Comment: We don't need a congress member

(See in situ)

In reply to comment: I'm not disagreeing with you. (see in situ)

We don't need a congress member

to say this. We need a Jury to say this. 7th amendment:

"In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law."

Once the Jury interprets the law this will have then been correctly inpterpreted and the precendent is set. A jury's power is only limited to the rules of Common Law. This means that the Jury would even have the power to not only issue the interpretation of fact and law but could even issue a court order to have the opinion be read in live seesion of legislature and delivered certified mail to every member of all legislatures and bureaucrats. This is why it boggles my mind as to why the liberty movement is so focused on politics and not the courts. Many to most in the liberty movement, it seems, are into the game of politics and it seems they take action based on opinion instead well examined self-evident facts of Law itself. I would argue that this is exactly how we got into this mess. Everyone operating on being sooo sure in their opinions about what "needs" to be done to "fix" things and then putting vast time and economic resources into a game that they don't really understand. This means that this political strategy's logical answer to the current political paradigm is to elect a majority body and pass legislation to repeal or alter unconstitutional codes, statutes and policy, all while never realizing that codes and statutes never applied to any entity that does not have a valid contract for binding to such political rules.

In fact when you really examine the whole reason for Common Law it was all about precedent which was completely for the purpose of keeping the Law consistent so that people could have a solid foundation for conducting business and maintaining peace with procedures of finding truth aka real justice. By having a solid foundation the Law itself was able to wittle itself down to simple fundamental truths that everyone could comprehend and be aware of. This is why ignorance of the Law is not a defense because it was well established simple, unchanging and entirely based on procedures for finding truth and protecting innocence from indescriminate harm or injury aka the protections of law. By accepting a foundation of a legislative body making whatever rules it wants then the precedent is constantly changing which on its face is fundamentally wrong because precedent is inherently abhorrent to change. The entire purpose of Law itself is to seek and interpret as to what is logically congruent from Divine law to Natural law, to Common law to Organic Law to Constitutional Law to Code/Statutes to internal regulation and standrard operating procedures. There is a logically congruent and consistent path through interpetation of this inate heirarchy of law that makes things very simple and efficient through solid and unchanging precedent and through isolated applications to discrete capacities.

Under a logical paradigm where code and politics applies to everyone eliminating our ignorance of the Law means everyone has to read, comprehend and understand 10s of thousands of pages of new code every year on top of the millions of pages of Code on the books already in States and Fed. This means that precedent is constantly changing and at any given moment a law abiding man or woman may just arbitrarily become a criminal and have their life destroyed because a few hundred people put some ink on a page somewhere and said hey you have to obey this and pay for this to apply to you. It also means that we have to perform MASSIVE intelligence gathering CONSTANTLY to perform thorough background checks and vetting of those who we will entrust with a vote of confidence and if they still break the law then our only recourse is to organize the masses and recall them or vote them out next time around after more damage to our law is done. This is insanity and those who actually want this scenario loses my support because it seems self-evident that this is a death spiral of a lost and lawless society. If I have ever seen a failure in logic it is accepting this current democracy as a just and lawful and actually preferring this over the rule of law.

So in the end who cares what congress says if the courts are setting precedent across the country. It won't matter what they say if the courts operate lawfully and Juries return to the protections of law.

The most powerful Law of Nature is Time. It is finite and we all will run out of it. Use this Law to your advantage, for it offers you infinite possibilities...