What is the law? What purpose is it supposed to fill?
To put it simply, the purpose of Law is to codify social norms. What is a
social norm? An acceptable behavior recognized by the overwhelming
majority of members in a culture. In the case of the United States, it's
original body of laws were built on the notion of "natural
Natural rights are "natural" in the same way as rules of nature. They cannot be taken away by social structures because to do so would mean breaking nature. For example, Gravity is a rule of nature. The process of defining that rule cannot change the behavior of gravity.
Likewise, you cannot tell gravity to stop working because it somehow offends your sensibilities.
Why has the law mutated from defining and defending social norms and natural states to imposing destructive ideologies?
Judge gives grandparents custody of Ohio transgender teen
Idaho must pay for transgender inmate's surgery, court
Here Comes the Meat Tax
School taxes may force long-time residents to cash out
The prevailing structure of law within the European States is "common law". The defining characteristic of all common law societies is that it's body of laws is written by legislators but defined by judges. The clearest example of the result of common law is gun control within The United States.
A Conversation With An Expert On English Language
By J. Neil Schulman, July 17, 1991
I gave Mr. Brocki my name, told him Sherryl Broyles referred me, then asked him to parse the following sentence: "A well-schooled electorate, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and read Books, shall not be infringed." Mr. Brocki informed me that the sentence was over punctuated, but that the meaning could be extracted anyway.
"A well-schooled electorate" is a nominative absolute.
"being necessary to the security of a free State" is a participial phrase modifying "electorate".
The subject (a compound subject) of the sentence is "the right of the people".
"shall not be infringed" is a verb phrase, with "not" as an adverb modifying the verb phrase "shall be infringed".
"to keep and read books" is an infinitive phrase modifying "right".
I then asked him if he could rephrase the sentence to make it clearer. Mr. Brocki said, "Because a well-schooled electorate is necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and read books shall not be infringed."
I asked: "Can the sentence be interpreted to restrict the right to keep and read books to a well-schooled electorate--say, registered voters with a high-school diploma?" He said, "No."
The Meaning of the Words in the Second Amendment
But Dr Sir I am Afraid it would blunt the keen edge they have at present which might be keept sharp for the Shawnese &c: I am convinced it would be Attended by considerable desertions. And perhaps raise a Spirit of Discontent not easily Queld amongst the best regulated troops, but much more so amongst men unused to the Yoak of Military Discipline.
--- Letter from Colonel William Fleming to Col. Adam Stephen, Oct 8, 1774, pp. 237-8. (Documentary History of Dunmore's War, 1774, Wisconsin historical society, pub. (1905))
I am unacquainted with the extent of your works, and consequently ignorant of the number or men necessary to man them. If your present numbers should be insufficient for that purpose, I would then by all means advise your making up the deficiency out of the best regulated militia that can be got.
--- George Washington (The Writings of George Washington, pp. 503-4, (G.P. Putnam & Sons, pub.)(1889))
The project of disciplining
all the militia of the United States is as futile as it would be
injurious if it were capable of being carried into execution. A
tolerable expertness in military movements is a business that requires
time and practice. It is not a day, nor a week nor even a month, that
will suffice for the attainment of it. To
oblige the great body of the yeomanry and of the other classes of
the citizens to be under arms for the purpose of going through
military exercises and evolutions, as often as might be necessary to
acquire the degree of perfection which would entitle them to the character of a well regulated militia,
would be a real grievance to the people and a serious public
inconvenience and loss.
--- The Federalist Papers, No. 29.
As you can tell, the Second Amendment is absolute in it's language; however, because of manipulations of language, the nature of common law, and a previous landmark supreme court case, it's application is radically different than the text.
The supreme court case in question is Marbury v. Madison
This text, emblazoned upon marble, gilded with the finest gold leaf, serves as the tombstone of the republic. For those unfamiliar with this Supreme Court case, it enshrined the implied ability of "judicial review", or the ability for the Judicial Branch to decide whether or not legislation is compatible with the constitution.
The result of this case was that the supreme court ruled against expanding the power of the Supreme Court, defined in Article III section 2 of the constitution, as proposed in Section 13 of the Federal Judiciary Act of 1789.
Their logic was:
If, then, the Courts are to regard the Constitution, and
the Constitution is superior to any ordinary act of the Legislature, the
Constitution, and not such ordinary act, must govern the case to which
they both apply.
Those, then, who controvert the principle that the Constitution is to be considered in court as a paramount law are reduced to the necessity of maintaining that courts must close their eyes on the Constitution, and see only the law.
However, because the court's statement:
It is emphatically the province and duty of the Judicial Department to say what the law is. Those who apply the rule to particular cases must, of necessity, expound and interpret that rule. If two laws conflict with each other, the Courts must decide on the operation of each.
Their opinion that it's the justices' duty to "expound and interpret" empowered future courts by giving them the legal precedent to redefine law by interpreting this decision.
Thomas Jefferson warned of this.
You seem to consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions; a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy. Our judges are as honest as other men, and not more so. They have, with others, the same passions for party, for power, and the privilege of their corps.... Their power [is] the more dangerous as they are in office for life, and not responsible, as the other functionaries are, to the elective control. The Constitution has erected no such single tribunal, knowing that to whatever hands confided, with the corruptions of time and party, its members would become despots. It has more wisely made all the departments co-equal and co-sovereign within themselves.
The judicial branch became the most powerful branch of government by
declaring that it decides the true meaning of the law.
Unfortunately the founders didn't know the structure of Jewish society. Had they known, they would have ensured that the courts could not overstep their duties and transform the Republic into a Kritocracy.
What followed was an expansion of federal law, a civil war over that expansion, and most notably the National Firearms Act in 1934. The National Firearms Act is clearly unconstitutional, and yet the Supreme Court has never struck down it or any other weapon prohibition.
Another interesting case which shows the same pattern of the judicial branch overstepping it's intended role is Wickard v. Filburn.
An Ohio farmer, Roscoe Filburn, was growing wheat to feed animals on his own farm. The US government had established limits on wheat production, based on the acreage owned by a farmer, to stabilize wheat prices and supplies. Filburn grew more than the limits that he was permitted and so was ordered to pay a penalty. In response, he said that because his wheat was not sold, it could not be regulated as commerce, let alone "interstate" commerce (described in the Constitution as "Commerce... among the several states").
As you can see, the judges expanded the power of the commerce clause by interpreting that all intrastate activities have an impact on interstate commerce.
More recently a lower court has interpreted the law to mean the opposite of itself.
Citing Trump’s Own Tweets, Ninth Circuit Blocks Travel Ban Again
The authority delegated to him by Congress:
8 U.S. Code § 1182. Inadmissible aliens
(f) Suspension of entry or imposition of restrictions by President Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate.
The attempt at implementing a travel ban was such a controversial issue that public servants openly spoke of ways to "sidestep the constitutional issues" in order to achieve their end goals.
The interesting part is between 55:56 and 56:26.
Noah G. Purcell explains the various ways his legal team is planning to fight the proposed travel ban to the ninth circuit court justices in a teleconference.
Which leads me back to the headline: "The quantum nature of LAW".
If law is defined on a case by case basis then there is no way to know
whether or not you've committed a crime until judgment has been passed.
Furthermore, you have no way of knowing if you're currently committing a
crime because law is practiced in ways inconsistent with how it's written,
and further interpreted in contradictory ways.
Therefore, every subject of the United States is a veritable Schrödinger's cat.
The body of procedures require that you go on trial to prove your innocence to a jury; therefore, from the State's point of view you are guilty until proven innocent, and even then you'll be marked with a scarlet letter visible to law enforcement for the duration of your lineage's existence.
Because of this, the only thing separating the guilty from innocent is enforcement.
You too could be treated as a criminal by using adblock thanks to the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act!
The "thin blue line" described by enforcers and their lackeys describes the minuscule amount of people tasked with protecting the aristocracy, not fragile social norms.
But bad cops are the minority!
Bad cops are common enough to negatively influence all aspects of law
Who is currently enforcing obviously unconstitutional laws?
Why are there so many verifiable cases of murder, violence, and robbery committed against citizens by "law enforcement"?
If the department of justice was truly acting as "public servants", corruption would be dealt with swiftly and without mercy. Instead they hide their crimes to "preserve the integrity of the law".
Likewise, if they took their oaths seriously, the Supreme Court justices would have unanimously urged congress and the senate to author an amendment which prevents any branch of government from expanding it's own abilities without the authorization of the other two branches along with the two thirds of the electorate.
The evidence I've provided shows the purpose of law is no longer to
defend fragile social norms, but instead to impose the will of the State
upon it's subjects.
The Supreme Court came to this conclusion in Town of Castle Rock v. Gonzales
Castle Rock v. Gonzales, 545 U.S. 748 (2005), is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court ruled, 7–2, that a town and its police department could not be sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for failing to enforce a restraining order, which had led to the murder of a woman's three children by her estranged husband.
The supreme court has also acknowledged this fact by ruling against civil asset forfeitures.
If law enforcement was acting to protect fragile social norms, why would they have to be leashed?
There should be obvious indicators if the Law's true purpose is to impose
the will of the State.
Citizens would shift their focus from the ineffective, impotent branches of government to whatever branch has the most verifiable power.
I would imagine that federal judges mysteriously dying, or a shift in the central focus of the political arena would be evidence enough.
The acceptance that the Supreme Court holds all the power is most evident in Roe v. Wade
The Court later rejected Roe's trimester framework, while affirming Roe 's central holding that a person has a right to abortion until viability. The Roe decision defined "viable" as being "potentially able to live outside the mother's womb, albeit with artificial aid", adding that viability "is usually placed at about seven months (28 weeks) but may occur earlier, even at 24 weeks."
No amendment was passed recognizing the natural right of infanticide;
instead, the court decreed.
And the women cheered.
Just as with oxymoronical terms, the law no longer exists if the law no longer acts in accordance with it's intended purpose.