# 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:** 5
**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, 1:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/divisions-along-rule-of-law-versus-criminal-rule/727009/81 "2015-08-06T13:20:04Z")
> [@Josf](#): > > Human Action asks: > > “How was it a fraud?” > > Examples of competitive answers to the question include: > > [http://www.constitution.org/afp/pennmi00.htm](http://www.constitution.org/afp/pennmi00.htm) Re: #1 - of course the legislatures had authority from their constituents; that’s what a duly elected legislature _is_ - a body vested with the authority to represent its constituents. > [@Josf](#): > > Also: That’s just sensible practice - release the draft when it is done, as opposed to leaking bits and pieces to gain political advantage. Needless to say, the draft was made public, and ratified by the legislatures - nothing secret about that. > [@Josf](#): > > And: He’s describing the issues that led to the Great Compromise - a proportional House, and a fixed Senate. And apparently he was buffaloed by his political opponents into thinking there could never be another convention. > [@Josf](#): > > Human Action claims: > “The rule of the law is a) older than the anti-Federalists, b) exists in places other than the United States, and c) is a damn sight better now than it was in 1776.” > > Here is a modern claim from the opposition: > > [Argus tell us: How the FBI solves its cases | Gerry Spence's Blog](https://gerryspence.wordpress.com/2009/10/26/738/) That link doesn’t work for me, can you double-check it? > [@Josf](#): > > When the Criminals took over they wasted no time in enacting their Judiciary Act so as to make good their promise to themselves that they would have the means by which they can extract all wealth from anyone who dared to make it. > > That was done before the Bill of Rights managed to be printed into the official record. Wait, is this just all a smokescreen for tax resistance? [quote=Josf] The Constitution of 1787 is written in fraudulent legalese. The criminals who took over made slavery legal in every single State in the former federation, thereby destroying all the work already done to enforce moral law against such barbarity, including the already outlawed criminal slave trade in Rhode Island here: [http://www.rightsofthepeople.com/freedom\_documents/anti\_federalist\_papers/anti\_federalist\_papers\_15.php](http://www.rightsofthepeople.com/freedom_documents/anti_federalist_papers/anti_federalist_papers_15.php) What are you talking about? Please cite the portion of the Constitution that mandates slavery in every state. Are you misremembering Section Two of Article Four? > [@Josf](#): > > Further information offered by Human Action: > Unanimity of the whole country is exemplified in Trial by Jury according to the common law, as experience provides those who care to know. The idea is “trial by the country” and that is the means by which consent is offered when orders are written by those who are hired to protect and serve the people. In order to punish anyone there is a requirement of unanimity; and that means, in demonstrated fact, that any individual can nullify any effort to punish anyone; all it takes is one jurist (one representative of the whole country) to acquit someone accused of wrongdoing. Cite? Our common law comes from England, and Parliament isn’t a vetocracy. Further, no state legislature - the source of the vast majority of laws in effect at the time, and criminal punishment - required unanimity. > [@Josf](#): > > The point of this Topic includes the idea that it might be a good idea to hold to an accurate accounting those people, those times, and those places whereby criminals gain criminal power posing as the law. In Elliot’s debates, for example, there was the time when it was written into the Articles of Confederation the process by which the federal government was funded according to the land mass of the states. > > Here: > [Avalon Project - Articles of Confederation : March 1, 1781](http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/artconf.asp) You understand that the source of the revenue would still be taxpayers, right? And note that this portion was scrapped from the final Articles… > [@Josf](#): > > Slave traders in the North and South were very powerful people due to the profits they managed to accumulate by their use of that criminal process. Those slave traders infested the early formation of the federation, that is clearly evident, as explained by Thomas Jefferson when he recorded notes on the Debates during the formation of the federation, and the subsequent Consolidation. > > Added to the slave traders infesting the Rule of Law effort were the frauds who gain power through a process known euphemistically as central banking. > > The central bankers and the slave traders infesting the early formation of the federation were opposed by the actual proponents of Rule of Law. Knowing who was on which side was important then as now. Those demanding blind obedience to any order, without question, confess which side they are on, while those demanding Rule of Law unanimously credit trial by jury as the palladium of Liberty, in the official record. Criminals do not openly claim that they are criminals; fraud does not work that way in point of fact. Cite? > [@Josf](#): > > Further information offered by Human Action: > Here is information that may explain why something that appears to be “stupid” is merely a matter of well established fact: > [http://theforgottenfounders.com/the-forgotten-fathers/richard-henry-lee/](http://theforgottenfounders.com/the-forgotten-fathers/richard-henry-lee/) The thing about land is, they aren’t making any more of it. You can’t finance a government through land sales. Further, basing tax revenue owed on land mass or land value is also stupid - compare New York’s economy to Montana’s, and consider all the non-agricultural jobs that exist. It’s a short-sighted, backward-looking policy; fortunately, it was short-lived, and the government switched to land _purchases_. > [@Josf](#): > > The larger States require more expenses due to a larger area required for defense. Cut the State in half and now there are 2 votes in the federation, and roughly the same amount of costs paid by those people in each State. Put 2 small States together, and now where there were two there is now 1 State commanding only 1 vote, and the State has to pay as much as the people in 2 States combined. This means that large, Western states get soaked - they have a lot of land and few people producing anything - and small Eastern states (the ones likely to actually get invaded, and the ones with the people) get off cheap. And the populations - hell, democracy - be damned? If one state has 1 vote and two million people, and another has 1 vote and 50,000 people, that’s just fine and dandy? > [@Josf](#): > > The thinking was thought at a time when the thinkers were dealing with the issue of Rule of Law, so the idea that Slavery was “legal” was a cartoon, and people knew this at the time. Cite? > [@Josf](#): > > So the idea claimed to be “stupid” by this forum member is an idea that solved many problems including the controversial slavery issue. How? > [@Josf](#): > > That same controversial slavery issue returned to rear that ugly head when the next wave of congressmen threw out the existing method of proportioning costs per State, and threw in the whole can of worms involving white men gaining profits from subsidized slave trading; causing distortions in the labor market, causing free men to compete with legalized, corporate, slave plantations. That same problem exists today as slave labor is used to drive out independent producers. > > Stupid compares competitively to ignorance. One is a choice to remain ignorant. Slavery became more profitable because of the cotton gin, not because of how Congress was funded. That had political implications, to be sure, but it’s not what made slavery attractive in the first place. People bought slaves to make money, not to get 3/5 of a person for the Census. Further - how, under the Articles of Confederation, would slavery ever have been abolished? ---
**Author:** ![Northern\_Piper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/northern_piper/32/5304_2.png) [@Northern\_Piper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Northern_Piper)\ **Post date:** [August 6, 2015, 1:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/divisions-along-rule-of-law-versus-criminal-rule/727009/82 "2015-08-06T13:26:58Z")
> [@Human\_Action](#): > > 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- That’s not the passage of the Constitution. That’s the Congress of the Articles of Confederation acknowledging that sufficient states have ratified the Constitution to bring it into effect, as required by Article VII of the Constitution: [QUOTE=Article VII] The Ratification of the Conventions of nine States, shall be sufficient for the Establishment of this Constitution between the States so ratifying the Same. [/QUOTE] The proposed Constitution did not give the Congress any role in the adoption or ratification of the Constitution. As the [wiki article on Article VII](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_Seven_of_the_United_States_Constitution) indicates, the Congress did not take any position on whether the Constitution should be enacted, but simply forwarded it to each state for consideration: > [@](#): > > On September 20, 1787, three days after its adoption by the Constitutional Convention, the drafted Constitution was submitted to the Congress of the Confederation for its endorsement. After a great deal of debate, the opposing sides came to the first of many compromises that would define the ratification process. Thus, on September 28, the Confederation Congress voted to release the proposed Constitution to the states for their consideration without comment. In other words, Congress would neither endorse nor oppose its ratification. The Congressional resolution then set the date for the election of the President and starting up the government under the Constitution. ---
**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, 1:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/divisions-along-rule-of-law-versus-criminal-rule/727009/83 "2015-08-06T13:55:27Z")
> [@Northern\_Piper](#): > > That’s not the passage of the Constitution. That’s the Congress of the Articles of Confederation acknowledging that sufficient states have ratified the Constitution to bring it into effect, as required by Article VII of the Constitution: The difference being…? The resolution recognizes the ratification, and enacts the Constitution. That’s “passage of the Constitution” in my book. I didn’t intend to imply that _only_ Congress passed it; obviously this was subsequent to and dependent upon ratification by the states. ---
**Author:** ![theR](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/977dab/32.png) [@theR](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/theR)\ **Post date:** [August 6, 2015, 2:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/divisions-along-rule-of-law-versus-criminal-rule/727009/84 "2015-08-06T14:47:00Z")
> [@Grey](#): > > 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? You seem to be asking, “If we leave aside the reason, what is the reason?” I suppose another reason might be American exceptionalism. It fits into the whole argument in support of exceptionalism if you take the immaculate conception view of the government. ---
**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, 4:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/divisions-along-rule-of-law-versus-criminal-rule/727009/85 "2015-08-06T16:02:35Z")
UltraVires wrote: > [@](#): > > 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. Rule of Law is an agreement among defenders to work cooperatively toward the goal of effectively defending innocent victims from guilty criminals. An example of Rule of Law is any time, any place, whereby people effectively defend innocent people from harm done by guilty criminals. That is offered to anyone having trouble with legalese in Latin (legem terrae, mens rea, actus reus, pro se in rem, etc.) and the obvious example is the battle by people on the Rule of Law side in the Revolutionary War (so called) as those people faced the aggressors (Criminal Rule) known as The British (collectively). Another example was already offered with the Mei Li Massacre case. Another example was already offered with the Ancient Athens case. Anther examples was already offered with the case in the Roman Empire described in a court case during Shays’s Rebellion (so called). Another case can be offered in the Battle for Athens Tennessee. Another case can be offered (albeit too late) in the Martin Luther King Jr. Conspiracy Murder Trial. Another case can be offered in the recent defense of innocent people in Nevada which has yet to be named; the confrontation occurred at a cattle Ranch. Peaceful solutions are offered, violence done to innocent people is avoided, and those cases exemplify Rule of Law, and success can be measured as the lack of harm done to innocent people by guilty criminals in time and place. Criminal Rule is the cause for action, or the creation of a demand for Rule of Law. Someone with malice aforethought plans on, and then sets out to execute the plan, targeting innocent people, whereby the intention is to harm innocent people. One criminal can rule one victim in time and place. Many criminals can agree to cooperate toward a cooperative plan, including a cooperative plan to falsify Rule of Law, whereby the cooperators cooperate with malice aforethought as they set about executing their plan to injure innocent people. Legalized slavery is one example of Criminal Rule. Legalized fraudulent money laundering and counterfeiting under the false label of Central Banking is another example of Criminal Rule. War of Aggression for Profit is another example of Criminal Rule. The next 3 links may help to exemplify how War of Aggression for Profit works: 1. Financing Side A: [http://www.voltairenet.org/IMG/pdf/Sutton\_Wall\_Street\_and\_FDR-3.pdf](http://www.voltairenet.org/IMG/pdf/Sutton_Wall_Street_and_FDR-3.pdf) 2. Financing Side B: [http://www.voltairenet.org/IMG/pdf/Sutton\_Wall\_Street\_and\_the\_bolshevik\_revolution-5.pdf](http://www.voltairenet.org/IMG/pdf/Sutton_Wall_Street_and_the_bolshevik_revolution-5.pdf) 3. Financing Side C: [http://www.reformed-theology.org/html/books/wall\_street/](http://www.reformed-theology.org/html/books/wall_street/) A major event recorded in the history of people is a subsequent trial at Neuremburg where some of the criminals were found guilty of War of Aggression, so there is in that trial an example meaning of the term. > **[Holocaust Encyclopedia](https://encyclopedia.ushmm.org/en)** > > The Holocaust was the state-sponsored systematic persecution and annihilation of European Jews by Nazi Germany between 1933 and 1945. Start learning today. > [@](#): > > crimes against peace–defined as participation in the planning and waging of a war of aggression in violation of numerous international treaties That sounds familiar like the following words contained in the Articles of Confederation: > [@](#): > > Freedom of speech and debate in Congress shall not be impeached or questioned in any court or place out of Congress, and the members of Congress shall be protected in their persons from arrests or imprisonments, during the time of their going to and from, and attendence on Congress, except for treason, felony, or breach of the peace. War of aggression = crimes against peace = breach of the peace. Focusing specifics: “How is it deficient and how would it be different under your proposal?” My proposal is outlined in the form of a Debate Topic (OP), so my proposal is to Debate the topic. If the question asked concerns what I think is a good idea (my proposal) then the answer is offered as a suggestion to volunteer to help defend innocent people from guilty criminals. An obvious competitive method (due process) to volunteer to help defend innocent people from guilty criminals (Rule of Law) is Jury Duty. Is that what you are asking? What is my proposal, and my answer is it might be a good idea for more people to volunteer to learn about, discuss, and try jury cases? My last experience with Jury Duty ended with the Judge at first overruling the prosecutor’s demand to have me excused during voir dire proceedings, then (as far as I could tell) the defense also rejected me, which inspired the judge to ask me to leave. The judge told me, and everyone else in the room, that he does not know many fellow judges that knew the name Lysander Spooner, as the judge (at first) overruled the prosecutor. My reference to Lysander Spooner was made in response to a question directed to me by the prosecutor. So long as at least one member of this forum is actually volunteering to discuss the topic it might be an opportunity at this time to place on the table a number of words arranged in a specific order that is relevant to the meanings currently being discussed. Here is the link: [http://www.1215.org/lawnotes/work-in-progress/bonding-code.htm](http://www.1215.org/lawnotes/work-in-progress/bonding-code.htm) Here are the relevant words: > [@](#): > > 9.2 - Escalation > Further: > A law enforcement officer will lose his bond if he oppresses a citizen to the point of civil. rebellion when that citizen attempts to obtain redress of grievances (U.S. constitutional 1st so-called amendment). > > ``` > When a state, by and through its officials and > > ``` > > agents, deprives a citizen of all of his remedies by the due process of law and deprives the citizen of the equal protection of the law, the state commits an act of mixed war against the citizen, and, by its behavior, the state declares war on the citizen. The citizen has the right to recognize this act by the publication of a solemn recognition of mixed war. This writing has the same force as the Declaration of Independence. It invokes the citizen’s U.S. constitutional 9th and 10th so-called amend guarantees of the right to create an effective remedy where otherwise none exists. If it is understandable to accurately identify innocent victims as such, and those guilty if injuring innocent victims as such, so as to prevent further injury done to innocent victims, then it may be as understandable to act effectively in defense of those innocent victims. 1. Demand 2. Supply If the demand exists (Rule of Law) then where is the supply? ---
**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, 4:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/divisions-along-rule-of-law-versus-criminal-rule/727009/86 "2015-08-06T16:10:40Z")
> [@Josf](#): > > Rule of Law is an agreement among defenders to work cooperatively toward the goal of effectively defending innocent victims from guilty criminals. I think I’ve nailed down exactly where the problem is: You make up your own definitions for terms. The Rule Of Law has nothing to do with what you wrote-in fact, most _recognized_ definitions pretty much go along the lines of this wiki def: > [@](#): > > The rule of law is the legal principle that law should govern a nation, as opposed to being governed by arbitrary decisions of individual government officials. edited to add: If you didn’t create your definition, could you please give us the source? ---
**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, 4:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/divisions-along-rule-of-law-versus-criminal-rule/727009/87 "2015-08-06T16:21:00Z")
> [@Human\_Action](#): > > The difference being…? The resolution recognizes the ratification, and enacts the Constitution. That’s “passage of the Constitution” in my book. I didn’t intend to imply that _only_ Congress passed it; obviously this was subsequent to and dependent upon ratification by the states. In my book acknowledging that others have done something isn’t the same thing as doing it yourself or joining them in doing it. Had the Confederation Congress not managed to muster a quorum to set a date for elections then those states participating in the new breakaway republic could have chosen electors to vote for George Washington on their own schedule. It would have been a bit irregular but that wouldn’t have stopped them since the whole procedure was illegal under the Articles of Confederation and perpetual Union in the first place. This was the point I was making. The Constitution didn’t conform to the laws currently in place in the Confederation and thus it would have been awkward for the old Congress to enact it. According to the Constitution it wasn’t even to be ratified by the states, which were already in a “perpetual” union which prohibited them from doing so, but rather by the ultimate authority: the People themselves in the form of conventions within each state. ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [August 6, 2015, 4:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/divisions-along-rule-of-law-versus-criminal-rule/727009/88 "2015-08-06T16:33:36Z")
**Josf** , can you tell me why I should give two shits about how the Constitution was ratified? It works fairly well today, and the Articles of Confederation would be worse. Everyone else, can you translate **Josf** ’s response to English? ---
**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, 4:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/divisions-along-rule-of-law-versus-criminal-rule/727009/89 "2015-08-06T16:41:06Z")
> [@Josf](#): > > Relevant to the topic (not character assassination as a form of censorship) is the above quote. Thanks, I guess. I try not to make it a habit to post irrelevant comments. > [@](#): > Interesting talk, thanks. I’ve only listened to the first 50 minutes or so so I haven’t gotten to the relevant period. > [@](#): > > [George Washington�s Take On The Constitution](http://www.freedomforallseasons.org/ConstitutionalRelatedReports/Constitution%20-%20George%20Washington%20Jailer%20And%20Tax%20Collector..htm) I’ve heard that you can create a completely consistent system of mathematics based on the assumption that 1+1=3. This exposition reminds me of that. It may work according to its own internal logic and it may help pass the time while waiting for the next George R R Martin fantasy or whatever but it’s not useful in the real world. In the America we actually live in statements such as, _“The President of the United States can collect taxes and the President of the United States of America can’t.”_ are pure nonsense. So why would you chose to expound such a radical viewpoint? What’s in it for you? ---
**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, 4:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/divisions-along-rule-of-law-versus-criminal-rule/727009/90 "2015-08-06T16:56:21Z")
> [@2sense](#): > > In my book acknowledging that others have done something isn’t the same thing as doing it yourself or joining them in doing it. Had the Confederation Congress not managed to muster a quorum to set a date for elections then those states participating in the new breakaway republic could have chosen electors to vote for George Washington on their own schedule. It would have been a bit irregular but that wouldn’t have stopped them since the whole procedure was illegal under the Articles of Confederation and perpetual Union in the first place. This was the point I was making. The Constitution didn’t conform to the laws currently in place in the Confederation and thus it would have been awkward for the old Congress to enact it. According to the Constitution it wasn’t even to be ratified by the states, which were already in a “perpetual” union which prohibited them from doing so, but rather by the ultimate authority: the People themselves in the form of conventions within each state. I believe I understand what you’re saying. Referring back to my original post, it was in the context of disputing that the Union under the Constitution was an “involuntary association”. The passage of that resolution by Congress is evidence to the contrary, as is the unanimous ratification. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [August 6, 2015, 5:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/divisions-along-rule-of-law-versus-criminal-rule/727009/91 "2015-08-06T17:17:48Z")
Does this mean I don’t have to pay income tax? ---
**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, 5:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/divisions-along-rule-of-law-versus-criminal-rule/727009/92 "2015-08-06T17:20:34Z")
OP, with respect, your words are a meaningless mixture of legal sounding words and other actual legal terms which form no coherent thought. The website you linked contained many sovereign citizen arguments which have been thoroughly discredited. Your discussion of “Criminal Rule” versus “Rule of Law” are terms (as you define them) contained nowhere in the text of case law or any founding document. They are just made up words that don’t mean what you are saying that they mean. Please become educated on the sovereign citizen movement and how thoroughly wrong that philosophy is before you end up in legal trouble by following their “doctrines.” When many educated posters come in here and tell you that your posts are incoherent argle-bargle, then either you are smarter than all of us or you are going down the wrong road. Your choice which one to believe. ---
**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, 5:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/divisions-along-rule-of-law-versus-criminal-rule/727009/93 "2015-08-06T17:58:35Z")
Procrustus wrote: "What makes you think this? Why is your “national” government better (or are you saying worse) than what you call a “league or confederacy.” And, to repeat my earlier questions, assuming you’re right, what do you propose we do about it? " One competitive answer to that question was offered and now repeated: > [@](#): > > 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. As explained by John Adams a federal union is a (perpetual) union so long as a member (or members) of the union remain connected for mutual defense; as soon as one member of the union (or members) begin to attack the other members, then the nature of the union turns from federal to something other than federal. One of the many reasons for opposing the change from a federal (voluntary) union to something else (involuntary) was the warning of a Civil War inevitability as an obvious result reasoned out and later proven factually. When the people in one competitive state are no longer part of the federal union because people in all the other states are bound by their newly created dictatorship, and those people bound up in their dictatorship attack the people in the former federation, it was known, and exemplified in the Revolutionary War example (Civil War under a different name), that federation is no longer the voluntary union it once was, not because the free people no longer wanted mutual defense, the reason for the conflict was the aggression perpetrated by the criminals. Two examples of conflict exemplify the difference between The Untied States of America in Congress Assembled under The Articles of Confederation, which was a voluntary federation for mutual defense, and on the other side another conflict occurred when the Criminal Rule was enforced under the newly formed non-federal (non-voluntary) Union initiated the causes of the conflict. The first example is Shays’s Rebellion which occurred after the British War of Aggression was effectively defended by the people formed into the federation, and Shays’s Rebellion is a conflict that occurred before the Criminal take-over of the former federation. So Shays’s Rebellion (so called, which could also be called Civil War, which can also be called a Revolutionary War) occurred under The Articles of Confederation. An argument can be made that it was the duty of the federal officers, under the Articles of Confederation, to step into the conflict in Massachusetts on the Revolutionary Side of the conflict, since the federation was formed on the Revolutionary Side of the earlier conflict. No federal action was initiated despite a cause to act on behalf of the victims in that conflict. Those on the Revolutionary Side of the conflict in Massachusetts, in the conflict that became known as Shays’s Rebellion, lost their Revolutionary War in Massachusetts; however those not killed, maimed, or captured by the Criminals running the Massachusetts un-federated State (despotism) ran (like runaway slaves) into Vermont. Vermont was a federal union itself, as was Rhode Island, where true patriots ran the government, as exemplified by the refusal to subsidize the criminal slave trade, and refusal to permit counterfeit central bank money laundering and war profiteering: also known as War of Aggression. There was no un-federal power commanded by the federal Congress to invade Vermont to retrieve the runaway slaves who ran away from the Criminals in Massachusetts. There were no un-federal (dictatorial) fugitive slave laws while the union was truly federal (voluntary). Those events in Massachusetts inspired the move from federation to so called nationalism. That is explained well enough in a number of studies such as: > **[Shays's Rebellion: The American Revolution's Final Battle: Richards, Leonard L.:...](https://www.amazon.com/Shayss-Rebellion-American-Revolutions-Battle/dp/0812218701)** > > Shays's Rebellion: The American Revolution's Final Battle \[Richards, Leonard L.\] on Amazon.com. \*FREE\* shipping on qualifying offers. Shays's Rebellion: The American Revolution's Final Battle And: [http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/member.php?u=67466](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/member.php) Slaves running away from a despotic turning state (Massachusetts) within the voluntary federation (United States of America in Congress Assembled) could run into a non-despotic turning state (federal = voluntary = Vermont) and find sanctuary (Liberty) because the ideas behind federal states (Vermont) is the Rule of Law idea, where free people defend each other from those who enslave people. Shays’s Rebellion happens during a federal (voluntary) union. Shays’s Rebellion (so called) sets the example of what happens in a federal (voluntary) union when one State turns despotic. The federal officers ought to have stepped in to help the victims defend themselves from the despots. The later Whiskey Rebellion exemplifies all that was warned about by those who opposed the turn from a federal (voluntary) union into a Consolidated Nation State (involuntary) as the newly formed dictatorship exemplified what a dictator will do when the slaves refuse to obey the order to pay, and pay without question. [http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th\_century/gwproc03.asp](http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/gwproc03.asp) > [@](#): > > And whereas, it is in my judgment necessary under the circumstances of the case to take measures for calling forth the militia in order to suppress the combinations aforesaid, and to cause the laws to be duly executed; and I have accordingly determined so to do, feeling the deepest regret for the occasion, but withal the most solemn conviction that the essential interests of the Union demand it, that the very existence of government and the fundamental principles of social order are materially involved in the issue, and that the patriotism and firmness of all good citizens are seriously called upon, as occasions may require, to aid in the effectual suppression of so fatal a spirit; The dictator had the power to conscript (enslave) a National (standing) Army so as to collect a tax from people in a former independent (federated) state (Pennsylvania). Returning to what Procrustus wrote: "What makes you think this? Why is your “national” government better (or are you saying worse) than what you call a “league or confederacy.” And, to repeat my earlier questions, assuming you’re right, what do you propose we do about it? " In the Bill of Rights (offered by those who were called Antis, but those so called Antis were for a federal, voluntary, union) there is one of many possible methods that people can use (Rule of Law) if people want to defend innocent people from guilty (dictatorial) criminals. Rather than resort to defensive arms, the idea is to use the process known as due process. Rather than this: Or this: Rather than this: [![]( " - YouTube") ](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-wUucANBY_8) Rather than all that there is Rule of Law, which is still on the books in the form of the Bill of Rights. The obvious problems of interpreting the meaning of the Bill of Rights, and the actual processes that work effectively at defending innocent people from harm done by Criminals in government positions exist, the problems exist, but the means by which to solve the problems that exist (Rule of Law) also exist. The case offered already, can be offered again, as one of many possible, remaining, processes that work in favor of the defenders whose goal is to solve problems peacefully with Rule of Law. Here: > [@](#): > > 9.2 - Escalation > > Further: > > ``` > A law enforcement officer will lose his bond if he oppresses a citizen to the point of civil rebellion when that citizen attempts to obtain redress of grievances (U.S. constitutional 1st so-called amendment). > > When a state, by and through its officials and agents, deprives a citizen of all of his remedies by the due process of law and deprives the citizen of the equal protection of the law, the state commits an act of mixed war against the citizen, and, by its behavior, the state declares war on the citizen. The citizen has the right to recognize this act by the publication of a solemn recognition of mixed war. This writing has the same force as the Declaration of Independence. It invokes the citizen's U.S. constitutional 9th and 10th so-called amend guarantees of the right to create an effective remedy where otherwise none exists. > > ``` If no one looks for a peaceful remedy to use when officers claiming to be representing the Law are breaking the peace, or disturbing the peace, or oppressing innocent people, then federation (voluntary association) is lost, meaning the idea is no longer perpetual, it is ignored, unused, forgotten. If more than one individual looks, then more than one possible remedy may be re-discovered and adapted to current cases. One way to compete in the search for peaceful remedies is through Debate in a Forum. ---
**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, 6:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/divisions-along-rule-of-law-versus-criminal-rule/727009/94 "2015-08-06T18:42:17Z")
Everything will be much clearer after I expand on the need to describe the nesting of person-person-social-unit within person-place-time (or indeed person-time-place). There is probably little need for me to say that the contributions of person-social-unit to place-time is minimal, so I won’t bother saying it. Now, to elaborate in detail, I … Oh wait, someone is at the door. I’ll come back to this later. ---
**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, 7:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/divisions-along-rule-of-law-versus-criminal-rule/727009/95 "2015-08-06T19:02:46Z")
Please just answer this question, preferably in one paragraph using English language as understood by native English speakers, and using the commonly attributed descriptions of the parties involved: How were the people running Massachusetts “Criminals” who, “during the time of un-federated State (despotism) ran (like runaway slaves) into Vermont.” ? Further, same request for the follow up questions of: How was Massachusetts at this time “un-federated” or “despot[ic]”? Which particular leaders “ran” to Vermont? ---
**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, 7:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/divisions-along-rule-of-law-versus-criminal-rule/727009/96 "2015-08-06T19:11:15Z")
Human Action offers: “Re: #1 - of course the legislatures had authority from their constituents; that’s what a duly elected legislature is - a body vested with the authority to represent its constituents.” That concerns the case of fraud perpetrated by Nationalists who covertly worked toward their goals because they cannot reach their goals openly. If Human Action, or anyone, thinks that covert action by individuals infiltrating government is not an example of fraud, then a division is defined in that way: those who recognize a fraud, those who do not. The Topic is Divisions along Rule of Law versus Criminal Rule. There is no division when everyone is working toward effective defense of everyone. There is division caused (cause of action) by people working covertly to reach their goal of injuring innocent people, such as the crime known as slavery. So a division is thereby made by covert actions, with malice aforethought, perpetrated by criminals who infiltrate a otherwise federal (voluntary) association formed for mutual defense. Now another division exists on this topic in this forum. 1. Those who are aware of frauds who infest government of the people, by the people, and for the people, also known as federation, and people in this division of the whole people are people who intend to work better at holding those criminals to an accurate accounting of their crimes perpetrated by them when they act fraudulently under a false form of Law. 2. Those who claim that no fraud was perpetrated in the past; and there is so far no mention of current frauds in government yet. Human Action is in group 2. I am in group 1. The whole people are divided into divisions of the whole people. Those 2 groups are exemplified here and now as Human Action expresses words that claim that no crime was perpetrated by those who turned the working federation into a criminal state at the time of the so called Con Con in 1787. Human Action offers: “Re: #1 - of course the legislatures had authority from their constituents; that’s what a duly elected legislature is - a body vested with the authority to represent its constituents.” Reference #1 was "With this view a convention was first proposed by Virginia, and finally recommended by Congress for the different states to appoint deputies to meet in convention, “for the purposes of revising and amending the present articles of confederation, so as to make them adequate to the exigencies of the union.” The fraud is explained right there in those words. The frauds lured representatives into a convention by the false promise of amending the existing voluntary federation. The two groups now divided on this Forum are those who understand the fraud, represented by me, and those who claim that the event was not a fraud. I just wanted to be clear about those divisions now exemplified in this thread where the topic is Divisions along the Rule of Law versus Criminal Rule. No trust, no estate, no law can be caused by willful employment of deception upon those who are thereby deceived. That is as obvious and self-evident as was the case with the British initiating a War of Aggression upon the people in America under the claim that the British were enforcing a law; the same War of Aggression which inspired the formation of the defensive federation that was documented when the federal officers wrote the Declaration of Independence. Those who are deceived, obviously, do not know they are deceived; and some do not want to know. That is as self-evident as the self-evident wrong of one people enslaving another people causing the slaves to work so as to enrich the slave masters. “That’s just sensible practice - release the draft when it is done, as opposed to leaking bits and pieces to gain political advantage. Needless to say, the draft was made public, and ratified by the legislatures - nothing secret about that.” That is all I have time for at this point; pressing matters demand my attention. ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [August 6, 2015, 7:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/divisions-along-rule-of-law-versus-criminal-rule/727009/97 "2015-08-06T19:19:39Z")
> [@Josf](#): > > That is all I have time for at this point; pressing matters demand my attention. You aren’t, by any chance, working on a presentation for an emergency meeting of the Toastmaster’s Society, are you? ---
**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, 7:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/divisions-along-rule-of-law-versus-criminal-rule/727009/98 "2015-08-06T19:54:34Z")
> [@Josf](#): > > Human Action offers: > “Re: #1 - of course the legislatures had authority from their constituents; that’s what a duly elected legislature is - a body vested with the authority to represent its constituents.” > > That concerns the case of fraud perpetrated by Nationalists who covertly worked toward their goals because they cannot reach their goals openly. If Human Action, or anyone, thinks that covert action by individuals infiltrating government is not an example of fraud, then a division is defined in that way: those who recognize a fraud, those who do not. You quoted a fellow who complained that the state legislatures had no authority to send delegates to a Constitutional Convention. Your remarks above fail to address this. Further, the Federalists published an extensive series of essays (the Federalist Papers) arguing for their position and going over the Constitution section by section, all pursuant to a vote on ratification. As it turned out, they were highly capable of reaching their goals openly. > [@Josf](#): > > The Topic is Divisions along Rule of Law versus Criminal Rule. > > There is no division when everyone is working toward effective defense of everyone. I suppose, though that’s never existed as an actual status quo. > [@Josf](#): > > There is division caused (cause of action) by people working covertly to reach their goal of injuring innocent people, such as the crime known as slavery. Slavery was not covert. > [@Josf](#): > > So a division is thereby made by covert actions, with malice aforethought, perpetrated by criminals who infiltrate a otherwise federal (voluntary) association formed for mutual defense. Well, no. There was a political dispute over what the structure of the federal government should be. One side won over the bulk of the states with a series of compromises and reforms; the remaining states then came aboard, all voluntarily. History isn’t a comic book. Also, “federal” does not mean “voluntary”, it means “pertaining to or of the nature of a union of states under a central government distinct from the individual governments of the separate states, as in federal government”. The United States today is a federation. > [@Josf](#): > > Now another division exists on this topic in this forum. > > 1. Those who are aware of frauds who infest government of the people, by the people, and for the people, also known as federation, and people in this division of the whole people are people who intend to work better at holding those criminals to an accurate accounting of their crimes perpetrated by them when they act fraudulently under a false form of Law. > > 2. Those who claim that no fraud was perpetrated in the past; and there is so far no mention of current frauds in government yet. > > Human Action is in group 2. I am in group 1. The whole people are divided into divisions of the whole people. Those 2 groups are exemplified here and now as Human Action expresses words that claim that no crime was perpetrated by those who turned the working federation into a criminal state at the time of the so called Con Con in 1787. Of course frauds have been perpetrated “in the past”; but the Constitution Convention wasn’t an example of such. Your evidence to date (that a participant wished he could have written home more, that the delegates were authorized to “revise and amend” the Articles, and that the Federalists should have been called the Nationalists) has been, shall we say, unconvincing. > [@Josf](#): > > Human Action offers: > “Re: #1 - of course the legislatures had authority from their constituents; that’s what a duly elected legislature is - a body vested with the authority to represent its constituents.” > > Reference #1 was "With this view a convention was first proposed by Virginia, and finally recommended by Congress for the different states to appoint deputies to meet in convention, “for the purposes of revising and amending the present articles of confederation, so as to make them adequate to the exigencies of the union.” > > The fraud is explained right there in those words. The frauds lured representatives into a convention by the false promise of amending the existing voluntary federation. Ahem - **revising** or amending. A revision is what was done; a fairly radical revision, granted, but a revision nonetheless. And if this was such a dastardly fraud, why did the states ratify the new Constitution? > [@Josf](#): > > The two groups now divided on this Forum are those who understand the fraud, represented by me, and those who claim that the event was not a fraud. > > I just wanted to be clear about those divisions now exemplified in this thread where the topic is Divisions along the Rule of Law versus Criminal Rule. :rolleyes: A very even-handed assessment. So the groups consist of the people who are right, and the people who are wrong, eh? Unclean debate #1 - begging the question. J’accuse! > [@Josf](#): > > No trust, no estate, no law can be caused by willful employment of deception upon those who are thereby deceived. That is as obvious and self-evident as was the case with the British initiating a War of Aggression upon the people in America under the claim that the British were enforcing a law; the same War of Aggression which inspired the formation of the defensive federation that was documented when the federal officers wrote the Declaration of Independence. Those who are deceived, obviously, do not know they are deceived; and some do not want to know. > > That is as self-evident as the self-evident wrong of one people enslaving another people causing the slaves to work so as to enrich the slave masters. What deception? _The states voted on the Constitution_. There was no last-second switcheroo to a new document. People knew what they were voting for. I’m sorry if you think they should have voted differently, but surely enough time has passed to get over it? ---
**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, 8:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/divisions-along-rule-of-law-versus-criminal-rule/727009/99 "2015-08-06T20:05:09Z")
More generally, **Josf** , your posts feel like part 12 of an 18-part lecture series. Your argument makes a lot of assumptions and uses terminology in an unconventional way (such as ‘federal’ meaning ‘voluntary’), hence all the confusion about what exactly you are writing about. It’d be a good idea to take a step back and argue from first principles, one thing at a time, rather than your current kitchen-sink approach. Just my two cents. ---
**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, 8:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/divisions-along-rule-of-law-versus-criminal-rule/727009/100 "2015-08-06T20:28:25Z")
> [@Human\_Action](#): > > More generally, **Josf** , your posts feel like part 12 of an 18-part lecture series. I’d go with part 83 of an 18-part lecture series, but either way works. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/divisions-along-rule-of-law-versus-criminal-rule/727009.md?page=4) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/divisions-along-rule-of-law-versus-criminal-rule/727009.md?page=6)