It’s from the State . We can be inspired by the Declaration of Independence. It’s a great document from 1776. But it’s not incorporated into the legal structure and the United States, perhaps unique on the planet earth, is truly a “Nation of Laws” rather than a Nation of Men. It is law that decides personhood. Law that decides justice. Law that decides property. Entirely constructed of law. Kind of strange really. But the USA is called an experiment.

It’s from the State

. We can be inspired by the Declaration of Independence. It’s a great document from 1776.

But it’s not incorporated into the legal structure and the United States, perhaps unique on the planet earth, is truly a “Nation of Laws” rather than a Nation of Men.
It is law that decides personhood. Law that decides justice. Law that decides property. Entirely constructed of law.
Kind of strange really. But the USA is called an experiment.
There is what we “aspire to become” as a nation, which is guided by many possible things. Politics shines a light on different directions for what we aspire to become as a nation.
But then there is “what is”. We have had situations where citizens have had less rights. Women, black people, children, mentally ill. To this day, inmates, while US citizens, have less rights than you or I. If we age old enough, we lost some rights while remaining citizens.
It’s a strange system.
===
Eye opening to me is learning about the “Color of law” the other day.
 
Something can “look like” law and even be treated “as if” law by authorities such as police or politicians.
 
But if they try to treat something that has only the color of law as if it’s the law and they BREAK the law in doing so, it is still illegal, no matter how much it may appear to be law.
 
So in this case, one can believe that we are a nation Under God. But if we try to enact public policy that breaks separation of church and state – which *is* law – it will eventually backfire because despite Under God having the color of law, it’s not law.
 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Color_(law)
Oh, I give them license. I have a no-interference policy as President of Earth. It keeps them from bothering me with their problems.
I don’t even issue currency. All up to them. But there are plenty of titles to go around. You can have any title you wish for. I know! I will officially recognize you as President of the Known Universe so that if you ever decide to visit Earth, well, you’ll have official recognition. I… won’t force anybody to worship though. They might not even call you by your proper title. But in some areas there are laws to help you with that I think.
===
Natural law is generally considered too arbitrary and cumbersome to deal with. Still, there have been cases resting as “natural law” being a part of the Constitution due to its connection with English common law as inspiration and via English common law, grants natural law legal standing.
It goes back and forth through our history.
===
We follow “High Court, American Model” of Judicial Review. But other countries do things differently. But it’s basically a similar process of determining what is and isn’t valid law.
 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judicial_review
===
Some believe that the USA ceased to exist in 1803 as they feel that the Supreme Court has excessive power over the other branches. Marbury v. Madison. I happen to appreciate Separation of Powers because it holds each side back from excessive power so long as they’re willing to make their case properly.
 
“Separation of powers is based on the idea that no branch of government should be able to exert power over any other branch without due process of law; each branch of government should have a check on the powers of the other branches of government, thus creating a regulative balance among all branches of government. The key to this idea is checks and balances. In the United States, judicial review is considered a key check on the powers of the other two branches of government by the judiciary.”
===
Oh I agree there is something higher. But that is precisely what a lot of these political battles we go through is about.
If we put a label of terrorist on somebody, do they cease to have rights?
Is mental illness a justification for lessening somebody’s citizen rights and putting them into a different class?
The law shows the outcome but how we get to the law is a moral process.
===

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


4 − = three

Leave a Reply