(FB 1544306457 Timestamp)
A PROFOUND LESSON IN AMERICAN CONSTITUTIONAL MEANING
—“Curt, First of all, I’ll correct a point you make that is actually mistaken. It’s commonly made by leftists in connection with the First Amendment: …”The rule of law does not protect the people other than it limits the state, under the courts, to actions permitted in the constitution…”… No, it also obliges the state to protect its citizens from infringement of rights posed by others.
… Two, the constitution is not absolutist. It is not law that encodes in itself as law indelibility. That being said, although I am not a constitutional law expert, I believe that it does enshrine a set of principles that cannot be controverted by subseqâ¦See More
—“…rule of law…obliges the state..”—-
Read the constitution and find that. You wont. And its very interesting that you wont. The inference is in the preamble, and in the second paragraph of the declaration. Why? under our constitution we are all just ordinary peers (equals) contracting the services of government from one another and we are all responsible for one another under that rule of traditional english, anglo saxon, germanic proto germanic, common law we call tort under nomocracy. Government without rulers: rule of law.
We bear the burden.
We bear that burden in order to prevent the redevelopment of Rule. The rule the left has sought to restore. By circumventing the constitution via the weakness in it: the supreme court’s ability to make law.
“Every man a citizen, a sheriff, a warrior, a sovereign”.
We are not continental serfs, or obliged britons. We are americans – and the state but a service like any other we consume. and if that is no longer the case, then we are equally permitted under our declaration and constitution to replace this government which restores our rule and revokes rule from that government-become-ruler.