Rule of Law - in the courts or the streets?

2004-11-29T17:44:00.000-08:00

This is the beginning of a blog that may or may not continue.

A recent exchange about events in Ukraine with someone in the US went as follows. He wrote:

>I have a bias for
> bourgeouis proceduralism. In a situation like this, there
> aren't many procedures, but a peaceful solution, perhaps a
> compromise to protect the interests of the many voters siding
> with the incumbent party, would perhaps be better than
> outright victory for either one.

And I replied:

>Bourgeois proceduralism is great, of course. Unfortunately, when those with
>the guns stuff the ballot boxes, there aren't a lot of purely procedural
>solutions. Even so, the Supreme Court and Parliament will resume tomorrow,
>and already both the gov't candidate and current President have accepted the
>need for SOME revoting.

I have been thinking about how a commitmenet to the rule of law and procedures are to be expressed in light of the vote buying/stealing/stuffing/suppressing in the recent election. That is, should lawyers support only proceedings in the Supreme Court, or also direct actions against those who claim to be acting under color of law?

The answer for me is the same as it was during the civil rights movement in the US: if government actions are unconstitutional, they need not be obeyed.

So then we come to the question of what is, and what is not, constitutional in Ukraine at present. And who interprets the Constitution?

I teach my students that courts are not the only interpreters of the (US) Constitution, but moving interpretation into the streets is a step that we usually do not reach in class.

What are your thoughts?

John

UA Rule of Law

Rule of Law - in the courts or the streets?