One of the greatest perplexities – and iniquities, if you’re a thoughtful person – is this business of “the law” being “the law.” Meaning, what matters to “the law” (and those who enforce it) is not whether a given thing is morally wrong but only that a law has been violated. This concept flies full-force in the face of common law tradition, which goes way back to before the Norman conquest of England. The basic idea underlying common law is something we – as a people – have forgotten and it is the idea that harm ought to be proved in order to prove that a crime has occurred.
More specifically, that someone – as opposed to some thing – has been victimized by the actions of the accused. That the accused’s actions have, in some way, resulted tangible harm to a victim, who was understood to have to be an actual human being rather than a construct such as “the state of Virginia” or “The United States vs. . . ” Most people here those words and think nothing odd about them. Worse, they think tjere might be something right about them.
But if harm done cannot be substantiated, then how can it be said a crime has been committed?
This a question that underlies the old – now forgotten – legal tradition.
That was before the rise of legalism, which is similar to rigid adherence to the strictures of the Old Testament or the Talmud. They encompass the idea that “the law” is “the law” and must be obeyed and enforced because it is “the law.” Not because it even makes sense. Just because it is. This is the kind of law that currently governs the United States and indeed, the entire Western world. It is a warren of case law, each new case giving something new for legalist to parse over, endlessly.
The Bill of Rights is very much in the common law tradition. Its ten amendments are written in clear English and do not require endless, parsing by a kind of rabbinical class of lawyers and judges. Consider the language of the first amendment:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Any person of normal intelligence can easily comprehend this law. It is one long sentence, without any opacity. “Congress shall make no law respecting the an establishment of religion, nor prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” Does it require Talmudic parsing? If it does, then so does “no trespassing.”
Only a Legalist would argue that needs parsing.
Contrast the language of the First Amendment with some of that found in the Constitution – which George Mason, who is credited with authoring/insisting on the Bill of Rights – considered suspiciously Legalistic precisely because of such language as “general welfare” and “necessary” and “proper.” He presciently foresaw that such language would inevitably lead to Legalism, a system of endless and characteristically arbitrary rules endlessly parsed by a rabbinical class of lawyers and judges, who get to decide (among other things) what is meant by “necessary” and “proper” and also what the “general welfare” is. Since it is not possible to fix a definite meaning on such terms, the meaning of such terms is regularly revisited and altered – according to the inscrutable, arbitrary interpretations of these secular rabbis.
These rabbis also have their own rituals and forms that must be learned and hewed to in their arcane proceedings. The common law was a thing any common person could avail themselves of, without the intercessory mumbo-jumbo of “legal counsel.”
The aggrieved man simply stated his case in plain – i.e., common – language and the facts were weighed and considered, as opposed to the strange kabuki ritual of forms and procedures and secret language known only to the “learned” class. The latter is why common men and women must secure the services of a member of this priestly class to present their case in court; the common man will be denied the opportunity to make his case unless he follows the forms and procedures – i.e., he must know how to say what he wants to say – and most common people do not know the arcane rights and rituals, not having spent years in special rabbinical schools learning them.
Put another way, the facts matter less than the forms. A supplicant before the court will be denied the chance to present evidence if it is not presented according to the forms – and that doesn’t even begin to address the question of whether any harm can be laid at the feet of the accused.
In a Legalistic system, the chief offense is affronting authority. This means both the text of “the law” itself – which is regarded as presumptively “holy” (and so incontestable) as well as the source from which it emanates. The robed rabbis say it is only “the law” that is their god but of course it is in fact the rabbis themselves. They are, after all, the ones who wrote the texts and they are the ones who decide what it means, over and over and over again. This is everything the common law wasn’t.
More to the point, it is a repudiation of everything the common law was.
Legalism has resulted in “case law” as or even more voluminous and inscrutable than the Old Testament or Talmud – as well as equally oppressive to those who are not members of the rabbinical class. The common man does not understand “the law” – and that is on purpose. The common man is perpetually subject to being punished for not obeying laws so profuse and paradoxical that it is not possible to avoid breaking at least some of these laws on a daily basis (read Three Felonies a Day, if you believe that’s an exaggeration). Most of these laws involve the victimization of no one, too. Who is harmed by some other person not wearing a seatbelt?
Yet “the law” will nonetheless punish any who are caught affronting its authority; i.e., the authority of the rabbinical class – which has also become synonymous with the political class.
How many non-lawyers are in Congress?
About as many as non-lawyers successfully defending themselves in a court of Legalism against a charge involving no harm done to anyone.
. . .
If you like what you’ve found here please consider supporting EPautos.
We depend on you to keep the wheels turning!
Our donate button is here.
If you prefer not to use PayPal, our mailing address is:
EPautos
721 Hummingbird Lane SE
Copper Hill, VA 24079
PS: Get an EPautos magnet or sticker or coaster in return for a $25 or more one-time donation or a $10 or more monthly recurring donation. (Please be sure to tell us you want a magnet or sticker or coaster – and also, provide an address, so we know where to mail the thing!)
If you’d like a Baaaaa hat or other EPautos gear, see here!
Duh, someone who studies the law knows more about it than someone who doesn’t?
Okay, eric.
You and your fanboi club proved my point, i.e., you can’t fix stupid. I feel sorry for people that pride themselves on being able to wallow in stupidity- there’s no way out.
So, now “State of Virginia” is the same as “state of Virginia” and capitalization doesn’t matter.
Okay. Maybe you and your fanboi club should straighten these people out about the name:
https://www.rockinghamcountyva.gov/446/State-of-Virginia-Officials
Like I said, You can’t fix stupid.
The only thing worse than pissing up a rope is a MORON pissing up a rope, eric.
In U.S. Titles and Codes “State” refers to U.S. possessions such as Puerto Rico, Guam, etc.
All States are corporations incorporated with the federal corporation
e.g. “State of California”, corporate California, California State, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, CA
Politicians and the legislature of each state formed a new so-called government (de facto) and incorporated it into the corporate US commercial corporation a.k.a. UNITED STATES, Inc. and are therefore under its jurisdiction.
This so-called government is actually a limited-liability corporation (Limited Liability Act of 1851), chartered in a private, military, international, commercial, admiralty/maritime jurisdiction, entitled “STATE OF…” as evidenced by, inter alia, the change in the seal and the flag and the creation of a new constitution.
Each “STATE OF…” collects whole life insurance premiums, known as “taxes,” for the International Monetary Fund, based, inter alia, upon the Limited Liability Act of 1851 and the bankruptcy of United States of 1933.
“In this state” or “within this state” includes all federal areas lying within the exterior boundaries of the state. –Revised Code of Washington (RCW) 82.04.200 found at:
http://apps.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=82.04.200
The citizens of the corporate States, federal areas, are “subjects” and are called “Residents”. Derived from “res” meaning “the thing” and “ident” meaning “identify.” Therefore, a “resident” is
“a thing identified.” And, “President” is “P-resident,” meaning “Principal resident” enjoined in the federal area. “Nonresident” means any person whose residence is outside “this state” and who is temporarily sojourning “WITHIN THIS STATE”. [1961 c 12 §46.04.360. Prior: 1959 c 49 § 37; prior: (i) 1943 c 153 § 1, part; 1937 c 188 § 1, part; Rem. Supp. 1943 § 6312-1, part. (ii) 1937 c 189 § 1, part; RRS § 6360-1, part.] (emphasis added).
All state governments today are corporations, not sovereign states.
The corporate states were created by incorporation into the corporate federal United States as corporate entities appearing to be similar to and overlaying the republics so as not to rouse suspicion. Likewise, the corporate states created political subdivisions of the corporate state such as COUNTY OF FRESNO being similar to Fresno county but is not; COUNTY OF MADERA being similar to Madera county but is not; etc.
The word, “state” when used by itself refers to the “Republics” of The united states of America
All of the states are “Republics” e.g. “California republic”, “California state” or just “California” ,abbreviated “Calif.”
Each state is a sovereign nation unto itself; free and independent.
“I am neither a “Resident,” nor a “Non-resident,” neither “in this state,” nor “within this state” and certainly not a UNITED STATES citizen. If I am to be categorized or described, one can consider Me a living soul in a flesh and blood man on the land, a free inhabitant, a California native.”
Anon,
You continue to miss the point of the article – which is that one needs to either be a lawyer in fact (as in a member of the bar) or equivalent in legal learning in order to be able to work the system – which means the non-lawyer is at a huge disadvantage within the system.
You rattle off a bunch of pedantic legalisms – making my point.
And then you resort to the weakest argument there is – name calling. Which indicates you have no argument.
Law has nothing to do with justice, despite all the tv shows and movies brainwashing you. It’s about money, like everything else in this jew infested prison planet.
More BS, just pissing up a rope, eric.
It’s “State Of Virginia” not “state of Virginia” to be correct.
Get yourself a copy of Blacks Law Dictionary.
All your fanboi club is being misled by your opinions-not the Law. You do not understand the Law eric, good try though.
Try this if you want understand more about our Real World:
https://www.youtube.com/@Mylunchbreak
Hi Anon,
Of course I do not understand the law. That was my point. Laymen do not understand the law. That is on purpose. It is a system of, by and for lawyers. You have to be one (in fact or by dint of having studied the law as much as a lawyer) to be able to use the law or dodge the law.
You’re said nothing but implied that there is some Secret Way to beat the system; probably more “sovereign citizen” garbage. As by “State Of Virginia” not “state of Virginia” … because the caps (or lack) matter.
That is truly pissing up a rope.
‘It’s “State Of Virginia” not “state of Virginia”’ — anon
It is neither:
‘Virginia, officially the Commonwealth of Virginia’
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virginia
DUH! Everything you know is wrong.
But, Jim!
If you write it out in ALL CAPS and finger the golden fringes of the Admiralty Flag, you don’t have to obey the law!
True. But those who resort to this desperate tactic inevitably succumb in a matter of days to a raging case of Wanker’s Lurgy. 🙁
The law is our curse from being illegally created by the Anunnaki (or whoever they were, Elohim, the “gods”, Nephilim, etc.) who came to earth and made us by genetic engineering – the space lords made us by crossing their genes with local wild hominids – creating the human race – a sentient race – which is regulated not by instincts but by religious and political control.
The Anunnaki set up the legal system which we suffer. So not only did those space bastards illegally create us, they had sex with us – our women were used in sex slavery from day 1, and they cursed us with the law – which is brutal – fines and imprisonment. Read the Lost Book of Enki for more on this topic.
To really wrap your mind around our predicament as sentient slaves on a prison planet, look at our nearest cousins, primates like the Great Apes, Gorillas. Gorillas live in bliss, no law, no church, no taxes, no courts, no police, no prisons, no wars, no Jew media, no false flags, none of what plagues the human race is ever experienced by mountain gorillas or chimps. A Gorilla does not believe in God, it does even give a shit about God or taxes or church or holy books – while we are obsessed with those things.
We have to wear clothes and get a job just to eat and sleep in a building so we don’t freeze to death – while wild animals just live free, have lots of fur, fangs, and strength. Bottom line is that human beings are cursed race, completely damned from the moment of our creation – and get this – we whoreship the monsters who created us! All Abrahamic religions are actually Anunnaki Cargo Cults.
Next time you watch Planet of the Apes original movie, see it is this story told in a fictional way, Charlton Heston, the USA astronaut, who crashes on earth in the future, is the Anunnaki astronaut who crashed on earth. The sentient Apes are us – they struggle with their origin. The more ancient civilization – was more advanced – which is the more advanced space civilization which predates us.
It is high time we ditch religious control and Genesis myth and learn who created us and why.
Morning, Jack!
It’s an interesting hypothesis, certainly. Definitely entertaining. The Silurian hypothesis is another one.
When I fully realized that no primate would evolve out of fur in an ice age, I started investigating how I got here, on this damn hell planet.
People live in mythos on our origin, most people believe Genesis (fiction for children) or evolution. Neither is correct. Both are partially correct. We were evolving as a wild hominid then our natural evolution was cut short by aliens who came here and created us as hybrids. This race of advanced humans, who we resemble, were gods to early human, then that damn Hebrew Bible changed the gods to one being, God, confusing everyone for thousands of years. The belief in God as our creator is damn wrong, it is a spell on the human mind.
Anyways, our damnation was our creation, we are the damned under the damn law, chymera hellions ruled by the law. All Libertarians long to be free, I thought I would inject into the conversation why we are not free, never were, never will be.
Dr. Jack Pruett medical doctor who practiced with Ron Paul in Texas wrote a book about our origin. He was raised fundamentalist Christian, had an awakening – because he actually engaged in thinking, he wrote a book and made a bold claim, the Bible is not about God, it is about the Anunnaki.
White Christians have been duped by the Hebrew Bible, God of the Bible is actually a space race. Not God, the “gods”. And humans whoreship these evil beings who created us ILLEGALLY.
The Grandest Deception by Dr. Jack Pruett explains how ancient astronauts came to Earth, created mankind and used religion and government to control us and run the world today.
God damn ALIENS set up the LAW to control us. Our civilization is modeled after our creator race, the Anunnaki. Interestingly, as we prepare to blow ourselves off the planet, a spy comet is inbound, 3i/Atlas is on it’s way right now, going to pass very close to Mars on Oct. 2nd.
Nice article Eric. Wish more people understood you cant have a crime with the state as victim. Govco is not a living, breathing, flesh and blood human. The rabbinical comparison is most apropos. Judges have become little more than filthy priests for the state. Will people realize this, or just vote harder. Its tough to tell at this point.
The only reason we need lawyers, is, because of lawyers. Maybe 1 out of a 1OO is a decent human. The crabs in the Bering sea would benefit if lawyers were tossed overboard. I learned to represent myself back in the days when I had to battle for my kids in family court. Not that hard if one can read, write, and observe patterns.
Our justice system was never meant to be controlled by robe wearing rabbis born of foreign soil. Every time one of these civilization destroying rats give an ‘opinion,’ a soft underbelly exposes itself.
Thanks, Norman!
I have long considered that it’s outrageous an ordinary man can’t just “make his case” in court without “may it please the court” Kabuki. The facts – and whether anyone has been harmed – ought to be all that matters in a case. That these things take a back seat to procedures – and whether “the law” was violated – are proof that “the law” has very little to do with justice.
Oliver Wendell Holmes said exactly that — “This is a court of law, not a court of justice.”
They can still be beat at their game, sometimes. Not easy though. Must spend hours in the court of the judge who has your case watching other trials/defendants. Must also be very observant, take notes, and study a bit. Also, wear a suit and tie and hold opposing council to their own rules. Not easy if you’re in a J-6 type jurisdiction. It was never meant to be, and shouldn’t have to be that way. Only those whose livelihoods rely on the state argue that a non-living entity can be a victim
Government and all of its facets are a religion, as you adeptly pointed out here.
The latest in legalism: The Ohio Supreme Court has just ruled that someone can be convicted of menacing by stalking by merely making someone uncomfortable or causing distress. The perp need not actually threaten anyone, or have been in a prior relationship with the target.
https://www.cleveland.com/news/2025/08/what-counts-as-stalking-in-ohio-supreme-court-clarifies-law-in-unanimous-ruling.html
That potentially impacts those using sites like this, maybe, if someone is feeling distressed by the content?
Paul Joseph Watson has a great take on just how bizarre women have gotten over the last generation or so. Your link, plus this, shows why Western Civilization is crumbling, the people who are responsible for raising the next generation can’t figure out how to function.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zgGY1l9Gmqs
Holy moly! No wonder the 17 year old grandson never mentions girls!
We were at the Moses Lake air show in June. He and his buddy were talking, looking at the planes. I noticed a cutie volunteer girl roll by slowly in a golf cart. “Guys, step it up – you missed that?” Shoulder shrug was their response, apparently they already realize it’s paradise lost.
Thankfully we have a Constitution, although totally bastardized and somewhat ignored is the only document in the world that is a “charter of negative rights” which is (supposed to) restrain the government from certain actions, to wit:
“Congress shall make NO LAW…”
This is what the present jew-run cabal (ZOG) has a problem with as (((they))) cannot perform an end run around the Constitution and pass laws by fiat (although Trump is doing so by executive order).
Witness the recent threats by jews (once again, claiming to be victims) against those of us who are protesting the genocides presently taking place in Gaza, the West Bank and in israel, proper). Threatening the universities for daring to allow “freedom of speech” (which does not exist in israel, the UK and other countries) is a major affront to the First Amendment to the Constitution of the united States of America.
It is interesting to note that Trump decried the weaponization of federal agencies against the populace (rightly so) for refusing to help Trump supporters who is now doing the same damned thing when it comes to protests against jewish behavior (genocide). In fact, Trump has weaponized the same agency (FEMA) that he complained about previously, only this time it is being used to require recipients of help to sign a “loyalty oath” to israel, promising not to criticize or invoke BDS sanctions against that sh!tty little country in the middle east. Just what the hell is Trump thinking?
Coworker was a lawyer before giving up active lawyering and joined aerospace for the medical and pension. His last straw was the local mob showing up as he and the secretary hightailed it out the office back door. They were p/o’d about a case he’d lost.
Anyway his thoughts, justice for us average folks was by accident not by design. The “system” continues on kabuki style since true crime control is bad for business. More crime = more cops, more clerks, judges, staff – basically the bureaucracy stays fat and happy. Occasional crack down to satisfy the public outcry then back to the usual and the public sleeps again.
On a personal level, never discuss an incident with the cops. Even if you are clearly innocent it will be twisted and turned back on you it’s not worth the risk. “You’re not there to do their job for them!”
Then toss in the social justice BS, here in WA it’s all about “equity policing” and “restorative justice” which perverts a lame system even further.
The constitution names but three federal crimes: treason, piracy and counterfeiting. In the long-ago, pre-Ape Lincoln days when the US really was a federation of sovereign states, it was considered so obvious as to not need explaining, that the states would have sole jurisdiction to prosecute crimes, other than those three intrinsically federal crimes.
Now we have immense federal judicial palaces in every state — 94 of them, including four each in New York and Texas. Of course, they hear civil cases too. But their role in criminal trials got turbocharged in 1970 with Richard Milfhouse [sic] Nixon’s War on Drugs.
And that was just the camel’s nose under the tent. Now we have a complete parallel federal criminal code, covering every offense from littering to terrorism to picking your nose with your index finger.
After Clowngress specified a mandatory minimum five-year penalty for felons possessing a firearm, crooked ol’ Jim Comey pioneered a program called Operation Exile in Virginia. Cops would maraud through the gritty zones of Richmond and round up the n-words, many of whom had both a rap sheet and a pistol in their pocket. Then a drumhead tribunal would convict them and pack them off to federal prisons in distant states, just to f*ck with them and prevent their loved ones from visiting.
This is the fundamental sadism of the US fedgov, which emerged under figures such as Ape Lincoln and General William T Sherman. Now it’s expressed by inviting the worst mass murderer of the 21st century to address a joint session of Clowngress, and giving him fifty-eight standing ovations.
And I went up there, I said, “Shrink, I want to kill. I mean, I wanna, I
wanna kill. Kill. I wanna, I wanna see, I wanna see blood and gore and
guts and veins in my teeth. Eat dead burnt bodies. I mean kill, Kill,
KILL, KILL.” And I started jumpin’ up and down yelling, “KILL, KILL,” and
he started jumpin’ up and down with me and we was both jumping up and down
yelling, “KILL, KILL.” And the sergeant came over, pinned a medal on me,
sent me down the hall, said, “You’re our boy.”
— Arlo Guthrie, Alice’s Restaurant Massacree
Very good Essay Eric!
Frederick Bastiat’s essay “The Law,” “It is impossible to introduce into society a greater change and a greater evil than this: the conversion of the law into an instrument of plunder.
Edward Snowden had already noted that “when exposing a crime is treated as committing a crime, you are being ruled by criminals.”
Thanks, Hans!
It’s liberating (literally) to not be owned; I get to write what I think here – and everyone is free to read it and like it or not!
Very good article, Eric. Very good choice of words.
I’ll add one more thing about the INjustice proceedings in court trials. Witnesses are forced to take an oath promising to give the “whole truth and nothing but the truth.”
— 1. If I’m ever in that position, I will say, “You won’t ALLOW me to say the WHOLE Truth! You’ll limit me to ‘yes’ or ‘no,’ or you’ll cut me off and argue my whole truth is not germaine, or beyond the scope of the question, etc.”
— 2. I would insist that the lawyers also take the oath. Of course, I wouldn’t expect them to honor it, but it would give me a basis on which to object when they half-truth and flatout lie against me.
— 3. I would also insist that the judge take the oath. BUT first, I would ask the judge in open court if he/she is a “rabbi” (as you put it). I would formally request that any jew judge recuse his/her self based on jewry’s Talmud and many jew leaders’ pronouncements that nonjews are no better than cattle and exist only to serve jews.
And this is why they would never allow me to have an open public jury trial.
Excellent analogy Eric,
The judges, lawyers, and cops are all part of the “just us” system, the big club that we’re not in. The despicable concept of “qualified immunity” came from court rulings even though no legislature anywhere passed a law saying it’s ok for AGW’s to beat the crap out of people who zero consequences for themselves.
WITH zero consequences – typo
“The judges, lawyers, and cops are all part of the “just us” system, the big club that we’re not in.”
100% this. They’re all buddies and they all know each other — including your supposed “defense” lawyer. When you get hauled into court you are basically a lamb surrounded by wolves.
The idea that the police and the courts are somehow separate is a fucking lie. In the next town over, they built a new, swank, expensive government building. One side of the building has POLICE written in giant letters, the other side says COURTS. They’re not just on the same team, they’re in the same building.
A very popular local LEO, probably an undercover detective, was caught having an affair with another woman. Her husband discovered that the third rate romance was taking place at an apartment building downtown.
The husband broke down the door, fired a kill shot at the LEO and shot his wife, wounded her.
The local people involved with law enforcement and the judicial branch were horrified. Grief stricken and depressed. It was sad, really.
How could it happen?
Well, someone was not happy with his wife, ended up a cuck, then killed her lover.
Adultery can be deadly.
To the killer, it was moral, legal, ethical and justified.
Justice the old-fashioned way, sometimes it occurs when least expected.
The LEO is dead and the husband doesn’t regret it one bit.
I’ll take legalism for 2000, Alex.
Here’s your answer: for this group, it is legal to assassinate anybody, as long as it is also moral, ethical and justifiable.
I dunno, who? You mean you don’t know? You must be an ignoramus. Giant guffaws from the audience.
Trump is going to meet Putin, after a few shots of Stolichnaya, both will be happy to do some bidness.
Elon will bawl like a baby, having lost his best friend forever.
If Trump does an assassination of Putin, Warshington will be a smoldering ruins in about 10 hours.
It will be legal, ethical, justifiable and moral to take the life of a world leader. Humans do it all of the time these days.
Russia will respond, it will be moral, legal, ethical and justifiable to nuke the nation’s capital.
Trump has a target on his back, he best be careful.
Consider the language of the Second Amendment: “The right of the people to Keep and bear Arms, SHALL NO BE INFRINGED.” Period, end of sentence. It does not say “except for ‘assault weapons,'” “except for poor suckers railroaded for misdemeanor ‘domestic violence’ when their drunken whore wife lies to the cops,” it does not say “except for handguns crossing state lines,” it does not say “except for shotguns with a barrel length of 17.75 inches instead of 18 inches,” it does not say “except for those who smoke weed.”
The supposedly “conservative” Justice Scalia wrote the decision with the Talmudic parsing, saying “Yes, you have the ‘right’ to own guns — unless the government deems then ‘dangerous and unusual,’ and the government may impose ‘reasonable restrictions.'”
So he basically invalidated the entire thing right there.
I have come to understand that the courts are a gigantic hoax, they exist to keep stringing the goyim along and to dupe him into thinking he has a chance at “winning” his case against The System, when in fact they will mire him in a swamp of legal fees, legalese, partial rulings and sophistry. Sure, you can plead “not guilty,” demand a trial, and reject the plea bargain, which is how the government gets a 98% conviction rate. You’ll just be bankrupted and slandered and psychologically destroyed by the process.
In other words, the courts are a gigantic hoax, because the guy who KNOWS he can never win in court will resort to “other means.” Like voting, the guy who thinks he has a chance will keep paying along with The System — while it plays him…
Well said.
Well said, X, and sadly, simple, direct words in sentences are hard for some.
Who is Jim Bell?
After 2020, It’s hilarious to me that people still think we have a functional legal system that exists to protect them from anything.
There is no “law”.
Those that call themselves the Government or the State simply do what ever the hell they want.
Criminals that would just as soon kill you as look at you freely roam the streets.
There is no functional Constitution. There is no “rule of law”.
The sheeple still believe we have a Government of laws, not men.
A well written contract cannot be interpreted, the Constitution begs to be interpreted.
‘The common man does not understand “the law” – and that is on purpose.’ — eric
Is this hard to understand — ‘nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb’? It’s from Amendment V.
It means that the government, with its effectively unlimited resources, gets only one bite at the apple in a criminal trial. The Founders intentionally tilted the playing field in favor of the defendant, even at the risk that a few guilty defendants would be mistakenly acquitted.
Well, the words remain, but they are a dead letter: ‘The suspect accused of fatally shooting a Minnesota lawmaker and her husband in a gun rampage in June has been indicted on six federal charges, the state’s attorney general has announced. Vance Boelter remains in custody in Minnesota, where he is also facing state charges.‘
Pettifogging hacks in black, whose salary is paid by the US fedgov, decided that because federal and state charges are differently styled ‘offenses,’ they don’t violate Amendment V even when the same criminal conduct underlies both.
The horrific result is that Americlowns are now answerable to two independent codes of law, federal and state, BOTH of which
can bewill be weaponized against a notorious defendant. This is the degenerate result of a system turned on its head to accomplish the opposite of the Founders’ design: trying people over and over, and piling sentences atop each other.There was a miserable period in the history of ancient Israel called the rule of the judges it’s been recreated. The legal system in the western world is a giant cancerous tumor which must be excised.
If you are ruled by judges it’s a kritarchy, by rich men an oligarchy, by a mob- democracy. America was supposed to be a republic, res publica, which meddles only in public business.
In the western tradition “law maker” is a farce. Law comes from God, and it’s our job to discover it.
If you believe google AI:
House of Representatives: 140 members do not have law degrees.
Senate: 47 senators do not have law degrees.
My congresscritter was a fire fighter and EMT bubba. Of the two senators, one was a football coach (and soon to be governor). The other has a law degree, perky tits & little ass, and was an aid to the insufferable Richard Shelby (who has monuments to himself all over the state).
“The more corrupt the State, the more numerous the laws.” – Tacitus
As you’ve implied, Eric, this problem has been around a loooooong time. If you listen to news or scan headlines you will soon come across the title “Lawmaker”. It’s applied to those in GovCo that are supposed to represent us in various departments of The State. It encourages this abuse of our Natural Rights. In most jurisdictions a law may be passed by a simple majority but, its repeal requires 2/3 or 3/5 majority. Talk about a rigged game.
The only cure is to eliminate the source of this abuse. That is, The State itself. We must find ways to arrange our affairs as a civilized species that does not involve the coercive, corrupt entity called GovCo. Nothing short of that will suffice.
“The more corrupt the State, the more numerous the laws.” – Tacitus
That says it all and describes the problem accurately. Perhaps going back to the Constitution as written might help. For that matter teaching Civics with a Civics book from before The War of Northern Aggression/ Civil War might be a good idea also.