Laws no longer rule

Whether you welcomed last weekend’s “No Kings” events or blasted them as “hate America rallies,” one thing seems clear: America no longer holds the rule of law sacred.

The problem doesn’t reside exclusively at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. It lives at many other addresses as well — in statehouses, courthouses, city halls, and police stations.

Not only are officials feeling empowered to do whatever they want by proclamation and selective misinterpretation of laws. They also are creating rules they never intend to be uniformly applied but rather are to be used only against people they regard as problematic.

Selective judgment in enforcement of laws can result in enlightened, compassionate treatment. But abandoning strict, letter-of-the-law enforcement by applying laws against some but not others can lead to bias and corruption. Rather than shields to protect us, laws become weapons for the powerful to use against us, often to silence dissent or ensure unearned support.

In dealing with laws, discretion isn’t valor; it’s more often arrogance, cowardice, or both.

The rule of law means no one is above the law, and everyone tries his or her best to follow it. It’s how, for 2½ centuries, America has maintained a stable and just society. But these days, the rule of law seems to mean little.

The Kansas League of Municipalities encourages cities to think that everything is legal, regardless of what statutes say, until someone challenges and a court rules otherwise.

Earlier this week, a Marion City Council member — a prominent Democrat who would never seek to be compared to Donald Trump — suggested creating rules “just in case,” which would be selectively enforced only against “problem” residents. Who’s a problem and who’s not? And why should one person or council have the right to decide?

We see the same thing in accident reports. Years ago, when motorists were involved in a wreck, one almost always got a ticket. Nowadays, even when it’s clear to a police officer that one was at fault, tickets rarely are issued — especially to people somehow viewed as not being a “problem” or, perhaps, of being capable of creating problems for the officer if he tries to write them up.

The council member who wanted to craft a selectively enforced law joked beforehand that only one of his council colleagues and possibly this writer ever read city ordinances. Why should anyone bother if none of the provisions are likely to be enforced against anyone except “problem” people?

If you wonder why people don’t get involved in government discussions, perhaps it’s because they don’t want to be seen as part of the “problem” group.

— ERIC MEYER