Quotes About Ruling

I believe that oligarchy follows next in order. And what manner of government do you term oligarchy? A government resting on a valuation of property, in which the rich have power and the poor man is deprived of it. I

Or do you think it possible for a city not to be destroyed if the verdicts of its courts have no force but are nullified and set at naught by private individuals?

In a city of good men, if it came into being, the citizens would fight in order not to rule, just as they now do in order to rule.

it is for the elder man to rule and for the younger to submit

The problem with ruling by fear is that eventually, when the fear fades, fury replaces it.

When a leader used his power over the ruled for the purpose of settling scores and inflating his self-esteem, for remaking society according to his own grand designs, class warfare and genocide ensued.

mercilessly by the judge who dismisses the charges as "utterly without merit, based on manufactured evidence

In every country today, there is politics. It may be authoritarian politics, but there is politics.

A judge is supposed to have empathy for no one but simply to follow the law.

We live in a period in which political disagreements are routinely handed over to the courts. Whenever you think that the president is wrong, you might well cry out that he has violated the Constitution - and ask federal judges to rule accordingly.

Here in Florida, we know plenty about the Castro brothers, and we hear stories of their ruthless and violent rule far too often. It is shameful that we would grant them any shred of legitimacy.

I think the 'counterculture' believes that there are ways to manage being the world's most powerful country that involve creation of consensus - ruling by virtuous example rather than by force of arms.

passed the letter to Menzhinsky with his own commentary: We have to take account of such moods in the Central Committee's ruling circles, and pause for thought. It would be a very great political mistake if in principle the party on the question of the GPU were to surrender to the philistines and give

Queen Elizabeth II is in fact Queen Elizabeth I and II. The reason for this is that the union between England and Scotland did not take place until 1603 - after Elizabeth I had ruled in England; therefore until 1952, there had never been a Queen Elizabeth of Scotland!

A conservative in the purest sense, he'd entered politics to defend the ruling propertied classes from the ravages of democracy and an expanding franchise. For him, the upper classes represented the best of human endeavour—birth, intelligence and culture—and they deserved to rule; inherited wealth, he believed, made a man less prone to corruption.

Each man or woman who passed, she knew their history and would tell it to me, for she said that you must understand people if you would rule them.

And, you are no doubt familiar with the 1983 Supreme Court decision, the name escapes me right now, in which the Court ruled that before a person can be thrown in jail for not paying a fine it must be proven that he or she was willfully not paying. In other words, he could pay but he refused. All this and more, right?

If the judgement makes the law and not the law directs the judgement, it is impossible there should be such a thing as an illegal judgement given.

Soviet leaders had to treat the outside world as hostile because this provided the only excuse "for the dictatorship without which they did not know how to rule, for cruelties they did not dare not to inflict, for sacrifices they felt bound to demand.

the Courts of Justice had once ruled that a man carrying bagpipes was a man carrying a weapon—so inspiring was the music of the pipers to the clans in battle.

You know, one wonderful thing that came out of my Enquirer experience is that, in my case, it was ruled tabloids are magazines. Which means they didn't have the protection that a newspaper has.

there were always two emperors, ruling two separate empires, with two separate armies.

during the winter of 2012–2013, the Federal Court ruled that Métis and non– Status Indians had the same rights as Status Indians under the Constitution. This gives

Instead we were treated to virtual silence, plus the standard reaction by the legal mainstream and commentators in the press. This ruling was a problem. In difficult times too much money was involved. The ruling only stated a principle; surely it didn't need to be enforced. Perhaps it could be ignored.