports adopted under the Third Evaluation Round).
[edit] Measuring corruption
Measuring corruption statistically is difficult if not impossible due to the illicit nature of the transaction
and imprecise definitions of corruption.[26] While "corruption" indices first appeared in 1995 with the
Corruption Perceptions Index, all of these metrics address different proxies for corruption, such as
public perceptions of the extent of the problem.[27]
Transparency International, an anti-corruption NGO, pioneered this field with the Corruption
Perceptions Index, first released in 1995. This work is often credited with breaking a taboo and forcing
the issue of corruption into high level development policy discourse. Transparency International
currently publishes three measures, updated annually: a Corruption Perceptions Index(CPI) (based on
aggregating third-party polling of public perceptions of how corrupt different countries are); a Global
Corruption Barometer (based on a survey of general public attitudes toward and experience of
corruption); and a Bribe Payers Index, looking at the willingness of foreign firms to pay bribes. The
Corruption Perceptions Index is the best known of these metrics, though it has drawn much
criticism[27][28][29] and may be declining in influence.[30]
The World Bank collects a range of data on corruption, including survey responses from over 100,000
firms worldwide and a set of indicators of governance and institutional quality. Moreover, one of the
six dimensions of governance measured by the Worldwide Governance Indicators is Control of
Corruption, which is defined as "the extent to which power is exercised for private gain, including both
petty and grand forms of corruption, as well as 'capture' of the state by elites and private interests."[31]
While the definition itself is fairly precise, the data aggregated into the Worldwide Governance
Indicators is based on any available polling: questions range from "is corruption a serious problem?" to
measures of public access to information, and not consistent across countries. Despite these
weaknesses, the global coverage of these datasets has led to their widespread adoption, most notably
by the Millennium Challenge Corporation.[26]


In part in response to these criticisms, a second wave of corruption metrics has been created by Global
Integrity, the International Budget Partnership, and many lesser known local groups, starting with the
Global Integrity Index, first published in 2004. These second wave projects aim not to create
awareness, but to create policy change via targeting resources more effectively and creating checklists
toward incremental reform. Global Integrity and the International Budget Partnership each dispense
with public surveys and instead uses in-country experts to evaluate "the opposite of corruption"
which Global Integrity defines as the public policies that prevent, discourage, or expose corruption.[32]
These approaches compliment the first wave, awareness-raising tools by giving governments facing
public outcry a checklist which measures concrete steps toward improved governance.[26]
Typical second wave corruption metrics do not offer the worldwide coverage found in first wave
projects, and instead focus on localizing information gathered to specific problems and creating deep,
"unpackable" content that matches quantitative and qualitative data. Meanwhile, alternative approaches
such as the British aid agency's Drivers of Change research skips numbers entirely and favors
understanding corruption via political economy analysis of who controls power in a given society.[26]
Rule of Law
The Rule of law in its most basic form is no one is above the law.
Perhaps the most important application of the rule of law is the principle that governmental authority is
legitimately exercised only in accordance with,
publicly disclosed laws,
adopted and enforced in accordance with established procedural steps that are referred to as due
The rule of law is hostile to dictatorship and to anarchy.
According to modern Anglo-American thinking, hallmarks of adherence to the rule of law commonly
include a
clear separation of powers,
legal certainty,
the principle of legitimate expectation
and equality of all before the law.
The concept is not without controversy, and it has been said that
"the phrase the rule of law has become meaningless thanks to ideological abuse and general over- use"

General Over use Proclamation Only Elusivity

publicly disclosed laws

52. (1) The Constitution of Canada

the supreme law of Canada,

and any law that is inconsistent with the provisions of the Constitution
to the extent of the inconsistency,

of no force or effect.

Democracy is a form of government in which all citizens have an equal say in the decisions that affect
their lives.
Ideally, this includes equal (and more or less direct) participation in the proposal, development and
passage of legislation into law.
It can also encompass social, economic and cultural conditions that enable the free and equal practice
of political self-determination.
The term comes from the Greek: (dmokrata)
"rule of the people",[1]
which was coined from (dmos) "people" and (Kratos) "power", in the middle of the
5th-4th century BC to denote the political systems then existing in some Greek city-states, notably
following a popular uprising in 508 BC.[2]
[edit] Age of Enlightenment
Hobbes, in Leviathan (1651) introduced an early version of the social contract (or contractarian)
theory, arguing that
to overcome the "nasty, brutish and short" quality of life
without the cooperation of other human beings, people must join in a "commonwealth" and submit to a
"Soveraigne [sic] Power" that is able to compel them to act in the common good. This expediency
argument attracted many of the early proponents of sovereignty. Hobbes deduced from the definition
of sovereignty that it must be:[citation needed]
Absolute: because conditions could only be imposed on a sovereign if there were some outside
arbitrator to determine when he had violated them,
in which case the sovereign would not be the final authority.
Indivisible: The sovereign is the only final authority in his territory; he does not share final authority
with any other entity. Hobbes held this to be true because otherwise there would be no way of
resolving a disagreement between the multiple authorities.
Hobbes' hypothesis that the ruler's sovereignty is contracted to him by the people in return for his
maintaining their safety,
led him to conclude that if the ruler fails to do this, the people are released from their obligation to
obey him.
Bodin's and Hobbes's theories would decisively shape the concept of sovereignty, which we can find
again in the social contract theories, for example, in Rousseau's (17121778) definition of popular
sovereignty (with early antecedents in Francisco Surez's theory of the origin of power), which only
differs in that he considers the people to be the legitimate sovereign. Likewise, it is inalienable
Rousseau condemned the distinction between the origin and the exercise of sovereignty, a distinction
upon which constitutional monarchy or representative democracy are founded. Niccol Machiavelli,
Thomas Hobbes, John Locke, and Montesquieu are also key figures in the unfolding of the concept of

In either case "the People" are ultimately the legitimate sovereign