Above the law. No one is above the law {Nemo est supra leges};
Butz v. Economou, 438 U.S. 478, 506, 57 L.Ed.2d 895 (1978) (“No man in this country is so high that he is above the law. No officer of the law may set that law at defiance with impunity. All the officers of the government, from the highest to the lowest, are creatures of the law, and are bound to obey it.” United States v. Lee, 106 U.S., at 220. See also Marbury v. Madison, 1 Cranch 137 (1803); Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S., at 239-240.); http://laws.findlaw.com/us/438/478.html
Free-Man’s Perspective – by Paul Rosenberg
We’re surrounded by concerns over what is legal and what isn’t. But what, really, do we mean by “legal”?
The first and most practical meaning of the word, of course, is “things you won’t be punished for doing.”
That definition, however, has never been sufficient for public use. That’s because it’s too stark. If the situation was as simple as a law enforcer saying to John Doe, “Do it the way I tell you or I’ll beat you with my fists,” Mr. Doe would eventually find ways to disobey safely or to cripple the enforcer.
Brute-force enforcement can work, but not over a long period of time, and always at a very considerable cost.
In order to secure long-term, effective obedience from humans, some rationale beyond a fear of violence must be used. People must believe that obeying the enforcer’s word is the right thing to do. That’s why codes of law invoke some type of unseen higher power: a divinity, the “will of the people,” “the way of our ancestors,” or the like. People need a reason to obey, beyond fear.
And by putting the reason to obey above and away from daily life, it cannot be questioned effectively: The higher power has spoken, and only an evil person would question it.
The Exceptions to the Rule
There are times when law is based upon reason, rather than force and edicts from an unquestionable entity. Those times tend to come when political power breaks down. Our best example of it was the common law of England.
The common law began to form in the vacuum of Rome’s influence. The great empire had fallen, leaving people to develop their own ideas. It was a time of reset and reversion toward a natural state.
An early king named Alfred attempted to codify the existing laws around 890 AD. He wrote:
Now I, King Alfred, have collected these laws, and have given orders for copies to be made of many of those which our predecessors observed, and which I myself approved.
Alfred did not write these laws – he collected the previous laws of the people and put them together. This pattern continued:
The Charter of Liberties published by Henry I in 1100 AD says that things ought to be done “through force of law and custom,” or “in a lawful manner.” Henry accepted that that law came from the people (that is, by custom) and not from the state.
The 1164 Clarendon Constitution of England cites a “record and recognition of a certain portion of the customs and liberties and rights of… ancestors.” Thus, laws and customs of the people, rather than laws imposed by rulers, became the law of England.
Even Magna Carta followed the model. Article 39 (1215 version) read:
No free man shall be taken or imprisoned or dispossessed, or outlawed, or banished, or in any way destroyed, nor will we go upon him, nor send upon him, except by the legal judgment of his peers or by the law of the land.
Note that the ultimate arbiter was not the king, but “the law of the land.”
The law that came out of this formation was called the common law. It was developed through the decisions of judges, rather than through legislative statutes or executive edicts. And it was updated by judges, not by legislators. There were no legislators in the modern sense.
The Revolution of 1800
In the decades surrounding 1800 AD, we in the West were given a new type of rulership, featuring three main parts: representatives, legislation, and police. This arrangement, which is incorrectly called Democracy, is how men are ruled today. Under this system, law is no longer based upon reason and doesn’t have to be justified by custom or even by effectiveness – laws are freshly created by an elite class of “representatives.”
This new class of representatives can change the law any time it wishes. In fact, it adds thousands of new laws every year – far more than anyone can memorize. They may play lip service to the common law, but common law and legislation are two very different things, and legislation rules the day.
These days, what is “legal” is controlled by a corrupt political elite. Their law contradicts its own foundational statements, is impossible to know in its entirety, and is enforced arbitrarily.
Reason is no longer a tool of safety. The actions that may trigger punishment cannot be fully understood. The enforcer class will hurt you upon command, asking no questions as to right. Our forefathers would have called this tyranny.
What Shall We Do?
In this situation, three particular actions make sense:
- Stop taking laws created by a representative class seriously from any moral standpoint. These are the edicts of people who employ enforcers, and nothing more. Their invocations of constitutions and higher powers are sucker-bait.
- We do, unfortunately, need to be aware of how the enforcers are hurting people. There is value in staying safe.
- We should start building our own ways of obtaining safety and justice.
Our schooling championed the interests of those who paid our teachers. Now it’s time for us to look after our own interests.
Paul Rosenberg
FreemansPerspective.com
N.B. 16 Am.Jur.2d 321 § 7 (Preservation of Rights) (Government of laws and not of men); and that class of authority, reason, custom and usage ad infinitum:
Dr. Bonham’s Case, 8 Coke’s Reports 107, at 118 (1610) ([I]n many cases, the common law will control acts of parliament, and sometimes adjudge them to be utterly void: for when an act of parliament is against common right and reason, or repugnant, or impossible to be performed, the common law will control it, and adjudge such to be void.); aff’d. Robin v. Hardaway, 1 Jefferson 109, 114, 1 Va. Reports Ann. 58, 61 (1772); http://www.supremecourthistory.org/04_library/subs_journal/04_a04.html Cf. Tumey v. Ohio, 273 U.S. 510, 524 (1927) http://laws.findlaw.com/us/273/510.html
Olmstead v. United States, 277 U.S. 438, 485, 48 S.Ct. 564 (1928) aff’d. United States v. Singleton, D.C. No. 96-10054-05-FGT, 144 F.3d 1343 (10th Cir. 07/01/1998) (Decency, security, and liberty alike demand that government officials shall be subjected to the same rules of conduct that are commands to the citizen. In a government of laws, existence of the government will be imperiled if it fails to observe the law scrupulously. Our government is the potent, the omnipresent teacher. For good or for ill, it teaches the whole people by its example. Crime is contagious. If the government becomes a lawbreaker, it breeds contempt for law; it invites every man to become a law unto himself; it invites anarchy. To declare that in the administration of the criminal law the end justifies the means-to declare that the government may commit crimes in order to secure the conviction of a private criminal-would bring terrible retribution. Against that pernicious doctrine this court should resolutely set its face.). http://laws.findlaw.com/us/277/438.html
Whitney v. California, 274 U.S. 357, 375-376, 47 S.Ct. 641, 71 L.Ed. 1095 (1927) (Those who won our independence believed that the final end of the state was to make men free to develop their faculties, and that in its government the deliberative forces should prevail over the arbitrary. They valued liberty both as an end and as a means. They believed liberty to be the secret of happiness and courage to be the secret of liberty. They believed that freedom to think as you will and to speak as you think are means indispensable to the discovery and spread of political truth; that without free speech and assembly discussion would be futile; that with them, discussion affords ordinarily adequate protection against the dissemination of noxious doctrine; that the greatest menace to freedom is an inert people; that public discussion is a political duty; and that this should be a fundamental principle of the American government.3 They recognized the risks to which all human institutions are subject. But they knew that order cannot be secured merely through fear of punishment for its infraction; that it is hazardous to discourage thought, hope and imagination; that fear breeds repression; that repression breeds hate; that hate menaces stable government; that the path of safety lies in the opportunity to discuss freely supposed grievances and proposed remedies; and that the fitting remedy for evil counsels is good ones. Believing in the power of reason as applied through public discussion, they eschewed silence [274 U.S. 357, 376] coerced by law-the argument of force in its worst form. Recognizing the occasional tyrannies of governing majorities, they amended the Constitution so that free speech and assembly should be guaranteed.); http://laws.findlaw.com/us/274/357.html
Rather than suggesting that people organize, and prepare to confront the tyranny, this Jew’s only solution encourages people to isolate themselves, only worry about themselves, and to “stay safe” rather than be brave.
The link he provided for “police” trashes his old friend for exposing wrongs.
This is a perfect example of how people can appear to be working for our side, but in reality promoting actions that benefit the enemy, and since he is Jewish, I have to question whether it’s bad judgement on his part, or an intentional effort to subvert the efforts of those resisting the Jew World Order.
“If the government becomes a law breaker, it breeds contempt for the law….” That contempt is well engrained at this point with no end in the government law-breaking in sight.
I remember when Reagan said: “I am the president, I am above the law”. He was a piece of work.
The police in this country (to pick a class of individuals) believe that “legal” is what you (any police officer or other individual) can get away with.
Taken from what is happening in plain view for anyone to see, they have a point. This is seen in things that the police get away with all of the time (such as forcing citizens to be subject to police organizations’ various policies, procedures, protocols, rules, particulars of officer training regimens, and so forth, when these things have not been subject to review by citizens through their elected representatives). Hence, these things are put in place of the law of the land as defined in the Constitution
This view contrasts with “lawful,” which is activity that is empowered by natural law* and the Constitution, and not proscribed in the Constitution, and the laws and treaties passed in harmony with the Constitution.
* Natural law deals with things like the right walk along a sidewalk and not to be jostled off of the sidewalk by a number of people when it is not clear whether they intended to do that or were just being careless. Nevertheless, it is highly doubtful that a police officer would step in and make arrests if he witnessed such an incident.