Defining Rule of Law as “a permanent ground truth” is likely part of the confusion, as that definition doesn’t really encapsulate the concept. I find it much e

Defining Rule of Law as “a permanent ground truth” is likely part of the confusion, as that definition doesn’t really encapsulate the concept. I find it much easier when it is defined in contrast with “not rule of law” or “arbitrary rule by men” as it is traditionally described. The point being that it is not about the laws themselves, but rather the manner in which power is exercised. Laws may exist, but if some people are not be bound by them, and are able to wield the laws however they wish (we call these people tyrants), then you don’t truly have rule by law, you are rule by arbitrary will. In order to have rule by law, the law must be the source of power itself, and must apply to all people equally. This is where resistance to unjust laws or unjust authorities comes in. When people use their authority to put themselves above the law or excised use the law in an unjust/unequal manner, then we are stepping outside the bounds of the rule of law itself. The law is reduced to a mere tool of oppression rather than a source of legitimate authority. A corollary to this, as mentioned by another commenter, is the concept of so called “natural law”, that is law that exists as an antecedent to human law or is given by god/some other non human source. Note that rule of law is not the same as nor is it dependent on a concept of natural law. The concept of “The Rule of Law” is much older than that of “natural law”.