What rule of law is . . .

In recent months a couple of references to "rule of law" have caught my attention . . . these constructions of the phrase may sound sort of right, but they miss the mark. In particular, the Tennessee Bar Association (TBA) has been throwing the term around quite a bit.

Here's one example, which I read today in the Tennessee Bar Journal, in an article written by TBA President, Buck Lewis in listing some of the "core values that should bind all lawyers together":

A belief in the rule of law--the notion that no one is above the law and that the law should be applied the same to the least of these as it is to those with power and influence.

Though Lewis' populist-sounding construction of the phrase is certainly a worthwhile value, (and who can argue with a Biblical allusion!?!) it demonstrates a superficial understanding of the term and of the historical significance of a departure from rule by kings or any other authoritarian rule.

Indeed, "rule of law" is actually best understood by considering its opposite condition, which is "rule of man." In sum, "rule of law" means that we as citizens are subject to laws, not individual persons; thus it doesn't matter who is doing the judging (or acting as the executive).

It doesn't surprise me that Lewis has a skewed understanding of "rule of law," given his and the TBA's fierce advocacy for the "Tennessee Plan" . . . a judicial selection system that (a) violates Tennessee's Constitutional requirement that supreme court justices (and "inferior" courts such as the intermediate appellate courts) be elected; (b) practically guarantees that "living constitution" devotees will end up on the court and (c) insulates activist judges from accountability.

Tennessee's current system of judicial selection practically insures life tenure on the courts. And as long as "men" are unaccountable for their actions as judges, we can expect to live under rule of men rather than rule of law.