# Divisions along Rule of Law versus Criminal Rule **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [August 4, 2015, 9:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/divisions-along-rule-of-law-versus-criminal-rule/727009 "2015-08-04T21:07:39Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![Josf](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/d78d45/32.png) [@Josf](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Josf)\ **Post date:** [August 6, 2015, 1:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/divisions-along-rule-of-law-versus-criminal-rule/727009/61 "2015-08-06T01:34:07Z")
UltraVires > [@](#): > > During the ratification debates between the federalists and the anti-federalists, the anti-federalists were right. In fact, they should not have been called anti-federalists. It was wrong and illegal to completely scrap the Articles of Confederation and replace that document with our current Constitution. > > It would have been better had we listened to the Anti-Federalists. > …OP, does that accurately state your position? Please use simple words; talk to me like a 10 year old who just studied the ratification debates in social studies class. The meaning that is important proves to be important when innocent victims are defended against harm done by guilty criminals. If that meaning is set aside, forgotten, marginalized, ignored, or otherwise refuted, then the point is lost. No amount of words employed to censor that point is the point. The point is the effective defense of the innocent, and thereby the effective defense of posterity, and other considerations are not the point. If that meaning is offered by those people like Patrick Henry, George Mason, and others less well respected in modern times, then that is the message worth listening to even if the message is offered by someone else; under a different name. So “Federalist” (false) or Federalist (true) and anyone opposing “Federalist” (false) or Federalist (true) is, in point of fact, either/or, someone working toward Criminal Rule (rule by criminals issuing criminal orders to be obeyed without question) or someone working toward Rule of Law because Rule of Law affords the best (so far) methods, or best process, by which innocent victims are defended in time and place from injury done to them by guilty criminals. So that may be worth knowing to anyone who prefers not to be injured by criminals. Setting aside the fact that this is an internet forum in 2015 and I am already threatened with censorship for the crime of failing to express meaning in my words while character assassins run amok despite the rules expressed well enough in the first three sticky threads on this forum, setting all that aside, there remains to be an obvious steady flow of innocent victims currently destroyed by guilty criminals in this place that worked once as a federation. The obvious problem is such that the criminals will lie. Criminals will claim to be offering protection to potential victims. And the idea, so well expressed in The Declaration of Independence, is such that holding those liars to an accurate accounting, in writing, for the whole world to see, if people care to listen, offers people advance warning, a heads-up, a sign post that says STOP, or Do Not Enter, whereby the warning serves those who prefer to avoid paying for their own demise. The sign says Do Not Enter, and those who enter do so at their own risk. The problem was, is, and always will be worse when the criminals invest their stolen loot into a crime known as War of Aggression for Profit. That is the experience documented in the federation versus consolidation, or the Rule of Law versus Criminal Rule debates in writing, in speech, and as combatants met on the battle field in that time when people Declared their Independence from the British whose crimes were enumerated in that Declaration of Independence. That is the situation on the ground inspiring the formation of a federal Union which was voluntary, as volunteers volunteered to defend their newly acquired land in America, so that they could earn their way through life, to make life higher in quality, and lower in cost; while the criminal British were currently perpetrating War of Aggression for Profit. All of that is not unheard of, not over anyone’s head, not Conspiracy Theory, not gibberish. Free people whose idea was a federal relationship with the British government, was understood to be a voluntary Union, as explained so eloquently by John Adams in the quote already offered. Our Liberty is earned by ourselves as we employ our energy for our own interests, at the expense of no one. Free people in harmony with natural laws, and with all other people, without strings attached, and that idea spread like wildfire, so long as other ideas did not infect the common currency, or the common news, or the common education, or the common literature, or the common media, or the common religion, or the common laws. The idea of Liberty, of free people in harmony, is the Rule of Law idea, as people understood that there are always innocent people offering opportunities for guilty criminals to capitalize upon in time and place, and that inevitability creates a need for some kind of effective defense. That demand for effective defense is then supplied by many competitive examples where people actually accomplish the goal of defending the innocent targeted victims from the guilty criminal perpetrators. One such process that has stood the test of time is Trial by Jury. So my words may have be lost on those demanding clarity, reason, understanding, along the lines outlined in this Topic. So… How about a link and a quote that may help - or not? Link: > **[Reclaiming the American Revolution: The Kentucky and Virgina Resolutions and...](https://www.amazon.com/Reclaiming-American-Revolution-Kentucky-Resolutions/dp/1403963037)** > > Reclaiming the American Revolution: The Kentucky and Virgina Resolutions and their Legacy \[Watkins, William\] on Amazon.com. \*FREE\* shipping on qualifying offers. Reclaiming the American Revolution: The Kentucky and Virgina Resolutions and their... > [@](#): > > Second, federalism permits the states to operate as laboratories of democracy-to experiment with various policies and Programs. For example, if Tennessee wanted to provide a state-run health system for its citizens, the other 49 states could observe the effects of this venture on Tennessee’s economy, the quality of care provided, and the overall cost of health care. If the plan proved to be efficacious other states might choose to emulate it, or adopt a plan taking into account any problems surfacing in Tennessee. If the plan proved to be a disastrous intervention, the other 49 could decide to leave the provision of medical care to the private sector. With national plans and programs, the national officials simply roll the dice for all 284 million people of the United States and hope they get things right. > > Experimentation in policymaking also encourages a healthy competition among units of government and allows the people to vote with their feet should they find a law of policy detrimental to their interests. Using again the state-run health system as an example, if a citizen of Tennessee was unhappy with Tennessee’s meddling with the provisions of health care, the citizen could move to a neighboring state. Reallocation to a state like North Carolina, with a similar culture and climate, would not be a dramatic shift and would be a viable option. Moreover, if enough citizens exercised this option, Tennessee would be pressured to abandon its foray into socialized medicine, or else lose much of its tax base. To escape a national health system, a citizen would have to emigrate to a foreign country, an option far less appealing and less likely to be exercised than moving to a neighboring state. Without competition from other units of government, the national government would have much less incentive than Tennessee would to modify the objectionable policy. Clearly, the absence of experimentation and competition hampers the creation of effective programs and makes the modification of failed national programs less likely. So…I am so, so, so, past teaching those who refuse to learn. I can move on with welcome energy to greener (potentially) pastures. I’ve be on the ballot as a Congressman in my district. My experience, despite claims otherwise, is specific to the subject matter offered to anyone caring to know something that may have escaped their notice up to this point in time and place. ---
**Author:** ![Telemark](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/telemark/32/372_2.png) [@Telemark](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Telemark)\ **Post date:** [August 6, 2015, 1:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/divisions-along-rule-of-law-versus-criminal-rule/727009/62 "2015-08-06T01:44:30Z")
> [@Josf](#): > > No amount of words employed to censor that point is the point. My irony meter busted. Never have so many words been used to say so little. You were asked a “Yes or No” question. ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [August 6, 2015, 1:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/divisions-along-rule-of-law-versus-criminal-rule/727009/63 "2015-08-06T01:46:39Z")
I like to think even my ten-year-old self wouldn’t be impressed by that. ---
**Author:** ![UltraVires](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecccb3/32.png) [@UltraVires](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UltraVires)\ **Post date:** [August 6, 2015, 1:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/divisions-along-rule-of-law-versus-criminal-rule/727009/64 "2015-08-06T01:48:30Z")
The Amazon link was the only thing that makes any sense to me. I have a law degree. I understand the link: it is better for states to have greater power to act as laboratories. I agree. Define these terms and give examples— 1. Rule of Law 2. Criminal Rule 3. War of Aggression for Profit You also mentioned that Trial by Jury is good. I agree. We have that today. How is it deficient and how would it be different under your proposal? And again, assume I have a high school only level education. ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [August 6, 2015, 2:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/divisions-along-rule-of-law-versus-criminal-rule/727009/65 "2015-08-06T02:10:43Z")
> [@Josf](#): > > Setting aside the fact that this is an internet forum in 2015 and I am already threatened with censorship for the crime of failing to express meaning in my words while character assassins run amok despite the rules expressed well enough in the first three sticky threads on this forum, setting all that aside, there remains to be an obvious steady flow of innocent victims currently destroyed by guilty criminals in this place that worked once as a federation. You were not threatened with censorship. This thread was headed to a meltdown because your OP was incoherent and posters were responding to that. Had the thread been closed, you would have been perfectly free to open a new thread with the opportunity to post clearly so as to not attract negative remarks. And there has been no “character assassination.” There were a number of legitimate questions about your words and purpose near the beginning of the thread and some mildly sarcastic comments that you could have easily avoided by posting your thesis openly and clearly rather than hiding behind coy disphemisms. No poster violated the rules regarding personal attacks–certainly nothing worse that your response in Post #14. ---
**Author:** ![2sense](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/2/e47774/32.png) [@2sense](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/2sense)\ **Post date:** [August 6, 2015, 3:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/divisions-along-rule-of-law-versus-criminal-rule/727009/66 "2015-08-06T03:14:22Z")
> [@Human\_Action](#): > > The Constitution was passed by the Continental Congress. It was no more or less voluntary than any other act of Congress under the Articles of Confederation. Do you think that every act of Congress was unanimous? The Confederation Congress did not pass the Constitution. It was not empowered to do so since the document did not conform to the amendment process established by the Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union. Instead Congress merely forwarded copies of the Constitution to the states. Here is the relevant page of the congressional journal: [http://lcweb2.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=lljc&fileName=033/lljc033.db&recNum=160&itemLink=r%3Fammem%2Fhlaw%3A%40field(DOCID%2B%40lit(jc0331))%230330001&linkText=1](http://lcweb2.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=lljc&fileName=033/lljc033.db&recNum=160&itemLink=r%3Fammem%2Fhlaw%3A%40field%28DOCID%2B%40lit%28jc0331%29%29%230330001&linkText=1) ---
**Author:** ![zoid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/zoid/32/336_2.png) [@zoid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/zoid)\ **Post date:** [August 6, 2015, 3:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/divisions-along-rule-of-law-versus-criminal-rule/727009/67 "2015-08-06T03:26:16Z")
> [@Josf](#): > > So…I am so, so, so, past teaching those who refuse to learn. Do you honestly imagine that’s what’s happening? ---
**Author:** ![Guinastasia](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/guinastasia/32/5751_2.png) [@Guinastasia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Guinastasia)\ **Post date:** [August 6, 2015, 3:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/divisions-along-rule-of-law-versus-criminal-rule/727009/68 "2015-08-06T03:45:45Z")
I prefer my word salad with Italian dressing. ---
**Author:** ![2sense](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/2/e47774/32.png) [@2sense](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/2sense)\ **Post date:** [August 6, 2015, 3:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/divisions-along-rule-of-law-versus-criminal-rule/727009/69 "2015-08-06T03:54:50Z")
> [@Josf](#): > > A baseless counter claim (baseless since it is offered as opinion only) is counter to a well established fact offered reasonably by the author of the quote above, but that well stated matter of fact is one of many testimonies offering the facts that matter on this specific topic. You appear to be using the term “baseless” improperly. It doesn’t mean “unsubstantiated”. It means that something is just plain wrong. My claim that the term “Antifederalist” was not falsely applied was not supported by evidence but that in and of itself does not make it untrue. Here is some evidence from the introduction of Jackson Turner Main’s “The Antifederalists”: \*Originally the word “federalist” meant anyone who supported the Confederation. Several years before the Constitution was promulgated, the men who wanted a strong national government, who might more properly be called “nationalists,” began to appropriate the term “federal” for themselves. To them the man of “federal principles” approved of “federal measures,” which meant those that increased the weight and authority or extended the influence of the Confederation Congress. The word “antifederal” by contrast implied hostility to Congress. \* As I said, the term was not false. Misleading? Yes. Convenient for supporters of the Constitution? Yes. Deliberately hung on their opponents? Sure. But not false. It accurately describes the relationship of each side with the Confederation Congress. As for the paragraph you quoted, it does nothing to detract from my point. I’m not arguing that the Federalists were more federal than the Antifederalists. Clearly they were not. > [@](#): > > Federalists (true by the meaning of the word) included Patrick Henry and George Mason, they were called Antis. There are many examples of those who switched sides like Sam Adams who was for the federal (voluntary) idea (Rule of Law) and then he switched sides during the events that became known as Shays’s Rebellion. John Adams, similarly, was for the federal (voluntary Rule of Law) idea during the formation of the actual federation between 1776 and 1787, when speaking along those lines, such as the quote already offered, but his true color was evident in other writings during that period, and decidedly on the side of Criminal Rule was John Adams when he led the actions that are recorded as The Alien and Sedition Acts. Those same Criminal Orders (to be obeyed without question) were the same actions that led another individual named James Madison to abandon the false federal Party and join the so called Antis with his participation in the formation of the Democratic-Republican Party and such actions as those recorded in the Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions. I’m afraid I don’t understand how this paragraph, or the subsequent one, has anything to do with my point that not all who supported the Constitution and thus may be called “federalist” actually sought a national government and thus deserve the appellation “nationalist”. In fact I can’t make heads or tails of any of the rest of your post. I recognize the words but can’t see the sense of why you have strung them together. Sorry. ---
**Author:** ![Josf](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/d78d45/32.png) [@Josf](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Josf)\ **Post date:** [August 6, 2015, 4:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/divisions-along-rule-of-law-versus-criminal-rule/727009/70 "2015-08-06T04:10:04Z")
2sense offers: > [@](#): > > The Confederation Congress did not pass the Constitution. It was not empowered to do so since the document did not conform to the amendment process established by the Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union. Instead Congress merely forwarded copies of the Constitution to the states. Here is the relevant page of the congressional journal: Relevant to the topic (not character assassination as a form of censorship) is the above quote. Three sources agree (principle of agreement) to the above offer of meaning: 1. 2. [http://www.freedomforallseasons.org/ConstitutionalRelatedReports/Constitution%20-%20George%20Washington%20Jailer%20And%20Tax%20Collector..htm](http://www.freedomforallseasons.org/ConstitutionalRelatedReports/Constitution%20-%20George%20Washington%20Jailer%20And%20Tax%20Collector..htm) 1. [http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th\_century/artconf.asp](http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/artconf.asp) All three are SUBJECT to controversy among individuals ideals, perspectives, opinions, subjectivity, viewpoints, judgments, edicts, dictations, and tyrannical exertions of criminally acquired powers. How are lawful facts, in any controversy, determined as facts? What is the best lie detector known? ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [August 6, 2015, 4:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/divisions-along-rule-of-law-versus-criminal-rule/727009/71 "2015-08-06T04:25:29Z")
> [@Josf](#): > > What is the best lie detector known? Wonder Woman’s lasso. Granted, it’s still on the drawing board at this stage… ---
**Author:** ![Josf](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/d78d45/32.png) [@Josf](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Josf)\ **Post date:** [August 6, 2015, 4:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/divisions-along-rule-of-law-versus-criminal-rule/727009/72 "2015-08-06T04:30:39Z")
> [@](#): > > I’m afraid I don’t understand how this paragraph, or the subsequent one, has anything to do with my point that not all who supported the Constitution and thus may be called “federalist” actually sought a national government and thus deserve the appellation “nationalist”. In fact I can’t make heads or tails of any of the rest of your post. I recognize the words but can’t see the sense of why you have strung them together. Sorry. Two of the most lucid causes to act in defense against the effort to turn the voluntary federal agreement into an involuntary National Crime Spree was offered by the Sixth President of The United States in Congress Assembled in the following link: [http://www.rightsofthepeople.com/freedom\_documents/anti\_federalist\_papers/anti\_federalist\_papers\_41\_43\_2.php](http://www.rightsofthepeople.com/freedom_documents/anti_federalist_papers/anti_federalist_papers_41_43_2.php) > [@](#): > > The city, and all the places in which the union shall have this exclusive jurisdiction, will be immediately under one entire government, that of the federal head, and be no part of any state, and consequently no part of the United States. The inhabitants of the federal city and places, will be as much exempt from the laws and control of the state governments, as the people of Canada or Nova Scotia will be. Neither the laws of the states respecting taxes, the militia, crimes of property, will extend to them; nor is there a single stipulation in the constitution, that the inhabitants of this city, and these places, shall be governed by laws founded on principles of freedom. All questions, civil and criminal, arising on the laws of these places, which must be the laws of congress, must be decided in the federal courts; and also, all questions that may, by such judicial fictions as these courts may consider reasonable, be supposed to arise within this city, or any of these places, may be brought into these courts. By a very common legal fiction, any personal contract may be supposed to have been made in any place. If you, or anyone, does not understand the meaning of those words, then that cost of your ignorance in yours, not mine. ---
**Author:** ![Josf](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/d78d45/32.png) [@Josf](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Josf)\ **Post date:** [August 6, 2015, 4:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/divisions-along-rule-of-law-versus-criminal-rule/727009/73 "2015-08-06T04:34:35Z")
> [@](#): > > Wonder Woman’s lasso. Granted, it’s still on the drawing board at this stage… That cartoon can be compared to the Trial by Jury case involving the Conspiracy Murder Trial of Martin Luther King Jr. > [@](#): > > Arthur Jackson Haynes, Jr > Page 804 > “I have considered in my thirty-five-year career a jury is the best lie detector there is.” ---
**Author:** ![Cerridwyn](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/f05b48/32.png) [@Cerridwyn](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cerridwyn)\ **Post date:** [August 6, 2015, 4:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/divisions-along-rule-of-law-versus-criminal-rule/727009/74 "2015-08-06T04:40:11Z")
NM ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [August 6, 2015, 4:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/divisions-along-rule-of-law-versus-criminal-rule/727009/75 "2015-08-06T04:41:59Z")
In post #26 I asked a simple question. Would you mind answering it? ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [August 6, 2015, 10:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/divisions-along-rule-of-law-versus-criminal-rule/727009/76 "2015-08-06T10:31:50Z")
> [@Josf](#): > > Two of the most lucid causes to act in defense against the effort to turn the voluntary federal agreement into an involuntary National Crime Spree was offered by the Sixth President of The United States in Congress Assembled in the following link: > > [http://www.rightsofthepeople.com/freedom\_documents/anti\_federalist\_papers/anti\_federalist\_papers\_41\_43\_2.php](http://www.rightsofthepeople.com/freedom_documents/anti_federalist_papers/anti_federalist_papers_41_43_2.php) Adams quoting an Anti-Federalist article provides evidence that the notion of Washington, D.C. was not universally popular, but it is not really a persuasive argument. > [@Josf](#): > > If you, or anyone, does not understand the meaning of those words, then that cost of your ignorance in yours, not mine. For someone who is so concerned with “character assassination,” you are pretty free with your own snide remarks. ---
**Author:** ![Human\_Action](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/ac91a4/32.png) [@Human\_Action](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Human_Action)\ **Post date:** [August 6, 2015, 11:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/divisions-along-rule-of-law-versus-criminal-rule/727009/77 "2015-08-06T11:53:36Z")
> [@2sense](#): > > The Confederation Congress did not pass the Constitution. It was not empowered to do so since the document did not conform to the amendment process established by the Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union. Instead Congress merely forwarded copies of the Constitution to the states. Here is the relevant page of the congressional journal: > > [http://lcweb2.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=lljc&fileName=033/lljc033.db&recNum=160&itemLink=r%3Fammem%2Fhlaw%3A%40field(DOCID%2B%40lit(jc0331))%230330001&linkText=1](http://lcweb2.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=lljc&fileName=033/lljc033.db&recNum=160&itemLink=r%3Fammem%2Fhlaw%3A%40field%28DOCID%2B%40lit%28jc0331%29%29%230330001&linkText=1) Yes, [they did.](http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/resolu01.asp) > [@](#): > > Saturday Sept 13. 1788 (2) > > Congress assembled present New hampshire Massachusetts Connecticut New York New Jersey Pensylvania Virginia North Carolina South Carolina & Georgia & from Rhodeisland Mr. Arnold & from Delaware Mr. Kearney. > > Whereas the Convention assembled in Philadelphia pursuant to the resolution of Congress of the 21st of Feby 1787 did on the 17th of Sept in the same year report to the United States in Congress assembled a constitution for the people of the United States, Whereupon Congress on the 28 of the same Sept did resolve unanimously " That the said report with the resolutions & letter accompanying the same be transmitted to the several legislatures in order to be submitted to a convention of Delegates chosen in each state by the people thereof in conformity to the resolves of the convention made and provided in that case " And whereas the constitution so reported by the Convention and by Congress transmitted to the several legislatures has been ratified in the manner therein declared to be sufficient for the establishment of the same and such ratifications duly authenticated have been received by Congress and are filed in the Office of the Secretary therefore Resolved That the first Wednesday in Jany next be the day for appointing Electors in the several states, which before the said day shall have ratified the said Constitution; that the first Wednesday in feby next be the day for the electors to assemble in their respective states and vote for a president; And that the first Wednesday in March next be the time and the present seat of Congress the place for commencing proceedings under the said constitution- ---
**Author:** ![Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/8edcca/32.png) [@Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hentor_the_Barbarian)\ **Post date:** [August 6, 2015, 12:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/divisions-along-rule-of-law-versus-criminal-rule/727009/78 "2015-08-06T12:53:43Z")
This issue cannot be fully understood until it is decomposed into three fundamental components. It must be understood as a matter of person-time or person in the context of time, a matter of time - place, or what place in the context of time, a matter of time - person, or time modified as a function of the contributions of person, of place - person, or place modified by the function of the person, of place - time, or obviously again of Time - place. These components must be then understood as functions of person - time - place, place - time -person, time - place - person, person - place - time, time - person- place, person - place - time, and place - person - time. Obviously, with increasing values of time, and / or increasing values of place, understanding person - place - time becomes exceptionally problematic. In fact, it becomes essentially third-party solipsism. Additionally, even though units of person may differ by only one, one still must account for the effect of groupings of persons influencing the individual unit person. This must not be confused as a function of person - time or person - place , but as a separate function of person with in person social unit. I will detail this matter in a subsequent post. Put succinctly, as a matter of substantive debate, the real question becomes: Does anybody really know what person - time - place it is? Does anybody really care? ---
**Author:** ![Grey](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/b782af/32.png) [@Grey](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Grey)\ **Post date:** [August 6, 2015, 1:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/divisions-along-rule-of-law-versus-criminal-rule/727009/79 "2015-08-06T13:00:41Z")
Only in the US do people seem to insist on some sort of immaculate conception for their governing structure. If we leave aside the hero worship of the founding fathers, why is that? ---
**Author:** ![DrFidelius](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/drfidelius/32/3447_2.png) [@DrFidelius](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrFidelius)\ **Post date:** [August 6, 2015, 1:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/divisions-along-rule-of-law-versus-criminal-rule/727009/80 "2015-08-06T13:15:45Z")
Laws are like sausages. It’s better not to see them being made. –Otto von Bismarck German Prussian politician (1815 - 1898) [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/divisions-along-rule-of-law-versus-criminal-rule/727009.md?page=3) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/divisions-along-rule-of-law-versus-criminal-rule/727009.md?page=5)