Latest cathartic rant:
- From: Sanity <sanity-clause@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 29 Dec 2010 12:42:31 -0800 (PST)
Sorry the HTML version doesn't come through in plain text...
*******************************************************************
Is US government grounded in “the consent of the governed”?
© 2010 by Sanity Clause RE [Rascal Emeritus]
“The power of the Executive to cast a man into prison without
formulating any charge known to the law, and particularly to deny him
the judgment of his peers, is in the highest degree odious and is the
foundation of all totalitarian government whether Nazi or Communist.”
- Winston Churchill, Nov. 21, 1943
I love that quote! The Key phrases I see are: “the judgment of his
peers” and “totalitarian government.” Totalitarian government isn’t
limited to “Nazi or Communist” but includes fascist, dictators, feudal
aristocracy prior to Magna Charta, religions [e.g. Galileo] and every
other type of oligarchy including Athenian style “democracy” which was
supported by neutered slaves and by no means egalitarian. Too, in the
US it’s not just the executive that can and does deny folks “the
judgment of (their) peers” because judges can and will often lock you
up if you don’t kowtow before their ‘majesty’ as if they were
incarnations of the office they are privileged to hold.
NOTE: Etymology is a fascinating hobby. “Magistrate” sounds a whole
lot like “majesty” doesn’t it? That is no accident; their
etymological root is the same. So, is the Noble Appellation “The
Honorable” a de facto Title of Nobility, or does it ‘look like a
duck’? No matter what words it tries to hide behind, tyranny is as
tyranny does.
Contempt of court is one thing, and contempt for judges is something
else. To idolize judges is idolatry, so I don’t. Judges are human,
not gods, and just because they hold office does not mean their
behavior is always “Honorable.” Missouri Rule 36.01 (b) states,
verbatim: “If the contempt charged involves disrespect to or criticism
of a judge, that judge is disqualified from proceeding at the trial or
hearing except with the defendant’s consent.” [emphasis supplied]
That Rule has “the force and effect of law” according to Missouri’s
Constitution, at Article V, Section 5; but whether or not that
promised protection of the “law” actually exists is proven, like
pudding, by tasting it, not by blind faith and trust in high sounding
words.
I dissent from the bombastic declaration that: “The judiciary must be
independent in order to do justice.” The judiciary is either licensed
“by the consent of the governed” to serve the public’s trust or it is
outlaw! Judges are either public servants, or America is under the
rule of an oligarchy; pre-Magna Charta feudalism by another name.
There is no way judges can be both “independent” and licensed by the
public’s consent.
Jesus loved the money changers He threw out of the Temple, but He
didn’t like them or what they were doing. To love is one thing, but
honor and respect are optional. When offices sanctify the holders of
them, the end justifies the means and tyranny reigns.
Ignorance of the law excuses no one, but to say that someone is not
qualified to know the law ipso facto admits they can not knowingly
break the law; too, if only those who are ‘in the know’ can knowingly
traverse the law’s prohibitions, then only they can act in mens rea
[with a guilty mind], which is an essential element in felony
prosecutions.
Bottom line: “No one is above the law!” is a sick joke when anyone is
above the law, and G.W. Bush has openly confessed to the crime against
humanity of ordering torture... Dubya and his cronies stand as “above
the law” as anyone in history ever has.
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Latest cathartic rant:
- From: sam
- Re: Latest cathartic rant:
- Prev by Date: Re: Obamacare Death Panels are Back
- Next by Date: Re: Obamacare Death Panels are Back
- Previous by thread: What I never understand
- Next by thread: Re: Latest cathartic rant:
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
