311
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 27 Oct 2023
311 points (98.7% liked)
InsanePeopleFacebook
2534 readers
138 users here now
Screenshots of people being insane on Facebook. Please censor names/pics of end users in screenshots. Please follow the rules of lemmy.world
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
No it's more about how the state justifies enforcement the law and jurisdiction. This all started with the Moors and the whole jurisdiction argument. The Moors argue that there is no law of man that supercedes god so they used to go into court and argue under what jurisdiction granted by God did the court have. Obv it is none so the Moors argued that the court establishing jurisdiction was a violation of Moors constitutional rights.
Further complicating things is the assumption of a contract. Technically none of us agreed to be bound by laws just by being born here. So how can the state assert you agreed not to break these laws? The state is saying u broke a contract that you technically never agreed to.
To complicate things even further the law is not applied equally. Police and judges are 100% discretionary if they want to be.
So in their minds the cops don't have to enforce anything and what they're enforcing is a contract the person getting arrested or charged never agreed to in the first place.
I think you may be going down the SovCit rabbit hole yourself.
Yes, that's basically accurate for contracts. Actual law does not require you to consent to it. An entity with the authority and ability to unilaterally create and enforce law is basically the definition of a government. By existing within their territory, you are subject to their jurisdiction.
Many countries do not have a formal constitution. The constitution is a limit on the powers of government, not the source of the powers in the first place.
I'm not. Amazing how just stating their arguments is somehow interpreted by obviously unintelligent people as promotion of those concepts.
The law is a contract. Whether you like it or not. The state is required to notify the public of law changes. This is an assumed meeting of the minds. That is the literal foundation of contracts.
The Constitution is in no way a limitation of powers. It's an outline of the structures of a democratic system.
You, ma'am, are very very confused.
The state is required to notify the public because the state has decided it is required to notify the public, and the constitution, formal or informal, sets out that requirement.
In parts of history and the world, there is/was no such requirement. The Sovereign's word is law, with no need for statute to be published or breached.
A contract needs both parties to agree to it, and to any changes, not just be notified. Laws are unilateral.
"Congress shall make no law" is the most basic of restraints. Yes, there are other parts mandating how aspects of the government shall be operated. That's because the US government was formed with a written constitution, more-or-less fully formed.
In governments that evolved over more centuries, like the UK (and I believe pre-CCP China), the initial assumption/assertion is that the sovereign has supreme executive power. Statute and case law may restrict this, and transfer power to the other branches of government that are formed - but theoretically, power flows from the grace of god, the mandate of heaven, or more practically the tip of a sword. The state has a monopoly on violence.
I'm also not sure why you think I'm a woman.
Wee cunt arent ye?
Yer ma