whosw law? to what purpose?

i saw this graphic in the feed of facebook the other day ( it was near the top…i have learned not to scroll the feed on facebook over much, there is a lot of the good doctor’s “bad noise” there ) and was inclined to think “what law and to whose purpose?”…”rule of law” has always been an iffy proposition dependent on whose particular interest was in control of the government at any one time and there was always dissent from whatever “law” was construed to be and that dissent was, at times, wholly suppressed…a few examples of voter suppression and attempts to frame the debate from the past “243 years”…how about the alien and sedition act of 1798? ostensibly aimed at the French and any other “foreigner” deemed “a threat” david mccullough rather maintains “…the real and obvious intent was to stifle the republican press, and of those arrested and convicted under the law, nearly all were republican editors.”…so old john adams ( who reminded bill maclay of “a monkey recently put into britches”…you should read bill’s journal of the first congress…it is enlightening…elbridge gerry was there…we will be getting to him soon enough ) wasn’t above slamming his political opponents into jail over their opinions…have a look at the way james callender was treated by the federalists…and read some of what jim wrote if you can find it…”the history of the united states for 1796 for instance”…i have a copy…it is a facsimile…the esses are all effs…a nuisance to read…but enlightening as well…defense of “national interests” as a smokescreen for political repression is nothing new…neither is voter suppression…elbridge gerry was in the first congress in the house of representatives…he was also governor of massachucetts and was vice president when he died…he is also the individual for whom gerrymandering is named as he signed legislation enabling the distortion of districts to favor republicans while he was massachucetts governor…in the end i have to wonder if any politician, republican, democrat, or independent is interested in “the rule of law” beyond a law which, in some way, enhances their political prerogative…do you actually trust these people to represent your interests?