# 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:** 9
**Author:** ![Josf](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/d78d45/32.png) [@Josf](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Josf)\ **Post date:** [August 11, 2015, 8:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/divisions-along-rule-of-law-versus-criminal-rule/727009/161 "2015-08-11T20:22:56Z")
The division is clearly expressed by the two sides as such: “So, Josf, you’d like a federal republic; wherein the central government has limited, enumerated powers; governed by the rule of law; with a Christian slant; and featuring a free-market economy? Great news! That’s what the United States is.” The change from a federation into a national government, not a federation, was understood by those on the other side, the side that is not the side expressed above. So there in the words quoted above is one side. Here are words expressed by the other side: > [@](#): > > Upon the most mature Consideration I was capable of, and from Motives of sincere Patriotism, I was under the Necessity of refusing my Signature, as one of the Virginia Delegates; and drew up some general Objections; which I intended to offer, by Way of Protest; but was discouraged from doing so, by the precipitate, & intemperate, not to say indecent manner in which the Business was conducted, during the last Week of the Convention, after the Patrons of this new plan found they had a decided Majority in their Favour, which was obtained by a Compromise between the Eastern, and the two Southern States, to permit the latter to continue the Importation of Slaves for twenty odd Years; a more favourite Object with them than the Liberty and Happiness of the People. Expressed later by the same individual are the following words: > [@](#): > > Mr. GEORGE MASON thought that there were few clauses in the Constitution so dangerous as that which gave Congress exclusive power of legislation within ten miles square. Implication, he observed, was capable of any extension, and would probably be extended to augment the congressional powers. But here there was no need of implication. This clause gave them an unlimited authority, in every possible case, within that district. This ten miles square, says Mr. Mason, may set at defiance the laws of the surrounding states, and may, like the custom of the superstitious days of our ancestors, become the sanctuary of the blackest crimes. Here the federal courts are to sit. We have heard a good deal said of justice. Based (again) upon the very well voiced definition of the meaning of the word federal, in the English Language, offered by John Adams before the Declaration of Independence, clearly, according to George Mason (among many others on the federal side) the Consolidated National government was NOT a federal one. As to what happened when John Adams was elected as supreme commander presiding over the Consolidated National government, which was NOT a federal one, he published the Alien and Sedition Acts which was the Act that inspired Thomas Jefferson and James Madison to counter such anti-federal Acts with their Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions earlier quoted. So, again, two sides represented by a forum member named Human Action who claims that the government existing now is federal, on one side, and at least George Mason explaining the opposing side whereby the government in question is not federal, it is a Consolidated Nation state. > [@](#): > > Mr. GEORGE MASON. Mr. Chairman, gentlemen say there is no new power given by this clause. Is there any thing in this Constitution which secures to the states the powers which are said to be retained? Will powers remain to the states which are not expressly guarded and reserved? I will suppose a case. Gentlemen may call it an impossible case, and suppose that Congress will act with wisdom and integrity. Among the enumerated powers, Congress are to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises, and to pay the debts, and to provide for the general welfare and common defence; and by that clause (so often called the sweeping clause) they are to make all laws necessary to execute those laws. Now, suppose oppressions {442} should arise under this government, and any writer should dare to stand forth, and expose to the community at large the abuses of those powers; could not Congress, under the idea of providing for the general welfare, and under their own construction, say that this was destroying the general peace, encouraging sedition, and poisoning the minds of the people? And could they not, in order to provide against this, lay a dangerous restriction On the press? Might they not even bring the trial of this restriction within the ten miles square, when there is no prohibition against it? Might they not thus destroy the trial by jury? Would they not extend their implication? It appears to me that they may and will. And shall the support of our rights depend on the bounty of men whose interest it may be to oppress us? That Congress should have power to provide for the general welfare of the Union, I grant. But I wish a clause in the Constitution, with respect to all powers which are not granted, that they are retained by the states. Otherwise, the power of providing for the general welfare may be perverted to its destruction. George Mason Speech Virginia Ratifying Convention June 04, 1788 > [@](#): > > Mr. Chairman—Whether the Constitution be good or bad, the present clause clearly discovers, that it is a National Government, and no longer a confederation. \*\*I mean that clause which gives the first hint of the General Government laying direct taxes. The assumption of this power of laying direct taxes, does of itself, entirely change the confederation of the States into one consolidated Government. \*\*This power being at discretion, unconfined, and without any kind of controul, must carry every thing before it. The very idea of converting what was formerly confederation, to a consolidated Government, is totally subversive of every principle which has hitherto governed us. This power is calculated to annihilate totally the State Governments. Will the people of this great community submit to be individually taxed by two different and distinct powers? Will they suffer themselves to be doubly harrassed? These two concurrent powers cannot exist long together; the one will destroy the other: The General Government being paramount to, and in every respect more powerful than, the State governments, the latter must give way to the former. ---
**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 11, 2015, 8:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/divisions-along-rule-of-law-versus-criminal-rule/727009/162 "2015-08-11T20:25:58Z")
What do you think ‘federal’ means? ---
**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 11, 2015, 8:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/divisions-along-rule-of-law-versus-criminal-rule/727009/163 "2015-08-11T20:59:44Z")
“So, again, two sides represented by a forum member named Human Action…” **Human Action** does not “represent” the rest of the posters-he is one of many posters with questions that you have either been unwilling or unable to answer to anyone’s satisfaction. Do you have any intention of answering anyone else’s questions…hopefully in an as non-verbose form as possible? ---
**Author:** ![asahi](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/asahi/32/8693_2.png) [@asahi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/asahi)\ **Post date:** [August 11, 2015, 9:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/divisions-along-rule-of-law-versus-criminal-rule/727009/164 "2015-08-11T21:08:20Z")
I think I’m actually starting to like this thread. ---
**Author:** ![Josf](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/d78d45/32.png) [@Josf](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Josf)\ **Post date:** [August 12, 2015, 12:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/divisions-along-rule-of-law-versus-criminal-rule/727009/165 "2015-08-12T00:07:34Z")
Human Action ask: > [@](#): > > What do you think ‘federal’ means? As if I have not already answered the question? John Adams offers a competitive answer (that I think is a competitive answer which is as good, if not better, than any other competitive answer) of what IS the meaning of federal in the context of the formation of the American federation which started as a result of the criminal British War of Aggression: Human Action ask: > [@](#): > > What do you think ‘federal’ means? In my own words, but based upon the words of John Adams quoted in Elliot’s Debates Volume I, a federation is simply a voluntary association that is no longer a federation when a member (an individual or a group of individuals) initiate criminal aggression upon the other members. The aggressor is no longer volunteering to maintain the federation. The example offered by John Adams is the federal (voluntary) union between the people in the colonies of America and the Parliament of Great Britain. The people in the States, in a federation, are always independent of the federal government, any restraints on trade offered to the states by the people in the federal government derive efficacy only by acquiescence from people in the states, and not from any “rights” commanded by the people in the federal government. So no one in a federal office possesses any right to restrain trade between anyone in any state, and the only reason trade is restrained by anyone in a federal capacity is by the consent of the people in the states. That means, unequivocally, that people in any State can secede from the federal union at will when people in any State face false federal officers dictating obedience (without question) to people in those States. The Declaration of Independence documents the example of people in federated union choosing, by their consent, to recognize when a member (or members) of the federal union initiate criminally aggressive acts upon the people who were formerly federated. So what do I think is a federation? A federation is a voluntary union typically formed for the express purpose of mutual defense against all enemies of Liberty (voluntary association) foreign and domestic. A federation is NOT the opposite of a voluntary association for mutual defense; whereby special interests groups aggressively enslave everyone else. An example that exemplifies a federation is the former federal union with the British Monarchy and the people in American Colonies. That is what I think is a federation, and that is what John Adams claimed to be the meaning of a federation. An example that exemplifies a non, or anti, federation is the former federation that ended when the British Monarchy began a War of Aggression upon the people in America so as to enslave those people under a dictatorial, tyrannical, criminal rule. An example of another federation is the federation that was formed by the people in the former Colonies as they formed independent states out of formerly independent colonies, and those independent states formed a federation so as to federate in mutual defense against the common enemy of Liberty. Another example of a non, or anti, federation is the change from the original federation under the Articles of Confederation into the Consolidated Nation State under the so called Constitution of 1787. If that again fails to answer the question, then focus attention only on the words of John Adams (in context) and see if the English spoken by John Adams can convey any meaning to you. > [@](#): > > That the question was not whether, by a declaration of independence, we should make ourselves what we are not; but whether we should declare a fact which already exists: > That, as to the people or Parliament of England, we had always been independent of them, their restraints on our trade deriving efficacy from our acquiescence only, and not from any rights they possessed of imposing them; and that, so far, our connection had been federal only, and was now dissolved by the commencement of hostilities: > That, as to the king, we had been bound to him by allegiance, but that this bond was now dissolved by his assent to the late act of Parliament, by which he declares us out of his protection, and by his levying war on us - a fact which has long ago proved us out of his protection, it being a certain position in law, that allegiance and protection are reciprocal, the one ceasing when the other is withdrawn: Human Action ask: > [@](#): > > What do you think ‘federal’ means? I think John Adams offers a competitive meaning of federation that is good enough for me to employ when I wish to convey the meaning of federation to anyone else. ---
**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 12, 2015, 12:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/divisions-along-rule-of-law-versus-criminal-rule/727009/166 "2015-08-12T00:21:11Z")
**Human Action** asked what you thought “federal” means, and you replied: > [@Josf](#): > > I think John Adams offers a competitive meaning of federation that is good enough for me to employ when I wish to convey the meaning of federation to anyone else. That’s the wrong word, so let me help you out with the standard dictionary definition of the term “federal”: > [@](#): > > **fed·er·al** > ˈfed(ə)rəl/ > adjective > adjective: federal > > ``` > having or relating to a system of government in which several states form a unity but remain independent in internal affairs. > "Russia's federation treaty shares powers among Russia's federal and local governments" > of, relating to, or denoting the central government as distinguished from the separate units constituting a federation. > "the federal agency that provides legal services to the poor" > of, relating to, or denoting the central government of the US. > UShistorical > of the northern states in the Civil War. > adjective: Federal > "a loud Federal cheer was heard, proving Stonewall to be hard pressed" > > ``` There you go. ---
**Author:** ![Josf](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/d78d45/32.png) [@Josf](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Josf)\ **Post date:** [August 12, 2015, 12:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/divisions-along-rule-of-law-versus-criminal-rule/727009/167 "2015-08-12T00:21:21Z")
Czarcasm continues to participate in this topic. I am not a member of any group that calls themselves “sovereign citizens” as I understand such groups are misled by some seriously false information. An example is the misuse of the term “pro se in rem” often used by people who misuse the terms “sovereign citizens” as if each individual can do whatever they want whenever they want because they say so. Rule of Law is very simple to understand if someone applies the base principles that are offered in such ideas conveyed as the example in Matthew 7:12, or the example process knowable as trail by jury according to the common law. If you have any other land mine type questions you think is worthy of my time and effort, then I can read those offers (as I have read so far) and I can decide to spend my time and energy, voluntarily, answering your questions. Currently the forum member Human Action offers the best (highest quality and lowest cost) information offered from the opposing side: as far as my judgment (which is prone to error) goes. If you were me then you could determine (for me) which questions I think are worth answering. Edit: “There you go.” No, there you go, the question concerned my thinking, not yours, and not the thinking used by the author of a dictionary (one of many competitive dictionaries dating back to the start of the English language in the 1700s). ---
**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 12, 2015, 12:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/divisions-along-rule-of-law-versus-criminal-rule/727009/168 "2015-08-12T00:28:24Z")
> [@Josf](#): > > Czarcasm continues to participate in this topic. As long as you continue to make up definitions for common words and phrases to spout nonsense, I will participate in this topic. ---
**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 12, 2015, 12:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/divisions-along-rule-of-law-versus-criminal-rule/727009/169 "2015-08-12T00:31:15Z")
> [@Josf](#): > > Edit: > “There you go.” > > No, there you go, the question concerned my thinking, not yours, and not the thinking used by the author of a dictionary (one of many competitive dictionaries dating back to the start of the English language in the 1700s). And still you managed to botch it, by switching the word from “federal” to “federation”…and not even bothering to actually give a definition for _that_ word either. ---
**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 12, 2015, 12:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/divisions-along-rule-of-law-versus-criminal-rule/727009/170 "2015-08-12T00:53:33Z")
> [@Josf](#): > > Currently the forum member Human Action I think he likes to be referred to as “Human: of the family Action.” ---
**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 12, 2015, 12:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/divisions-along-rule-of-law-versus-criminal-rule/727009/171 "2015-08-12T00:56:03Z")
> [@Josf](#): > > …a federation is simply a voluntary association that is no longer a federation when a member (an individual or a group of individuals) initiate criminal aggression upon the other members. > > … > > A federation is a voluntary union typically formed for the express purpose of mutual defense against all enemies of Liberty (voluntary association) foreign and domestic. Thanks for the answer. However, the various dictionaries I consulted all give a difference definition, such as [this one:](http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/federation) : a country formed by separate states that have given certain powers to a central government while keeping control over local matters : an organization that is made by loosely joining together smaller organizations : the act of joining together separate organizations or states So, when I say the modern US is a federation, I am correct, because I am using the mainstream, dictionary definition. Hence the confusion, I guess. Under your definition, isn’t almost every organization a federation? A charity, a bowling league, a trade association… > [@Josf](#): > > The example offered by John Adams is the federal (voluntary) union between the people in the colonies of America and the Parliament of Great Britain. How was that union ever voluntary (or a union?) For the most part, the colonies were founded with royal charters; they were never independent states that joined the UK, they were colonies of the UK. Also, why doesn’t your classification apply to the states themselves? Are they not to be voluntary associations? > [@Josf](#): > > Currently the forum member Human Action offers the best (highest quality and lowest cost) information offered from the opposing side: as far as my judgment (which is prone to error) goes. I’m probably in the 30th percentile, on my best day, of posters here in terms of knowledge and eloquence, so it’d benefit you to solicit other opinions. ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [August 12, 2015, 1:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/divisions-along-rule-of-law-versus-criminal-rule/727009/172 "2015-08-12T01:13:01Z")
And here we are, nearly a week later, with thousands of words, (including multiple invented definitions), tossed randomly on the pages, and the point of the thread remains: [ul] [li]a group of European immigrants to North America, having stolen land from the indigenous people in order to set up a European style society,[/li][li]and having engaged in a war of treason to separate from their government in order to establish a separate government,[/li][li]then, finding that their charter was not sufficient to their needs, convened a meeting to consider changes to that charter which resulted in the proposal for a new charter,[/li][li]however, notwithstanding the theft and treason that preceded the desire for changes to the existing charter, since the proposed new charter was not the purpose for which the meeting was convened, the proposed new charter is “criminal.”[/li][/ul] The delegates to that convention, did overstep their actual instructions, proposing a new charter. Of course, the new charter was then debated publicly throughout the entire nation resulting in the majority of voting citizens agreeing to the proposed new charter, rendering declarations of fraud or “criminality” as so much bushwa. Because the delegates to the convention overstepped their initial instructions, and ignoring the fact that the electorate actually agreed to the proposed change in charter after public debate, (and pretending that the initial land theft and the treasonous separation never occurred), the OP declares that the entire government and all its actions are “criminal” and, therefore, all laws legislated under the new charter for the past 228 years are invalid. (There is the sidebar, of course, hinted but never explained, that the proposed change in charter was the result of a “Conspiracy.” This despite an utter lack of evidence that that any “conspirators” managed to arrange for the twelve states who sent delegates to send specific delegates who would seek to overthrow the Articles of Confederation–and without providing any proposed method by which such a “Conspiracy” was to be managed.) ---
**Author:** ![Josf](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/d78d45/32.png) [@Josf](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Josf)\ **Post date:** [August 12, 2015, 2:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/divisions-along-rule-of-law-versus-criminal-rule/727009/173 "2015-08-12T02:15:51Z")
> [@](#): > > Under your definition, isn’t almost every organization a federation? A charity, a bowling league, a trade association… Does Human Action claim that “my” version of federation is not the same as the version of federation offered by John Adams in the quote taken from Elliot’s Debates Volume I? ---
**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 12, 2015, 2:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/divisions-along-rule-of-law-versus-criminal-rule/727009/174 "2015-08-12T02:41:13Z")
> [@Josf](#): > > Does Human Action claim that “my” version of federation is not the same as the version of federation offered by John Adams in the quote taken from Elliot’s Debates Volume I? The person being addressed here is you, not **Human Action** , and(once again) it wasn’t a definition of “federation” that was asked for in the first place. ---
**Author:** ![UltraVires](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecccb3/32.png) [@UltraVires](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UltraVires)\ **Post date:** [August 12, 2015, 3:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/divisions-along-rule-of-law-versus-criminal-rule/727009/175 "2015-08-12T03:06:40Z")
> [@Josf](#): > > Rule of Law is very simple to understand if someone applies the base principles that are offered in such ideas conveyed as the example in Matthew 7:12, or the example process knowable as trail by jury according to the common law. Do you have a cite that the rule of law is based upon Matthew 7:12 and trial by jury “according to the common law”? Assuming that our society is based upon Christian biblical principles, why does that verse stand out as the bedrock of free society? Or, if you should choose voluntarily, as a person of liberty, please answer this question: How does your “trial by jury according to the common law” differ from the trial by jury that someone in California would receive today if he is on trial for robbery? ---
**Author:** ![Measure\_for\_Measure](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/measure_for_measure/32/557_2.png) [@Measure\_for\_Measure](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Measure_for_Measure)\ **Post date:** [August 12, 2015, 6:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/divisions-along-rule-of-law-versus-criminal-rule/727009/176 "2015-08-12T06:10:07Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > Holy shit. It’s English, but at the same time it isn’t. It’s like _Jabberwocky_ or _A Clockwork Orange_. Or possibly just a very old build of Babelfish. I am honestly curious about what our resident linguists think of this manner of presentation. What sort of [stylistic](http://pandora.cii.wwu.edu/vajda/ling201/test3materials/SocioStyle.htm) is this? It appears to go way beyond group jargon. [Cant? Argot?](https://www.cpp.edu/~ddwills/courses/ant353/readings353/Sociolinguistics_terms.htm) Incantation? Shibboleth? ---
**Author:** ![Measure\_for\_Measure](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/measure_for_measure/32/557_2.png) [@Measure\_for\_Measure](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Measure_for_Measure)\ **Post date:** [August 12, 2015, 6:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/divisions-along-rule-of-law-versus-criminal-rule/727009/177 "2015-08-12T06:22:00Z")
I think the concept I was looking for is something like [jargon aphasia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jargon_aphasia), except in a milder non-clinical setting. ---
**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 12, 2015, 12:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/divisions-along-rule-of-law-versus-criminal-rule/727009/178 "2015-08-12T12:07:04Z")
> [@Josf](#): > > Does Human Action claim that “my” version of federation is not the same as the version of federation offered by John Adams in the quote taken from Elliot’s Debates Volume I? Indeed I do. Here it is again: That the question was not whether, by a declaration of independence, we should make ourselves what we are not; but whether we should declare a fact which already exists: That, as to the people or Parliament of England, we had always been independent of them, their restraints on our trade deriving efficacy from our acquiescence only, and not from any rights they possessed of imposing them; and that, so far, our connection had been federal only, and was now dissolved by the commencement of hostilities: That, as to the king, we had been bound to him by allegiance, but that this bond was now dissolved by his assent to the late act of Parliament, by which he declares us out of his protection, and by his levying war on us - a fact which has long ago proved us out of his protection, it being a certain position in law, that allegiance and protection are reciprocal, the one ceasing when the other is withdrawn: Adams is using the same definition as the dictionary I cited earlier - **a country formed of separate states.** I see nothing in his remarks to indicate that he’d use “federation” to describe his marriage, or his friendships, or the Freemasons, or any other voluntary association in his life. Do you have any evidence to the contrary? ---
**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 12, 2015, 2:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/divisions-along-rule-of-law-versus-criminal-rule/727009/179 "2015-08-12T14:37:41Z")
> [@Bryan\_Ekers](#): > > Good, because I was about to ask “Is Josf stallin’?” That one is truly groan-worthy. ---
**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 12, 2015, 3:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/divisions-along-rule-of-law-versus-criminal-rule/727009/180 "2015-08-12T15:24:21Z")
> [@Northern\_Piper](#): > > That one is truly groan-worthy. I was holding onto that for a better setup, like Josf starting to talk about purges or collectivism, but maybe he has already and I just couldn’t recognize it. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/divisions-along-rule-of-law-versus-criminal-rule/727009.md?page=8) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/divisions-along-rule-of-law-versus-criminal-rule/727009.md?page=10)