> What? Quite the contrary, the "rule of law" is stronger than ever.
> And that's precisely the problem, as the justice system needs to calm down on passing and enforcing laws that restrict our freedoms and constitutional rights.
Nonsense, that's not your problem at all.
The problem is: A right that doesn't hold for everybody is not a right, but a privilege. Your "rule of law" does not apply equally to everyone, and the only thing that is strong is the "rule of privilege".
Your constitution is a centuries old document whose interpretation is up for grabs to anyone. It, and one half of your legal system isn't even codified, like a sane legal system would. All countries that trace their legal heritage back to England are still stuck with a "Common Law" system (about 1/3rd of the world) instead of writing down their laws in (sufficiently) unambiguous legal code (don't tell me legal code can't be unambiguous until you've seen a proper example of Civil Law legal system[1]), like the rest of the world.
I've seen people pour over this Constitution and the Bill of Rights of yours and try to divine some wisdom from it, say about a right to bear arms, and then another person pointing out some incomprehensible old-English sentence that supposedly mean this or that, and apparently people are allowed to have different opinions about what these documents really mean and this is taken seriously ... WTF???
You might as well stick to interpreting the Bible to base your legal decisions on ...
I mean, I'm all for people having the right to their own opinion and shit, with one exception, and that is the interpretation of legal code.
To the extent that one of the goals of the Constitution is to establish an unstable and flawed government with three branches that are deliberately designed to both depend on each other and to really get in each other's way, Common Law might be an apt choice.
> And that's precisely the problem, as the justice system needs to calm down on passing and enforcing laws that restrict our freedoms and constitutional rights.
Nonsense, that's not your problem at all.
The problem is: A right that doesn't hold for everybody is not a right, but a privilege. Your "rule of law" does not apply equally to everyone, and the only thing that is strong is the "rule of privilege".
Your constitution is a centuries old document whose interpretation is up for grabs to anyone. It, and one half of your legal system isn't even codified, like a sane legal system would. All countries that trace their legal heritage back to England are still stuck with a "Common Law" system (about 1/3rd of the world) instead of writing down their laws in (sufficiently) unambiguous legal code (don't tell me legal code can't be unambiguous until you've seen a proper example of Civil Law legal system[1]), like the rest of the world.
I've seen people pour over this Constitution and the Bill of Rights of yours and try to divine some wisdom from it, say about a right to bear arms, and then another person pointing out some incomprehensible old-English sentence that supposedly mean this or that, and apparently people are allowed to have different opinions about what these documents really mean and this is taken seriously ... WTF???
You might as well stick to interpreting the Bible to base your legal decisions on ...
I mean, I'm all for people having the right to their own opinion and shit, with one exception, and that is the interpretation of legal code.
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_law_(legal_system)