(HOST) Vermont Humanities Council executive director and commentator Peter Gilbert has been thinking about how early May become associated with the Rule of Law.
(GILBERT) For many years on May first – also known as May Day and International Workers’ Day – unelected Polit Bureau members watched Soviet military might on parade in Red Square. In response to that dramatic annual exhibition of domestic totalitarianism and international bellicosity, President Eisenhower declared the first day of May to be Law Day. He stated, "The world no longer has any choice between force and law. If civilization is to survive it must choose the rule of law."
To the world, Eisenhower’s purpose was to draw a stark contrast with the communist Soviet Union. Here in this country, the intention, according to the relevant statute, was to cultivate "the respect for law that is so vital to the democratic way of life."
As that language suggests, what matters is not just the Rule of Law itself – that system that keeps us from the law of the jungle, that protects people and property, that actually creates freedom by establishing a system of ordered liberty, and that underlies everything from drivers taking turns at a four-way stop sign to the purchases we make. People’s respect for the law also matters. That’s why governmental scandals such as Watergate and the belief on the part of some people that there’s rampant corruption or law-breaking in society are so pernicious – because they undercut respect for the law and our whole legal system.
Fortunately, the Rule of Law is pretty healthy in this country. It needs improvement, that’s for sure, but compared with most countries, we’re fortunate. So why should we think about the Rule of Law, which many people have never even heard of and that generally works well here? The answer is that it won’t necessarily always be that way, and because to be aware of the Rule of Law is to help strengthen it.
The American Bar Association recently asked legal leaders what challenges to the Rule of Law they saw in this new century. Among the myriad challenges they identified is preserving constitutional values in the face of new technologies, like those involving privacy, free speech, human cloning and designer babies. They cited the potential the web holds for ubiquitous surveillance if it were to broadcast and store live feeds of all surveillance cameras. They warned about the effect that the open-ended threat of catastrophic terror strikes here at home might have on our legal systems, including everything from detention, interrogation, and surveillance practices to criminal trial procedures.
Others pointed to the challenge of providing access to justice to the poor, especially in tough economic times, and still others were concerned about the willingness of both political parties to debase legal process in favor of partisan outcome.
We should care about the Rule of Law so it doesn’t erode, in big ways or small, so we don’t have cause to sing, like Joni Mitchell, "Don’t it always seem to go that you don’t know what you’ve got till it’s gone."