Categorization of interpretations of Rule of Law------Wikipedia
 
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.[24] 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.[25][26]

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.[25] 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."[26] 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".[26] The rule of law is thus somewhat at odds with flexibility, even when flexibility may be preferable.[26]

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."[27]


I DARE SAY DOES ANYONE THINK THE GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES OPERATES UNDER RULE OF LAW.   IT CERTAINLY FAILS THE EQUALITY AND CERTAINTY DESCRIPTION............IT CERTAINLY FAILS THE OFFICERS HAVING LITTLE DISCRETION HAS A HIGH DEGREEE OF 'RULE OF LAW' DESCRIPTION.....AND WE SEE WHEN IT IS MISSING THE CHECK ON ABUSE OF POWER DISAPPEARS.

WHAT WE ARE SEEING TODAY IS A RULE BY LAW
__________________________________________________

WE SAW A SHIFT IN HOW OUR POLITICIANS SPOKE TO THE AMERICAN PEOPLE ABOUT THE SAME TIME THE DECISION WAS MADE TO CREATE INCOME INEQUITY THROUGH GLOBALIZATION.  THE IDEA OF 'WE KNOW BEST' AND 'TELL THE MASSES WHAT THEY WANT TO HEAR, THEN DO WHAT YOU WANT' STARTS IN LEO STRAUSS' WRITINGS......IT CONTINUES WITH THIRD WAY POLITICIANS TODAY.  THIS PHILOSOPHY PREDATES THE FRENCH REVOLUTION AND THE AGE OF ENLIGHTENMENT.........WHICH IS WHY I CALL THEM MEDIEVAL!

Leo Strauss ---- Neoconservative favorite philosopher 

The novelty or uniqueness of the alleged elitism can, of course, be much overstated, for one strain of American political science, going all the way back to the Federalists, has always emphasized the significant role of elites within democratic politics, as have more current writers like Joseph Schumpeter and Robert Dahl. But in the media presentations, Strauss's elitism is different and appears more sinister than other versions of democratic elitism. His elitism is presented as more intellectual: the relevant division between the elite few and the many is the line between philosophers and nonphilosophers. What distinguishes Strauss's elite is not wealth, status, power, or military or economic power, but recognition of "the truth." This truth is hard to face: there is no God, and there is no divine or natural support for justice. "Virtue . . . is unattainable" by most people. "The . . . hidden truth is that expediency works." Or, alternatively: "Strauss asserted 'the natural right of the stronger' to prevail."

The truths discovered by the philosophic elite "are not fit for public consumption." Philosophy is dangerous and must conceal its chief findings. Philosophers must cultivate a mode of esoteric communication, that is, a mode of concealing the hard truth from the masses. "Only philosophers can handle the truth." The elite must, in a word, lie to the masses; the elite must manipulate them—arguably for their own good. The elite employ "noble lies," lies purporting to affirm God, justice, the good. "The Philosophers need to tell noble lies not only to the people at large, but also to powerful politicians." These lies are necessary "in order to keep the ignorant masses in line." Thus Strauss counseled a manipulative approach to political leadership. In sum, the media writers conclude, Strauss held that "Machiavelli was right." When read with "a skeptical mind, the way he himself read the great philosophers . . . Strauss . . . emerges a disguised Machiavelli, a cynical teacher who encouraged his followers to believe that their intellectual superiority entitles them to rule over the bulk of humanity by means of duplicity."