(This column was submitted by John at 10:00 am on Oct. 10, before Mike Taylor dropped out of the race for U.S. Senate. He was attending the Mont Pelerin Society meetings in London. MPS is an international organization of scholars, journalists, and governmental officials, advancing the principles of a free society and market economies. FREE will host the 2004 MPS meetings.)

The rule of law is an essential ingredient of a healthy, ethical, free, and open society. When opportunistic people operate without the constraints of consistent rules, ethical standards slip.

As Milton Friedman put it: A good game requires players' acceptance both of the rules and of a fair umpire to interpret and enforce them. A prosperous, peaceful society requires agreement on the conditions governing competition. There must be a means of arbitrating differences about the meaning of laws and enforcing compliance with the rules.

New Jersey illustrates an important violation of these principles. The New Jersey Supreme Court recently allowed the Democrats to replace their senatorial candidate, the notorious, bribe-taking, ne'er-do-well Robert Torricelli. The Dems substituted Frank Lautenberg, a respected but long retired 78-year-old former U.S. senator. This occurred well after the legally permitted deadline. The rules were ignored. Here's how.

The state law clearly describes procedures for replacing a candidate. A replacement may not occur later than the 51st day before the general election. It further requires that a replacement be identified at least 48 days before the election. With ever more revelations of corruption and severe admonishment by his Senate colleagues, Torricelli's poll numbers plummeted. He tearfully bailed out 36 days before November 5th.

If the law were followed, a reasonable person would assume that the Democrats simply lack an official candidate and must rely on write-in votes. However, the New Jersey Supreme Court decided that the law does not preclude a vacancy within 51 days of the general election. In fact, it stated outright that it views the law as suggestive, not binding. It found it expedient for the election statutes to be liberally construed, an advantage to the Democratic Party.

Clearly the New Jersey judiciary is co-opting the rulemaking functions of the legislature and abdicating its role as law enforcer. As a recent Washington Post op-ed stated, retroactive changes in election rules epitomize phoney democracy.

In any case, the New Jersey Dems can plow ahead with their plans to replace the unpopular, ethically challenged Torricelli with the aging former Senator Lautenberg. Newly discovered health factors (all 80-year-old males have some) will enable the state's Democratic governor to appoint a new senator shortly after the election.

This is a good precedent for Republican operators in Montana. Mike Taylor, the Republican candidate, trails Max Baucus, 35 percent to 54 percent. What if Taylor stepped down and the Republicans replaced him with sports and political hero Jack Kemp, a sometime resident of the Big Sky area?

Kemp is a very well known, highly respected Republican. He's a football great and a policy intellectual who, with Senator William Roth of Delaware, simplified and reduced taxes. He is well received by public policy leaders and national op-ed writers. He was Bob Dole's vice-presidential running mate in 1996 but needn't advertise Viagra.

And he has a far stronger claim to Montana residency than Hillary did to New York. Should he run, money would flow into Montana for a blitz. He would certainly fare far better than Taylor and would likely win.

Once elected, he could retire after a year or two, letting Governor Martz replace him with her choice. Suddenly the danger of subverting the law should become obvious, even to those Democrats who see temporary advantage in New Jersey.

Ignoring the rule of law regarding electoral standards opens a whole new niche for political entrepreneurs. Companies will emerge to track opinion of candidates, decide the tipping point for dumping a sagging candidate, manufacture excuses for the parting candidate, and promote the legitimacy of new candidates. Eviscerating the rule of law surely has interesting but corrosive implications, however beneficial the initial outcome.

When the rule of law is flaunted, predictability erodes and the unprincipled gain an advantage. There is little wonder that voters become ever more cynical and government becomes an engine of plunder.