The University of Richmond School of Law provided the venue earlier this month with a four-day conference that brought American and British lawyers and jurists together to celebrate, in the words of Dean Rodney A. Smolla, "an Anglo-American ideal that celebrates the independence of courts, the transparency of our public institutions and the rationality and civility of our deliberative processes." The rule of law conference is part of a "Foundations and Future of Democracy" series in 2007.

The supremacy of law, clear legal standards and procedures, common law precedents and limits on discretionary power certainly weren’t givens in England or anywhere else 400 years ago. Power and rights of kings still were organizing principles, though trends were pointing toward the more lasting benefits of the law. The English colonies, particularly Virginia, proved to be catalysts for further and more rapid progress than even the already well-established English Inns of Court, to which lawyers and judges belonged, might have imagined.

So it proved most appropriate that Chief Justice of the United States John G. Roberts, Jr. and his British counterpart, the Lord Chief Justice of England and Wales, Lord Nicholas Phillips, could anchor the University of Richmond discussions. The two later unveiled a plaque from Britain which reads simply, "Presented by the English Inns of Court to commemorate the 400th anniversary of the founding of the colony at Jamestown in 1607."

Former Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O’Connor, who also is the Honorary Chairwoman of the Jamestown 2007 Commemoration, credited Britain with the tradition of an independent judiciary, then shrugged off in her remarks what she termed “the little disagreement in the 1700s.”

Chief Justice Roberts suggested during the conference that the greatest contribution of the United States to the rule of law is an independent judiciary that interprets the law. And he credited Virginian John Marshall of Richmond, with helping establish separation of powers, another key element in the rule of law, while Marshall was Chief Justice. Though a fixture of the American judicial system now, these developments were much more controversial in their time.

President George W. Bush was clearly on message about the rule of law in the Presidential Proclamation on Jamestown 2007 issued April 6, 2007.

“The ideals that distinguish and guide the United States today trace back to the Virginia settlement where free enterprise, the rule of law, and the spirit of discovery took hold in the hearts and practices of the American people,” the proclamation reads in part.

“Noble institutions and grand traditions were established in Jamestown. Amid tremendous difficulties, a determined few worked the land and expanded into the wilderness. Without knowing it, the colonists who built communities at Jamestown laid the foundation for a Nation that would become the ultimate symbol and force for freedom throughout the entire world.”

The wisdom, practicality, consistency, transparency, forward-looking and predictability characteristics of the law and the judiciary pose their own questions, particularly in a time where technology, diversity, competition, knowledge and exploding expectations can drive sudden change. A glance at the news headlines any day documents the problems that both citizens and governments face in holding to a rule of law when confronted with fundamental challenges, including violent conflict.

But a commitment to rule of law seems even more basic now than it did at the time of Jamestown’s founding. Where rule of law doesn’t exist, people demand it. Where it does exist, citizens and governments at their best improve it. But it is too basic to be taken for granted.