Rex Lex, or Lex Rex?

This is one of those things that may be politics, or may be religion. The two are inescapably intertwined, and in many cases the same thing, so I will put it here on my politics blog first, then cross-post it at my religion blog.

I was reading some religion blog, I can’t find the source, and it brought up a Puritan named Samuel Rutherford, who took the ancient Latin proverb, rex lex– the king is the law- and turned it around to lex rex, the law is king. This of course follows the Puritan effort to delegitimize the authority of the king and the Catholic hierarchy, and replace it with something else- but what else? The law? What is the law anyway?

The “rule of law” is a sacred American concept, logically enough as America is a Puritan country. Conservatives love the rule of law, because they see liberals violating the law all the time, usually through the legal system itself.

Here’s a good example– I hate to foist the Atlantic on you, but it’s the only progressive fish-wrapper I read. This “legal scholar” presents his view on a subject, with a combination of confidently asserted logical fallacies and menacing normative language. The law might be any number of things, but for the most powerful people in the most powerful country, that’s what it is.

Rex lex means the king is the law, or says what the law is. Lex rex means the law tells the king what he can do. Since the law will always be interpreted by someone- especially in the Anglophone system, where the law is deliberately vague to leave power in the hands of the judge, who represents a king who no longer exists- there is always some power that comes before the law. The only question is what it is.

As far as Anglophone power reaches, we are ruled by the whims of the Puritan elite. In the religious or existential sense, though, what comes before the law is God, if you believe in God, or just simply reality, if you are an atheist, in which case reality is God- the final source that can’t be questioned or challenged.

Any kind of law, policy, or custom has to conform to, or at least not challenge, reality. Progressivism is entirely lies, but makes a loophole for itself by exempting the elite from most of their own rules.

So the answer is rex lex, and anybody who says otherwise is setting himself up as your ruler.


About thrasymachus33308

I like fast cars, fast women and southern-fried rock. I have an ongoing beef with George Orwell. I take my name from a character in Plato's "Republic" who was exasperated with the kind of turgid BS that passed for deep thought and political discourse in that time and place, just as I am today. The character, whose name means "fierce fighter" was based on a real person but nobody knows for sure what his actual political beliefs were. I take my pseudonym from a character in an Adam Sandler song who was a obnoxious jerk who pissed off everybody.
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

3 Responses to Rex Lex, or Lex Rex?

  1. Hizzle says:

    The basic argument behind the main laws being jammed down Americans’ throats is, “If you don’t let gay people get married, you are cruel and have no respect for the feelings of gay people.” Yet when the senate passes a bill (SB1070) to protect the people of Arizona, respect for peoples’ feelings goes out the window. I’m sure it hurts the feelings of an Arizonan when their child contracts drug-resistant TB from the child of an illegal, or I’m sure it hurts the feelings of an Arizonan when a drunken illegal plows his truck into their body at a crosswalk (illegals have an ultra-high DUI rate), but as someone once said, it’s a “who, whom,” game. Gay people’s feelings matter more than Arizonans’ lives.

  2. Jehu says:

    What we’ve got in the US is way worse than Rex Lex
    When you’ve got one king, even a capricious one, it is still generally possible to get a handle on what you ought to do to give him his due. But when you’ve got a thousand little would be Rex’s each denying that they’re the Rex, all pulling in different enough directions so as to make obedience essentially impossible even were you inclined to do so. It isn’t possible to obey the law because it doesn’t exist—even if you use a pretty loose definition of such.

  3. Pingback: Obamnesty SCOTUS Hearing Shows “Wise Latina” Sotomayor Is Embarrassment To Court | VDARE - premier news outlet for patriotic immigration reform

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s