The rule of law has long been considered a cornerstone of American democracy, safeguarding individual rights, ensuring justice, and regulating the conduct of public officials within a framework of established laws. However, a troubling trend has emerged in recent years — a significant erosion of respect for this foundational principle. This decline is evidenced through the candidacy of individuals previously convicted of felonies, a federal judiciary that appears increasingly deferential to political whims, and a Supreme Court that seems to distance itself from its constitutional responsibilities. Additionally, the actions (or inactions) of the House of Representatives signal a willingness to compromise constitutional duties, hinting at a disturbing acquiescence to potential tyranny exemplified by figures such as Donald J. Trump. Additionally, state bar associations need to be vigilant and advocate to their various clients, counties, and state legislatures the criticality of maintaining the rule of law. The silence of the bar associations is deafening!
At the forefront of this discussion is the phenomenon of a felon running for the presidency. Donald J. Trump, a defendant in several high-profile legal cases, poses an intricate question: can a convicted felon realistically hold the highest office in the land? While legal experts assert that the Constitution does not explicitly prohibit such a candidacy, the implications are profound. As presidential historian Doug Wead noted, “We have never faced this situation where a felon is a legitimate contender for the presidency. It blurs the lines between legal accountability and political aspirations.” Such a candidacy not only raises ethical concerns but also sends a troubling message—that the rule of law may be subverted for political gain.
The situation is compounded by a federal judiciary that often appears to bend to political pressures rather than enforcing laws impartially. The term “slavish” is apt, as many judges seem reluctant to challenge the narratives spun by powerful politicians and media figures. This reluctance raises an essential question about the judiciary’s role as a check on executive power—one of the fundamental purposes for its existence. Justice Robert H. Jackson remarked, “The highest responsibility of a jurist is to put the public interest above personal preferences.” However, increasingly, judges appear more concerned with protecting their positions and aligning with the prevailing political currents, further diminishing the role of judicial impartiality.
The issue deepens with the Supreme Court, which has shown signs of stepping back from its constitutional duties. The Court’s recent decisions — often appearing polarized along ideological lines — suggest a growing detachment from a collective commitment to uphold the Constitution. President John Adams once commented, “We are a nation of laws, not of men.” However, the trend towards a “lock-step” Court raises the alarming prospect that judicial decision-making is becoming more about political allegiance than constitutional fidelity. Chief Justice Roberts has stepped away from his leadership role and shamelessly moved the court into a political institution. Is the jurisdictional concept of “political question” dead?
Moreover, the actions of the House of Representatives provide a stark picture of the current political landscape. The willingness of many members to overlook constitutional responsibilities in favor of political expediency is indicative of a power-hungry culture that prioritizes party loyalty over the rule of law. The current environment fosters a climate where bending the knee to an autocratic leader becomes permissible. As Representative Liz Cheney stated ominously, “We need to defend the Constitution, and we need to do it now — before it is too late.” Such warnings highlight a faction within Congress that appears either unwilling or unable to confront tyranny in whatever guise it may come.
The collective effects of these developments threaten to undermine the rule of law, replacing it with a system that glorifies loyalty over legality. When a felon runs for president, when judges align with political cliques, and when representatives choose party lines over constitutional integrity, the very fabric of American democracy is at risk. It falls upon the citizens, lawmakers, and judiciary alike to reaffirm their commitment to the rule of law before it is stripped away entirely.
In conclusion, the loss of respect for the rule of law in the United States is a multifaceted crisis requiring urgent attention. The candidacy of Donald J. Trump, the deferential federal judiciary, a divided Supreme Court, an acquiescent House of Representatives, and silent state bar associations all contribute to a bleak portrait of political integrity today. It is imperative for the nation to re-establish its dedication to the principles of justice, accountability, and governance by law, lest it drift toward a future where the rule of law is a relic of the past.
David M. Crane has been practicing law for close to five decades and is an internationally known jurist advocating justice for victims of atrocity and championing the rule of law as the cornerstone to international peace and security.
