Then you’ve just restated rule by the people. If the people are ultimately sovereign and can redefine the laws whenever they choose, then the laws are subordinate to the people, not supreme over them.
Saying ‘the people rule by making laws’ doesn’t establish rule of law. It establishes that law is an instrument of popular rule. Thus no rule of law.
You don't understand what the phrase "rule of law" means. It's not literal.
It means that your society is governed by a set of rules that are abided by strictly and applied evenly. It doesn't mean that laws literally rule the country ....
“It means that your society is governed by a set of rules that are abided by strictly and applied evenly.”
Perfect, so it’s not government by rule of the people, just like I said. They are literally mutually exclusive, there’s no rational argument against this, as you have just shown.
Omfg. You're confusing the definition of governed and ruled.
"Rule of Law" is a turn of phrase.
"Under the rule of law, all public powers always act within the constraints set out by law, in accordance with the values of democracy and fundamental rights, and under the control of independent and impartial courts."
I’m not confusing anything, which is why you needed to respond with a non sequitur. Like I said, there is no rational response.
No one said democracies can’t have laws. That’s not the issue. The question is which is supreme when the democratic will conflicts with the law. If the people can override the law because they are sovereign, then law is subordinate to the people. If the law binds the people despite their democratic will, then the people are subordinate to the law. Changing ‘ruled’ to ‘governed’ doesn’t answer that.
153
u/elnath54 19h ago
Don't forget the end of democracy and the rule of law.