The Rule of Law or the The Rule of Arbitrary Governance?

Since it's inception as a state, Montana's Constitution, first drafted when Montana became the forty-first state on November 8, 1889. has been updated by a Constitutional Convention ONLY once in 1972.

Yet, during this time, not once did any of the debates, discussions or other commentaries disclose exactly what is meant by "The Rule of Law of our Montana Constitution."

Generally, in its simplest sense, the rule of law is a system that attempts to protect the rights of citizens from arbitrary and abusive use of government power.

Montana's Supreme Court in COTTINGHAM v STATE BOARD OF EXAMINERS, ETC No. 9869.134 Mont. 1; 328 P.2d 907; 1958 Mont. LEXIS 17 had this to say about "the rule of law in Montana" ...
“This court's plain duty is to see that the constitutional mandate has been obeyed by the Legislature …”"Nor is it any concern of the court whether the act is expedient, wise, or unwise. State ex rel. Bonner v. Dixon, 59 Mont. 58, 195 P. 841. It is legislative power, not policy, that is drawn in question. And while we are mindful of the presumptions in favor of legislative acts, yet, being bound to support, protect, and defend the Constitution, when an enactment transgresses the constitutional limitations beyond a reasonable doubt, it is our solemn and sworn duty to so declare it. We are mindful, too, that the declaration of Constitutions are placed therein to be obeyed, and are not to be frittered away by construction. Less v. City of Butte, 28 Mont. 27, 72 P. 140, 61 L.R.A. 601, 98 Am. St. Rep. 545…”

Yet, time and again, if you ask Montana's Courts, Montana's lawyers or Montana's elected officials, exactly what their Constitutional oath of offices entail or how they are protecting the rights of citizens from arbitrary and abusive use of government power, they will either give you a "non-answer" or totally ignore you.

And ARE Montana's Courts, Montana's lawyers or Montana's elected officials making arbitrary laws and codes against their Constitutional Oaths, which are NOT protecting your basic Constitutional Rights?

I for one say yes, they are. They are "frittering (Our Rights) away by construction" just as the 1958 Montana Supreme Court warned against! Just read some of my earlier posts.

However, it IS of the utmost importance, that you ask these people, yourself, and then, you let others know what you have discovered. Do your best to explain, what happened or is happening in plain English. And then invite others to participate, ask questions, and share their stories.

As always, Think about it and I'd like to encourage your comments about this important topic.

Rick Gold
Missoula, MT