What is Civil-Purpose?

[Uncle Emanuel Watkins]

Liberty for the sake of liberty is no better than no liberty whatsoever.
For what reason do we need the legal precedent of liberty as our prerequisite right?
Equality for the sake of equality is no better than no equality whatsoever.
For what reason do we need the legal precedent of equality as our prerequisite right?
Being responsible for the sake of being responsible is no better than not being responsible whatsoever.
For what reason do we need the legal precedent of behaving responsibly as our prerequisite right?
Homefully owning property for the sake of homefully owning property is no better than not homefully owning any property whatsoever.
For what reason do we need the legal precedent of homefully owning property as our prerequisite right?
Owning a gun for the sake of owning a gun is no better than owning no gun whatsoever.
For what reason do we need to own of a gun as our prerequisite right?
The Constitution for the sake of the Constitution is no better than no Constitution whatsoever.
For what reason do we need a Constitution as our prerequisite rights?

On and on, we confuse the menial legal-precedents, the necessary measures for a more perfect government, with our ultimate American Civil-Purpose.

Our Civil Purpose was arrived at by the implementation of natural law. Natural law was the scientific method duruing that time used for narrowing evidence politically to an undenial self-evident truth and an unalienable natural-right.
Our souls and our minds are at war on this political matter.
If we were to declare our Founding-Fathers as too complex, then they would declare us their enemy. For no human soul could misunderstand or misinterpret that which was self-evidently and unalienably a natural law save that it be a tyrant. Why was the king deemed not a king but a tyrant? It was because his human soul did not submit to the political natural law -- that which was narrowed to self-evident truths and unalienable natural rights.
If we were to claim our Founding-Fathers as too simple, then they would likewise declare us as their enemy. For no traditions from the past history or from future occurences could or ever would violate the self-evident truths and the unalienable natural rights that conclude from reducing politics to a natural law.
Now, you can get fancy and use modern science to challenge natural law, but modern science has moved politics away from viewing mankind as universally central, politically speaking, while it has moved American politics away from viewing his and her existential need for contentment as a prerequisite.
In other words, our Founding-Fathers were red faced and had had enough of it. The message they sent to tyranny was "Quit the act. The human soul knows full well what it is up to. It is aware of the pain and suffering that it causes others." That is the significance of "Self-evidently true and unalienably a natural-right.

[Truth Warrior]

Liberty for the sake of liberty is no better than no liberty whatsoever.
For what reason do we need the legal precedent of liberty as our prerequisite right?
Equality for the sake of equality is no better than no equality whatsoever.
For what reason do we need the legal precedent of equality as our prerequisite right?
Being responsible for the sake of being responsible is no better than not being responsible whatsoever.
For what reason do we need the legal precedent of behaving responsibly as our prerequisite right?
Homefully owning property for the sake of homefully owning property is no better than not homefully owning any property whatsoever.
For what reason do we need the legal precedent of homefully owning property as our prerequisite right?
Owning a gun for the sake of owning a gun is no better than owning no gun whatsoever.
For what reason do we need to own of a gun as our prerequisite right?
The Constitution for the sake of the Constitution is no better than no Constitution whatsoever.
For what reason do we need a Constitution as our prerequisite rights?

On and on, we confuse the menial legal-precedents, the necessary measures for a more perfect government, with our ultimate American Civil-Purpose.

Our Civil Purpose was arrived at by the implementation of natural law. Natural law was the scientific method duruing that time used for narrowing evidence politically to an undenial self-evident truth and an unalienable natural-right.
Our souls and our minds are at war on this political matter.
If we were to declare our Founding-Fathers as too complex, then they would declare us their enemy. For no human soul could misunderstand or interpret that which was self-evidently and unalienably a natural law. Why was the king deemed not a king but a tyrant? It was because his human soul did not submit to the natural law, that which was self-evidently true and unalienably a natural right.
If we were to claim our Founding-Fathers as too simple, then they would likewise declare us as their enemy. For no traditions of past history or of future occurences could ever violate the self-evident truths and the unalienable natural rights that come from reducing politics to a natural law.
Now, you can get fancy and use modern science to challenge such a natural law, but modern science has moved politics away from viewing mankind as universally central, politically speaking, while it has moved American politics away from viewing his and her existential need for contentment as a prerequisite.
In other words, our Founding-Fathers were red faced and had had enough of it. The message they sent to tyranny was "Quit the act. The human soul knows full well what it is up to. It is aware of the pain and suffering that it causes others." That is the significance of "Self-evidently true and unalienably a natural-right.

http://common-law.net/nap.html (http://common-law.net/nap.html)

[Uncle Emanuel Watkins]

http://common-law.net/nap.html (http://common-law.net/nap.html)

A dictionary gives a definition of how a term is presently accepted while generally leaving out how it relates in historical context.
A text book gives the philosophy and how it relates in historical context.
Of course, a text-book is much deeper and extensive in philosophy than a dictionary is in definition.

Natural law: Every action has an equal and opposite reaction.
Theory: E=MC^2
Sir Isaac Newton viewed the earth as universally central.
Einstein viewed the universe as relative.
However, Einstein concluded that both views are legitimate ones.

American Founding-Fathers - the politics of mankind is universal with his and her contentment as an existential prerequisite.

[Truth Warrior]

A dictionary gives a definition of how a term is presently accepted while generally leaving out how it relates in historical context.
A text book gives the philosophy and how it relates in historical context.
Of course, a text-book is much deeper and extensive in philosophy than a dictionary is in definition.

Natural law: Every action has an equal and opposite reaction.
Theory: E=MC^2
Sir Isaac Newton viewed the earth as universally central.
Einstein viewed the universe as relative.
However, Einstein concluded that both views are legitimate ones.

American Founding-Fathers - the politics of mankind is universal with his and her contentment as an existential prerequisite.

That link is not a dictionary link, if you'd have even bothered to check.

[Uncle Emanuel Watkins]

That link is not a dictionary link, if you'd have even bothered to check.

So, are you claiming that "every action has an equal and opposite reaction" is not a natural law? Are you trying to claim that it was a theory? During the time of our Founding-Fathers, there existed no such thing as the social-sciences which, during the age of epistemology, differentiated that which could be known to the five senses, making it known to the mind, and that which existed beyond it, making it unknown to it. A theory is that evidence which is indirectly substantiated beyond the five senses.
A natural-law, politically speaking, reduced literally on the physical level, like DnA, to be imprinted unalienably on the human-soul.

[Truth Warrior]

So, are you claiming that "every action has an equal and opposite reaction" is not a natural law? Are you trying to claim that it was a theory? During the time of our Founding-Fathers, there existed no such thing as the social-sciences which, during the age of epistemology, differentiated that which could be known to the five senses, making it known to the mind, and that which existed beyond it, making it unknown to it. A theory is that evidence which is indirectly substantiated beyond the five senses.
A natural-law, politically speaking, reduced literally on the physical level, like DnA, to be imprinted unalienably on the human-soul. None of the above.

Common law preexisted. Natural law preexisted. Aggression preexisted.

[Uncle Emanuel Watkins]

None of the above.

Common law preexisted. Natural law preexisted. Aggression preexisted.

Come on. Quit the act. You know good and well that the soul knows when it is causing others pain and suffering.

[Truth Warrior]

Come on. Quit the act. You know good and well that the soul knows when it is causing others pain and suffering. Not an act. I don't presume to know what the "soul" knows.

~4% of the population is sociopathic. That's only about 12 MILLION of us, statistically speaking.

[Uncle Emanuel Watkins]

Not an act. I don't presume to know what the "soul" knows.

~4% of the population is sociopathic. That's only about 12 MILLION of us, statistically speaking.

You pretend not to know what is bipartisan in the human soul and yet you debate bipartisan in this room as a member of 51% of the souls against the other 49.

[Xenophage]

You pretend not to know what is bipartisan in the human soul and yet you debate bipartisan in this room as a member of 51% of the souls against the other 49.

So, are you claiming that 51% of the souls are lawyers? But you have to understand that a thesaurus leaves out historical references to socio-political cultural normatives that would otherwise invalidate a lawyer's hypothalamus if he had one. It is self-evident.

[Truth Warrior]

You pretend not to know what is bipartisan in the human soul and yet you debate bipartisan in this room as a member of 51% of the souls against the other 49. You pretend to know and comprehend what I am talking about, yet you do not.

[pcosmar]

Gobbledygook
Unclear, wordy jargon.
http://www.answers.com/topic/gobbledygook

[Xenophage]

Gobbledygook
Unclear, wordy jargon.
http://www.answers.com/topic/gobbledygook

Hey! Lawyers aren't welcome in an Uncle Emanuel Watkins thread!