THE PROBLEM WITH THE US LAW (THE LEFT’S ATTACK) Interesting. Was searching for c

THE PROBLEM WITH THE US LAW (THE LEFT’S ATTACK)

Interesting. Was searching for colloquial opinions on “legislating from the bench” and found this page.

DECIDABILITY (LOGIC) VS JUDGEMENT (OPINION)

1) If the Natural Law of reciprocity exists, all questions of law should be decidable by a test of reciprocity. (They are.)

2) If the constitution was intended as an implementation of Natural Law, then all question of law under natural law should be decidable. (It was, They are).

3) In those cases of contracts of the commons (legislation, and regulation) that consist of contract provisions (trades) constructed under Natural Law, the terms of the contract may be undecidable given the terms specified in the contract. (painfully common)

4) In those cases that are undecidable by the Court, because of the insufficiency of the terms of the Contract of the Commons (legislation and regulation) the court has the obligation, (as was intended by the constitution) to return the decision to the legislature rather than to ARBITRARILY provide decidability by subjective preference.

5) In those cases that are undecidable by the court because the terms of the Contract of the Commons conflict with Natural Law, then the Court has the OBLIGATION to return the decision to the Legislature to correct the contract of the commons (legislation, and regulation) so that conflicts under the contract are decidable.

6) In those cases that the legislature cannot construct legislation that is decidable by the judiciary because the terms of the contract for the commons is undecidable under the terms of the constitution, the legislature may propose to the legislature of the states (Congress) an amendment to the constitution that would permit decidability of such matters as cannot be decided under natural law, and the contracts of the commons we call legislation and regulation.

FAILINGS OF THE CONSTITUTION’S AUTHORS

1) The founders (Principally, Adams) understood natural law, and understood Locke, and understood the development of Contractualism of the Anglo Saxons (North Sea Civilization), in which all men are sovereign, and that all cooperation under any crown was limited to sovereign contract. They had fought civil wars over it.

But they lacked the knowledge with which to require decidability in the law. It wasn’t until the last decade of the 19th and the first half of the twentieth century that we developed an understanding of the limits of language in philosophy and logic, and developed Operational Language in the Physical Sciences. It has taken us until the late twentieth century (for reasons I won’t go into here) to develop Operational Grammar, Functional authoring of Contracts (Legislation, Regulation, and Findings of the Law), and the requirement for strict construction of the law from the first principle of Reciprocity (Natural Law), the codifications of the tests of Reciprocity (Property in person, family, private, and common forms), and finally the measurement of changes in capital produced by advances in our ability to enact policy in Monetary, Fiscal, Trade, Institutional, Cultural – and now genetic – forms.

2) While the provision by which to modify the constitution was put in place, it has been aggressively circumvented such that the 14th amendment has eradicated the 9th and 10th. But while modification of the constitution was encoded (even if ignored) the legislatures were not bound in the Constitution to pay the consequences of the poor quality of their legislation, by a limit on the time to revise legislation that was returned to them by the Court before it was nullified as undecidable by the court, or the court reverted to natural law as a means of deciding a conflict despite nullifying the legislation.

3) Requirement for Positive Intent of the law (Scope). While the constitution states intentions (Scope) in the form of ‘whereas…(intent)’, followed by prohibition.

THE ATTACK ON THE CONSTITUTION AND NATURAL LAW OF RECIPROCITY BY THE LEFT

The Function of the court of Natural Law is not to interpret the law, but to apply the law to cases before it, and determine if the case is decidable or not. And if it is not decidable is it not so because the parties are not believable, the evidence is insufficient, the terms of the private contract are insufficient, or the legislation and regulation are insufficient, or the constitution is insufficient.

1) The destruction of the constitution during and after the civil war, which, as a means of preventing the extension of slavery to the western territories, and therefore the domination of the continent by the South and its agrarian allies, and the containment of the northeast – a conflcit which still separates our peoples today. Not over slavery but over dominance by the few urban immigrant centers over the suburban, rural, and agrarian peoples. It may have been correct to go to war and kill 500,000 people over slavery, and even to turn the south into a possession, but not to conquer the south and then to destroy the constitution with amendments that violate the natural law of reciprocity under which the constitution and its experiment in meritocracy was created.

2) the conflation of natural law of reciprocity, common law evolved from it, legislation that usurped it.

3) the attempt by the activist left to ascend majority tyranny to precedence over that of natural law, thereby reversing the full history of anglo saxon law.

4) the attempt by the activist left to extend necessary and possible natural rights under natural law, consisting entirely of negative rights, to ideal, and positive claims upon the actions of others, under the misnomer “positive rights” (which cannot logically exist as rights).

5) The attempt by the communist left to extend natural rights that are necessary for the decidability of conflicts under the natural law of reciprocity, to Human Rights, which both (a) demand positive claims (rights) upon others, and demand (b) these rights be granted universally rather than within the citizenry, *despite* lack of reciprocity by foreign states.

THE RIGHT HAS FAILED UNTIL NOW TO SOLVE THE PROBLEM OF AUTHORING FUNCTIONAL LAW

Until this century the right has failed to (a) articulate the western tradition in ratio scientific terms, and (b) produce a means of requiring strictly constructed law (in the logical sense not the colloquial sense), textualism, and limited to original intent (scope). But that does not mean the right has not understood the nature of the problem.

The problem is however now solvable. (although I won’t go into that painful detail here).

The method and reasons and excuses the left has made to restore the tyranny of the majority over that of reciprocity and meritocracy is well understood. The problem is, do we have to have a revolution to fix this issue and return to negotiating legislation truthfully by contract, or will we continue the charade that we do anything other than deceive the common man in order to obtain power for our factions?

The question is, why would you not want to engage in honest reciprocal exchanges rather than lobby for predations upon others by propaganda and deceit?