When the government is failing to execute the laws, do the people have a right to execute justice themselves?
This is obviously a difficult philosophical question. I say "difficult" not because an answer may require hard "math", but because it may be hard to live with the implications of any given answer.
If the government is so corrupt as not to execute the laws---whether that means giving aid and comfort to public officials who engage on official misconduct, or whether it means that they are not following the Constitution or Charter that established their offices---do the people have a right to use unconventional means to execute justice?
Obviously, one consideration is simply to "vote them out of office". But what if the majority of the voters are not doing that? Can or ought the minority to initiate other measures to remove those people from office? Or what if the government official in question is not an elected official, and those who appointed him refuse to deal with him?
Are the people morally justified in opting for other measures? If so, to what extent may they rightfully go in executing such justice?
What do you think?
For example, what if:
1. The DA won't prosecute the corrupt police chief?
2. The court won't make the Child Services folks give your kids back when they have no just grounds to have taken them in the first place?
3. The police and court won't enforce the restraining order you took out against so-and-so for threatening your and your family?
4. Another citizen is harassing you or your friends or family repeatedly in such a way that he never gets caught doing it?
5. A US Senator is tremendously popular, serving his 6th term, yet he constantly votes to violate the Constitution and human rights in multiple ways.
(I don't have a right and wrong answers in mind; I'd simply like to see some discussion on this difficult question.)
Jack Pelham
Rule of Law Revolution
www.ruleoflawrevolution.com
Do you have to be a lawyer before becoming a judge?
I looked it up..heres the answer
It depends on the jurisdiction. Many state judges are elected by that state's population. When it comes to the US Supreme Court, ANYBODY can become a judge. The US Constitution does not have any educational or bar passage requirements for becoming a Supreme Court Judge. All you have to do is be nominated by the President and confirmed by the Senate as provided in the US Constitution (see Article 2, Section 2, Clause 2).
Remember that the United States is a federal republic. In other words, there are many jurisdictions, each with their own rules regarding the election or appointment of judges and other public officials.
You may not have to be a lawyer to be a judge, but you still have to convince a lot of people (or a few powerful people) that you are right for the job.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Now..Whos going to run on the CONSTITUTION PARTY??? Or whatever party will get you elected as long as you follow the Constitution.
If you are smart enough...Find an office you might be able to do..and run..even if its dog catcher...school board...whatever..RUN FOR IT.
If we want the Constitution..and not the BS crap they call laws...those who can need to..MUST RUN FOR OFFICE..and those of us not smart enough (like myself) we need to vote for you...
Freedom is another way to God...A corrupt government is a straight way to hell.
I believe in Hope & Change..I Hope the government will Change
Spindale-Rutherford County-North Carolina
Just do what they do...
ignore them (the laws that is). Laws only apply to the slaves, not the elite.
it's a mixed bag
big picture - we should attempt to obtain our remedies by educating others. in other words teach friends and family about the role of government.
middle picture - obtain remedies wherever we can utilizing existing law, attempt to shape future laws, and attempt to elect more liberty leaning politicians.
the small picture - each individual should try and live a moral life and within our means. you should also resist coercion and you should not BE coercive. you should use your god given rights to speak truth, protect yourself, and make choices as best you can.
Citizens Arrest worked here...
http://www.sgvtribune.com/ci_12471798?source=rss_viewed
Citizens arrest 27 day laborers at Rowland Heights-area Home Depot
By Daniel Tedford, Staff Writer
Posted: 05/28/2009 04:33:16 PM PDT
INDUSTRY - Officials from several area restaurants have made citizen's arrests on 27 day laborers at the Home Depot on Gale Avenue in Industry, authorities said Thursday.
Officials from businesses near the Home Depot at Gale and Fullerton Road near Rowland Heights recently complained that laborers were urinating in public and harassing customers in the parking lot.
On Tuesday, deputies warned the laborers to stay on public property. Then on Wednesday, citizens acted as witnesses and had 27 men arrested for trespassing by sheriff's deputies, said Lt. John McBride of the sheriff's Industry Station.
It would invite chaos but,....
are we not in more chaos now than we have ever been? Go for it.
Since when is it illegal or evil to enforce the law?
Vigilante justice was a common practice in the Old West. Popular drama almost always portrays it as misguided (LONESOME DOVE and BROKEN TRAIL being two exceptions).
As far as I'm concerned, too many on this website confuse righteousness with cowardice. Don't quote the Bible to me unless you are prepared to answer why "Jesus and the moneychangers" and "David and Goliath" were not evil acts, based on your definition of "evil".
Fleas can be taught nearly anything that a Congressman can.
- Mark Twain
Suppose you were an idiot. And suppose you were a member of Congress. But I repeat myself.
- Mark Twain
Congressman is the trivialist distinction for a full grown man.
- Mark Twain
All Congresses and Parliaments have a kindly feeling for idiots, and a compassion for them, on account of personal experience and heredity.
- Mark Twain
No man's life, liberty, or property are safe while the legislature is in session.
Gideon J. Tucker in Final Accounting in the Estate of A. B. (1866)
Bob, you pose a compelling question.
What makes something "right"? Is it because it is self-evident? Or is it because the government is doing it?
If laws are just, they must draw their justice either from self-evident principle, or from the agreement of the people who passed them.
The question here is whether the state has a rightful monopoly on the execution of punishment for breaking the law. In almost all cases (except the use of force in self defense), most states reserve the right exclusively. But if the state won't administer justice, shall we simply do without it?
In my view, this is one of the best arguments for staying off the slippery slope of negligence to the rule of law. Once we've started down that hill (which we have) it's awfully hard to make things right again. And it brings up questions like the question of this thread.
We can either take the easy way out and ride to the bottom of the slope, or we can try to wrestle with these things in an attempt to find some solutions.
Jack Pelham
Rule of Law Revolution
www.ruleoflawrevolution.com
Jack Pelham
www.jackpelham.com
www.ruleoflawrestoration.com
No, Our remedey is in the Law
If you do not exhaust all legal remedies offered by the Courts for any particular injury they have brought on you and/or exhausted all administrate due process requirements laid out in the regulations of any particular govt. agency for claim of damages for violation of individual rights, ect you will find your self summarily dismissed by the Courts and they will be correct in the application of justice if this exhaustion of remedies by the individual or group has not taken place.
However, if you fully exhaust the remedies offered to you and you are correct as to the facts and the law and the law sides with you in any particular case then the Courts will be forced to rule in your favor.
If the Courts fail to follow the rule of law, which appears to be the case on the surface in many instances, and I would caution against arriving at this conclusion without specific facts to back up the assertion of any particular case that one might care to discuss, then there would appear to be no other recourse that I am aware of that one could take to achieve justice.
What a tangled web we have weaved. They have police power, we have the numbers power but we can't seem to educate everybody to the same page to get the numbers power to work for us, it is a shame and we may be doomed because of it, I hope I'm wrong.
Great proposition for discussion though.
Cap'n B---a clarification, please.
Hey, Cap'n. Thanks for the thoughtful response. Let me ask a few questions to be sure I understand you.
You wrote:
Do you mean they'll be forced not to convict the defendant of some "vigilante" act if all these conditions are met?
Secondly, I suppose this depends on whether the court itself is corrupt, yes?
Having recently gone through a similar situation myself, I was faced with the sad reality that one has to "pay to play". If I wanted my small town mayor to do all the work required of him in the City Charter, it was going to come down to filing a writ of mandamus in the Chancery Court. I could not afford such an action, so I simply had to do without justice.
Similarly, imagine a situation in which a mayor is indicted by a Grand Jury for official misconduct. The DA is in bed with the mayor. He lets the indictment slide for a year with various court postponements, and then he grants a pre-trial diversion in time for the mayor to file for re-election. How does one get this Mayor removed from office?
I suppose some sort of civil suit would be the "remedy", but again, Who can afford that?
Something is certainly unjust when one has to pay for justice.
When those in power conspire together to break the law, they have a huge advantage over the public. Huge. If they are going to be dealt with from within the established system of government, it will have to be at the hands of some maverick judge who bucks their collusion.
Funny that the Declaration seems to justify the overthrowing of a government for reason of tyranny. I wonder if they would have considered that this would include a town government.
Of course, the Battle of Athens (Tennessee) is a rare chapter in American history: http://www.constitution.org/mil/tn/batathen.htm
Jack Pelham
Rule of Law Revolution
www.ruleoflawrevolution.com
Jack Pelham
www.jackpelham.com
www.ruleoflawrestoration.com
Clarifications
Q1. No because vigilante justice is not condoned or accepted by any Constitutional Court I am aware of. I was speaking in general as to the remedies offered by the Courts with respect to claims for damages by plaintiff for wrongs or injury committed against same in any particular case. You have to state a claim, or a cause of action upon which the court can offer a remedy, or relief. There has to be a statute on the books from the legislature that allows the court to offer a remedy for a claim of some damage.
Q2. If the Court is corrupt, the only recourse one has as of now would be to appeal to a higher Court. When building a case for trial one has to take great care to prepare for appeal throughout the trial in case this situation arises. If the facts in the case are supported by the law and the law is in your favor, and you can provide the case law or legal research to back your position more than likely the corrupt judge will be overturned or remanded if he does not follow the law.
The magnitude of the corruption in the justice system may be as wide as the rabbit hole is deep, and I have not heard of anybody getting to the bottom of that varmits hole yet, so in that case one should hope that there are enough conciencious judges that will be true to the oath that they swore to uphold.
From the Declaration of the thirteen united States of America, ...That to secure these Rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.--That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness.
To alter or abolish, this needs to be fully fleshed out, any takers?
Beyond,
As to altering or abolishing, my opinion is that we would do well simply to return to strict constitutional obedience. If from there we should determine that the Constitution ought to be amended to grant the Government more powers, then we ought to amend it accordingly---provided 3/4 of the states concur.
It may not be perfect, but it's way perfecter than our current corrupt version of it.
As to the idea of exhausting all legal options first, it makes me wonder just how many citizens have sued the government, as well as how many would NEED to sue the government to bring about any sweeping changes. Any thoughts on that?
Jack Pelham
Rule of Law Revolution
www.ruleoflawrevolution.com
Jack Pelham
www.jackpelham.com
www.ruleoflawrestoration.com
>>it is the Right of the
>>it is the Right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness.
To alter or abolish, this needs to be fully fleshed out, any takers?<<
It's one of those Natural Law things, basically .. one of those "Laws" that is just because it is, or that it is so entrenched and unalienable in our makeup that its nearly, if not, Divine. After all, who but God could create something so fixed and so permanent that no man could tear asunder? Which is why some people call them God's Law or Nature's Law.
And what it comes down to is that its a right because its right if you can succeed. Every person and every people on this planet has the right of the people to alter or abolish their governments, whether they realize it or not. And basically what it comes down to is having the collective ability and collective will to do so.
That, of course doesn't mean that the government is going to go peacefully when requested ... as "it" has a Natural Right of self-preservation, but of course that only applies as well if it can get away with it.
See, this is the reason why we are so screwed up. Why government is so screwed up. Most people don't understand that there is more to "right" than laws, and some people don't understand that there is more to "right" than God. Just as some people don't realize that there is more to Liberty than not having anyone tell you what to do.
Cos its not just about YOU. Its about a functioning society that is healthy and vibrant and growing to all within it. We all have a obligation and responsibility to play nice with each other in order to achieve that because we are neither capable nor desire to stand alone.
But you wouldn't go to God for creating laws on traffic, would you? No, but understanding God's laws is important in creating laws for traffic. Such as, understanding that when two objects collide, someone or something is likely to get hurt. But its not the place for the Church to create laws on traffic. Although, the more I think about it, the idea of a Theocracy isn't such a bad idea .. after all, the Church only wants a tithe, or 10% .. seems like a better bargain of a tax rate than what our on Imperial Government is imposing on us ...
Legislators don't understand that not all issues have to be solved with legislation. After all, that's all they know. That's all they can do. I wish it were different. Heck if I were President you would see me do weekly addresses to the people, and I wouldn't just give them a state of affairs, I would try to encourage and guide as well. You know, actually be a leader. I'd try to encourage and educate people on things like, not driving like such an idiot on the roads. That speed limits are important to the mechanics of traffic flow and just because there isn't a cop around doesn't mean you have the right to speed and that it doesn't matter. Put down the cell phone, get a Bluetooth! Stop texting! Things that should be common sense but because we are a selfish people that thinks that its all about US and nothing matters as long as you don't get caught, well this is the reason why laws exist. Heck, if I were President, I'd promise to NOT be politically correct. I'd be the guy on TV giving the big ol middle finger to Mahmoud Ahloveajihad and Kim Il-sung. But I'd also make sure that everything learned during the Enlightenment period was taught in public schools on the high school level, too. Anyway, I digress..
Because the failure to self-govern yourself with self-restraint and respect for the other people you live with in our society brings forth the natural reaction and natural progression of authoritarianism.
But the key to understanding and maintaining Liberty is to have a healthy respect for law, God, and reason, because all are needed in nearly equal proportions. Going by reason alone results in philosophies and actions that tend to get narrowed down to selfishness and self-interest to an extreme and unhealthy level. People like that believe what is right is what is absolutely best for them and what they can get away with, unless one is truly wise and has sound reason.
Having too much respect for law and authority tends to develop to an unhealthy extreme that right is all about power. And that was one of the things we were supposed to have learned, but apparently forgot, during The Enlightenment that real truth can be reasoned and real right and real virtue CAN be reasoned, whether it is or not is simply a factor of the education and mental fortitude of the individual.
And yet God is necessary because if for no other reason there needs to be the awareness and understanding that we must be accountable to our maker for all our words and deeds, and the He is a final arbitor that will hold us in judgement. God is the only way to get people to reason well and reason healthy for a society were power and self-interest fail.
For example, some people are saying that Capitalism and Free-markets have failed. They haven't failed. The reason why we have problems is because of Greed and a lack of virtue and ethics. That's God's domain. Greed and a lack of virtue will cause any economic or political system to fail.
SO. In answer to your question .. Yes, its a right. Now the question is do you have the right to inflict pain and suffering on innocent people or to act in an immoral manner in order to achieve this right? Would it be justified "for the greater good".
To that, I cannot answer. I can only say that if it were not for Samuel Adams, John Adams probably would have never been President.
That would depend
On whether you had exhausted your peaceful options first, like the free state project.
Twitter: https://twitter.com/#!/youownyou (quotes)
Website: http://www.own-yourself.com (Under construction)
Of course, popularity is
Of course, popularity is what it's about today ....Intelligence took a back seat with TV...GET rid of the bum..TRY
you-no
Isn't there supposed
to be something called a citizens arrest? What happened to that? it would be nice if we could arrest a few people like Rove,Bush, Cheney...
You get the idea and make them stand trial by the people. I think we have real cause for arrest.
It's been attempted
And fortunately for the people who atempted it, they were unarmed. Otherwise they would have been killed.
While it is probably not a
While it is probably not a popular answer, I believe that I should live by what the Bible says:
We should stand against evil, but we should never fight evil with even more evil.
AS in 1776 when ALL legal
AS in 1776 when ALL legal resonable options fail, only then can we revert to you know what...As our forefathers exampled...WE are not there yet....I will say the opposition is doing a bang up job on using the law for IT''s AGENDA, because the JUSTICES are failing to do their job..
you-no
While we should not adopt
While we should not adopt evil, we should defend our rights.
http://FlipFlopRomney.blogspot.com
1 man with courage makes a
1 man with courage makes a majority
Andrew Jackson
www.retakecongress.com
www.revolutionbroadcasting.com
www.retakecongress.com
www.revolutionbroadcasting.com
www.RJHarrismoneybomb.com
corruption is next to me
I get no help from any officials,.... its a political thing... In new york we have this
New York State Town Law
§ 268. Enforcement and remedies.
3. In case any building or structure is erected, constructed, reconstructed, altered, converted or maintained, or any building, structure or land is used, or any land is divided into lots, blocks, or sites in violation of this article or of any local law, ordinance or other regulation made under authority conferred thereby, the proper local authorities of the town, in addition to other remedies, may institute any appropriate action or proceedings to prevent such unlawful erection, construction, reconstruction, alteration, conversion, maintenance, use or division of land, to restrain, correct or abate such violation, to prevent the occupancy of said building, structure, or land or to prevent any illegal act, conduct, business or use in or about such premises; and upon the failure or refusal of the proper local officer, board or body of the town to institute any such appropriate action or proceeding for a period of ten days after written request by a resident taxpayer of the town so to proceed, any three taxpayers of the town residing in the district wherein such violation exists, who are jointly or severally aggrieved by such violation, may institute such appropriate action or proceeding in like manner as such local officer, board or body of the town is authorized to do.
I will be legally taking the law into my own hands with two other taxpayers. Sometimes there are laws written for our protection... of course they are hidden and must be found out.
This is how it works
This is the reason there are appeals ..THE Supreme Court is the LAW Definers...ONLY they can be held accountable if the LAW is NOT.upheld THE President works for them just as a police officer works for the District Justice ..The President is the Police Chief ....If the LAW fails it's duty to society, the JUSTICES are responsible to see that Justice is done..
You all know about crocked police officers ..Well is your CHIEF law enforcement officer corrupt or not ??..Tell your Court.. When JUSTICES let you down then it behoves a society to replace them..DISBEHAVIOR..
And when lower courts misbehave the Supreme Court reals them in...
AND when a President misbehaves vote him out ..AND when a member of Congress misbehaves vote him out..When JUSTICES are corrupt Society suffers..THEN GOD's LAW kicks in, but not before exhausting every human avenue of the HUMAN LAW..A corrupt Police Cief is held accountable to the supeme JUSTICES.. That is your check & balance..
Pretty DA-N good document your founders came up with..
you-no
Interesting topic
I have had this thought also. I think a mechanism to create citizens investigative teams, judiciaries, law enforcement, law creation and repeal, etc. would be powerful tools, but how could it effectively be done? Checks and balances would need to be created. Perhaps these teams could be drawn at random from a qualified group of people who have been tested as to their knowledge of good government and the common abuses thereof. (Perhaps a mandatory reading list and test of knowledge. I feel the same way about voting though - I think it should be open to everyone, but think that people should have to pass a test first.)
Checks would have to be implemented against rouge teams. Would be interested in hearing others brainstorming on the subject.
Passing a test rquires
Pasing a test requires regulation ..BUT WHO set regulation ..WHY , the U.S.CONSTITUTION backed by the people...So you are right back to where we are..
you-no
It's a shitty situation to have to encounter
But the answer is obviously yes.
Willfully debauching the rule of law is a more insidious offense than breaking a law.
If it just goes on, society breaks as a whole. That is worse than some knuckle head stealing $50.
_________________________________
My liberty-minded home base of thought:
www.ponderthis.net
_________________________________
Freedom - Peace - Prosperity
Kemp, you make a good point.
If a man steals a car or a boat, he's probably going to jail---even a loner who has never promised anything to anybody, and who is in no way a public figure. Yet let a man get into public office and commit official misconduct, and he will almost certainly be treated more leniently than the man who stole the car.
One car might be worth 30,000, while one lawless public official likely costs the taxpayers far in excess of that amount.
And the money aside, I think the biggest transgression is on account of not only the oath of office the guy took, but that he campaigned by asking people to entrust him as a public servant. The breach of that trust, in my view, is more egregious even than the breach of the law.
But most of us Americans don't care. I just saw a little town in Tennessee get its governmental mafia exposed, and then the people turned right around and re-elected the mayor, who had been indicted only a year ago for official misconduct. Makes me think of Marion Berry in DC.
When the PEOPLE want corruption, there is no refuge for honest citizens.
Jack Pelham
Rule of Law Revolution
www.ruleoflawrevolution.com
Jack Pelham
www.jackpelham.com
www.ruleoflawrestoration.com
Society has become corrupt & accepts it as norm..
YOUR last statement hit the nail square ..This is where we are today.
you-no
You have an interesting opinion
So, what you're saying is that when a person steals from other people (lets call them group A) in manner that's not agreed to by a bunch of other people (lets call them group B), it's not ok, but when that same person agrees with the people of group B to steal from the people in group A, it's OK, so long as the majority of the people in group B are willing to write down what they're going to steal and how.
Which group do you want to be in on any given day?
C'mon Jack, I'd love you to respond to this.
Seriously. I believe we both find support for our respective positions in the same places. We both want more liberty, right?
If the people don't
then who will? Do they just let things go on and on? I think maybe the people have to come to a place where they can't tolerate the injustice any longer. Right now in America most people are only concerned with themselves. As long as they have a television, sports, movies, etc. they are content. If people were educated enough some of these things we see today would not be going on. How many elections do we need to go through before the people get it? I think even under the current administration if things don't get too bad they will still vote the same corrupt individuals back in. Look how many people in Congress have been there for decades. When you try to tell people we need a change they always come back with, well he/she has helped me. So if the congressman in your district helped you out you are bound forever to vote for him/her? How absurd is that. I don't think things will be able to be changed peacefully until we get rid of our current education system and truly give the future generations a real education.