Mosaic representing both the judicial and legislative aspects of law. The woman on the throne holds a sword to chastise the guilty and a palm branch to reward the meritorious. Glory surrounds her head, and the aegis of Minerva signifies the armor of righteousness and wisdom.^[1]

Part of a series on
Politics
Primary topics Index of politics articles Politics by country Politics by subdivision Political economy Political history Political history of the world Political philosophy
Political systems Anarchist Capitalist City-state Communist Democracy Federacy Feudalism Mixed economy Dictatorship Directorial Meritocracy Monarchy Parliamentary Presidential Semi-presidential Theocracy
Academic disciplines Political science Political scientists International relations (theory) Comparative politics
Public administration Bureaucracy Street-level bureaucracy Adhocracy
Policy Public policy (Legal doctrine) Public interest Foreign policy
Organs of government Separation of powers Legislature Executive Judiciary Electoral branch
Other topics Sovereignty Theories of political behavior Biology and political orientation
Subseries Elections Electoral systems Voting Federalism Form of government Ideology Political campaigning Political parties
Politics portal
v t e

The rule of law is a legal maxim whereby governmental decisions are made by applying known legal principles.^[2] Such a government can be called a nomocracy, from the Greek nomos (law) and kratos (power or rule). The phrase can be traced back to 17th century and was popularized in the 19th century by British jurist A. V. Dicey. The concept was familiar to ancient philosophers such as Aristotle, who wrote "Law should govern".^[3] Rule of law implies that every citizen is subject to the law. It stands in contrast to the idea that the ruler is above the law, for example by divine right.

Despite wide use by politicians, judges and academics, the rule of law has been described as "an exceedingly elusive notion"^[4] giving rise to a "rampant divergence of understandings ... everyone is for it but have contrasting convictions about what it is."^[5]

At least two principal conceptions of the rule of law can be identified: a formalist or "thin" and a substantive or "thick" definition of the rule of law. Formalist definitions of the rule of law do not make a judgment about the "justness" of law itself, but define specific procedural attributes that a legal framework must have in order to be in compliance with the rule of law. Substantive conceptions of the rule of law go beyond this and include certain substantive rights that are said to be based on, or derived from, the rule of law.^[6]

History[link]

Although credit for popularizing the expression "the rule of law" in modern times is usually given to A. V. Dicey,^[7][8] development of the legal concept can be traced through history to many ancient civilizations, including ancient Greece, China, Mesopotamia, and Rome.^[9]

Antiquity[link]

In Western philosophy, the Ancient Greeks initially regarded the best form of government as rule by the best men. Plato advocated a benevolent monarchy ruled by an idealized philosopher king, who was above the law.^[10] Plato nevertheless hoped that the best men would be good at respecting established laws, explaining that "Where the law is subject to some other authority and has none of its own, the collapse of the state, in my view, is not far off; but if law is the master of the government and the government is its slave, then the situation is full of promise and men enjoy all the blessings that the gods shower on a state."^[11] More than Plato attempted to do, Aristotle flatly opposed letting the highest officials wield power beyond guarding and serving the laws.^[10] In other words, Aristotle advocated the rule of law:

It is more proper that law should govern than any one of the citizens: upon the same principle, if it is advantageous to place the supreme power in some particular persons, they should be appointed to be only guardians, and the servants of the laws.^[3]

According to the Roman statesman Cicero, "We are all servants of the laws in order that we may be free."^[12] During the Roman Republic, controversial magistrates might be put on trial when their terms of office expired. Under the Roman Empire, the sovereign was personally immune (legibus solutus), but those with grievances could sue the treasury.^[7]

In China, members of the school of legalism during the 3rd century BC argued for using law as a tool of governance, but they promoted "rule by law" as opposed to "rule of law", meaning that they placed the aristocrats and emperor above the law.^[13] In contrast, the Huang-Lao school of Daoism rejected legal positivism in favor of a natural law that even the ruler would be subject to.^[14]

Middle Ages[link]

In Islamic jurisprudence rule of law was formulated in the seventh century, so that no official could claim to be above the law, not even the caliph.^[15] However, this was not a reference to secular law, but to Islamic religious law in the form of Sharia law.

In 1215, Archbishop Stephen Langton gathered the Barons in England and forced King John and future sovereigns and magistrates back under the rule of law, preserving ancient liberties by the Magna Carta in return for exacting taxes.^{[16] [17]} This foundation for constitution was carried into the Constitution of the United States.

Modern times[link]

An early example of the phrase "rule of law" is found in a petition to James I of England in 1610, from the House of Commons:

Amongst many other points of happiness and freedom which your majesty's subjects of this kingdom have enjoyed under your royal progenitors, kings and queens of this realm, there is none which they have accounted more dear and precious than this, to be guided and governed by the certain rule of the law which giveth both to the head and members that which of right belongeth to them, and not by any uncertain or arbitrary form of government....^[18]

In 1607, English Chief Justice Sir Edward Coke said in the Case of Prohibitions (according to his own report) "that the law was the golden met-wand and measure to try the causes of the subjects; and which protected His Majesty in safety and peace: with which the King was greatly offended, and said, that then he should be under the law, which was treason to affirm, as he said; to which I said, that Bracton saith, quod Rex non debed esse sub homine, sed sub Deo et lege (That the King ought not to be under any man but under God and the law.)."

Among the first modern authors to give the principle theoretical foundations was Samuel Rutherford in Lex, Rex (1644). The title is Latin for "the law is king" and reverses the traditional rex lex ("the king is the law"). John Locke also discussed this issue in his Second Treatise of Government (1690). The principle was also discussed by Montesquieu in The Spirit of the Laws (1748).^[19] The phrase "rule of law" appears in Samuel Johnson's Dictionary (1755).^[20]

In 1776, the notion that no one is above the law was popular during the founding of the United States. For example, Thomas Paine wrote in his pamphlet Common Sense that "in America, the law is king. For as in absolute governments the King is law, so in free countries the law ought to be king; and there ought to be no other."^[21] In 1780, John Adams enshrined this principle in the Massachusetts Constitution by seeking to establish "a government of laws and not of men."^[22]

Categorization of interpretations[link]

Different people have different interpretations about exactly what "rule of law" means. According to political theorist Judith N. Shklar, "the phrase 'the Rule of Law' has become meaningless thanks to ideological abuse and general over-use", but nevertheless this phrase has in the past had specific and important meanings.^[23] Among modern legal theorists, most views on this subject fall into three general categories: the formal (or "thin") approach, the substantive (or "thick") approach, and the functional approach.^[24][25]

The "formal" interpretation is more widespread than the "substantive" interpretation. Formalists hold that the law must be prospective, well-known, and have characteristics of generality, equality, and certainty. Other than that, the formal view contains no requirements as to the content of the law.^[24] This formal approach allows laws that protect democracy and individual rights, but recognizes the existence of "rule of law" in countries that do not necessarily have such laws protecting democracy or individual rights.

The substantive interpretation holds that the rule of law intrinsically protects some or all individual rights.

The functional interpretation of the term "rule of law", consistent with the traditional English meaning, contrasts the "rule of law" with the "rule of man."^[25] According to the functional view, a society in which government officers have a great deal of discretion has a low degree of "rule of law", whereas a society in which government officers have little discretion has a high degree of "rule of law".^[25] The rule of law is thus somewhat at odds with flexibility, even when flexibility may be preferable.^[25]

The ancient concept of rule of law can be distinguished from rule by law, according to political science professor Li Shuguang: "The difference....is that, under the rule of law, the law is preeminent and can serve as a check against the abuse of power. Under rule by law, the law is a mere tool for a government, that suppresses in a legalistic fashion."^[26]

Status in various jurisdictions[link]

The rule of law has been considered as one of the key dimensions that determine the quality and good governance of a country.^[27] Research, like the Worldwide Governance Indicators, defines the rule of law as: "the extent to which agents have confidence and abide by the rules of society, and in particular the quality of contract enforcement, the police and the courts, as well as the likelihood of crime or violence."^[27] Based on this definition the Worldwide Governance Indicators project has developed aggregate measurements for the rule of law in more than 200 countries, as seen in the map below.^[28] The rule of law has also been discussed in relation to the United Kingdom.

United States[link]

2005 map of Worldwide Governance Indicators, which attempts to measure the extent to which agents have confidence in and abide by the rules of society. Colors range from dark green (90th-100th percentile) to light green (75th-90th percentile), yellow (50th-75th percentile), orange (25th-50th percentile), pink (10th-25th percentile) and red (0th-10th percentile). Percentile rank indicates the percentage of countries worldwide that rate below the selected country.

All government officers of the United States, including the President, the Justices of the Supreme Court, and all members of Congress, pledge first and foremost to uphold the Constitution. These oaths affirm that the rule of law is superior to the rule of any human leader.^[29] At the same time, the federal government has considerable discretion: the legislative branch is free to decide what statutes it will write, as long as it stays within its enumerated powers and respects the constitutionally protected rights of individuals. Likewise, the judicial branch has a degree of judicial discretion,^[30] and the executive branch also has various discretionary powers including prosecutorial discretion.

Scholars continue to debate whether the U.S. Constitution adopted a particular interpretation of the "rule of law," and if so, which one. For example, Law Professor John Harrison asserts that the word "law" in the Constitution is simply defined as that which is legally binding, rather than being "defined by formal or substantive criteria," and therefore judges do not have discretion to decide that laws fail to satisfy such unwritten and vague criteria.^[31] Law Professor Frederick Mark Gedicks disagrees, writing that Cicero, Augustine, Thomas Aquinas, and the framers of the U.S. Constitution believed that an unjust law was not really a law at all.^[32]

James Wilson said during the Philadelphia Convention in 1787 that, "Laws may be unjust, may be unwise, may be dangerous, may be destructive; and yet not be so unconstitutional as to justify the Judges in refusing to give them effect." George Mason agreed that judges "could declare an unconstitutional law void. But with regard to every law, however unjust, oppressive or pernicious, which did not come plainly under this description, they would be under the necessity as judges to give it a free course."^[33] Chief Justice John Marshall (joined by Justice Joseph Story) took a similar position in 1827: "When its existence as law is denied, that existence cannot be proved by showing what are the qualities of a law."^[34]

Asia[link]

East Asian cultures are influenced by two schools of thought, Confucianism, which advocated good governance as rule by leaders who are benevolent and virtuous, and Legalism, which advocated strict adherence to law. The influence of one school of thought over the other has varied throughout the centuries. One study indicates that throughout East Asia, only South Korea, Japan, Taiwan and Hong Kong have societies that are robustly committed to a law-bound state.^[35] According to Awzar Thi, a member of the Asian Human Rights Commission, the rule of law in Thailand, Cambodia, and most of Asia is weak or nonexistent:

Apart from a number of states and territories, across the continent there is a huge gulf between the rule of law rhetoric and reality. In Thailand, the police force is an organized crime gang. In Cambodia, judges are proxies for the ruling political party….That a judge may harbor political prejudice or apply the law unevenly are the smallest worries for an ordinary criminal defendant in Asia. More likely ones are: Will the police fabricate the evidence? Will the prosecutor bother to show up? Will the judge fall asleep? Will I be poisoned in prison? Will my case be completed within a decade?^[36]

In countries such as China and Vietnam, the transition to a market economy has been a major factor in a move toward the rule of law, because a rule of law is important to foreign investors and to economic development. It remains unclear whether the rule of law in countries like China and Vietnam will be limited to commercial matters or will spill into other areas as well, and if so whether that spillover will enhance prospects for related values such as democracy and human rights.^[37] The rule of law in China has been widely discussed and debated by both legal scholars and politicians in China.

In India, the longest constitutional text in the history of the world has governed that country since 1950. Although the Constitution of India may have been intended to provide details that would limit the opportunity for judicial discretion, the more text there is in a constitution the greater opportunity the judiciary may have to exercise judicial review.^[38] According to Indian journalist Harish Khare, "The rule of law or rather the Constitution [is] in danger of being supplanted by the rule of judges."^[39]

Japan had centuries of tradition prior to World War II, during which there were laws, but they did not provide a central organizing principle for society, and they did not constrain the powers of government (Boadi, 2001). As the 21st century began, the percentage of people who were lawyers and judges in Japan remained very low relative to western Europe and the United States, and legislation in Japan tended to be terse and general, leaving much discretion in the hands of bureaucrats.^[40]

Organizations and scholarly works[link]

Many organizations and scholars have advocated the rule of law and have taken positions regarding the interpretation of that concept they prefer.

International Commission of Jurists[link]

In 1959, an international gathering of over 185 judges, lawyers, and law professors from 53 countries, meeting in New Delhi and speaking as the International Commission of Jurists, made a declaration as to the fundamental principle of the rule of law. This was the Declaration of Delhi. They declared that the rule of law implies certain rights and freedoms, that it implies an independent judiciary, and that it implies social, economic and cultural conditions conducive to human dignity. The Declaration of Delhi did not, however, suggest that the rule of law requires legislative power to be subject to judicial review.^[41]

United Nations[link]

The Secretary-General of the United Nations defines the rule of law as:^[42]

a principle of governance in which all persons, institutions and entities, public and private, including the State itself, are accountable to laws that are publicly promulgated, equally enforced and independently adjudicated, and which are consistent with international human rights norms and standards. It requires, as well, measures to ensure adherence to the principles of supremacy of law, equality before the law, accountability to the law, fairness in the application of the law, separation of powers, participation in decision-making, legal certainty, avoidance of arbitrariness and procedural and legal transparency.

The General Assembly has considered rule of law as an agenda item since 1992, with renewed interest since 2006 and has adopted resolutions at its last three sessions.^[43] The Security Council has held a number of thematic debates on the rule of law,^[44] and adopted resolutions emphasizing the importance of these issues in the context of women, peace and security,^[45] children in armed conflict,^[46] and the protection of civilians in armed conflict.^[47] The Peacebuilding Commission has also regularly addressed rule of law issues with respect to countries on its agenda.^[48] The Vienna Declaration and Programme of Action also requires the rule of law be included in human rights education.^[49]

International Bar Association[link]

The Council of the International Bar Association passed a resolution in 2009 endorsing a substantive or "thick" definition of the rule of law:^[50]

An independent, impartial judiciary; the presumption of innocence; the right to a fair and public trial without undue delay; a rational and proportionate approach to punishment; a strong and independent legal profession; strict protection of confidential communications between lawyer and client; equality of all before the law; these are all fundamental principles of the Rule of Law. Accordingly, arbitrary arrests; secret trials; indefinite detention without trial; cruel or degrading treatment or punishment; intimidation or corruption in the electoral process, are all unacceptable. The Rule of Law is the foundation of a civilised society. It establishes a transparent process accessible and equal to all. It ensures adherence to principles that both liberate and protect. The IBA calls upon all countries to respect these fundamental principles. It also calls upon its members to speak out in support of the Rule of Law within their respective communities.

World Justice Project[link]

As used by the World Justice Project, a non-profit organization committed to advancing the rule of law around the world, the rule of law refers to a rules-based system in which the following four universal principles are upheld:^[51]

1. The government and its officials and agents are accountable under the law;
2. The laws are clear, publicized, stable, fair, and protect fundamental rights, including the security of persons and property;
3. The process by which the laws are enacted, administered, and enforced is accessible, fair, and efficient;
4. Access to justice is provided by competent, independent, and ethical adjudicators, attorneys or representatives, and judicial officers who are of sufficient number, have adequate resources, and reflect the makeup of the communities they serve.

The World Justice Project has developed an Index to measure the extent to which countries adhere to the rule of law in practice. The WJP Rule of Law Index is composed of 9 factors and 52 sub-factors, and covers a variety of dimensions of the rule of law —such as whether government officials are accountable under the law, and whether legal institutions protect fundamental rights and allow ordinary people access to justice.^[52]

Albert Dicey[link]

British jurist A. V. Dicey popularized the phrase "rule of law" in 1885.^[7][53] Dicey emphasized three aspects of the rule of law :^[54]

1. No one can be punished or made to suffer except for a breach of law proved in an ordinary court.
2. No one is above the law and everyone is equal before the law regardless of social, economic, or political status.
3. The rule of law includes the results of judicial decisions determining the rights of private persons.

Joseph Raz[link]

In 1977, the influential political theorist Joseph Raz identified several principles that may be associated with the rule of law in some (but not all) societies.^[55] Raz's principles encompass the requirements of guiding the individual's behaviour and minimizing the danger that results from the exercise of discretionary power in an arbitrary fashion, and in this last respect he shares common ground with the constitutional theorists A. V. Dicey, Friedrich Hayek and E. P. Thompson. Some of Raz's principles are as follows:

• That laws should be prospective rather than retroactive.
• Laws should be stable and not changed too frequently, as lack of awareness of the law prevents one from being guided by it.
• There should be clear rules and procedures for making laws.
• The independence of the judiciary has to be guaranteed.
• The principles of natural justice should be observed, particularly those concerning the right to a fair hearing.
• The courts should have the power of judicial review over the way in which the other principles are implemented.
• The courts should be accessible; no man may be denied justice.
• The discretion of law enforcement and crime prevention agencies should not be allowed to pervert the law.

According to Raz, the validity of these principles depends upon the particular circumstances of different societies, whereas the rule of law generally "is not to be confused with democracy, justice, equality (before the law or otherwise), human rights of any kind or respect for persons or for the dignity of man".^[55]

In relation to economics[link]

One important aspect of the rule-of-law initiatives is the study and analysis of the rule of law’s impact on economic development. The rule-of-law movement cannot be fully successful in transitional and developing countries without an answer to the question: does the rule of law matter for economic development or not?^[56] Constitutional economics is the study of the compatibility of economic and financial decisions within existing constitutional law frameworks, and such a framework includes government spending on the judiciary, which, in many transitional and developing countries, is completely controlled by the executive. It is useful to distinguish between the two methods of corruption of the judiciary: corruption by the executive branch, in contrast to corruption by private actors.

The standards of constitutional economics can be used during annual budget process, and if that budget planning is transparent then the rule of law may benefit. The availability of an effective court system, to be used by the civil society in situations of unfair government spending and executive impoundment of previously authorized appropriations, is a key element for the success of the rule-of-law endeavor.^[57]

The Rule of Law is especially important as an influence on the economic development in developing and transitional countries. To date, the term “rule of law” has been used primarily in the English-speaking countries, and it is not yet fully clarified even with regard to such well-established democracies as, for instance, Sweden, Denmark, France, Germany, or Japan. A common language between lawyers of common law and civil law countries as well as between legal communities of developed and developing countries is critically important for research of links between the rule of law and real economy.^[58]

The modern economist F. A. Hayek analyzed how the Rule of Law might be beneficial to the free market. Hayek proposed that under the Rule of Law individuals would be able to make wise investments and future plans with some confidence in a successful return on investment when he stated: "under the Rule of Law the government is prevented from stultifying individual efforts by ad hoc action. Within the known rules of the game the individual is free to pursue his personal ends and desires, certain that the powers of government will not be used deliberately to frustrate his efforts."^[59] Hayek defined the Rule of Law as the opposite of arbitrary government: "The distinction we have drawn before between the creation of a permanent framework of laws within which the productive activity is guided by individual decisions and the direction of economic activity by a central authority is thus really a particular case of the more general distinction between the Rule of Law and arbitrary government. Under the first the government confines itself to fixing rules determining the conditions under which the available resources may be used, leaving to the individuals the decision for what ends they are to be used. Under the second the government directs the use of the means of production to particular ends. The first type of rules can be made in advance, in the shape of formal rules which do not aim at the wants and needs of particular people. They are intended to be merely instrumental in the pursuit of people's various individual ends. And they are, or ought to be, intended for such long periods that it is impossible to know whether they will assist particular people more than others. They could almost be described as a kind of instrument of production, helping people to predict the behavior of those with whom they must collaborate, rather than as efforts toward the satisfaction of particular needs."^[60]

Amity Shlaes, author of The Forgotten man: A New History of the Great Depression discusses the impact of the Rule of Law or its absence on economics in her article "The Rules of the Game and Economic Recovery".

In conflict with natural law[link]

Upholding the rule of law can sometimes require the punishment of those who commit offenses that are justifiable under natural law but not statutory law. Heidi M. Hurd raises the example of a battered woman who rightly believes that there is a strong probability that her husband will eventually attempt to kill her and her children unless she preemptively kills him. If the law does not permit the acquittal of those who claim self-defense in the absence of an imminent threat of harm, then the woman must be punished, or "what will become of the rule of law? For law seemingly ceases to be law if judges are entitled to rethink its wisdom in every case to which it applies and to disregard it whenever it is inferior to the rule that they would fashion."^[61]

Further reading[link]

Oakeshott, Michael. Lectures in the History of Political Thought, chapters 31 and 32.

See also[link]

• Legal certainty
• Sovereign immunity
• Equality before the law
• Judicial activism
• Mob rule
• Judiciary
• Separation of powers
• Civil society
• Nuremberg Principles
• Public interest litigation
• Querulant
• Rechtsstaat
• Rule according to higher law
• State secrets privilege

Notes[link]

External links[link]

• Hague Journal on the Rule of Law, includes academic articles, practitioner reports, commentary, and book reviews.
• International Network to Promote the Rule of Law, United States Institute of Peace.
• Rule of Law Resource Center, LexisNexis
• Bingham, Thomas. "The Rule of Law", Centre for Public Law, Faculty of Law, University of Cambridge (2006-11-16).
• "The Rule of Law Inventory Report", Hague Institute for the Internationalisation of Law (HiiL), Hague Academic Coalition (2007-04-20).
• The World Justice Project A multinational, multidisciplinary initiative to strengthen the rule of law worldwide.
• World Justice Map Map-based information exchange platform facilitating networking among Rule of Law promoters globally.
• "Understandings of the Rule of Law in various Legal Orders of the World", Wiki-Project of Freie Universitaet Berlin.
• Eau Claire County Bar Association rule of law talk
• Frithjof Ehm "The Rule of Law: Concept, Guiding Principle and Framework"

Laura Nader (born 1930) is an American anthropologist.

She has been a Professor of Anthropology at the University of California, Berkeley since 1960.^[1] (She was the first woman to receive a tenure-track position in the department.) She received a BA in Latin American Studies from Wells College in Aurora, NY in 1952. She received her Ph.D. in Anthropology from Radcliffe College (the women’s counterpart which joined Harvard in 1999) in 1961 under the mentorship of Clyde Kluckhohn.^[1] Her education included fieldwork in a Zapotec village in Oaxaca, Mexico, which nurtured her interest in law as it exists in various societies. This interest that began with her family, which stressed the importance of law and justice.

Her father Nathra owned a restaurant/store in Connecticut, which served as a place for many political discussions. Her mother, Rose, was a schoolteacher who had a strong interest in justice and would express her views in letters to the press. Her older deceased brother, Shafeek; her older sister, Claire and her younger brother, Ralph have all served in public interest careers. Gamal Nkrumah (2005)^[2] profiled Dr. Nader in the weekly online news out of Egypt and commented on her loyalties to her father who emigrated from Lebanon for political reasons, “Nader is very much her father's daughter. And it was her elder brother who first suggested she read anthropology at university."

Research[link]

Nader’s areas of interest include comparative ethnography of law and dispute resolution, conflict, comparative family organization, the anthropology of professional mindsets and ethnology of the Middle East, Mexico, Latin America and the contemporary United States. She was involved in conferences in the 1960s, determining the direction the study of law in society as a part of society and not insulated and isolated from other human institutions, should take as it developed. Nader edited and published essays from these conferences as well as authoring several books on the anthropology of law, establishing herself as one of the most influential figures in the development of the field.

Some of her work focuses on conflict resolution in the Zapotec village she studied. Nader notes that people confront each other face to face on a personal scale. Judges strive to find solutions that are balanced rather than placing one hundred percent of the blame on one party. Nader believes this reflects the society, their economic system, hierarchal structure and any other institution or variable. In contrast, she finds that in the United States, conflict often escalates to polarized blame and violence. The group of people a person may need to confront may be large and impersonal and much more powerful than themselves. She concludes that the kinds of cases people bring to court, reflect areas of stress in the social structure of a community.

However, Nader has written extensively about "harmony ideology," the ideology centered around the belief that the existence of conflict is necessarily a bad or dysfunctional thing and that a healthy society is one that achieves harmony between people and minimizes conflict and confrontation. She has argued in her book Harmony Ideology that harmony ideology has been spread amongst colonized peoples around the world by missionaries prior to (and facilitating) their military colonization and that the Zapotec used it in a "counter-hegemonic" way by maintaining the appearance of harmony (while in practice engaging in a great deal of litigation) in order to prevent the Mexican government from interfering with their relative autonomy. Nader has also argued that harmony ideology has been an important basis for unsubstantiated ideas that have developed in the United States since the 1960s about a "litigation explosion" and for the development of Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) as a method for removing so-called "garbage cases" (for instance, the then newly appearing civil rights cases of the 1960s) from the courtroom into an arena that emphasizes harmony, compromise and the language of therapy over talk of injustice.

While Nader's career began with a strong interest in law and forms of social control, over time she became more interested in questions of cultural control and "controlling processes" (also the title of an immensely popular undergraduate course she taught from 1984 until 2010), a concept described further in her 1997 article, "Controlling Processes: Tracing the Dynamic Components of Power."^[3]

One of Nader's best known contributions was in writing the at the time highly controversial "Up the Anthropologist--Perspectives Gained From Studying Up" in 1969, which was "one of the first calls to anthropologists to think more about the 'study of the colonizers rather than the colonized, the culture of power rather than the culture of the powerless, the culture of affluence rather than the culture of poverty.'"^[4] This call led many anthropologists to begin to "study up," although many misinterpreted Nader's call and did not simultaneously study "down" and "sideways." Nader's works for the field of anthropology and discipline have led her to be described as "the embodied moral conscience of post-Boasian American anthropology."^[5]

Nader has coined the term "trustanoia" to describe the antonym of paranoia and the state of Americans' feeling of trust of others. She contends that people in the United States trust that there is always someone there to take care of them, and that everyone (including legislators and politicians) acts in their interest.

Awards[link]

• Morgan Spanish Prize, Wells College [2]
• Wells College Alumnae Award, Wells College
• Radcliffe College Alumnae Award
• Center for Advanced Study in the Behavioral Sciences
• Harry Kalven Prize (1995), Law and Society Association [3]
• American Anthropological Association, Distinguished Lecture Award (2000), American Anthropological Association [4]
• Member of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences

The problem is,"Trustanoia" is the opposite of American Individualism with the Constitution of the USA. The Constitution was developed for the Individual to have a means of protecting his/her self, from an intrusive government. There is no society where the people trusted their government---for long, as government tends to get bigger and take over Individuals lives. We could assume 90% of the population on Earth, fear their government, because Individuals do now in the USA (2012).

Publications[link]

Books and Articles (over 280 publications)[link]

• Laura Nader (1964). Talea and Juquila; a comparison of Zapotec social organization. University of California Press. OCLC 2958459. 
• Laura Nader (1965). The ethnography of law. Menasha, Wisconsin: American Anthropological Association. OCLC 3075225. 
• Laura Nader; Wenner-Gren Foundation for Anthropological Research (1969). Law in culture and society. Chicago: Aldine Publishing Company. OCLC 59266. 
• Laura Nader; Thomas Maretzki; Center for Advanced Study in the Behavioral Sciences (Stanford, Calif.) (1973). Cultural illness and health; essays in human adaptation. Washington: American Anthropological Association. OCLC 741222. 
• Laura Nader; University of California, Berkeley. Dept. of Anthropology (1976). The Kroeber Islanders ; a handbook of anthropology at Berkeley. University of California, Dept. of Anthropology. OCLC 29557308. 
• Laura Nader (1977). The problem of order in a faceless society. s.l. : s.n.. OCLC 4865456. 
• Laura Nader; Harry F Todd (1978). The Disputing process : law in ten societies. New York: Columbia University Press. ISBN 0-231-04536-0. 
• Laura Nader (July 1980). Energy Choices in a Democratic Society. National Academy of Sciences. ISBN 0-309-03045-5. 
• Laura Nader (August 1981). No Access to Law: Alternatives to the American Judicial System. Academic Press. ISBN 0-12-513562-9. 
• Gary B Melton; Laura Nader (1986). The law as a behavioral instrument. University of Nebraska Press. ISBN 0-8032-3100-8. 
• Laura Nader (1990). Harmony ideology : justice and control in a Zapotec mountain village. Stanford University Press. ISBN 0-8047-1809-1. 
• Laura Nader (1992). The Cheyenne way : conflict and case law in primitive jurisprudence : K.N. LLewellyn and E. Adamson Hoebel : notes from the editors. Delran, New Jersey: The Legal Classics Library. OCLC 28897832 . 
• Laura Nader (1994). Essays on controlling processes. Berkeley, CA: Kroeber Anthropological Society. OCLC 31980852. . Reprinted in 1996 OCLC 36139409, 2002 OCLC 50922612 and 2005 OCLC 68178289.
• Laura Nader (1996). Naked science : anthropological inquiry into boundaries, power, and knowledge. New York: Routledge. ISBN 0-415-91464-7. 
• Laura Nader (1997). Law in culture and society. University of California Press. ISBN 0-520-20833-1. 
• Laura Nader (2002). The life of the law : anthropological projects. University of California Press. ISBN 0-520-22988-6.  Reprinted in 2005 ISBN 0-520-23163-5.
• Ugo Mattei; Laura Nader (2008). Plunder: When the Rule of Law is Illegal. Blackwell Publishers. ISBN 978-1-4051-7894-5.  Printed in 2008 ISBN 978-1-4051-7894-5.

References[link]

1. ^ ^{a b} Laura Nader (2004). "The Link Between Justice and International Law". Peace and Conflict: Journal of Peace Psychology 10 (3): pp 297–299. DOI:10.1207/s15327949pac1003_6. ISSN 1532-7949. 
2. ^ Gamal Nkrumah (2005). "Speaking Out in Al-Ahram Weekly". Web Ezine: pp 1–5.  http://weekly.ahram.org.eg/2005/726/profile.htm
3. ^ Laura Nader, "Controlling Processes - Tracing the Dynamic Components of Power" (1997). Current Anthropology. 38 (5), pp. 711-737. Postprint available free at: http://repositories.cdlib.org/postprints/3107
4. ^ [1]
5. ^ David H. Price (2004), Threatening Anthropology. p. xv. Durham: Duke University Press

External links[link]

• Laura Nader's biosketch at UC-Berkeley
• The Drift to War; Laura Nader, Interviewed by John M. Whiteley
• Q and A: A Conversation with Laura Nader
• Laura Nader: Speaking out. When silence is part of the problem (Al-Ahram Weekly)
• Laura Nader: What's Good About Conflict? (Anthropology News)
• Laura Nader keynote address at American University Fifth Annual Public Anthropology Conference

The Rule
Background information
Origin	Minnesota, United States
Genres	pop, R&B, reggae
Labels	R, R, & R Records
Website	therulemusic.com
Members
Ryan Liestman Jeff Love Shawn Connelly
Past members
Gregory Washington

The Rule (formerly Ry and the Rule) is an American pop/R&B band, led by Ryan Liestman (keyboardist for the Jonas Brothers^[1]). The group released its first album, the self-titled The Rule in the summer of 2006, under the indie label R, R, & R Records. Michael Bland, Tommy Barbarella, and Stokley Williams have also performed with The Rule.^[2]

In the fall of 2006, The Rule toured the United States with American, Grammy Award-winning singer Cyndi Lauper.^[3]

Discography[link]

Albums[link]

• The Rule (2006)

Additional images[link]

• 

  The Rule in concert in the summer of 2006.

References[link]

first grad second grade third grade

External links[link]

• Official site
• The Rule on Myspace
• Earthquake Music Video
• Commercial for 2006 Cyndia Lauper Tour (special guest, The Rule)

This article on a United States band or other musical ensemble is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by expanding it. v t e

Paul Ryan
Member of the U.S. House of Representatives from Wisconsin's 1st district
Incumbent
Assumed office January 3, 1999
Preceded by	Mark Neumann
Chairman of the House Committee on the Budget
Incumbent
Assumed office January 3, 2011
Preceded by	John Spratt
Personal details
Born	Paul Davis Ryan (1970-01-29) January 29, 1970 (age 42) Janesville, Wisconsin
Political party	Republican
Spouse(s)	Janna Ryan
Children	Elizabeth, Charles, and Samuel
Residence	Janesville, Wisconsin
Alma mater	Miami University (B.A.)
Religion	Roman Catholic
Website	U.S. Congressman Paul Ryan

Paul Davis Ryan^[1] (born January 29, 1970) is the U.S. Representative for Wisconsin's 1st congressional district, serving since 1999. He is a member of the Republican Party, and has been ranked among the party's most influential voices on economic policy.^[2][3][4]

Born and raised in Janesville, Wisconsin, Ryan graduated from Miami University in Ohio and later worked as a marketing consultant for Ryan Incorporated Central, run by a branch of his family. In the mid to late 1990s, he worked as an aide to United States Senator Bob Kasten, as legislative director for Senator Sam Brownback of Kansas, and as a speechwriter for former U.S. Representative and 1996 Republican vice presidential nominee Jack Kemp of New York. In 1998, Ryan won election to the United States House of Representatives, succeeding the two-term incumbent, fellow Republican Mark Neumann.

Ryan currently chairs the House Budget Committee, where he has played a prominent public role in drafting and promoting the Republican Party's long-term budget proposal. He introduced a plan, The Path to Prosperity, in April 2011 as an alternative to the budget proposal of President Barack Obama, and helped introduce The Path to Prosperity: A Blueprint for American Renewal in March 2012, in response to Obama's 2013 budget.^[5] Ryan is one of the three co-founders of the Young Guns Program, an electoral recruitment and campaign effort by House Republicans. He endorsed Republican presidential candidate and former Governor of Massachusetts Mitt Romney for the 2012 United States presidential election.^[6] Ryan has been considered as a possible running mate for Romney.^[7]

Early life, education, and career[link]

Ryan was born and raised in Janesville, Wisconsin, the youngest child of Elizabeth A. "Betty" (née Hutter) and Paul Murray Ryan, a lawyer.^[8][9][10] He is of Irish and German ancestry,^[11] and is a fifth-generation Janesville native. Ryan's great-grandfather is Patrick William Ryan, who founded the Ryan Incorporated Central construction business in 1884.^[12] Ryan's mother is an outdoors enthusiast who led her husband and four children (Ryan's sister Janet and two brothers, Tobin and Stan) on regular hiking and skiing trips in the Colorado Rocky Mountains.^[9][13] As a boy, Ryan attended Camp Manito-wish YMCA, a wilderness canoe tripping camp located in Boulder Junction, Wisconsin; while in college, he returned there to work as a staff member and counselor during summer vacation.

Ryan attended Joseph A. Craig High School in Janesville. In college, he briefly worked for Oscar Mayer as a Wienermobile driver.^[14] Ryan went on to graduate from Miami University in Oxford, Ohio, with a BA in economics and political science in 1992. He also studied at the Washington Semester program at American University and was a member of the Delta Tau Delta social fraternity. Following his studies, Ryan returned to Wisconsin and worked as a marketing consultant for an earth-moving company run by a branch of his family.^[13][15]

Ryan was 16 years old when he found his father in bed, dead from a heart attack at age 55. As a result, he received Social Security survivor's benefits until he turned 18. Ryan's grandfather and great-grandfather had also died from heart attacks, at ages 57 and 59 respectively.^[16]

Early political career[link]

In 2005, Ryan said, "The reason I got involved in public service, by and large, if I had to credit one thinker, one person, it would be Ayn Rand".^[17] New York magazine has claimed that Ryan requires his staff to read Atlas Shrugged.^[18] In 2012, however, he said that while as a young man he became interested in economics because of her novels, "It’s a big stretch to suggest that a person is therefore an Objectivist... I reject her philosophy. It's an atheist philosophy. It reduces human interactions down to mere contracts and it is antithetical to my worldview. If somebody is going to try to paste a person's view on epistemology to me, then give me Thomas Aquinas. Don't give me Ayn Rand."^[19]

During his junior year at Miami University, Ryan worked as an intern opening mail for the foreign affairs advisor assigned to Senator Bob Kasten of Wisconsin.^[20] Concerned that her son "...was destined to become a ski bum", Betty Ryan reportedly nudged him to accept another congressional position as a staff economist attached to Kasten's office.^[20][21] In his early years working in D.C., Ryan moonlighted on Capitol Hill as a waiter at the Tortilla Coast restaurant and as a fitness trainer at Washington Sport and Health Club, among various other side jobs.^[22]

After Kasten was defeated by Democrat Russ Feingold in 1992, Ryan became a speechwriter and a volunteer economic analyst with Empower America, an advocacy group formed by Jack Kemp, former education secretary Bill Bennett, the late diplomat Jeane Kirkpatrick, and former Representative Vin Weber of Minnesota.^[16][23]

Ryan worked as a speechwriter for Kemp, the Republican vice presidential candidate in the 1996 United States presidential election, and later worked as legislative director for US Senator Sam Brownback of Kansas. Ryan then returned to Wisconsin, where he worked as a consultant to an earth-moving company.^{[citation needed]} In 1998, he ran for Congress.

U.S. House of Representatives[link]

Following his first election to the US House of Representatives in 1998, one of Ryan's priorities as a new congressman was to convert a truck into a rolling district office. This allowed him to keep regular congressional office hours with his constituents at various locations across Wisconsin's 1st congressional district.^[24][1]

In 2002, Ryan voted in favor of the Iraq War resolution, authorizing President George W. Bush to use military force in Iraq.^[25] In 2003 he voted in favor of the Medicare Part D prescription drug expansion.^[26]

In 2005, Ryan spoke at a Celebration of Ayn Rand event hosted by The Atlas Society. During the event, Ryan spoke about the influence of Atlas Shrugged on his life.^[27]

He is one of the three founding members of the House GOP Young Guns Program.

In 2008, Ryan voted for the Troubled Asset Relief Program, the Wall Street bailout that precipitated the Tea Party movement, and the bailout of GM and Chrysler.^[28]

In 2010, The Daily Telegraph ranked Ryan the ninth most influential US conservative.^[2] In 2011, he was selected to deliver the Republican response to the State of the Union address.^[29]

In 2012, Ryan accused the nation's top military leaders of using "smoke and mirrors" to remain under budget limits passed by Congress.^[30] Ryan later said that he misspoke on the issue and called General Martin Dempsey to apologize for his comments.^[31]

Ryan's Second Budget Plan[link]

At the end of March 2012, the House of Representatives passed a newer version of Ryan's budget plan along partisan lines 228 yeas to 191 nays; ten Republicans voted against bill, along with all the House Democrats.^[32] Ryan's budget would reduce all discretionary spending in the budget from 12.5% of GDP in 2011 to 3.75% of GDP in 2050. This goal has been criticized as unrealistic since it includes spending on defense, which has never fallen below 3% of GDP.^[33] Congressman Justin Amash, a Republican from Michigan criticized Ryan's budget for insufficient cuts, its continuation of deficit spending through 2022 and beyond, and its exemption of military spending from reductions. ^[34] His budget has also been criticized because it would not balance the budget until 2035. Marc Goldwein, the policy directory for the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget stated "We may never, as a country, have a balanced budget again, And you know what? We don't have to." Ryan saw this as evidence of the severity of the deficit crisis.^[35]

The 2012 Ryan budget also received criticism from elements of the Catholic Church, specifically from the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops and from faculty and administrators of Georgetown University. In its letter to Rep. Ryan, the group of Georgetown faculty and administrators criticized the Ryan budget as trying to "to dismantle government programs and abandon the poor to their own devices," going on to say that Catholic teaching "demands that higher levels of government provide help—"subsidium"—when communities and local governments face problems beyond their means to address such as economic crises, high unemployment, endemic poverty and hunger." The letter also criticizes Ryan for his attempts at "gutting government programs" and states that Ryan is "profoundly misreading Church teaching."^[36] A statement issued by the US Conference of Catholic Bishops criticized the Ryan budget in similar terms.^[37] Ryan rejects the bishops' criticism that his budget plans would disproportionately cut programs that "serve poor and vulnerable people."^[38] Ryan's difficulties with the Catholic Church worsened when videos of Ryan praising and endorsing the "morality" of Ayn Rand's hyper-individualist philosophy were published on Youtube in 2012. ^[39]

In May of 2012, Ryan voted for H.R. 4310 which would increase spending on defense, Afghanistan and various weapon systems to the level of $642 billion - $8 billion more than what was agreed to by President Obama and the Congress in the summer of 2011. ^[40]

Committee assignments[link]

• Committee on the Budget (Chairman)
• Committee on Ways and Means
  • Subcommittee on Health

Caucus memberships[link]

• Congressional Middle East Economic Partnership Caucus
• International Conservation Caucus
• Republican Study Committee
• Sportsmen's Caucus (Co-Chair)

Roadmap for America's Future[link]

Ryan speaking at CPAC in February 2011.

On May 21, 2008, Ryan introduced H.R. 6110, titled "Roadmap for America's Future Act of 2008."^[41] This proposed legislation outlined a plan to deal with entitlement spending.^[42] Its stated objectives were: to ensure universal access to health insurance; to strengthen Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security; to lift debt from future generations; and to promote economic growth and job creation in America.^[43] Despite significant press coverage, it did not move past committee.^[44]

On April 1, 2009, Ryan introduced his alternative to the 2010 United States federal budget. This alternative budget would have eliminated the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, lowered the top tax rate to 25%, introduced an 8.5% value-added consumption tax, and imposed a five-year spending freeze on all discretionary spending.^[45] It would also have replaced Medicare.^[46] Instead, it proposed that starting in 2021, the federal government would pay part of the cost of private medical insurance for individuals turning 65.^[46] Ryan's proposed budget would also have allowed taxpayers to opt out of the federal income taxation system with itemized deductions, and instead pay a flat 10 percent of adjusted gross income up to $100,000 and 25 percent on any remaining income.^[47] Ryan's proposed budget was heavily criticized by opponents for the lack of concrete numbers.^[48] It was ultimately rejected in the house by a vote of 293-137, with 38 Republicans in opposition.^[49]

In late January 2010, Ryan released a new version of his Roadmap.^[50] The modified plan would: give across the board tax cuts by reducing income tax rates; eliminate income taxes on capital gains, dividends, and interest; and abolish the corporate income tax, estate tax, and alternative minimum tax. The plan would privatize a portion of Social Security,^[51][52] eliminate the tax exclusion for employer-sponsored health insurance,^[52] and privatize Medicare.^[51][52]

On April 15, 2011, the House passed the Ryan Plan by a vote of 235-193. Four Republicans joined all House Democrats in voting against it.^[53] A month later, the bill died in the Senate by a vote of 57-40, with five Republicans and most Democrats in opposition.^[54]

Economist and New York Times columnist Paul Krugman criticized the contention that Ryan's plan would reduce the deficit, alleging that it only considered proposed spending cuts and failed to take into account tax changes. According to Krugman, Ryan's plan "would raise taxes for 95 percent of the population" and produce a $4 trillion revenue loss over ten years from tax cuts for the rich. Krugman went on to label the proposed spending cuts a "sham" because they depended on making a severe cut in domestic discretionary spending without specifying the programs to be cut, and on "dismantling Medicare as we know it," which is politically unrealistic.^[55]

In response to Krugman, economist and former American Enterprise Institute scholar Ted Gayer wrote a more positive assessment of the Ryan plan. Gayer agreed that, as written, the plan would cause a $4 trillion revenue shortfall over 10 years. He noted, however, that Ryan had expressed a willingness to consider raising rates in his tax plan.^{[clarification needed]} Gayer concluded that "Ryan’s vision of broad-based tax reform, which essentially would shift us toward a consumption tax... makes a useful contribution to this debate."^[56]

Journalist Ramesh Ponnuru, writing in National Review, argued that the revenue loss to which Krugman refers is based on a comparison between Ryan's plan and current law, which "includes middle-class tax increases... cuts in payment to Medicare providers... [and] the expansion of the Alternative Minimum Tax."^[57] He added that "current law automatically raises the tax rates to pre-Bush levels in 2013... so if you're comparing the tax level with current law, Ryan's plan represents a tax cut" and "the CBO's actual projections for the Ryan plan show a debt level in 2021 that is $4.7 trillion lower than its projections for Obama's budgets."^[57]

Rick Foster, the chief actuary of Medicare, endorsed Ryan's plan for reducing Medicare costs: "If you can put that pressure on the research and development community, you might have a fighting chance of changing the nature of new medical technology in a way that makes lower costs like this possible and more sustainable. I would say that the Roadmap has that potential. There is some potential for the Affordable Care Act price reductions, although I’m a little less confident about that."^[58]

In December 2011, it was revealed that Ryan would begin a new push for changes in Medicare in 2012 by working with Democratic Senator Ron Wyden of Oregon to modify Ryan's previous Medicare proposal. His most recent approach for semi-privatization of Medicare would keep traditional Medicare as an option for senior citizens, but would also introduce private insurance into an exchange market to compete with traditional Medicare. Seniors would still be given a voucher to purchase care if they so desired, as in his previous proposal. Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney has supported a similar plan in his campaign.^[59]

Opposition to SOPA[link]

On January 9, 2012, four months after the introduction of Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA), Ryan pledged his opposition to the bill, saying, "The internet is one of the most magnificent expressions of freedom and free enterprise in history. It should stay that way. While H.R. 3261, the Stop Online Piracy Act, attempts to address legitimate problems, I believe it creates the precedent and possibility for undue regulation, censorship and legal abuse. I do not support H.R. 3261 in its current form and will oppose the legislation should it come before the full House."^[60]

Political campaigns[link]

Ryan was first elected to the House in 1998, when two-term incumbent Mark Neumann retired from his seat in order to make an unsuccessful bid for the Senate. Ryan won both a Republican primary over 29-year-old pianist Michael J. Logan of Twin Lakes and the general election against Democratic opponent Lydia Spottswood.^[61] Ryan successfully defended his seat against Democratic challenger Jeffrey C. Thomas in 2000, 2002, 2004, and 2006.^[62] In 2002, Ryan had also faced Libertarian candidate George Meyers.

2008[link]

Ryan defeated Democratic nominee Marge Krupp by a wide margin in the 2008 general election.^[62]

2010[link]

Ryan defeated both Democratic nominee John Heckenlively and Libertarian nominee Joseph Kexel by a wide margin in the 2010 general election.

Electoral history[link]

Personal life[link]

Ryan married Janna Little, a tax attorney,^[1] in December 2000.^[8] The Ryans live in Janesville with their three children Elizabeth Anne, Charles Wilson, and Samuel Lowery.^[63]

Ryan is a Catholic and is a member of St. John Vianney's Church.^[64]

Ryan is a fitness enthusiast and promotes fitness as a daily routine for young people. In 2009, his exercise program was based on the P90x fitness program.^[22]

References[link]

External links[link]

Wikimedia Commons has media related to: U.S. Rep. Paul Ryan

	Biography portal
	Politics portal
	Wisconsin portal

• Congressman Paul Ryan official U.S. House site
• Paul Ryan for U.S. Congress official campaign site
• A Roadmap for America's Future Paul Ryan's alternative to the United States federal budget
• Biography at WhoRunsGov.com at The Washington Post
• Biography at the Biographical Directory of the United States Congress
• Voting record maintained by The Washington Post
• Biography, voting record, and interest group ratings at Project Vote Smart
• Congressional profile at GovTrack
• Congressional profile at OpenCongress
• Issue positions and quotes at On the Issues
• Financial information at OpenSecrets.org
• Staff salaries, trips and personal finance at LegiStorm.com
• Campaign finance reports and data at the Federal Election Commission
• Appearances on C-SPAN programs
• Appearances on Charlie Rose
• Collected news and commentary at The New York Times
• Works by or about Paul Ryan in libraries (WorldCat catalog)
• Health Care Reform: The Long-Term Perspective at Cato Institute, June 2009
• Monitor Breakfast conversation on medicare voucher reform at Christian Science Monitor, December 2010

Julian Assange
Assange in Copenhagen
Born	(1971-07-03) 3 July 1971 (age 40)[1][2][3] Townsville, Queensland, Australia
Nationality	Australian
Occupation	Editor-in-chief and spokesperson for WikiLeaks, talk show host
Awards	Economist Freedom of Expression Award (2008) Amnesty International UK Media Award (2009) Sam Adams Award (2010) Le Monde Person of the Year (2010) Sydney Peace Foundation gold medal (2011) Martha Gellhorn Prize for Journalism (2011) Voltaire Award of the Victorian Council for Civil Liberties (2011) Walkleys Award for Outstanding Contribution to Journalism (2011)

Julian Paul Assange ( /əˈsɒnʒ/ ə-SONZH; born 3 July 1971) is an Australian computer programmer, political/internet activist, publisher, and^[4][5] journalist.^[6][7][8] He is best known as the editor in chief and founder of WikiLeaks, a media website which publishes information from whistleblowers. The site acts as a conduit for worldwide news leaks, with a stated purpose of creating open governance.