PDA

View Full Version : Order first and then the implementation of laws and not the other way around.




Uncle Emanuel Watkins
01-02-2013, 02:29 PM
One cannot control governments by the implementations of laws. That naive notion exists today as a holdover from the prior old Puritan order. Instead, as absurd as it might sound, one can only control governments by holding them to their consciences.
Think back to Socrates and the way he never argued from the viewpoint of a platform. He never elaborated towards the mind and the law, but he forever narrowed and defined towards the soul, the conscience, or what many like to refer to as the heart. In this way, Socrates along with Plato and Aristotle following after him were all instrumental in establishing a new order.
In Texas, order first had to be established before laws implemented. Those weak minded civilized people living within the old Puritan order often referred to this as the "old west." Yet, the only reason for the implementation of laws, if one would just calmly relax to think about it, was for the advancement of the order. There is no such process as limiting government to only the maintenance of the existing social order as that would amount to the same type of system as a long suffering, never changing dynasty within a state of stasis.
As we can all see clearly today, law for the sake of law is no better than utter chaos. The U.S. Constitution came about not primarily, meaning it alone has no set definition, but as a result of a new order established by our Founders within The Declaration of Independence. They managed to advance the already existing order that was handed down to them from the ancient Greeks by the use of the scientific method of natural law.
This is an extremely subtle point.
Again, our Founders felt that they had arrived at another type of truth when they utilized the metaphysical method of natural law. This new established order by them worked to abolish all the prior orders established by the traditions of legal precedence including the prior old Puritan one. Once again, they also abolished the old Puritan order as well. This new order established by our Founders as a natural law within the formal document of The Declaration of Independence, with this being our divorce from tyranny, establishes for the disadvantaged people a new formal culture to live by with this being our Civil Purpose.
They then remarried us to a more perfect Union by the creation of the U.S. Constitution meaning that neither it nor The Declaration of Independence should ever be considered mutually exclusive of the other.

Uncle Emanuel Watkins
01-02-2013, 05:46 PM
Bump.
When matters really got off track in our Democratic Republic was back during the time of the adoption of the two party system. From that time onward, lawyers could deem as official their implementation of laws as the primary advancement over our Founder's creation of a new order within The Declaration of Independence and then the further advancement of that Civil Purpose they made by the implementation of laws within the U.S. Constitution. As time has progressed, other fathers of a process called the American Movement, a phenomenon happening wholly outside of the electoral process, came forth bypassing the significance of the law to shine light on the new order.
It is because of these unofficial American philosophers such as Ralph Emerson, Henry Thoreau, and Samuel Clemens that we even have a system of United Nation-States today. The American Movement process in the past is what led the people back to the primary reason our nation was a great one! When discussing American politics, if a person isn't willing to let go of the law in order to reduce to the revering of our Founders, we shouldn't speak to them.

kathy88
01-02-2013, 06:16 PM
He's baaaaaaaaaaack!!!!

Uncle Emanuel Watkins
01-02-2013, 06:28 PM
He's baaaaaaaaaaack!!!!

Yes, and, in the meantime, to where did you advance? Well, apparently not very far. In fact, I'd say you have lost huge amounts of territory in the war to control tyranny.
Try to grasp the message I am attempting to convey. Governments can't be controlled by the implementation of laws. To think so is naive and immature and we should all know this by now. As paradoxical as it might sound, governments can only be controlled by holding them to their conscience.