New Mexico governor deliberately violates Constitution

[Dill]

(09-20-2023, 05:07 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: When Democrats take over NK, China Russia or any other country they want then we can talk about it. Til then WTF Cares?
Obviously none of us are talking about those countries, much less living in or even ever visited them so it's pointless to try to argue about what we have no idea about.

I'm not talking about those countries either. The question was about NK; the answer was about the U.S.  

The assertion was that there is no difference in meaning between the term "law and order" and "rule of law." 

To test whether that is the case, I noted that NK definitely has law and order, but asked "Does it have rule of law?"

If there is no, or little, difference in meaning between the terms, then if NK has law and order, it also has rule of law. 

But NK is ruled by a Dear Leader, a dictator who is above the law that he enforces with deadly thoroughness. No organized shoplifting there. 

So NK does have law and order, but NOT rule of law. Not even close.

That is because LaO and RoL don't mean the same thing. Not even close.  

This is only important if you think that not knowing the difference makes a difference in people's understanding of their own Constitution and politics. E.g, authoritarianism might be harder to recognize, personal rule could be more easily accepted in promotion of order and preferred laws, the interpretation of law could be skewed in authoritarian direction if the ultimate goal of law is misunderstood, etc.  My guess is that people who know the difference think it important to know, and they'd see it's application to the thread topic; people who don't know the difference could see no such application, and might find even raising the question a distraction from the real issue for them--law and order.