It's that "Rule of Law" decree, again. That no one, is above the law.
In a Facebook group thread "The Rule of Law: its State of Health in Australia", member Sukrit Sabhlok opines, that.."There's no such thing as the rule of law".
This would mean (basically), that there is no law. That we ONLY have a situation where there are 'Masters' and 'Slaves'. If this was so, then there can never be a 'change' to this predicament that we are clearly in. (Being what then becomes, a 'rule' for them and a 'rule' for us?)
From within a great linked discussion paper THE MYTH OF THE RULE OF LAW provided by Sukrit (linked below, read it - it's all very interesting from what I have read, so far), I found the following and then added my own reply to Sukrit's view on the matter, that:
< "There's no such thing as the rule of law" >
From within the Link:
< "What Professor Kingsfield knows is that the legal world is not like the real world and the type of reasoning appropriate to it is distinct from that which human beings ordinarily employ.
In the real world, people usually attempt to solve problems by forming hypotheses and then testing them against the facts as they know them.
When the facts confirm the hypotheses, they are accepted as true, although subject to reevaluation as new evidence is discovered. This is a successful method of reasoning about scientific and other empirical matters because the physical world has a definite, unique structure. It works because the laws of nature are consistent.
In the real world, it is entirely appropriate to assume that once you have confirmed your hypothesis, all other hypotheses inconsistent with it are incorrect.
In the legal world, however, this assumption does not hold. This is because unlike the laws of nature, political laws are not consistent.
The law human beings create to regulate their conduct is made up of incompatible, contradictory rules and principles; and, as anyone who has studied a little logic can demonstrate, any conclusion can be validly derived from a set of contradictory premises. This means that a logically sound argument can be found for any legal conclusion." >
"In the legal world, however, this assumption does not hold. This is because unlike the laws of nature, political laws are not consistent. "
Man made (or, any political) Law has little to nothing to do with Supreme Law.
Where my point is and in regards to the "rule of law" - it all centers around the premise that "Supreme Law" applies to all and cannot be challenged.
And that decision makers (competent judiciary) are answerable only to the very lawmaker himself.
That just as the "laws of nature" are considered as being from the creator - the "Supreme Law" itself is presumed (at law), to be God's (the creator's) law-and as decreed by, the Pope.
In his advice on the Pope's September 1st, 2013 Law, the Secretary for Relations with States Abp. Dominique Mamberti makes mention of the "rule of law", within the following;
............ "One of the cornerstones of the system introduced by this law is constituted by the so-called rule of law, as a result of which administrative sanctions may be imposed only in cases defined by law." [Itself]
The John Hasnas:Associate Professor, discussion paper...THE MYTH OF THE RULE OF LAW
The Facebook Group: www.facebook.com/groups/211871612287035/
Always, only an opinion.