Any and all laws since the creation of our Constitution that do not conform to it are in fact non-laws. No court has the right or authority to make non-laws legal laws by opinion alone, but by evidence of conforming to the Constitution. No elected body may make laws outside the parameters of the Constitution as well.
Accordingly all individual citizens are to be free to conduct their lives in a manner which suits them so long as such conduct does not have direct interference with the lives of others.
"Laws are made for men of ordinary understanding and should, therefore, be construed by the ordinary rules of common sense. Their meaning is not to be sought for in metaphysical subtleties which may make anything mean everything or nothing at pleasure." --Thomas Jefferson, letter to William Johnson, 1823
Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add 'within the limits of the law,' because law is often but the tyrant's will, and always so when it violates the rights of the individual. Thomas Jefferson
I have the right to smoke cigarettes, so long as I do not deny that right to others. The idea that my smoking in the presence of others has been show to have a direct interference of harmful effect on them has never been shown except by biased opinion and manipulated/doctored statistics any more so than the carbon dioxide I exhale or colognes, or any hundreds of other things we breathe in society. So if you take the same tack and say you have the right to breathe unadulterated air and wish to stop me from smoking in your presence, you must equally stop all the other hundreds of potentially harmful elements we humans emit into the air around us all. Failing this you are violating my Constitutional liberty to be un-obstructed in my freedom of choice to smoke when and where I choose.
If I come to your house and you have a personal rule about smoking I must conform. But you have no right to tell others they must have the same rule on their premises. This extrapolated means; that government cannot make public facilities smoke free zones because they would not be treating all equally they in truth would be singling out a smoker which is un-Constitutional and the taxation on smokers is criminal to say the least. When will Americans wake up to the fact that what society may see as a personal vice is not a matter for law and what some may opine is a public health concern does not raise to the level that justifies illegal law making.
"The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others. But it does me no injury for my neighbour to say there are twenty gods, or no god. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg."
-- Thomas Jefferson (Notes on the State of Virginia
The abuse in the making of modern laws and its effects on everyone’s liberty is the ongoing destruction of freedom as bequeathed us all by our forefathers.
Mathematical Statistics, probability or chance, along with any consensus have no place in social justice or the laws governing a free people.
Almost all traffic laws that have fines and or arrest are based on the false premise’s of the fore mentioned. The government sets an arbitrary speed limit, red lights, passing zone strips, stop signs, etc. not to aid the flow of traffic but to collect revenue when not obeyed regardless of the circumstances. Those aids are good indicators for drivers to follow, but a violation is not justification to pick the pocket of the driving public unless recklessness is in the mix and recklessness is rarely part of the fine. For every driver stopped by going over an arbitrary speed limit how many accidents would be saved from happening. My guess; would be none in a million dollars of revenue collected, because for everyone they catch a thousand more are not caught on any given stretch of road.
Cops are hired to catch criminals not fine citizens who violated arbitrary traffic laws, just imagine how many more real criminals would be caught if the focus was removed from traffic to crooks, but of coarse that would mean a serious reduction in police because they wouldn’t be needed.
Police need to get back to policing for real crime and away from law enforcement on citizens and maybe then they may pay heed of crime instead of just reacting to crimes you know, like in crime prevention only that might be asking them to actually work. And while we are at it get them out of domestic and child care squabbles they should not be mediators in domestic squabbles unless weapons are involved or a complaint of violence as apposed to the use of force, are we saying that only government has the right to use force?
When a person in a domestic condition knows they can push an issue without recourse they will, especially children in the challenge of parental authority and cops should not be substitutes for parents even when asked, they are not domestic engineers by any stretch of the imagination.
The American public does not need coddling by any part of government it needs security only beyond its capable abilities to provide for itself. The American Constitution does not allow for a nanny state but it does allow for individual responsibility and if someone does not apply their individual responsibility that’s just tough, government should not fall into the breach.
GAP
No comments:
Post a Comment