First, why this fails logically:

from BW
While I appreciate the nuance you lay out of "Rule of" vs "Rule by"; but if one needs a lawyer to explain even the name of a legal concept, it is a flawed conceptual name.
Lawyers (if they are able) should explain legal concepts and their names. I don't ask the guy who stayed at the Holiday Inn Express to explain medical terms; I ask my doctor.

That does not end the process because many lawyers can't explain legal concepts or their names worth diddly - and may not know the history of the concept and the reasons for it (which go back to Social Norms).

So, non-lawyers also shape these names and concepts - Marc Tyrrell, as just one example, can explain "rule of law" and "rule by law" (as I am using them here) better than I can in terms of population group dynamics. However, boiled down to their basics (as I am using them): "rule of law" is a "bubble up from the base" phenom; and "rule by law" is an "imposed from the top" phenom. Those basics require no "lawyerly" sophistry to present or understand.

Still keeping with the Lawyer Jones theme, what are more legal than the terms, "justice", "democracy" and "self-determination" ? But, moving aside from that, those terms are indeterminate. For example, someone like Maududi uses the same or equivalent terms (in English translations) to describe his Jihadist "state". The terms, "justice", "democracy" and "self-determination", are lovely words; but they mean very different things to different people.

For example, if a group of rebels bases their revolt on the terms "justice", "democracy" and "self-determination", are we to support them automatically. Sometimes, your arguments seem to say just that - other times, they do not - leaving this reader confused as to what your policy really is.

In a post or posts long ago, either Tyrrell or John T. Fishel (or both) suggested using "working definitions" - strictly for purposes of comnunications. I'm always open to that; but both sides have to agree that a "working definition" is just that - not a final, definitive agreement.

---------------------------------
To Carl:

from Carl

Rule of Law: all are subject to and must abide by.

Rule by Law: some are subject to and must abide by.
I'd say that like such (using incredible lawyerly sophistry ):

Rule of Law: We all are subject to and must abide by our rules because we established and ordained them.

Rule by Law: You all are subject to and must abide by my rules because I said so.
First example - Carl and Mike (the only members of the population group) have to agree on the rules that will govern them.

Second example - Mike tells Carl what to do.

Hey, I wouldn't let you rule me - If you tried that, I'd exercise my right to insurge based on "justice", "democracy" and "self-determination".

I suppose I should have said this to begin with and reduced the Bravo Sierra (in Finnglish - Pullsit; that's for Stan if he sees this).

So, what is the best system - Ex 1 or Ex 2 ?

BTW: Google gives 12,500,000 hits for "rule of law" - There are many, many definitions that do not agree with what I've presented here - and don't agree with each other !! This ain't the Quest for the Holy Grail.

Regards

Mike