Thanks, I appreciate the answer. I guess I still wonder, is that what people mean when they use the term rule of law? I tend to interpret that phrase to mean that the law is what governs. "A government of laws, not of men." (No doubt, people can poke holes in that concept, but since that's what we're talking about, that's what I think it means.) If we're only talking about self-restraint in observance of customary or self-imposed but non-binding rules, then I don't think it's the same thing.
Moreover, if whenever the Roman pontiff does something, it's ipso facto legal, then no self-restraint is necessaryтАФit would be impossible for him to be on the wrong side of the law! Same deal with due process. ("You didn't follow the process!" тАФ"But by not following the process, I created a new process.")
At the level of the Roman pontiff, the rule of law is an act of self-restraint, it seems to me.
I think due process is a human right that can exist outside of separated powers, but only as an act of the will on the part of the sovereign.
Thanks, I appreciate the answer. I guess I still wonder, is that what people mean when they use the term rule of law? I tend to interpret that phrase to mean that the law is what governs. "A government of laws, not of men." (No doubt, people can poke holes in that concept, but since that's what we're talking about, that's what I think it means.) If we're only talking about self-restraint in observance of customary or self-imposed but non-binding rules, then I don't think it's the same thing.
Moreover, if whenever the Roman pontiff does something, it's ipso facto legal, then no self-restraint is necessaryтАФit would be impossible for him to be on the wrong side of the law! Same deal with due process. ("You didn't follow the process!" тАФ"But by not following the process, I created a new process.")