Would Spicer Decide Not To Address The Rule Of Law In Their Theory

This is where I disagree with Lowi. I understand why Spicer and Larry would decide not to address the Rule of Law in their theory of constitutional legitimacy. If the Rule of Law (Kettle, 2015) is the idea that the law should govern a nation and its citizens, then it would be safe to assumed that the Constitution is the Rule of Law itself. I do not believe that Spicer and Larry intentionally omitted the Rule of Law from their theory. They merely used a literal interpretation of the Rule of Law. The Constitution is commonly known as the supreme law of the land. I argue that Spicer and Larry worked under the assumption of correlation between the two. The Constitution provides discretionary power to the three branches of government. If Spicer
and Larry contend that public administration is at the center of the Constitution, then the Constitution itself would also provide the discretionary power to public administration. This would account for the omission of the Rule of Law in Spicer and Larry’s constitutional legitimacy theory