How does the rule of law exist independently from the people who make it, interpret it, and live it? The easiest answer to these questions is that, the rule of law cannot ever be entirely separate from the people who make up our government and our society. On the other hand, due to the increasing amount of terrorism thus national security and changes have to be made for a better equality in the development of law. He argued that rule of law has 3 aspects (3 postulates). Firstly, no man can be punished unless there is a breach of law (prevention against retrospective law laws). Second, all is equal under the law. Thirdly, the court are better protectors of human rights. By illustrating the traditional theory come up by A.V. Dicey and his 3 postulates, thus by evaluations made it can be seen that whether the theories in the olden days contradicts to the law in the society today.

‘No man is punishable or can be lawfully made to suffer in body or goods except for a distinct breach of law established in the ordinary legal manner before the ordinary court of the land. In this sense the rule of law is contrasted with every system of government based on the exercise by persons in authority of wide, arbitrary, or discretionary powers of constrain.’ Dicey highlighted three aspects of the rule of law. In the first aspect which can be broken down from the quote above is that an individual is only punished for a breach of law. Define as punishment on someone can only be imposed if he/she violated the law as established in ordinary legal proceedings before a court. Besides that, it is also broken down to have an element that brings predominance of regular law. Where Dicey argued that rule of law denoted the predominance of regular law as opposed to exercise of arbitrary power. As Dicey asserted ‘wherever there is discretion there is a room for arbitrariness.’ Regular law did