Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 30 of 47

Thread: When the Constitution becomes an instrument of tyranny

  1. #1

    When the Constitution becomes an instrument of tyranny

    Over the decades and centuries, the capitalist elites that arose in power by revolution and corruption sought to transform laws that previously protected the public's trust by appropriating the very same laws to their own organizations. It was, and is, a great weakness in the Constitution that it passively allows the mechanisms by which societal transformation takes place, and leaves legal decisions in the hands of individuals who are agents of the government, a government that is directed by representatives and appointees of representatives. These agents are often captured assets of corporate interests. Generationally speaking, the concepts required to maintain the founders vision became a minority opinion during the Great Depression, and its socialist reaction, F.D.R. By the time WWII was over, Americans completely stopped understanding any of this, not even caring about it. We started to become what we are today in this post-war period. There hasn't been a significant reaction against the international corporatists since the 1890s. They have successfully brainwashed the entire Western world into believing that they are responsible for every good that human progress has manifested. They are rigorously defended by so-called conservatives, while the so-called liberals mendaciously disparage many of them, they privately support them. Charities, Foundations, Universities, and Institutes are all offices of profit they use to sink their teeth deeper and deeper into protections due only to the office of trust. Entire agencies of our government are run as offices of profit, such as the IRS and CIA, and even the U.S. military and office of the Presidency itself. This all occurred because of the inherent weakness of the Constitution; weaknesses that may have even been intentional, if one could consider such a possibility. But that is another story, as to why and how it replaced the Articles of Confederation, and stripped the Declaration of Independence and State Constitutions of legal weight. The power to determine legality fell upon the D.C. Corporation, which later became a subsidiary of the Bank of London. Most of the honest founders of These United States always believed the Declaration of Independence to be the force majeure by which a free people would ultimately have to assert themselves again, and that is where we appear to have arrived.
    "For we are opposed around the world by a monolithic and ruthless conspiracy ... Its preparations are concealed, not published. Its mistakes are buried not headlined. Its dissenters are silenced, not praised. No expenditure is questioned, no rumor is printed, no secret is revealed." - J.F.K.



  2. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  3. #2
    Of course the Constitution is weak. It's a piece of parchment.

    What do you think could do any better to protect a people too foolish to hold their representatives to their own laws? A giant robot?
    Last edited by acptulsa; 04-09-2022 at 09:25 AM.
    "Stupidity got us into this mess. Why can't it get us out?"--Will Rogers

    "All I know is what I read in the newspapers, and that's an alibi for my ignorance."--Will Rogers

  4. #3
    “Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There never was a democracy yet that did not commit suicide.”

    - John Adams, The Works Of John Adams, Second President Of The United States

    ---

    The United States was designed to be a Representative Republic, not a Democracy.

    When Benjamin Franklin exited the first Constitutional Congress, a woman approached him and asked "Sir, what have you given us"? To which he replied "A Republic ma'am, if you can KEEP it".

    The Constitution was designed to LIMIT THE POWERS OF GOVERNMENT NOT THE PEOPLE.

    The word Republic comes from two Latin words. "Res" and "Publica". Literally translated: "Thing Public", but this is Latin so the adjectives come after the noun. So the actual translation is "THE PUBLIC THING", which is THE LAW.

    The Demoncrats we have in power today insist they have the authority to operate ABOVE THE LAW, which is WHY we have so many problems. Those that commit REAL crimes are not even charged. Instead, the honest man is cast as a criminal with the flip of a pen, and for the crime of opposing criminals in power committing criminal acts.

    In a REAL REPUBLIC the LAW applies to EVERYONE equally. Neither Commoners nor Kings may commit murder or theft.
    1776 > 1984

    The FAILURE of the United States Government to operate and maintain an
    Honest Money System , which frees the ordinary man from the clutches of the money manipulators, is the single largest contributing factor to the World's current Economic Crisis.

    The Elimination of Privacy is the Architecture of Genocide

    Belief, Money, and Violence are the three ways all people are controlled

    Quote Originally Posted by Zippyjuan View Post
    Our central bank is not privately owned.

  5. #4
    Quote Originally Posted by DamianTV View Post
    “Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There never was a democracy yet that did not commit suicide.”

    - John Adams, The Works Of John Adams, Second President Of The United States

    ---

    The United States was designed to be a Representative Republic, not a Democracy.

    When Benjamin Franklin exited the first Constitutional Congress, a woman approached him and asked "Sir, what have you given us"? To which he replied "A Republic ma'am, if you can KEEP it".

    The Constitution was designed to LIMIT THE POWERS OF GOVERNMENT NOT THE PEOPLE.

    The word Republic comes from two Latin words. "Res" and "Publica". Literally translated: "Thing Public", but this is Latin so the adjectives come after the noun. So the actual translation is "THE PUBLIC THING", which is THE LAW.

    The Demoncrats we have in power today insist they have the authority to operate ABOVE THE LAW, which is WHY we have so many problems. Those that commit REAL crimes are not even charged. Instead, the honest man is cast as a criminal with the flip of a pen, and for the crime of opposing criminals in power committing criminal acts.

    In a REAL REPUBLIC the LAW applies to EVERYONE equally. Neither Commoners nor Kings may commit murder or theft.
    You've said that the U.S.A. was structured to be a "representative republic, not a democracy", but the distinction is overrated. That is because all republics are democracies of the representative type. A democracy that elects representatives to legislate is still a democracy. The Constitution guarantees a republican form of government (I have another thread about this) -- meaning, a democracy where voters elect representatives for a short number of years. This politicised the nature of America, so it is constantly preoccupied with voting for people, as if people are agents of change, not issues. Issues are rarely voted upon. They are decided by the deciders who are either representatives or lawyers of the courts. Etymologically speaking, it is the contingent selection of representatives that defines the term "republic".
    "For we are opposed around the world by a monolithic and ruthless conspiracy ... Its preparations are concealed, not published. Its mistakes are buried not headlined. Its dissenters are silenced, not praised. No expenditure is questioned, no rumor is printed, no secret is revealed." - J.F.K.

  6. #5
    Quote Originally Posted by Snowball View Post
    You've said that the U.S.A. was structured to be a "representative republic, not a democracy", but the distinction is overrated. That is because all republics are democracies of the representative type. A democracy that elects representatives to legislate is still a democracy. The Constitution guarantees a republican form of government (I have another thread about this) -- meaning, a democracy where voters elect representatives for a short number of years. This politicised the nature of America, so it is constantly preoccupied with voting for people, as if people are agents of change, not issues. Issues are rarely voted upon. They are decided by the deciders who are either representatives or lawyers of the courts. Etymologically speaking, it is the contingent selection of representatives that defines the term "republic".
    If the distinction between Republic and Democracy it is so overrated, why did the Founding Fathers do EVERYTHING IN THEIR POWER to keep us from having a Democracy?
    1776 > 1984

    The FAILURE of the United States Government to operate and maintain an
    Honest Money System , which frees the ordinary man from the clutches of the money manipulators, is the single largest contributing factor to the World's current Economic Crisis.

    The Elimination of Privacy is the Architecture of Genocide

    Belief, Money, and Violence are the three ways all people are controlled

    Quote Originally Posted by Zippyjuan View Post
    Our central bank is not privately owned.

  7. #6
    Quote Originally Posted by Snowball View Post
    You've said that the U.S.A. was structured to be a "representative republic, not a democracy", but the distinction is overrated. That is because all republics are democracies of the representative type.
    Republic vs Democracy


    The John Birch Society is a grassroots education and action organization to return the Republic to the principles found in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution.

    Join the Fight!
    https://jbs.org/join/

  8. #7
    Quote Originally Posted by Snowball View Post
    You've said that the U.S.A. was structured to be a "representative republic, not a democracy", but the distinction is overrated. That is because all republics are democracies of the representative type. A democracy that elects representatives to legislate is still a democracy. The Constitution guarantees a republican form of government (I have another thread about this) -- meaning, a democracy where voters elect representatives for a short number of years. This politicised the nature of America, so it is constantly preoccupied with voting for people, as if people are agents of change, not issues. Issues are rarely voted upon. They are decided by the deciders who are either representatives or lawyers of the courts. Etymologically speaking, it is the contingent selection of representatives that defines the term "republic".
    Quote Originally Posted by DamianTV View Post
    If the distinction between Republic and Democracy it is so overrated, why did the Founding Fathers do EVERYTHING IN THEIR POWER to keep us from having a Democracy?
    A republic and a representative democracy are NOT the same thing. I get that people don't under stand it. I didn't understand it myself for a long time. Democracy means "rule of man." Republic means "rule of law." When Bill Clinton got impeached one of the GOP house prosecutors kept going on and on about the point that we were supposed to be about the "rule of law" and not the "rule of man." I didn't understand what he was saying then, but now I get it. He was trying to appeal to the democrats in the Senate to ignore the fact that the supported Clinton politically (rule of man) and uphold the law.

    Look at what's going on with Roe v. Wade. That was created out of whole cloth by the Supreme Court. Now the Supreme Court has struck Roe v. Wade down as unconstitutional. It didn't matter when the GOP had both houses of congress and the presidency. They couldn't overturn Roe v. Wade with a simple legislative vote. They needed to pass a constitutional amendment. Now Roe v. Wade will be overturned. The democrats will be in the same predicament. Even with democratic president and house and senate they cannot "codify" Roe v. Wade into law without a constitutional amendment.
    9/11 Thermate experiments

    Winston Churchhill on why the U.S. should have stayed OUT of World War I

    "I am so %^&*^ sick of this cult of Ron Paul. The Paulites. What is with these %^&*^ people? Why are there so many of them?" YouTube rant by "TheAmazingAtheist"

    "We as a country have lost faith and confidence in freedom." -- Ron Paul

    "It can be a challenge to follow the pronouncements of President Trump, as he often seems to change his position on any number of items from week to week, or from day to day, or even from minute to minute." -- Ron Paul
    Quote Originally Posted by Brian4Liberty View Post
    The road to hell is paved with good intentions. No need to make it a superhighway.
    Quote Originally Posted by osan View Post
    The only way I see Trump as likely to affect any real change would be through martial law, and that has zero chances of success without strong buy-in by the JCS at the very minimum.

  9. #8
    Quote Originally Posted by Snowball View Post
    Over the decades and centuries, the capitalist elites that arose in power by revolution and corruption sought to transform laws that previously protected the public's trust by appropriating the very same laws to their own organizations.
    That was a weird and unfortunate place to inject the word "capitalist."
    There is nothing to fear from globalism, free trade and a single worldwide currency, but a globalism where free trade is competitively subsidized by each nation, a continuous trade war is dictated by the WTO, and the single currency is pure fiat, fear is justified. That type of globalism is destined to collapse into economic despair, inflationism and protectionism and managed by resurgent militant nationalism.
    Ron Paul
    Congressional Record (March 13, 2001)



  10. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  11. #9
    Quote Originally Posted by DamianTV View Post
    If the distinction between Republic and Democracy it is so overrated, why did the Founding Fathers do EVERYTHING IN THEIR POWER to keep us from having a Democracy?
    The distinction meant a lot to them, or at least to the people whose support they needed to get their Constitution ratified.

    But how'd that work out?
    There is nothing to fear from globalism, free trade and a single worldwide currency, but a globalism where free trade is competitively subsidized by each nation, a continuous trade war is dictated by the WTO, and the single currency is pure fiat, fear is justified. That type of globalism is destined to collapse into economic despair, inflationism and protectionism and managed by resurgent militant nationalism.
    Ron Paul
    Congressional Record (March 13, 2001)

  12. #10
    Quote Originally Posted by jmdrake View Post
    A republic and a representative democracy are NOT the same thing. I get that people don't under stand it. I didn't understand it myself for a long time. Democracy means "rule of man." Republic means "rule of law." When Bill Clinton got impeached one of the GOP house prosecutors kept going on and on about the point that we were supposed to be about the "rule of law" and not the "rule of man." I didn't understand what he was saying then, but now I get it. He was trying to appeal to the democrats in the Senate to ignore the fact that the supported Clinton politically (rule of man) and uphold the law.

    Look at what's going on with Roe v. Wade. That was created out of whole cloth by the Supreme Court. Now the Supreme Court has struck Roe v. Wade down as unconstitutional. It didn't matter when the GOP had both houses of congress and the presidency. They couldn't overturn Roe v. Wade with a simple legislative vote. They needed to pass a constitutional amendment. Now Roe v. Wade will be overturned. The democrats will be in the same predicament. Even with democratic president and house and senate they cannot "codify" Roe v. Wade into law without a constitutional amendment.
    OK, but that deference to the law without respect for personal politics is not a form of government. It's a posture that can be either taken or not by those in power in any form of government.
    There is nothing to fear from globalism, free trade and a single worldwide currency, but a globalism where free trade is competitively subsidized by each nation, a continuous trade war is dictated by the WTO, and the single currency is pure fiat, fear is justified. That type of globalism is destined to collapse into economic despair, inflationism and protectionism and managed by resurgent militant nationalism.
    Ron Paul
    Congressional Record (March 13, 2001)

  13. #11
    Quote Originally Posted by Invisible Man View Post
    OK, but that deference to the law without respect for personal politics is not a form of government. It's a posture that can be either taken or not by those in power in any form of government.
    I had to read what you wrote several times to understand what you are trying to say. Still not clear about it. Define "those in power." Is the Supreme Court "in power?" Is the president "in power?" Is the congress "in power?" Are the states "in power?" It's the division of power that's what makes this a republic. Does it always work as it should? No. But at times it works in a way those "in power" don't like.
    9/11 Thermate experiments

    Winston Churchhill on why the U.S. should have stayed OUT of World War I

    "I am so %^&*^ sick of this cult of Ron Paul. The Paulites. What is with these %^&*^ people? Why are there so many of them?" YouTube rant by "TheAmazingAtheist"

    "We as a country have lost faith and confidence in freedom." -- Ron Paul

    "It can be a challenge to follow the pronouncements of President Trump, as he often seems to change his position on any number of items from week to week, or from day to day, or even from minute to minute." -- Ron Paul
    Quote Originally Posted by Brian4Liberty View Post
    The road to hell is paved with good intentions. No need to make it a superhighway.
    Quote Originally Posted by osan View Post
    The only way I see Trump as likely to affect any real change would be through martial law, and that has zero chances of success without strong buy-in by the JCS at the very minimum.

  14. #12
    Quote Originally Posted by jmdrake View Post
    It's the division of power that's what makes this a republic.
    And yet this division of power doesn't result in this system being a rule of law and not men.
    There is nothing to fear from globalism, free trade and a single worldwide currency, but a globalism where free trade is competitively subsidized by each nation, a continuous trade war is dictated by the WTO, and the single currency is pure fiat, fear is justified. That type of globalism is destined to collapse into economic despair, inflationism and protectionism and managed by resurgent militant nationalism.
    Ron Paul
    Congressional Record (March 13, 2001)

  15. #13
    Quote Originally Posted by Invisible Man View Post
    And yet this division of power doesn't result in this system being a rule of law and not men.
    At the end of the day a man has to interpret the law. I supposed it could all be driven by algorithm. Still, sometimes jurists write decisions that they don't like on a personal level because "That's the law." So...what would you call that?
    9/11 Thermate experiments

    Winston Churchhill on why the U.S. should have stayed OUT of World War I

    "I am so %^&*^ sick of this cult of Ron Paul. The Paulites. What is with these %^&*^ people? Why are there so many of them?" YouTube rant by "TheAmazingAtheist"

    "We as a country have lost faith and confidence in freedom." -- Ron Paul

    "It can be a challenge to follow the pronouncements of President Trump, as he often seems to change his position on any number of items from week to week, or from day to day, or even from minute to minute." -- Ron Paul
    Quote Originally Posted by Brian4Liberty View Post
    The road to hell is paved with good intentions. No need to make it a superhighway.
    Quote Originally Posted by osan View Post
    The only way I see Trump as likely to affect any real change would be through martial law, and that has zero chances of success without strong buy-in by the JCS at the very minimum.

  16. #14
    The US was originally a Federation. The Constitution was actually a Hamiltonian coup to make a big strong central gov- so the misnamed "Antifederalists" were absolutely correct. All the "history" you learned in public schools is crap.

    America was originally set up as a Republic and was never supposed to be a democracy.

    A democracy is 2 wolves & 1 lamb deciding what's for dinner.

    A republic is 2 wolves & 1 lamb deciding what's for dinner, but lamb's not on the menu.
    There is no spoon.

  17. #15
    We are not a Democracy.

    We are a Republic. Real Liberty is never found in despotism or in the extremes of Democracy.
    - Alexander Hamilton

    Remember Democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes exhausts and murders itself. There never was a Democracy Yet, that did not commit suicide.
    - John Adams

    Democracy is the most vile form of government... Democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property: and have in general been as short in their lives as the have been violent in their deaths.
    - James Madison
    The John Birch Society is a grassroots education and action organization to return the Republic to the principles found in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution.

    Join the Fight!
    https://jbs.org/join/

  18. #16
    I agree with Snowball that the distinction between democracy and republicanism is overrated.

    In practice, either way the Iron Law of Oligarchy is always bound to prevail.
    There is nothing to fear from globalism, free trade and a single worldwide currency, but a globalism where free trade is competitively subsidized by each nation, a continuous trade war is dictated by the WTO, and the single currency is pure fiat, fear is justified. That type of globalism is destined to collapse into economic despair, inflationism and protectionism and managed by resurgent militant nationalism.
    Ron Paul
    Congressional Record (March 13, 2001)



  19. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  20. #17
    Quote Originally Posted by jmdrake View Post
    Still, sometimes jurists write decisions that they don't like on a personal level because "That's the law." So...what would you call that?
    That would also be the "rule of men" (namely, the rule of the kind of men who are incidentally inclined to write those sorts of decisions). There is not really any such thing as the "rule of law", because the law is (and can only ever be) enforced by men - or enforced only selectively or not at all, as the case may be. And that's okay - "the law is an ass", and some laws should not be enforced. By itself, neither the "rule of men" nor the supposed "rule of law" (which at most is really just the "rule of men" with extra steps) is an inherently good or bad thing. (Do we really want "yeah, this law is stupid and/or evil - but oh, well, 'the rule of law' and all that ..." to reign supreme in all matters?)

  21. #18
    Quote Originally Posted by jmdrake View Post
    At the end of the day a man has to interpret the law. I supposed it could all be driven by algorithm. Still, sometimes jurists write decisions that they don't like on a personal level because "That's the law." So...what would you call that?
    I would call that "just following orders". Which is morally unacceptable.

    Any job/profession/position that requires people to "just follow orders", should not exist.
    It's all about taking action and not being lazy. So you do the work, whether it's fitness or whatever. It's about getting up, motivating yourself and just doing it.
    - Kim Kardashian

    Donald Trump / Trump Jr 2024!!!!

    My pronouns are he/him/his

  22. #19
    Quote Originally Posted by TheTexan View Post
    I would call that "just following orders". Which is morally unacceptable.

    Any job/profession/position that requires people to "just follow orders", should not exist.
    So when a judge says "I don't like guns but the 2nd amendment says what it says so I'm going to uphold the constitution" what do you call that?
    9/11 Thermate experiments

    Winston Churchhill on why the U.S. should have stayed OUT of World War I

    "I am so %^&*^ sick of this cult of Ron Paul. The Paulites. What is with these %^&*^ people? Why are there so many of them?" YouTube rant by "TheAmazingAtheist"

    "We as a country have lost faith and confidence in freedom." -- Ron Paul

    "It can be a challenge to follow the pronouncements of President Trump, as he often seems to change his position on any number of items from week to week, or from day to day, or even from minute to minute." -- Ron Paul
    Quote Originally Posted by Brian4Liberty View Post
    The road to hell is paved with good intentions. No need to make it a superhighway.
    Quote Originally Posted by osan View Post
    The only way I see Trump as likely to affect any real change would be through martial law, and that has zero chances of success without strong buy-in by the JCS at the very minimum.

  23. #20
    Quote Originally Posted by jmdrake View Post
    So when a judge says "I don't like guns but the 2nd amendment says what it says so I'm going to uphold the constitution" what do you call that?
    People should do what they think is right. Period. Full stop.

    The trick to making that work, is to not put people in supreme positions of power, to be making these decisions in the first place.
    It's all about taking action and not being lazy. So you do the work, whether it's fitness or whatever. It's about getting up, motivating yourself and just doing it.
    - Kim Kardashian

    Donald Trump / Trump Jr 2024!!!!

    My pronouns are he/him/his

  24. #21
    Quote Originally Posted by Occam's Banana View Post
    That would also be the "rule of men" (namely, the rule of the kind of men who are incidentally inclined to write those sorts of decisions). There is not really any such thing as the "rule of law", because the law is (and can only ever be) enforced by men - or enforced only selectively or not at all, as the case may be. And that's okay - "the law is an ass", and some laws should not be enforced. By itself, neither the "rule of men" nor the supposed "rule of law" (which at most is really just the "rule of men" with extra steps) is an inherently good or bad thing. (Do we really want "yeah, this law is stupid and/or evil - but oh, well, 'the rule of law' and all that ..." to reign supreme in all matters?)
    I would call a man who would do that honest. Here is an example. The is a 7 year statute of limitations in most states for adverse possession of property. Many years ago one of my mom's cousins stole some of their land. The statute of limitations ran from the year the youngest sibling turned 18 and it ran out. At the state appeals court hearing one of the judges on the panel said "This isn't right." The other judge said "It might not be right, but it's legal." I'm not crazy about that outcome, but I can respect it. On the other hand I have seen judges put their hands on the balance of justice and do injustice and write opinions that cannot be supported by the facts and the law. Usually this happens when powerful people and/or a lot of money is at stake.
    9/11 Thermate experiments

    Winston Churchhill on why the U.S. should have stayed OUT of World War I

    "I am so %^&*^ sick of this cult of Ron Paul. The Paulites. What is with these %^&*^ people? Why are there so many of them?" YouTube rant by "TheAmazingAtheist"

    "We as a country have lost faith and confidence in freedom." -- Ron Paul

    "It can be a challenge to follow the pronouncements of President Trump, as he often seems to change his position on any number of items from week to week, or from day to day, or even from minute to minute." -- Ron Paul
    Quote Originally Posted by Brian4Liberty View Post
    The road to hell is paved with good intentions. No need to make it a superhighway.
    Quote Originally Posted by osan View Post
    The only way I see Trump as likely to affect any real change would be through martial law, and that has zero chances of success without strong buy-in by the JCS at the very minimum.

  25. #22
    Quote Originally Posted by TheTexan View Post
    People should do what they think is right. Period. Full stop.

    The trick to making that work, is to not put people in supreme positions of power, to be making these decisions in the first place.
    Almost.

    People *should* do what *is* right. Not just what they think is right.

    If what a person thinks is right is not actually right, then they *should* change their thinking to conform with what is actually right.

    In practice, the difference between this and what you said is slight, not not negligible. And the difference is this: we have a moral obligation to seek to know what justice is, and to conform our thinking to it by changing our convictions when we find out they were wrong.
    There is nothing to fear from globalism, free trade and a single worldwide currency, but a globalism where free trade is competitively subsidized by each nation, a continuous trade war is dictated by the WTO, and the single currency is pure fiat, fear is justified. That type of globalism is destined to collapse into economic despair, inflationism and protectionism and managed by resurgent militant nationalism.
    Ron Paul
    Congressional Record (March 13, 2001)

  26. #23
    Quote Originally Posted by Invisible Man View Post
    Almost.

    People *should* do what *is* right. Not just what they think is right.

    If what a person thinks is right is not actually right, then they *should* change their thinking to conform with what is actually right.

    In practice, the difference between this and what you said is slight, not not negligible. And the difference is this: we have a moral obligation to seek to know what justice is, and to conform our thinking to it by changing our convictions when we find out they were wrong.
    And who determines what is actually right? You?

    No - people must determine this for themselves.

    If your point is instead, that people have an obligation to educate themselves on right & wrong, before making decisions that impact other people's lives... then yes, I would agree that would generally be a good idea. But I also could respect the opposing opinion.
    It's all about taking action and not being lazy. So you do the work, whether it's fitness or whatever. It's about getting up, motivating yourself and just doing it.
    - Kim Kardashian

    Donald Trump / Trump Jr 2024!!!!

    My pronouns are he/him/his

  27. #24
    Quote Originally Posted by jmdrake View Post
    So when a judge says "I don't like guns but the 2nd amendment says what it says so I'm going to uphold the constitution" what do you call that?
    Like TheTexan, I would call that "just following orders".

    And like orders, some laws are good to follow, while some are not.

    But whether a law is good to follow (or not) is not something the law itself can ever tell you.

    This is why there isn't really any such thing as the "rule of law". There is only the "rule of men" - men who, for whatever reasons, decide whether to obey or enforce any given law. Whether those decisions are good or not is a question that cannot be answered by appealing to the so-called "rule of law". Trying to answer such questions by applying the "rule of law" is a circular, tail-chasing cop-out (it essentially reduces to saying, "it is good to obey or enforce the law, because obeying or enforcing the law is good"). Any viable answer will necessarily require an appeal to something apart from and prior to the law.

    Quote Originally Posted by jmdrake View Post
    I would call a man who would do that honest. Here is an example. [...]
    I don't see how "honesty" makes any difference here. A man who says, "This law is stupid, wrong, or evil, and I refuse to obey or enforce it just because it is the law" is being just as "honest" as a man who says, "This law is stupid, wrong, or evil, but I insist on obeying or enforcing it just because it is the law" (assuming, of course, that neither of them is lying about the attitude he expresses).



  28. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  29. #25
    Quote Originally Posted by TheTexan View Post
    People should do what they think is right. Period. Full stop.

    The trick to making that work, is to not put people in supreme positions of power, to be making these decisions in the first place.
    Quote Originally Posted by TheTexan View Post
    And who determines what is actually right? You?

    No - people must determine this for themselves.

    If your point is instead, that people have an obligation to educate themselves on right & wrong, before making decisions that impact other people's lives... then yes, I would agree that would generally be a good idea. But I also could respect the opposing opinion.
    And how to people educate themselves on right and wrong? Reading the Bible? Guess what? It's full of laws. Sitting down a meditating and going with whatever comes to their mind?

    Quote Originally Posted by Occam's Banana View Post
    Like TheTexan, I would call that "just following orders".
    Well...you and TheTexan are entitled to your own opinion. But it's self contradictory. TheTexan says people should "educate themselves on right and wrong." Okay. That's where law comes in. And law shouldn't be based on a whim. Based in on the Bible. Based it on the constitution. Base it on NAP. Whatever you base it on there has to be some code. And sometimes the code you base your decisions on come up with something you don't like. But there needs to be consistency. I see a LOT of inconsistency here that's just as bad as the inconsistency I see on the left. People get upset when I make analogies. "Say if Rand Paul was on the other side of that door that Ashlii Babbitt's goon friends were trying to kick in." That pisses (some) people here off. But that kind of consistency is important to me even if it's not important to other people. I could want a child molester killed without a trial. I could think it's morally "right" but realize it goes against the law. People are emotional creatures and we need checks on our emotions. I wouldn't want to live in a world where everyone just does what he "feels."

    And like orders, some laws are good to follow, while some are not.

    But whether a law is good to follow (or not) is not something the law itself can ever tell you.
    Orders can change on a whim of one person. Laws require a greater consensus. A constitution requires an even greater consensus. And, for me, God's law is above all. I know there are many that disagree. If there is a law I can debate the meaning of it. I can work to overturn it even when it's not being forced. There is a chance for discussion and debate. If you learned nothing from the past two years of COVID tyranny you should have learned the difference between an order and a law. Biden did a vaccine mandate by executive fiat because he knew he could't get such a law through the house and senate even if a majority of Americans agreed with it. Then his order got struck down by the Supreme Court as unconstitutional. It didn't get struck down because the court did some scientific determination that it was "bad" in terms of doing more harm than good to people's health. It was struck down because we still live in a republic and that still means something.

    This is why there isn't really any such thing as the "rule of law". There is only the "rule of men" - men who, for whatever reasons, decide whether to obey or enforce any given law.
    What happened with the vaccine mandate proves you wrong. But you will believe you are right anyway.

    I don't see how "honesty" makes any difference here. A man who says, "This law is stupid, wrong, or evil, and I refuse to obey or enforce it just because it is the law" is being just as "honest" as a man who says, "This law is stupid, wrong, or evil, but I insist on obeying or enforcing it just because it is the law" (assuming, of course, that neither of them is lying about the attitude he expresses).
    If you read as many legal opinions as I have you'd know the difference. Judges never say "I refuse to obey or enforce it just because it is the law." Instead, if they don't want to follow the law, they just lie and say up is down, black is white, purple is green. Why do you think justice Jackson didn't want to give the definition of "what is a woman" even though her appointment was supposedly historic because she is black and a woman? The best you can hope for in court is to find a judge that follows the law. Kyle Rittenhouse got off because the judge actually followed the law. Even liberal commentators who HATED Kyle, at the end of the day, had to admit that legally he had the right to do what he did.

    9/11 Thermate experiments

    Winston Churchhill on why the U.S. should have stayed OUT of World War I

    "I am so %^&*^ sick of this cult of Ron Paul. The Paulites. What is with these %^&*^ people? Why are there so many of them?" YouTube rant by "TheAmazingAtheist"

    "We as a country have lost faith and confidence in freedom." -- Ron Paul

    "It can be a challenge to follow the pronouncements of President Trump, as he often seems to change his position on any number of items from week to week, or from day to day, or even from minute to minute." -- Ron Paul
    Quote Originally Posted by Brian4Liberty View Post
    The road to hell is paved with good intentions. No need to make it a superhighway.
    Quote Originally Posted by osan View Post
    The only way I see Trump as likely to affect any real change would be through martial law, and that has zero chances of success without strong buy-in by the JCS at the very minimum.

  30. #26
    Quote Originally Posted by jmdrake View Post
    And how to people educate themselves on right and wrong? Reading the Bible? Guess what? It's full of laws. Sitting down a meditating and going with whatever comes to their mind?



    Well...you and TheTexan are entitled to your own opinion. But it's self contradictory. TheTexan says people should "educate themselves on right and wrong." Okay. That's where law comes in. And law shouldn't be based on a whim. Based in on the Bible. Based it on the constitution. Base it on NAP. Whatever you base it on there has to be some code. And sometimes the code you base your decisions on come up with something you don't like. But there needs to be consistency. I see a LOT of inconsistency here that's just as bad as the inconsistency I see on the left. People get upset when I make analogies. "Say if Rand Paul was on the other side of that door that Ashlii Babbitt's goon friends were trying to kick in." That pisses (some) people here off. But that kind of consistency is important to me even if it's not important to other people. I could want a child molester killed without a trial. I could think it's morally "right" but realize it goes against the law. People are emotional creatures and we need checks on our emotions. I wouldn't want to live in a world where everyone just does what he "feels."



    Orders can change on a whim of one person. Laws require a greater consensus. A constitution requires an even greater consensus. And, for me, God's law is above all. I know there are many that disagree. If there is a law I can debate the meaning of it. I can work to overturn it even when it's not being forced. There is a chance for discussion and debate. If you learned nothing from the past two years of COVID tyranny you should have learned the difference between an order and a law. Biden did a vaccine mandate by executive fiat because he knew he could't get such a law through the house and senate even if a majority of Americans agreed with it. Then his order got struck down by the Supreme Court as unconstitutional. It didn't get struck down because the court did some scientific determination that it was "bad" in terms of doing more harm than good to people's health. It was struck down because we still live in a republic and that still means something.



    What happened with the vaccine mandate proves you wrong. But you will believe you are right anyway.



    If you read as many legal opinions as I have you'd know the difference. Judges never say "I refuse to obey or enforce it just because it is the law." Instead, if they don't want to follow the law, they just lie and say up is down, black is white, purple is green. Why do you think justice Jackson didn't want to give the definition of "what is a woman" even though her appointment was supposedly historic because she is black and a woman? The best you can hope for in court is to find a judge that follows the law. Kyle Rittenhouse got off because the judge actually followed the law. Even liberal commentators who HATED Kyle, at the end of the day, had to admit that legally he had the right to do what he did.

    Welcome to philosophy 101. Lesson #1 - everything is circular. Including this lesson.

    When I make the statement "People should do what they think is right", I mean exactly that. I also understand that the statement is vague and that there are a million ways to interpret that. That is by design.
    Last edited by TheTexan; 05-13-2022 at 06:00 PM.
    It's all about taking action and not being lazy. So you do the work, whether it's fitness or whatever. It's about getting up, motivating yourself and just doing it.
    - Kim Kardashian

    Donald Trump / Trump Jr 2024!!!!

    My pronouns are he/him/his

  31. #27
    People get upset when I make analogies. "Say if Rand Paul was on the other side of that door that Ashlii Babbitt's goon friends were trying to kick in."
    Big scary mob taking selfies lol. Who cares if Rand is behind that door? Not a rhetorical question. Who cares? Tell me who got upset.

    (mods feel free to move this to Ashli Babbit thread lol.)
    Last edited by TheTexan; 05-13-2022 at 06:17 PM.
    It's all about taking action and not being lazy. So you do the work, whether it's fitness or whatever. It's about getting up, motivating yourself and just doing it.
    - Kim Kardashian

    Donald Trump / Trump Jr 2024!!!!

    My pronouns are he/him/his

  32. #28
    Quote Originally Posted by TheTexan View Post
    Big scary mob taking selfies lol. Who cares if Rand is behind that door? Not a rhetorical question. Who cares? Tell me who got upset.

    (mods feel free to move this to Ashli Babbit thread lol.)
    There was the larger mob taking selfies and there was the smaller mob planting pipe bombs, kicking in doors and smashing windows. Unfortunately Babbitt found herself with the smaller mob. Rule of law means you don't ignore the facts that don't fit your narrative. I know the door kicking, pipe bombs and smashed windows don't fit your narrative. But that still happened.
    9/11 Thermate experiments

    Winston Churchhill on why the U.S. should have stayed OUT of World War I

    "I am so %^&*^ sick of this cult of Ron Paul. The Paulites. What is with these %^&*^ people? Why are there so many of them?" YouTube rant by "TheAmazingAtheist"

    "We as a country have lost faith and confidence in freedom." -- Ron Paul

    "It can be a challenge to follow the pronouncements of President Trump, as he often seems to change his position on any number of items from week to week, or from day to day, or even from minute to minute." -- Ron Paul
    Quote Originally Posted by Brian4Liberty View Post
    The road to hell is paved with good intentions. No need to make it a superhighway.
    Quote Originally Posted by osan View Post
    The only way I see Trump as likely to affect any real change would be through martial law, and that has zero chances of success without strong buy-in by the JCS at the very minimum.

  33. #29
    Quote Originally Posted by TheTexan View Post
    Welcome to philosophy 101. Lesson #1 - everything is circular. Including this lesson.

    When I make the statement "People should do what they think is right", I mean exactly that. I also understand that the statement is vague and that there are a million ways to interpret that. That is by design.
    And the way outside of the circle is to codify what you believe is right, write it down, and at least attempt to be consistent. Philosophy 201.
    9/11 Thermate experiments

    Winston Churchhill on why the U.S. should have stayed OUT of World War I

    "I am so %^&*^ sick of this cult of Ron Paul. The Paulites. What is with these %^&*^ people? Why are there so many of them?" YouTube rant by "TheAmazingAtheist"

    "We as a country have lost faith and confidence in freedom." -- Ron Paul

    "It can be a challenge to follow the pronouncements of President Trump, as he often seems to change his position on any number of items from week to week, or from day to day, or even from minute to minute." -- Ron Paul
    Quote Originally Posted by Brian4Liberty View Post
    The road to hell is paved with good intentions. No need to make it a superhighway.
    Quote Originally Posted by osan View Post
    The only way I see Trump as likely to affect any real change would be through martial law, and that has zero chances of success without strong buy-in by the JCS at the very minimum.

  34. #30
    Quote Originally Posted by jmdrake View Post
    And the way outside of the circle is to codify what you believe is right, write it down, and at least attempt to be consistent. Philosophy 201.
    For what purpose? Any codification would be my opinion alone, when the point of it, is that everyone has their own opinion.

    And for the record, I am consistent. Feel free to think otherwise.
    Last edited by TheTexan; 05-13-2022 at 06:36 PM.
    It's all about taking action and not being lazy. So you do the work, whether it's fitness or whatever. It's about getting up, motivating yourself and just doing it.
    - Kim Kardashian

    Donald Trump / Trump Jr 2024!!!!

    My pronouns are he/him/his

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast


Similar Threads

  1. Considering Coronagate: Looking to the Constitution Will Only Guarantee More Tyranny
    By PAF in forum Political Philosophy & Government Policy
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 05-01-2020, 06:16 AM
  2. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 06-28-2012, 07:06 AM
  3. Leaked Unclassified Pro-Constitution Report Outlines Tyranny Movement in America
    By hillbilly123069 in forum Individual Rights Violations: Case Studies
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 03-28-2009, 10:26 PM
  4. Replies: 1
    Last Post: 10-26-2007, 03:25 PM
  5. Noose of Tyranny..why the constitution is important.
    By wecandoit in forum Grassroots Central
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 07-13-2007, 07:18 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •