Do you believe in the Rule of Law? Talking heads from various sources bandy about Due Process, Equal Protection, and the Rule of
Stripped of partisan slogans, the concept of the Rule of Law is neither vague nor ornamental. It has a precise meaning rooted in centuries of legal thought and practice.
It is not about who shouts the loudest or which faction claims the phrase; it is about the structure that makes the government accountable to the governed and liberty possible.
To see it clearly, it helps to set aside rhetoric and return to what the term has meant in law, history, and daily life in an organized society, and importantly, within our system of justice.
Big picture, the Rule of Law describes a disciplined arrangement of public power.
Government acts through rules adopted in advance, announced in public, and enforced in courts that explain the reasoning behind judgments/rulings.
Public officials, both elected and appointed, are bound by those same precepts.
Life, liberty, and property are not subject to personal will. They turn on law that can be read, argued, and tested.
Legal principles are not abstractions. They govern outcomes in real cases, with real consequences. If you are navigating a matter in the greater Charlotte region involving impaired driving or death by vehicle charges, you do not have to work through it alone. Call or TEXT Bill Powers at 704-342-4357 to discuss your situation with Powers Law Firm.
The historical underpinnings of the Rule of Law
The Anglo-American story supplies the scaffolding.
Magna Carta, the “Great Charter,” narrowed royal discretion by insisting on judgment “by the law of the land.”
English jurists converted that phrase into doctrines of courts, juries, and legality.
The American contribution was to move such fundamental, if not natural-law-predicated rights into written constitutions and judicial review, cementing the ideal that governmental power derives from the people but remains bound by written limits that serve the enduring interests of liberty, not the temporary will of those in office.
In North Carolina, this inheritance was not theoretical.
It shaped decisive choices during the founding period of first thirteen colonies and still structures daily adjudication in these United States.
From Halifax to Fayetteville: North Carolina and the Birth of American Liberty
North Carolina’s refusal to ratify until a declaration of rights was proposed played an important role in shaping the momentum that led to the Bill of Rights.
North Carolina’s record begins with independence under written limits.
On April 12, 1776, the Fourth Provincial Congress adopted the Halifax Resolves, the first official action by any colony authorizing delegates to vote for independence from the Crown (King George III and Great Britain).
That step announced a preference for consent and text over decree, habit, and the whim of born-to monarchy.
The same preference appears in the North Carolina’s deliberation over the federal Constitution.
At Hillsborough in 1788, delegates voted 184 to 84 to neither ratify nor reject, withholding assent while calling for a declaration of rights.
Only after Congress moved to propose amendments did the Fayetteville Convention of November 1789 ratify the Constitution, making North Carolina the twelfth state.
The sequence matters because it links union as colonies, thusly forming a new country, to guarantees (protections) against government intrusion, in favor of the freedom to be left alone.
Judicial enforcement of higher law arrived here, in North Carolina, early.
In Bayard v. Singleton in 1787, North Carolina judges refused to enforce a statute that violated the state constitution’s protections for vested property rights.
The case stands as a landmark example of judicial review predating even Marbury v. Madison, and it remains a point of state pride because it ties power to articulated limits.
The state constitution preserves these commitments in durable text. Article I, Section 19 declares that no person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property but by the “law of the land,” the North Carolina analogue to due process.
- Section 18 of the North Carolina State Constitution keeps courts open, promising remedy by due course of law without favor, denial, or delay.
- Section 6 separates legislative, executive, and judicial powers.
- Section 34 rejects perpetuities and monopolies as contrary to a free state.
- Section 35 counsels a frequent recurrence to fundamental principles to preserve liberty.
These are not ornaments.
They are working provisions with practical effect in both criminal and civil matters.
The Founding Fathers and the Rule of Law
Founding-era voices still make clear what such clauses are supposed to achieve.
John Adams drafted Article XXX of the Massachusetts Constitution to ensure “a government of laws and not of men,” tying separation of powers to the idea that adjudication should track reasoned rules rather than personal impulse.
That formulation has endured because it states a test every litigant and every official can understand.
John Locke in his Second Treatise of Government explained law’s liberty-preserving function in a sentence that remains instructive:
“The end of law is not to abolish or restrain, but to preserve and enlarge freedom; for in all the states of created beings, capable of laws, where there is no law there is no freedom – John Locke
For Locke, true freedom was not lawlessness but protection from the arbitrary will and force of others, which only a system of law can provide.
Locke drew a clear line between genuine freedom, sustained by the rule of law, and mere license, which dissolves into disorder and becomes another form of bondage rather than liberty.
Locke explained that liberty exists not where rules are absent, but where law shields people from arbitrary restraint and violence, ensuring security through its structure.
Locke contrasts liberty under known laws with the “arbitrary will of another.” What he warns against is not restraint itself, but restraint imposed without law, reason, or consent.
Predictable rules constrain arbitrary force, reduce uncertainty, and make voluntary cooperation possible.
Jeffersonian Model of Liberty
Thomas Jefferson warned in 1788 that “the natural progress of things is for liberty to yield, and government to gain ground.”
The observation does not invite cynicism.
It supports habits that keep authority tied to publicly enacted law, visible and accessible to all, rather than hidden in the will of a ruler or subject to the bias of decision maker
North Carolina’s insistence on a Bill of Rights before ratification fits that habit of mind.
These principles operate in courtrooms every day, to wit:
- Traffic stops require reasonable suspicion.
- Searches require probable cause or a recognized exception.
- Charges must allege defined, essential elements.
- The State bears the burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt in criminal cases.
- Exculpatory evidence must be disclosed.
- Scientific proof and expert testimony must be both reliable and relevant before it reaches a jury.
Each doctrine is modest alone. Together, they create a network that disciplines power and protects the public from the force of unchecked government
Remedies give those doctrines teeth.
Excluding unlawfully obtained evidence under the Exclusionary Rule is not theoretical in application.
It is a method of instruction, teaching law enforcement to respect bounds by excluding improperly obtained evidence as “fruit of the poisonous tree.”
Orders requiring new trials for improper jury instruction, confirm that verdicts must rest on the correct legal standard, not on expedience.
Administrative law and economic regulation reveal the same structure.
Licensing rules should be published in advance and applied consistently. Enforcement actions should provide fair notice of the claimed violation and a path to cure where the law allows it.
Section 34 of the North Carolina Constitution’s hostility to monopolies is not a museum piece.
To this day, it continues to shape litigation over the use of public power to distort markets.
A constitution that separates powers, opens courts, and condemns state-sanctioned monopoly produces a legal environment that rewards diligence over favoritism.
Judicial Duty to Decide Cases “According to Law”
History supplies additional North Carolina names that illuminate these commitments.
James Iredell argued during ratification of the Constitution for the judicial duty to decide cases “according to law,” a view consistent with the role later formalized in federal jurisprudence.
That posture aligns with Bayard and with the state’s insistence that written limits are enforceable in actual disputes, not only in lectures and pamphlets.
The Rule of Law therefore depends on institutional transparency.
Open courts and public records allow scrutiny of charging decisions, plea discussions within legal boundaries, and adjudicatory reasoning.
Visibility corrects error, preserves appellate review, and sustains confidence when outcomes are contested.
Section 18 of the NC State Constitution promises that justice shall be administered without favor, denial, or delay. This is not poetry; it is a standard against which calendars, funding, and technology can be measured.
The Role of Lawyers in the Rule of Law
Education strengthens culture around the text.
- Lawyers who explain elements and burdens reduce the temptation to treat outcomes as personal rather than legal.
- Judges who publish clear orders teach future litigants and constrain future officials.
- Agencies that post complete regulations and guidance limit arbitrary application.
- Law schools and continuing education programs that cover forensic reliability and procedural fairness help evidence meet the gatekeeping that the rules require.
The same discipline governs emergencies.
The lesson of early American experience is that urgency does not erase legality.
Even in crisis, the State acts through published authority, temporary measures sunset by design, and judicial review that remains open for business.
North Carolina’s constitutional tradition of recurring to fundamental principles directs courts and citizens alike to evaluate government measures in light of the written text, their rational foundation, and their consistency with constitutional structure.
This tradition also imposes civic duties.
Jury service spreads the power to decide across the community, guarding against its concentration in a single authority.
Careful oversight of funding for courts, public defense, and technology reflects the understanding that time, counsel, and reliable records are not optional features but the conditions that give substance to liberty and liability.
When those supports weaken, rights contract in practice even if they appear secure on paper.
North Carolina’s path from Halifax to Hillsborough to Fayetteville illustrates a coherent stance: independence grounded in declared principles, resistance to union until explicit rights were promised, and eventual ratification once those protections took shape.
At the same time, the state’s courts enforced constitutional limits against conflicting statutes, demonstrating that authority is legitimate only when confined by public text and supervised by open courts.
The modern lesson is straightforward.
A jurisdiction that treats constitutions as operating manuals, not ornaments, produces better law. Statutes drafted with precision reduce selective enforcement.
Police and prosecutors trained in reasonable suspicion and probable cause, warrants, disclosure of exculpatory evidence, and reliability of expert testimony deliver cleaner records and fewer reversals.
Trial judges who rule in writing, with careful findings of fact and conclusions of law, create sound foundations for appellate review and for public understanding.
Appellate courts that reason transparently protect both litigants and officials by making future conduct more predictable.
The Rule of Law Is Not Self-Executing
The rule of law does not operate automatically.
It survives through steady habits of discipline and restraint. Government power, including that exercised by the Courts, must be exercised only when it can be traced to a clear legal source.
Laws must be published before they are enforced, and judicial decisions must be explained on the record so that reasoning, not preference, controls outcomes.
Respect for results grounded in law and evidence is essential, with appeals providing the structured remedy when mistakes occur. Courts must also have the time and resources to resolve disputes on their merits rather than through delay or procedural confusion.
North Carolina’s constitutional text embodies this approach.
It is not merely ideology but legal reliability, sustained by a tradition that links liberty, procedure, and transparency into a single design.
About the Author
Bill Powers is a Board-Certified Specialist in Criminal Law through the National Board of Trial Advocacy / National Board of Legal Specialty Certification. With more than 30 years of courtroom experience in North Carolina, he leads Powers Law Firm in Charlotte, representing clients in serious criminal and civil impaired driving cases.
Bill Powers is a recipient of the North Carolina State Bar Distinguished Service Award.