Rule of law on one side includes many competitive examples that actually work to defend innocent people from guilty criminals in time and place.
Criminal orders that must be obeyed without question on the other side, again with many competitive examples that actually work, only on this side the criminal orders work for the criminals at the expense of the victims.
The Great Debate is thereby explained as people on both sides meet in time and place.
An example of the Great Debate is offered in America between 1776 and 1787.
Those events that exemplified the Great Debate were recorded in various documents such as a collection known as Elliot’s Debates.
My part in this Great Debate is offered here and now in the form of an intention to discuss the obvious membership of one side known as the Federalist Party, which are knowable as the criminals, and the obvious other side, which were falsely called the Antis,
I can back up my viewpoint in great detail, and my hope is to avoid any character assassination aimed at me personally by those who exemplify their side.
The allusion to 1776 suggests the question might be, “Do we always follow the exact letter of the law?” given that the founders of the United States certainly didn’t. They were “criminals” in the sight of the crown, but heroes to us.
But I sure wouldn’t want to generalize this to defend “criminal rule!”
This is just a wild guess, but I wonder if the OP has anything to do with the fact that one of the things opposed by the anti-federalists was a national bank? Some conspiracy theories about the Federal Reserve invoke the anti-federalists.
Procrustus wrote:
“I have degrees in both American History and Law, and I don’t understand what you are saying.”
The Topic is:
Divisions along Rule of Law versus Criminal Rule
A degree is an award for specific performance concerning instruction or learning, and therefore the one holding the degree has preformed well enough to earn the degree.
What was instructed or learned? If the one holding the degree doesn’t understand what someone else is writing, and is unable to communicate specific performance problems, then that adds, or that subtracts from, the accurate measure of learning? The topic concerns divisions along Rule of Law versus Criminal Rule.
Czarcasm wrote:
“I think it’s massive well-poisoning…but I cannot recognize either the well or the poison.”
What constitutes massive well-poisoning? Is that a reference to Rule of Law or Criminal Rule? If someone working toward Rule of Law looks at someone working toward Criminal Rule, then Criminal Rule may appear to be “massive well-poisoning.”
Someone working toward Criminal Rule may see someone massively poisoning the Criminal Rule well when someone works toward Rule of Law.
Defining Criminal Rule:
An immoral (criminal) order is issued and obeyed without question as criminals define the meaning of criminal rule upon their victims. The classic cases include Nazi rule, Bolshevik rule, Communist China rule, and that is merely in the last century, whereby the criminals were ordered to do unspeakable things to innocent victims and those obeying the criminal rulers were said to have been “just following orders.”
Rule of Law includes examples such as this:
“Hugh Thompson, by now almost frantic, saw bodies in the ditch, including a few people who were still alive. He landed his helicopter and told Calley to hold his men there while he evacuated the civilians. (One account reports Thompson told his helicopter crew chief to “open up on the Americans” if they fired at the civilians, but Thompson later said he did not remember having done so.) He put himself between Calley’s men and the Vietnamese. When a rescue helicopter landed, Thompson had the nine civilians, including five children, flown to the nearest army hospital. Later, Thompson was to land again and rescue a baby still clinging to her dead mother.”
That above can be seen as Massive Well Poisoning done to Rule by Criminals, done with Rule of Law in mind.
An example of Massive Well Poisoning from a Rule of Law viewpoint could be exemplified here:
“The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned.”
Someone from a Criminal Rule viewpoint may consider Matthew 7:12 to be a case of Massive Well Poisoning having been done to a Criminal Rule Well.
Trinopus wrote:
Rule of Law has been exemplified in many forms. Here is an example:
“So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets.”
Here is another example:
Another example is exemplified by something called trial by jury; also known as legem terrae, the palladium of liberty, the law of the land, and common law.
Another example is the Bill of Rights to the 1787 (fraudulent) Constitution.
If someone speaks about Founders without dividing said Founders into at least two groups, then someone may be missing the point of the Topic.
The Topic is:
Divisions along Rule of Law versus Criminal Rule.
A division already explained in the OP is the division along the lines of (false) Federalists and those who were called Antis.
John Mace initiates an attack:
“Please don’t.”
That is unclean debate #1 as far as I am concerned. I am not judge, jury, and executioner, nor am I a moderator. I am publishing an informal accusation here and now. Said attacker can easily scroll past the words that the attacker prefers not to read on any forum governed by rules; why pick this one to initiate an attack on one of the forum members?
Czarcasm links Elliot’s Debates.
Taken from Elliot’s Debates (next quote) is an example of the meaning of federation (Rule of Law) as it was spoken during the forming debates in The United States of America in Congress Assembled, as a federation for mutual defense was being formed.
Volume I page 57, 58 (73,74 in pdf copy):
SpoilerVirgin wrote:
"This is just a wild guess, but I wonder if the OP has anything to do with the fact that one of the things opposed by the anti-federalists was a national bank? Some conspiracy theories about the Federal Reserve invoke the anti-federalists. "
Why are people today apparently unaware of due process of law as explained well enough in the Matthew 7:12, The Declaration of Independence, those words in Elliot’s Debates quoted above, and the Bill of Rights?
When someone is found to be injured under suspicious circumstances, such as the Martin Luther King Jr. Conspiracy Murder Case, there is a process that includes a formal accusation made by someone against someone accused of conspiracy murder. If Rule of Law works as Rule of Law is supposed to work, then said accusation follows through with a “speedy” trial. After Rule of Law works, as Rule of Law is intended to work, the accused is found guilty of Conspiracy Murder; which thereby demonstrates Conspiracy Murder as a lawfully established fact, not a “theory.”
An example of a failure to apply Rule of Law (Many examples exist):
If Criminal Rule takes over, and there is no longer Rule of Law working, then “Conspiracy Theory” replaces trial by jury, due process, and Rule of Law to point at which the criminals who take over issue the following typical orders:
“The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned.”
elucidator wrote:
“Its been a while, so its kinda hazy. Did the Rosicrucians support the Federalists, or the mensheviks?”
Is that an example of clean debate?
madsircool wrote:
“Im guessing english isnt his first language so give the guy some slack”
The spell checker reports 3 errors in the above English sentence. Is that an example of transference or projection, and is that an example of clean debate?
Bryan Ekers wrote:
“Yikes, that post reads like a game of Milton Friedman Buzzword Bingo.”
That appears to be yet another example of unclean debate. I will label that Unclean Debate (accusation) #2. Someone ought to keep track (accurate account) of those throwing the first stones that constitute Character Assassination, which was once understood as a crime called Libel, now euphemistically referred to as a flame war, where “both sides” are said to be guilty.
The division of the rule of law from the criminal law is the division of the self against the corporeal idea of human corporation, except in reverse order. If one is innocent from the rule of law, the mens rea also applies to how we divide society into units of uncountable mass.
So what I’m saying is, if we set aside all the unclean debates and simply focus on the logical syllogism, which is present before all the assumptions are dictated into the argument, then we can get at the heart of the matter.
As John Locke said, that is ontologically right but epistemologically inaccurate. You have to depart toward rules and rule of law, like the difference between pens and penguins.
A jury is a conspiracy in both form and fact, made legal only by our formal procedures having rendered their overt acts functionally free from illegality. The question is whether it will be seated by owls or men. Since owls will not sit on juries, then if the verdict is spell-checked, isn’t it therefore logical? Isn’t it therefore comprehensible?
