The Infringment System is Proof of Tyranny

The infringement system is wrong because it overrides the rule of law or more accurately, the law of the people by the people for the people. Accusation becomes proof of guilt, I accuse you of a speeding or of a parking offence therefore my accusation is evidence and proof you did it.

The infringement system is based on statute law, statute law is government or politician made law. These laws are the "written will of a few dozen or a few hundred ‘law makers’ imposing their will on the thousands or on the millions and is backed up by violence or the threat of violence in the form of arrest and or imprisonment.

Many infringement laws define infringements as crimes. Under criminal law, we have the right not answer questions in case we incriminate ourselves but many infringements laws deny us this right by requiring us to provide information that boxes us into a guilty plea.

The infringement system denies us our common law rights, we are effectively inviting the govt to rule us with violence or the threat of violence to the exclusion of law of the people by the people for the people, i.e. common law or natural law.

Natural law, the Declaration of Human Rights and the Bill of Rights of 1689, says a person cannot be punished without first having been found guilty of wrong doing by 12 of the accused peers. Under natural law it’s the defendants peers who determine guilt or otherwise, not a magistrate or judge.

Natural law gives us the right to confront and question the injured party in court. However, under the infringement system there is no injured party and therefore no case. The state, the city or the local council cannot be an injured party. Only a live flesh and blood human being can be an injured party.

I submit that the infringement system is therefore a manifestation of and proof of tyranny.

Politicians and governments claim they rely on the consent of the people in order to govern but this is a very shallow and hollow claim because, once made, there is no viable mechanism for the people to withdraw their consent of the government to govern or to instruct the govt to withdraw the infringement system. The nearest ‘we the people’ get, is a request or a demand, but not the right to a referendum on the matter. However, in order to get a referendum, we first of all need to get the permission of the very people whose combined will resulted in the politician made laws comprising the infringement system in the first place.

The ability of we the people to withdraw or change the infringement system is suppressed by the very politicians who made it. They stand in the way of the very people whose consent they admit to requiring in order to govern.

We owe it to ourselves and our kids to learn how to fight and defeat this tyranny that is the infringement system.

Threads concerning natural law usually get stomped on pretty quick, I'm surprised its still here!
I think folks are a little nervous about posting in such threads too.

Well written

I don't say it often- but S+F my friend.
If only we could do something about it.

a reply to: Azureblue

I have proposed to require congress to read aloud every legislation and statute. That alone will keep them busy but, an up/down vote on each would allow a massive culling.

States, counties and municipalities could do the same.

originally posted by: lordcomac
I don't say it often- but S+F my friend.

If only we could do something about it.

I have just finished suggesting a way forward that will fix this and many other problems if it can come into being, in this tread.

Link

originally posted by: greencmp
a reply to: Azureblue

I have proposed to require congress to read aloud every legislation and statute. That alone will keep them busy but, an up/down vote on each would allow a massive culling.

States, counties and municipalities could do the same.

I know Americans love their republic and their constitution which is the way it should be too but we also need to learn from the Swiss experience. Referendums have a role to play in any democracy and they give expression to the principle that democracy was founded on which is govt of the people by the people.

In this day and age anything less the direct rule by the people through the agency of referendums is just not good enough for reasons I have explained in a previous reply to this thread with a link in it, is good enough.

The thread I have explained my ideas on is the thread called "America needs another political party."

a reply to: Azureblue

The accumulation of bad laws could be addressed by either a representative republic or a direct democracy but, my position is that majority rule is detrimental to the interests of any minority.

Do you want less or different legislative burden?

originally posted by: greencmp
a reply to: Azureblue

The accumulation of bad laws could be addressed by either a representative republic or a direct democracy but, my position is that majority rule is detrimental to the interests of any minority.

Do you want less or different legislative burden?

Thank you for that. I appreciate your point and I admit there is definitely an argument for accommodating those who 'suffer' at the hands of the majority. Lets work together on how we can achieve protection for the minority but still have rule by the people for the people for the people and not by the powerful elite.

I do not see that the undoing of bad laws will be achieved by any means other than we the people ceasing control of the govt by via referendums. How to accommodate and protect minority rights? well that's up for discussion.

thank you for your response.