We have the statutes under USC, that nobody but lawyers know. We have codes, mandates, yada yada yada.
One thing we learned during covid though, is that mandates, and many other terms are not **LAW”.
So what LAWS are we under? And meanwhile…
“Ignorance of the law is no excuse for violation of the law.”
Someone had a comment a while back that linked to the register that underlies the USC, but is THAT the law?
More than that, law is subject to jurisdictions, and supposedly we have common law foundations, but as Christine_Grab has pointed out, the common law currently has no teeth, even though it’s supposedly our law system. SO WHAT IS THE LAW?
“Just stay under the speed limit and keep your DL current.”
That's a very good question fren but unfortunately, I don't think there are any very good answers. There's case law which is what has been argued previously in court somewhere & there is common law, which is pretty much what is commonly known to be the law, or what everyone does.
Everyone drives down the right side of the road, in this country & everyone knows that you do. If you don't, hopefully a policeman will quickly catch up to you & one way or another make sure you don't endanger anyone or yourself. There might be a law somewhere that we are suppose to drive on the right but even if there isn't, you are not going to get far in court trying to argue that either side is OK. You might get some sort of insanity plea but they are not going to let you back on the roads again after winning the right to drive down either side of the road & this is FOR OBVIOUS REASONS.
What is right & wrong is not always that obvious though, That's supposedly why we have lawyers & judges but unfortunately that can be abused in all this lawfare crap we have seen. It's a difficult question to know what is law which is why I think we need to minimize trivial laws. We need to enforce basic human rights though. I mean like, everyone knows you don't go into another country in the guise of helping them but instead steal their resources & kidnap their children, even if the secretary of state at the time gives you the wink & nod that its OK. I'm thinking of Hillary of course.
Everyone knows that what Hillary did is clearly wrong by the laws of ANY country. (There are woke tards out there in denial but if they really realize what she did that they would agree it is clearly wrong & a very serious wrong at that) Hopefully justice will be served. On the other hand, someone who did what they could to prevent children from being kidnapped need to be absolved of any trivial law they might have done to prevent it. For instance, maybe the only way they could have caught up to a van fleeing with stolen children would have been to drive down the wrong side of the road for a short bit enough to shoot out the tires of that van & save the children. That would be one case when driving down the wrong side of the road was clearly NOT illegal but the right thing to do. In fact it would have been wrong not to. IDK the specific case Trump is referring to here but in a similar way if someone breaks some minor law to save the country they MUST be absolved of that minor law because, in like manor to NOT break that minor law would be wrong.
We need real lawyers & real judges though to decide these things not these Soros installed party hacks that are all over the place these days. They are the travesty of justice & with them installed it would be better to have no justice at all.....
Good analysis! I’m going to throw some further thoughts out there:
To citizens, statutes are just suggestions written down from previous court cases, or studied best practice (careful!) in common law, where to government they are binding.
Demand trial by jury, and educate your fellow citizens on the particulars of it. NULLIFICATION is important. Tom Woods’ book Nullification goes over it in detail
All righteous laws are Biblical, and the Biblical civic/justice teachings are very interesting. Regardless of religious beliefs, there is no separation of justice from moral framework - https://americanheritage.org/the-bible-inspired-influences-on-the-u-s-constitution-and-u-s-bill-of-rights/ For anyone who has issues with modern Christianity, me too. [They] have done a lot of corrupting that needs to be addressed. Yet the root is good.
timestamp 13:32 EST
u/#q1332
Also, Peter Strzok wiped his X account today.
u/#happening
Link to the video:
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=G2qIXXafxCQ
Best video evar. Returning power back to we the people.
Is N.E. simlar to a boston accent?
Ah, yer wicked smaht.
It's a quote attributed to Napoleon Bonaparte. Here's another NB quote, frens...
u/#q3466
He who violates laws in order to save Himself at the cost of His Country Saves neither Himself nor His Country.
--Joe Biden --Adam Shifty Schiff --Bill Clinton --Barrack Obama (USA not Kenya) --Sean Penn --Fauci --Bill Gates --Peter Strok --George Castanza
Damnit George not You Too!!!!
George Cantstanzya
I was thinking about Abe Lincoln with that post.
Here’s a stupid question:
What ARE the laws?
We have the statutes under USC, that nobody but lawyers know. We have codes, mandates, yada yada yada.
One thing we learned during covid though, is that mandates, and many other terms are not **LAW”.
So what LAWS are we under? And meanwhile…
“Ignorance of the law is no excuse for violation of the law.”
Someone had a comment a while back that linked to the register that underlies the USC, but is THAT the law?
More than that, law is subject to jurisdictions, and supposedly we have common law foundations, but as Christine_Grab has pointed out, the common law currently has no teeth, even though it’s supposedly our law system. SO WHAT IS THE LAW?
“Just stay under the speed limit and keep your DL current.”
Judges: Ignorance of the law is no excuse
Also judges: Intent is the key!! She's not guilty because she had no intent to break the law, intent intent intent
So then... How could I have intent to break a law I don't even know exists, ya jackasses?
But what law is the judge judging there, and are judges intended to be the source of the law or conveners and referees of judgment?
Call that judge on his interpretation of the law being his own opinion and/or his haughty reading of his own perception of a man’s heart.
“So justice is your imagination? Aren’t you a special little boy? I demand a trial by jury, as is my constitutional right.”
Maybe want to be more diplomatic than that, or maybe not!
My understanding is USC us corporate policy. So you are correct.
That's a very good question fren but unfortunately, I don't think there are any very good answers. There's case law which is what has been argued previously in court somewhere & there is common law, which is pretty much what is commonly known to be the law, or what everyone does.
Everyone drives down the right side of the road, in this country & everyone knows that you do. If you don't, hopefully a policeman will quickly catch up to you & one way or another make sure you don't endanger anyone or yourself. There might be a law somewhere that we are suppose to drive on the right but even if there isn't, you are not going to get far in court trying to argue that either side is OK. You might get some sort of insanity plea but they are not going to let you back on the roads again after winning the right to drive down either side of the road & this is FOR OBVIOUS REASONS.
What is right & wrong is not always that obvious though, That's supposedly why we have lawyers & judges but unfortunately that can be abused in all this lawfare crap we have seen. It's a difficult question to know what is law which is why I think we need to minimize trivial laws. We need to enforce basic human rights though. I mean like, everyone knows you don't go into another country in the guise of helping them but instead steal their resources & kidnap their children, even if the secretary of state at the time gives you the wink & nod that its OK. I'm thinking of Hillary of course.
Everyone knows that what Hillary did is clearly wrong by the laws of ANY country. (There are woke tards out there in denial but if they really realize what she did that they would agree it is clearly wrong & a very serious wrong at that) Hopefully justice will be served. On the other hand, someone who did what they could to prevent children from being kidnapped need to be absolved of any trivial law they might have done to prevent it. For instance, maybe the only way they could have caught up to a van fleeing with stolen children would have been to drive down the wrong side of the road for a short bit enough to shoot out the tires of that van & save the children. That would be one case when driving down the wrong side of the road was clearly NOT illegal but the right thing to do. In fact it would have been wrong not to. IDK the specific case Trump is referring to here but in a similar way if someone breaks some minor law to save the country they MUST be absolved of that minor law because, in like manor to NOT break that minor law would be wrong.
We need real lawyers & real judges though to decide these things not these Soros installed party hacks that are all over the place these days. They are the travesty of justice & with them installed it would be better to have no justice at all.....
Good analysis! I’m going to throw some further thoughts out there:
Good points, so ultimately the law comes from God
In the 17th year of the 16 year plan to destroy America. So, we'd be in shambles right now if HRC would have "won"
Love you bro. Hope all is well. Maybe we can catch up sometime. God bless
I like how he looks handsome in his Twitter pic
I think it's the same picture he's had on twatter since he joined
"In times of war, the law falls silent", Cicero.
He who triggers the libtards does not violate any Law.
Why? He's taking the gloves off. It's happening.