More and more people around the world are questioning what we're told at large. Haven't you ever thought to yourself about whether politicians represent our interests or if we even have real democracy? But does that also mean we've forgotten what majority tyranny is?
In every “democracy” and kingdom, we are told that government is instituted to protect and serve the people: that its powers are justly derived from the consent of the governed. How would we characterize the lobbying away of our economy, the static enforcement of illegal laws, and the locked-door two-party tyranny in the US? The endless list of govt complaints leading to a black hole. We must always remember that a gang voting to steal your wallet is not balanced democracy.
The republican form of government is defined as a balance between popular sovereignty, the rule of law, and freedom. Popular sovereignty basically means democracy. The rule of law has never existed on the planet Earth and is defined by the legality principle, but the UN has tried to complicate the criteria with too many separate ideas. Freedom can include fundamentally-protected rights, whenever they are enforced in the real world, or any other codependent prohibition on authoritarian forms of government. The US constitution is supposed to guarantee “States” these legal protections. The historical origins of “Lincoln’s republicanism,” the current legal doctrine, and the precise balance of the three criteria is a highly technical, substantive topic.
The US common law system has a “three-strike” judicial system. What does that mean? A system where judicial power is the final decision maker, and where the supreme court ultimately has unchecked power to “interpret” the law or else tough shit. Suddenly, bribery is “interpreted” as legal, duty is an immunity, and red can mean blue. That is not what the mechanisms of the constitution say, categorically! The law of the case is not the law of the land. From an early age, before we can question anything, we are taught not to consider the full, broad scope of a given statute, or even think about laws “if you’re not a lawyer.” Instead, we are directed to immediately turn to whatever the first court of record/appeal has ruled on that one given case on a first-come-first-serve basis, as if it narrows the meaning of the words in the law itself. How are new cases made on the content of “unestablished laws” if the case law is all that matters? How can the words in the law be ambiguous in whole if the word “ambiguous” does in fact have a meaning? These professional trade secrets simply do not make sense. Why are we taught to ignore the law of the land like this under explicit psychological conditions?
Courts in the United States have effectively ruled that they have the power to rewrite the law. The difference between using case law to establish a set of circumstances that fall under a given law versus just “substituting” alternative elements of a law is not commonly understood. The definitions of words don’t “change” and “breathe” over the years but become clearer. If a law is illegal, such as a demand for undue fees by the DMV for not driving on the road, it is not "the law." If a broad-topic law prohibits laws of a smaller topic within it, what kind of zombie lunatic follower really thinks that the enabling authority is notwithstanding?! Perpetually making new policing bodies to police the previous one is not a solution. During the Bush Jr. administration, the US justice dept republished a 1971 memo asserting that a president is not subject to the criminal justice process, in direct conflict with constitutional language. Constitutional laws are far more binding than “a guideline.” What would good bar exam answers be if the questions covered these topics? These dynamics of legality and “acquiescence” as they relate to the force of the law, my ideal dissertation topic, exemplified with some examples below, will be addressed more deeply one day in a LEGAL GUIDANCE WORKSHOP.
The UN defines the rule of law as “a principle of governance in which all persons, institutions and entities, public and private, including the State itself, are accountable to laws that are publicly promulgated, equally enforced and independently adjudicated, and which are consistent with international human rights norms and standards.” Well. That all sounds really wonderful. Is it really happening anywhere? The legality principle is “govt that enforces the law as it is written.” If our so-called legal system cannot even achieve the most bare-minimum qualification for the rule of law, of which there are soooo many examples like bribery vs “lobbying,” we must be critical, independent thinkers when it comes to deciding what the actual purpose is for all of the other wonderful-sounding criteria that we so rarely achieve, except maybe on a case-by-case basis.
What is a misdemeanor? A felony? An infraction? Does it constitute violence, harm, and corruption? What is the calculus of the negligence? Are there any other trigonometrics of law? Presumption of innocence goes way beyond plausible deniability. Basically, to take a circumstance and assert any possible outcome as having taken place when only one outcome took place is not a legal argument. There are unreasonable doubts, suspicions, expectations. It is not quite as simple as “if it is plausible, you may use it to deny.” The current outlook of our standards of proof around the world today should be characterized as something more like "presumption of presumption." If there was reasonable deniability, multiple university classes in the same semester would not teach that “the burdens of prosecuting white-collar crime are fearfully difficult,” so you just shouldn’t do it!
The “bigger picture” of rule of law in our courts impacts our everyday lives. The masses avoid “politics” and often express to not care as if it does not effect their economic wellbeing, independent thought, and underlying freedom. I understand I am in fact affected by the taxes being collected from me at gunpoint to be spent on pissing off the rest of the world, at best. Our constitutional natural rights include protections that ban govt from outlawing human behaviors that fall under the laws of nature. Very important. However, the judicial system has ruled that these most fundamental rights on the books are not even there! Even though most States enumerate them as literally the first laws on their books, showing their utmost significance. What do we have in a country if we do not have security in our most important liberties?
Some of the best consumers of propaganda in the US have tried to tell me that the constitutional phrase "titles of nobility" is only restricted to blood-inherited aristocracy, when the “originalism” of that law covers the prohibition of a distinct governing class. We all know this in the back of our minds. Let's assume they're right for a second. Even still, that means billionaire families who hand their wealth down and buy up government with endless examples would in fact meet the criteria. US courts were framed to mitigate HARDSHIP, but handing down the English common law of feudal times only inflamed the imbalances of our medieval and new-investment royalty. The things I’ve learned about the backwardness, deceptiveness, and covertness of the lucrative, insider so-called “legal system” and “rule of law” are unworldly and immense!
A VERY SMALL NUMBER OF COMMON LEGAL MISUNDERSTANDINGS FROM MY NOTES
Impeachment is the only mechanism to remove a president (but there is also disability).
Executive orders have no foundation in constitutional law (except Art. II Sec. 3.4).
Judicial review has no foundation in constitutional law (except Art. VI P. 2).
Judicial review replaces law of the land with law of the case.
"The consent of the people" is a synonym of "the free political will of representative politicians."
The constitution is not law for government, but is instead a non-binding guideline for society.
The “movie theater exception” applies to Amd. I. (many States prohibit “irresponsible speech”).
Govt officers are immune from law (No!).
Commenti