What Can Benjamin Franklin and Genghis Kahn Teach Us About the Rule of Law?

July 2026 By Ronald M. Sandgrund

“Justice will not be served until those who are unaffected are as outraged as those who are.”

—Benjamin Franklin1

“The ordaining of laws in favor of one part of the nation, to the prejudice and oppression of another, is certainly the most erroneous and mistaken policy. An equal dispensation of protection, rights, privileges, and advantages, is what every part is entitled to, and ought to enjoy.”

—Benjamin Franklin2

“If government becomes the lawbreaker, it breeds contempt for the law; it invites every man to become a law unto himself, it invites anarchy.”

—Benjamin Franklin3

“I am the punishment of God. . . . If you had not committed great sins, God would not have sent a punishment like me upon you.”

—Genghis Kahn4

“The greatest happiness is to vanquish your enemies, to chase them before you, to rob them of their wealth, to see those dear to them bathed in tears, to clasp to your bosom their wives and daughters.”

—Genghis Kahn5

“All who surrender will be spared; whoever does not surrender but opposes with struggle and dissension, shall be annihilated.”

—Genghis Kahn6

Introduction

This is the 13th article series by the InQuiring Lawyer addressing a topic that Colorado lawyers may discuss privately but rarely talk about publicly. The topics in this column are explored through dialogues with lawyers, judges, law professors, law students, and law school deans, as well as entrepreneurs, journalists, business leaders, computer scientists, programmers, politicians, economists, sociologists, mental health professionals, ethicists, academics, children, gadflies, and know-it-alls (myself included). Today, we add historical figures to this list. If you have an idea for a future column, I hope you will share it with me via email at rms.sandgrund@gmail.com.

For this special edition, the InQuiring Lawyer sat down with two well-known historical figures, Dr. Benjamin Franklin and the Universal Ruler Genghis Kahn, to share a beer and discuss what the rule of law means to them and its role in creating a just and flourishing society.

Participants

Ronald M. Sandgrund, aka the InQuiring Lawyer, is of counsel with the construction defect group of Burg Simpson Eldredge Hersh Jardine PC. The group represents commercial and residential property owners, homeowner associations and unit owners, and construction professionals and insurers in construction defect, product liability, and insurance coverage disputes. He is a frequent author and lecturer on these topics, as well as on the practical aspects of being a lawyer. He has taught courses on entrepreneurial innovation and public policy and trial advocacy, and has lectured on legal ethics, construction law, mass tort litigation, consumer rights, and other subjects at Colorado Law.

Dr. Benjamin Franklin was a patriot, a scientist, an inventor, a clerk, a shopkeeper and business owner, an author, a printer and publisher, a postmaster, a signer of the Declaration of Independence, a delegate to the Constitutional Convention and one of our Founding Fathers, a legislator and governor of Pennsylvania, a diplomat and minister to France and Sweden, a Parisian celebrity, one of the founders of the University of Pennsylvania and also its first president, the founder of Philadelphia’s first volunteer fire department, an abolitionist leader (ahem, after giving up his slaves), a lover, and the face on our $100 dollar bill.

Universal Ruler Genghis Kahn (also known as Chinggis Khaan) was a great warrior and leader who created one of the largest realms in history, the Mongol Empire, which he ruled from 1206 until his death in 1227. At one point, Kahn’s empire encompassed 25% of the world’s population and a significant part of the Eurasian landmass.

Rule of Law: Foundational Principles

In early 2025, the CBA decided the time was ripe to assemble a nonpartisan task force charged with educating the public on America’s historical embrace of the rule of law and the enduring value of these principles. While formulations may vary, the task force—of which the InQuiring Lawyer is a member—settled on these five principles as foundational to the rule of law and why it is critical to defend its primacy in our constitutional order:

• Respect for the rule of law—Laws must apply equally to all people, regardless of their position or status in society.
• Judicial independence—Judges should make decisions based on law and facts, free from political pressure or outside influence.
• Due process—Everyone is entitled to their day in court, ensuring fair treatment.
• The right to choose one’s counsel—Lawyers must be allowed to serve their vital role in representing clients without fear of government retaliation, ensuring everyone has a voice in our legal system.
• Separation of powers—The three branches of government (executive, legislative, judicial) must check and balance each other’s power.

In one form or another, these principles have been passed down to Americans since that fateful day in July 1776, and their value endures to the present, July 2026—the 250th anniversary of the experiment called the United States of America.

The Dialogue

InQuiring Lawyer: Good morning, gentlemen. What a great privilege it is to sit down and discuss the evolution and enduring legacy of the rule of law with two prominent historical figures: Dr. Benjamin Frankin and the inestimable Great Kahn. I never thought I would have this opportunity!

Dr. Benjamin Franklin: Good morrow to you, Mr. InQuiring Lawyer! I’m all ears today and look forward to a frank exchange within the marketplace of ideas.

Great Kahn: Arggh. My publicist thought this interview was a good idea—that it would help clear up some misconceptions about my life and legacy. Too much Phony History out there.

InQ: Thank you both. Great Kahn, before we get started, I’m sorry to ask, but could you take your boots off the coffee table—my wife would kill me if she found out.

Great Kahn: Your wife? What say does she have in this? Are you not the master of your yurt? If you are displeased with her admonition, you should have one of your other wives run your household.

InQ: Well—moving on. I’d like to discuss each of the five foundational pillars of the rule of law: respect for the rule of law, judicial independence, due process, the right to choose one’s counsel, and separation of powers. Now, Great Kahn, I know some of these terms may be new to you, but I’ve done a bit of research and think I can redefine them to match concepts you are familiar with from the times during which you lived your best life. Dr. Franklin, you are, of course, familiar with all these terms—in fact, you might have helped coin some of them. But they may have morphed over the years, so if there’s a disconnect between how I explain them and how you understand them, please let me know.

Dr. Franklin: “Morphed”—what a lovely modern usage of that word! You know, “We are all born ignorant, but one must work hard to remain stupid.”7 And as Poor Richard aptly noted, “An investment in knowledge pays the best interest.”8

Great Kahn: You talk a lot.

InQ: Ah, yes, Dr. Franklin, I forgot that you sometimes speak in aphorisms.

Rule of Law

InQ: Let’s start with respect for the rule of law, and why laws must apply to everyone equally. Great Kahn, your thoughts?

Great Kahn: A very stupid idea. In my time, I made the laws. Why would anyone give away that power to others? If I didn’t like the way the law worked, I changed the law. And since I was the law, I was not too concerned with how the laws were applied. Very simple, no?

Dr. Franklin: Well, Great Kahn, that rule seems to have worked for you, but what about the millions under your rule? Isn’t it better to earn the people’s love and loyalty through equal application of the law rather than to rule by fear that the law will be shaped at your whim to harm them or take their property? Surely, “An equal dispensation of protection, rights, privileges, and advantages, is what every part of the nation is entitled to, and ought to enjoy,”9 wouldn’t you agree? And, as I once said, and please don’t take this personally, Great Kahn, “Trust not a single person with the government of your state. . . . What mischief may you not expect from such power in a mere man, though the best of men, from whom the truth is industriously hidden, and to whom falsehood is often presented in its place, by artful, interested, and malicious courtiers?”10

Great Kahn: That might be the dumbest thing I’ve ever heard. Here’s the one immutable law of mankind: Might. Makes. Right. You’ll see, Dr. Franklin, you’ll see. Review your country’s actions over time—mark my words. It’s like night follows day.

Dr. Franklin: I am sure we will err from time to time, Great Kahn. But I think our founding principles are sound. “The man who does things makes mistakes, but he doesn’t make the biggest mistake of all—doing nothing.”11 And we must always ask ourselves, “How do you become better tomorrow? By improving yourself, the world is made better. Be not afraid of growing too slowly. Be afraid of standing still. Forget your mistakes, but remember what they taught you. So how do you become better tomorrow? By becoming better today.”12

Great Kahn: Blah, blah, blah.

Judicial Independence

InQ: Okay. Let’s talk about judicial independence. Dr. Franklin, any thoughts on that?

Dr. Franklin: Well, I’ve always believed that that a stable and enduring republic required an independent and impartial judiciary to prevent abuse of power. And that judges should be appointed for life to help ensure their autonomy. Senescence should not be an issue, since most men live not past their 60s, when they are at the height of their intellectual vigor. It’s pretty much downhill after that. Can you imagine a 70- or 80-year-old in judicial robes? Hah!

Great Kahn: We had the Great Yassa in my time, and it served us very well.13

InQ: Wasn’t the Great Yassa a secret text written on scrolls that only the nobility could access and was applied selectively?

Great Kahn: Yes. So?

InQ: Hmmm. Well, who served as your judges?

Great Kahn: I appointed my stepbrother Shigi-Qutuqtu as the high judge—jarughachi14—and my son Chagatai Kahn15 oversaw execution of the laws, no pun intended. You could not know two finer warriors. And our laws were fair: Steal an animal: death. Commit adultery: death. You and your country’s judicial confirmation hearings, sentencing hearings, parole hearings, time off for good behavior . . . what a waste. In my time, unless a confession was obtained—and we had our ways—or unless the criminal was caught in the act, a man was considered innocent.

InQ: Well, there’s one point of agreement: the presumption of innocence.

Great Kahn: That sounded a little, how do you say, “snarky.” I get the sense you think we were barbarians or something. Not true! From the “Complete Collection of Laws of the Great Yuan Empire,” it is said: “Ever since ancient times, the great rulers of the world have not been able to rule by punishment alone. Wisdom is also necessary . . . . If men are not wise, then laws are necessary. If men break the laws, then that must result in the severest punishment and death. Previous rulers have accordingly prescribed punishment not to demonstrate their power but to promote the good of the State.”16 So, I am not quite the dictator your history books may suggest.

Dr. Franklin: Those are very fine words, Great Kahn. I wasn’t sure you embraced those ideals. Of course, “The ancients tell us what is best; but we must learn of the moderns what is fittest.”17

Great Kahn: Are you calling me ancient?

InQ: Gentlemen, another sip of beer, perhaps?

Due Process

InQ: How about “due process”—what does that mean and why is it important?

Dr. Franklin: Well, we had a problem for a long time with the English king quartering His Majesty’s troops in our homes. No notice, no permission, no compensation. And, sometimes, supposed rabblerousers—at least in the king’s appointed governors’ estimation—would be swept up and held without explanation. I mean, it’s not like the redcoats were firing 10 musket rounds into a rowdy colonist’s back while he was lying face down on the ground—only a barbarian would do such a thing—but what they did do was quite annoying.

InQ: So, how do you view what process is due?

Dr. Franklin: Well, as the Great Kahn hinted at, of course, “it is better one hundred guilty persons should escape than that one innocent person should suffer.”18 In practice, each of us is entitled to understand the charges levied and to have a full and fair opportunity to dispute those charges. What process is due depends on the circumstances and the gravity of the charge, but all of us are entitled to some minimum standard of due process to prevent the malicious or arbitrary exercise of government power and injustice. Pray tell, Great Kahn, wouldn’t you agree?

Great Kahn: Of course . . . as long as my friends are treated most fairly. I say that only because they surely would become the target of my enemies and rivals, so they need additional protection.

InQ: That seems a bit problematic to me, Great Kahn. Also, please, a reminder about your boots.

Great Kahn: Oh, sorry. By the way, these mixed nuts are amazing. I shall take this bag with me when I leave. Do you have any yak dip?

InQ: Sorry, no. Some hummus, perhaps?

Right to Counsel

InQ: Turning now to the right to counsel. Great Kahn, your thoughts?

Great Kahn: I have always valued the input I received from my council. My council, known as the Kurultai, was a high-level assembly of Mongol nobility, military commanders, and family members, used to make major decisions such as declaring war, choosing a new leader, or setting policy.19 It functioned as a meritocratic, military-focused, and, as the empire grew, increasingly multicultural advisory body.

InQ: My bad, Great Kahn. I meant c-o-u-n-s-e-l, not c-o-u-n-c-i-l. Counsel means someone who is trained in the law and serves as your advocate.

Great Kahn: I am not familiar with this other term. Also, I don’t need an advocate—I am the law. As far as others, if they cannot obtain justice through their own true words, then they deserve none.

InQ: But, Great Kahn, what about the least powerful, the less fortunate, the poorly educated—those who may not be as well-spoken and who would benefit from others speaking on their behalf?

Great Kahn: Justice always finds the true path. Ask my esteemed friends and relatives who mete it out. There have never been more just fellows. These “lawyers” of yours sound like a hidden tax on justice.

InQ: Dr. Franklin—your thoughts on the right to counsel?

Dr. Franklin: Well, I’ve been known to poke a little fun at lawyers. Good gracious, I was locked in a room full of them for three weeks in Philadelphia while drafting the Declaration of Independence. What’s that saying: “First prize was a week in Philadelphia. Second prize was two weeks.”20 Tarnation, it kind of felt that way! But some years later, when it came time to draft the Constitution, and even though it was a bundle of compromises, some of which I truly regret, its structure, and especially its Bill of Rights—an afterthought, I know, but still—embodied this rule of law, that brings us here today in your living room.

InQ: And how did lawyers fit into this rule of law?

Dr. Franklin: Well, as my compatriot John Adams noted, we must be a “government of laws and not of men.”21 From that foundation, we expected that lawyers would play an important role in our social order and in implementing our founding compact and its Bill of Rights. I suppose not everyone can afford a lawyer, which might put them at a disadvantage. But those who could, would of course be entitled to select the advocate of their choosing, and without the government in any way taking action to deny them that choice, or to dissuade lawyers from taking up their cause. No lawyer of good conscience would allow that! Yet, I wonder, if their purse was threatened, how many would stand upright? Perhaps, someday, when someone’s liberty is at stake, the public coffers will ensure that they have able representation if they cannot afford it. But that is a matter for the public treasury and of a benevolent policy expressed through those we elect, a matter which I think we must leave to future generations to address.

Separation of Powers

InQ: Let’s turn now, finally, to the separation of powers among the judicial, legislative, and executive branches. Great Kahn, your thoughts?

Great Kahn: How inefficient. I make the laws. I interpret those laws. I enforce those laws. Easy-peasy.

InQ: Sure—why separate the functions of judge, jury, and executioner when one person can do all three jobs?

Great Kahn: Precisely. You get it.

Dr. Franklin: But Great Kahn, your empire is so huge, you cannot be everywhere at once, and things must run smoothly in your absence. How do you manage that?

Great Kahn: Well, of course, if a clan or obogh does not submit, we kill all of them. Maybe, sometimes, just the men, and then we take the women and children. If the clan submits, our law is made known to them and I appoint a very honest and loyal man to apply that law locally. By the way, I appoint only the best. This is just as I understand you and Dr. Franklin apply the law in your times.

Dr. Franklin: I have spoken often of the dangers of concentrated power, the necessity of limits on power and a balancing of interests, and the responsibility of the people to maintain an evenhanded government. As my good friend John Adams said, “Power must never be trusted without a check.”22 And, of course, we should never forget the esteemed James Madison’s words, “The accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and judiciary, in the same hands, whether of one, a few, or many, and whether hereditary, self-appointed, or elective, may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny.”23

InQ: Great Kahn, what about making war? Surely, you must first seek the advice of a war council? War is deadly serious business, and a wise man wants to hear the voices of others regarding such a grave decision?

Great Kahn: I am a warrior-genius. Why would I need the advice of others? That said, I would first sit with the Kurultai, and then make war.

Dr. Franklin: Great Kahn, when the People’s blood and treasure are at risk, when your warriors are asked to make the greatest of sacrifices, I believe a great leader should explain the need for war and seek their joinder in the cause. In our time, we have left it to the People’s chosen representatives, our Congress, to declare war, and for our wise and humble leader, our president, a civilian, to consult with his generals to make that war—no one person is empowered to declare and make war without the People’s consent. This separation of the power to conduct war is central to our nation’s soul.

Great Kahn: Are you a child? You have to ask permission to engage and conquer the enemy? Much too slow—a foolish waste of time.

InQ: But Great Kahn, it takes your massive army a day to travel 20 göröm. At that rate, certainly you have time to consider things carefully and consult with others?

Great Kahn: No offense, kind host, but you talk like a simpering lamb. I decide when it is time for battle.

Dr. Franklin: Well, sir, we chose a different and more deliberate path to avoid unnecessary wars and the needless loss of our People’s lives and treasure.

Great Kahn: Dr. Franklin, it seems we have some fundamental disagreements. My glorious empire lasted over a century and a half before it fragmented—and, I would add, not on my watch. Yours is into its 250th year, so I have to give you some credit there. Of course, if my successors had 3,748 nuclear warheads, the Mongol Dynasty might still be around.

Dr. Franklin: “Nuclear warheads?”

Great Kahn: Google it!

Dr. Franklin: I’m sorry, kind sir, do what?

Great Kahn: Dr. Franklin, my new friend, rather than argue which empire is greater, why don’t we just settle this with an arm wrestle?

Dr. Franklin: Agreed, good fellow!

Conclusion

InQ: Well gents, we need to wrap things up. I want to thank you both for your time and your shared wisdom. And please join me in wishing the United States of America a very happy 250th birthday!

Dr. Franklin: Happy birthday to my esteemed fellow citizens’  descendants and to our Constitution’s promise.

Great Kahn: I’m taking these nuts.

***

“The cornerstone of the American system of justice is an independent judiciary and an independent bar willing to tackle unpopular cases, however daunting. The Founding Fathers knew this! Accordingly, they took pains to enshrine in the Constitution certain rights that would serve as the foundation for that independence.”

—US Senior Judge Richard Lyon24

---

Explore This Issue

The Role of Political Narratives and Rhetoric in the Application of the Rule of Law

Rule of Law

By Amy Brimah

The American Dream and the Rule of Law

Rule of Law

By Russell Carparelli

The Architecture of Accountability

Rule of Law

By Judith Judd and Alan S. Thompson

Notes