Identifying and Understanding the Patterns of How or Why the U.S. Legal System is Structured.Submitted by His American Majesty on Tue, 07/15/2014 - 21:26
I do not ask anyone to believe as I believe. What I believe is irrelevant as it can not create what is. That said, I believe there are clear identifiable patterns in the architecture of the entire U.S. legal system with an origin in the Declaration of Independence. It as though there has been some power or force operating behind the scenes that is unknown or unrevealed. I can not explain or describe it but the patterns of its signature is in everywhere in the legal landscape.
In a religious context either one of two things would be true. Any unknown power or force operating behind the scenes would derive from some satan or devil in control of the earth or it would derive from a god who has repeatedly sought to win hearts and minds of people. I see little point for purposes of this topic to elaborate more on the phenomenon beyond the improbability of amendments, codes, or statutes authored by different people of different generations and conforming to similar consistent patterns. As in what are the odds of something like that happening and what would you attribute it to if it has happened?
The most identifiable pattern evidenced in the architecture of the legal system is that everything is crafted as voluntary. It is as if when the Declaration of Independence defined just government power based on the consent of governed and appealed the matter before the supreme judge of the world that those terms have in fact been enforced in the structure of the legal system. Enforcement may not have always been in accordance with voluntary terms but one does not blame an architect for the failures of an enforcer.
The Declaration of Independence and subsequent constitutions have implemented a rule of just government. This rule has placed human action to pursue happiness, defend liberty or property, and enjoy life outside of government regulation by declaring them inalienable rights. Inalienable means unlimited. It means non-transferable so that no people could delegate any power to govern an inalienable right in the establishment of any constitution.
Government is in the business of regulating business (note: with regards to crime, a separate matter, it is not said government regulates crime). Since the pursuit of happiness is excluded from government interference or regulation the only thing government can regulate is business or commercial activity. It is the reason every state expressly defines a motor vehicle as a vehicle "used to transport persons or property." We are talking about a for hire commercial or business use to derive a private gain or profit. It is the reason every state expressly regulates marriage as a use to solemnize. We are not talking about any inalienable right to choose a partner but the business of marriage and jointly owned property placed under the protection of a state. It is the reason every code or statute applies to persons except paternity presumption codes which is the only place one will find the term man or men meaning something different than a person. It is a reason home offices are regulated when a home is used for a business or commercial purpose. It is a reason taxes are always based on value. You say how else would they be based ... ok ... if you produce 10 apples you are taxed 1 apple. The federal reserve note is the intellectual property of bankers. Using any value derived from intellectual property of others declared legal tender is a privilege. Even legal monetary terms have changed. Nowadays everything is an obligation because a note only transfers an obligation to pay. No debt can be extinguished as no one can redeem a federal reserve note in anything that can extinguish debt.
Whether you subscribe to any religion or not the principle money can not buy happiness is a very real concept that manifests in all things legal. The reason is not rocket science. No one has ever proposed any other way that can be used as a rule to consistently distinguish between action pursuing happiness versus action not pursuing happiness. Whether you subscribe to any religion or not the idea the love of money is the root of all evil comes from religion. Religion very much influences the legal systems of the world.
Freemen have largely brought these legal concepts to modern light in various evolutions of legal thought or legal arguments. Some argue code applicability as in what witness is testifying under oath to any first hand knowledge the code in question applies to me. Some argue payroll records as in if I am not engaged in the pursuit of happiness then where is the evidence I was deriving a private gain or profit at the time of complaint in the form of a payroll record or some other payment or benefit. Such arguments are about fundamentally questioning jurisdiction, evidence of jurisdiction, and not allowing it to be presumed by silently acquiescing.
In any event the world is going to change because the inconsistencies in the present legal structures are becoming more plain for all to see. In the U.S. there is no full and honest disclosure for anything whether it is registering property or applying for any license. No state or federal entity ever discloses parties to these business arrangements and the respective bundles of rights for all parties. Nor is the property honestly described, for instance, what is the property being registered in a birth registration? It can be plainly seen how language has been deceptively employed by the dishonest profession of attorneys. People think any natural, fundamental, and inalienable right to travel is driving. A driver license is an occupation license to transport persons or property on the public highway. It is a commercial or business use to derive a private gain or profit. It is the reason truck drivers and passenger car drivers have the same driver license distinguished only by class. One is a class A whereas the other is a class E which determines the size, weight, and cargo of persons or property that can be transported. One is also additionally designated commercial but both both are a business license.
I like referring to the driver license because I think it is a good measure of how things will turn out. If people are going to respect a constitutional system then people will have to accept that people can travel using their own property to pursue happiness, such as going to McDonald's to get food, without a license. However many people do not want that and it represents the classic opposition to constitutions. They say we can't allow everyone to just exercise their right to travel unregulated. They say do what you want while pursuing happiness except do no harm is not good enough. They say the same thing about firearms. They say we can't allow crazy people or felons to own firearms even though they have an inalienable right to self defense. Many people simply do not believe in unalienable rights to pursue happiness, defend life and liberty, or enjoy life. Many people want to trespass against some peoples inalienable rights for some purposes and as such any constitution based on such principles will be meaningless. Quite frankly people do not believe trusting in freedom to preserve their own is in their best interests.
Libertarians provide an alternate guiding principle which is non-aggression. I like that idea better than all of these ambiguities in language and hostility surrounding inalienable rights to pursue happiness. I like the idea of a free market where defense and justice services compete like any other service. I do not advocate taking the U.S. over. I advocate libertarians separating from people who demand kings. Let them have their king and tyrannies of their own making. If a bunch of people do not trust in freedom and are willing to sacrifice liberty for safety let them eat those fruits. Let libertarians geographically organize to create their own free market society and live according to their own self determination.
I am tired of all the legal hypocrisy of a system designed where everything is voluntary to obtain the consent of the governed yet arbitrarily enforced. If I asked a cop how they distinguish between a use to transport persons or property versus using ones property on the public highway to pursue happiness would they have any answer? Hell no. I am tired of all the legal hypocrisy breaking my balls my entire life over petty bullshit when officials who commit heinous or egregious acts go unpunished. Screw these criminal officials, this deceptive and perverted injustice system, and all of the citizenry who support it.