At best, the rule of law is amoral; at worst it is immoral, destructive of the human psyche. The framers of the Constitution got around the problem by exempting natural persons from the law and, to be consistent with social practice, categorizing youths, women and captives not as persons, but as property, which is to be protected and regulated by the state. The result is that no natural male person is under the law, but women and children are.
The problem with the law is that because it is impersonal, virtually immortal and largely immutable, the accretion of power can go unchecked, even as its agents surrender their autonomy temporarily in exchange for their authority to exercise force. What seems to have happened is that as long as females were agreeable to complying with male hegemony, the rule of law, which was in reality quite fungible, was acceptable. Males accepted being ruled by law as long as females accepted being ruled by males. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 made it unacceptable.
So, we have had half a century of female resistance to male dominion until males reaorted to the threat of death as a last resort and law makers complied under the giuse of protecting their property rights in the survival of the sperm.
The problem, of course, is that the designation of humans is unsupportable because immoral and, given the inherent dangers of pregnancy, coerced reproduction is an unwarranted sentence of death. In denying medical care via legal strictures, law makers have propounded an existential threat to the female of the species. Amle hegemony has gone too far.
I think I want to differentiate between hegemony and supremacy. Supremacy can be variously achieved by singular or universal consent. So, in effect, male supremacists are petitioners ala “please let me stand at the head of the class. Male hegemony is self-directed and seeking to impose. Male hegemony is coercive; at base a way to get around the premise that the law does not apply to persons nor constrain their natural functions.
The recently “no-one is above the law” is mistaken. Agents of government and owners of property are subject to the law; the natural person is subject to a single prohibition: not to intentionally injure another. Misinterpretation is common in USA. The designation of the prohibitions in the Constitution as rights is a prime example. So, just as the prohibition against interfering with speech is actually just common sense, since we would not want people plotting insurrection in secret, the concession to the ownership of weapons is to assert a mechanism of control over persons who own them. That ownership serves as a mechanism to control persons who are otherwise exempt cannot be admitted without undermining the whole legal system.
To own property is to submit oneself to the rule of law. Property rights do not assign rights to property; they assign obligations to owners. That the obligations are not explicit makes it possible to impose restraints selectively.
The rule of law is sort of like a cat playing with a mouse. The plight of a Trump is quite spectacular.