Divisions along Rule of Law versus Criminal Rule

Great Debates
61

UltraVires

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:

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.

62

My irony meter busted.

Never have so many words been used to say so little. You were asked a “Yes or No” question.

63

I like to think even my ten-year-old self wouldn’t be impressed by that.

64

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.

65

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.

66

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

67

Do you honestly imagine that’s what’s happening?

68

I prefer my word salad with Italian dressing.

69

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.

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.

70

2sense offers:

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://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?

71

Wonder Woman’s lasso. Granted, it’s still on the drawing board at this stage…

72

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

If you, or anyone, does not understand the meaning of those words, then that cost of your ignorance in yours, not mine.

73

That cartoon can be compared to the Trial by Jury case involving the Conspiracy Murder Trial of Martin Luther King Jr.

74

NM

75

In post #26 I asked a simple question. Would you mind answering it?

76

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.

For someone who is so concerned with “character assassination,” you are pretty free with your own snide remarks.

77

Yes, they did.

78

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?

79

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?

80

Laws are like sausages. It’s better not to see them being made.
–Otto von Bismarck German Prussian politician (1815 - 1898)