reply to post by Esoteric Teacher
How can any American claim to be a Law Abiding citizen when they don't know all the existing laws?
Legislation is not law, merely evidence of law. Gravity did not come into play just because Isaac Newton wrote the equation describing gravity on
paper, gravity existed, and people didn't need Newton to come along and tell them that. What Newton did was come up with a mathematical equation
that helped to explain certain properties of gravity, and this is the best any legislature can hope to do as well, to accurately describe the
properties of law, so people can understand them better.
Just like gravity, that force we can't see, hear or touch, that force we feel, that we know exists, is law and we know it exists because it is self
evident. If it is law then it is self evident, and that is how a law abiding citizen can make a claim to being so. They can make that claim, because
regardless of the number of statutes, codes, and ordinances on the book, they know the law, and if any of these statutes, codes and ordinances runs
afoul of the law they know so, and they petition the courts for a redress of grievances, they demand justice.
Then how logical is it to expect any child born from today onwards to comply with the rules of the game if they won't live long enough to learn the
rules of the game?
It is decidedly illogical to place expectations on an adult, let alone a child. Complying with the rules of the game, is not the same as obeying the
law. They are two separate forces, one natural the other artificial. There are no rules in nature only laws, but in civilizations, there are rules,
and there are rules, because it is a game. All games come with rules, and offer an outcome of winners and losers, this is the nature of games. The
objective in any game, is to win, but if the rules are rigged to create a no win situation, then there is no purpose in playing that game. If it is
the only game to play, then change the rules.
FREEDOM does not Equal rules and laws so numerous you don't live long enough to learn them.
It is a truism that with law, we come to understand it better not by looking to see what it is, but by measuring its effect when absent. We
understand the importance for justice best in the absence of it, and we understand freedom better in its absence. The United States now has more
people in prison, than the Soviet Union did at the height of their tyranny. Are people in the U.S. that criminal, or is this evidence of an
obstruction of justice? If it is law, it is self evident.
And what portion of TAX PAYERS money is spent paying Law Makers to make even more laws????
has been statutorily defined and is entirely different
than its common usage and how it is defined in dictionaries. Thus, when speaking of the law, particularly when comparing it to the plethora of Bills
and Acts of legislation thrust upon the people, it becomes important to understand just how far it has gone, and just how important it is to
understand that it has always been we the people, who have held the inherent political power, and it is we the people still. We are presumed to know
the law because law is self evident.
There is only reason the term "taxpayer" has become statutorily defined and it is to confound and place a burden upon the people. While there are
limitations to freedom and those limitations can be understood naturally by recognizing negative rights. Positive rights are those rights we all
hold, and negative rights are those rights we don't hold, and are recognizable in that they disparage the rights of others. All rights are
universal, just as all laws are. All people have rights and not one right can have authority over another. It is the task of government to protect
those rights not place undue burdens upon the public. They exist to serve we the people, not the other way around.
Why pay them more money to make more laws when they don't or can't enforce existing laws of which no body seems to know all of them anyways?
When we can finally come to an understanding that laws are not made by man but discovered by him, then we can all be expected to know the law. You
are all ready presumed to know the law, but in this priest class lawyer controlled legislatures, an aggressive assault has been made upon your
liberty, and it is their hope that you will play by their rules rather than insist they obey the law. If you insist on law, then you are changing the
rules of the game to one you actually have a chance of winning. Which is the better option? It is self evident.
i'm concerned for the future, and the mayhem we are leaving to them to clean up after.
Then do something about that now! Learn the law so that you are better equipped to combat their alienesque legalese and games of distraction and
misdirection. There is a reason our Founders created a Constitution, including our state founders and theirs, that place considerable constraints
upon government. Those constraints are not suggestions, they are not rules, they are not, however, natural law, as they are laws written to create
government, an artificial construct that exist because we the people allow it. They are binding as law in every sense of the word, and it is that
law, that your children need to know.
It is the Constitution for the United States of America that is the Supreme Law of the Land, it is the state constitutions in which our children live,
that they need to know, and it is the natural laws of the universe they need to know. It is the common law principles passed to us since time
immemorial, and the long history of American Jurisprudence that they need to know, instead of wasting their time making them learn dubious history
legends, and teaching civics with pro-government agenda, make sure your children learn how to read case law, and come to know crucial Supreme Court
rulings that have held staunchly in the favor of liberty and individual rights. Know this, and you will know the law, your children will, and in the
end the law will set you free.