Kennedy's disquisition on the rule of law is worth repeating and not just because Justice Anthony Kennedy sits on the Supreme Court and is often the swing vote.
It seems Kennedy is passionate about the rule of law and goes around giving lectures on it. He made it the center piece of an address to the American Bas Association at their convention in Hawaii in 2006. The address was covered by C-SPAN, but apparently not written out, so there wasn't a full transcript when I transcribed it for Hannah Blog.
Now I've decided to excerpt just the paragraphs outlining the three basic principles and start delivering them to public officials. It's not just in other parts of the globe that public officials fail to understand that, primarily, the law applies to them. So, here it is, below the curlicue.
Justice Kennedy's Rule of Law
I suggest that the rule of law has three parts. The first is that the law is binding on the government and all of its officials. This may seem a rather self-evident matter, but it’s a proposition that most government officials in most countries do not fully understand. If an administrative agency and an administrator in that agency is charged with giving you a permit, the permit is not given to you as a matter of grace; it’s given to you because you are entitled to it and because it is his or her duty to give it to you. Very few countries in the world understand this. The rule of law binds the government and all of its officials. This is an essential lesson that must be taught, if the corruption and the greed and the graft President Greco referred to are eliminated.
...
The second part of the rule of law is…., in a sense, I think, the most troubling for me. I am not sure that it’s complete. It says that the rule of law must respect the dignity, equality and human rights of every person. And then there’s a second sentence and the second sentence says that the people have a right to have a voice in the laws that govern them. So, there’s a process element, but it isn’t just process. Because the right to participate in government is nothing less than the right to shape your own destiny. And the framers of our Constitution made it very clear that each generation has a share, has a chance to determine its own destiny, to determine its own direction.
...
My third suggestion (and it can only be a suggestion–it would be presumptuous to say I can define the rule of law), my third suggestion for you to think about surprised me when I wrote it. And it was this: that every person has the right to know what the laws are and to enforce them without fear of retaliation or retribution. This is almost a process-sounding precept, but it’s again substantive, as well. It’s part of your identity, it’s part of your self-definition to know the laws that protect you, to know the laws that are respected by your neighbors and friends and family. This is part of who you are. And you’re entitled to know this. And you’re entitled to enforce them.
That "permits must be issued" accounts for why marriage license requests by same sex couples have to be honored the same as those issued to the differently gendered. The states could stop issuing documents attesting to marriages entirely (Miami, Florida officials deciding to deprive all voters, not just the disabled, of access to toilets while they are waiting to exercise their civic duty is categorically wrong), which was the case under the common law, but when they are tasked and asked, they have to respond positively.
On the other hand, if nobody asks, they don't have to do a thing. While the concept of demand as the initiator of the real economy is bogus, our public agencies are organized to respond to demands AND complaints. Nothing is supposed to happen without an initiating prompt from the citizenry.
Citizens enforce the law by making demands and registering complaints. Moreover, we want those to be in writing so there's a record and we can insure that arbitrariness and caprice aren't at work. "Pro-active" administration, especially unter the umbrella of the "protection" mantra is contrary to the structure set up in the Constitution.
First comes the demand; then comes the compliance. If public officials don't understand they are supposed to stand and wait until called to serve, then they are out of order. When, for example, Chris Christie of New Jersey says "I govern," he's out of order. And it was grossly presumptuous for George W. Bush to bring the "rule of law" to Iraq when he obviously didn't get it himself.