Disclaimer: I am not an attorney, I love law and enjoy learning and talking about it. These posts are my thoughts and submitted for your consideration and discussion.
Law is not policy, it is not “orders,” it is not rules or executive orders, it is law. Law comes in several forms: God’s Law, Constitutional law, Common Law, statutory law, the Laws of Nature, the Laws of Physics etc. Law properly defined also fit certain criteria- Must confirm and be consistent with God’s law, consistent with the Principles of freedom to be constitutional law, statutory law consistent with the Principles of the Constitution and so on. Knowing this to be true one can clearly understand when laws are lawful or they are unlawful. It is also important to understand the difference between what is lawful and legal (Color of law) which sounds like law, smells like law but in fact is not lawful at all. (Read USC Title 18 for example.)
I also mentioned Statutory law- when lawfully created are laws. The proper creation of a law is done by Congress in Article 1, Section 8 for federal laws and Article 3, section 1 of the state Constitution, in these clauses exists several provisions to defend my position, one is the consistency with the Principles of freedom and the other is the enactment clause by the legislature basically stating “We the People of Idaho believe this law to not only be consistent with the Principles of the Constitution, it is a law that we have voted as a people not law by corporations or the Corporate lobby.
If a law is created and is unlawful, the nullification by a jury is important because it overrides the magistrate and the legislature and it is a lawful check on the abuse of power by a government entity. Magistrates today have elevated their positions to deny jury trials as well as to tell the jury what lawful is meaning they are uninformed which I see as a violation of the Constitution as well. Magistrates and members of the BAR also hand pick juries which is also unconstitutional because of the “informed jury of your peers” provision.
When it comes to policy, executive orders, Mayors orders etc. these are administrative and have been confirmed in my personal conversation with AG Wasden. He said: “Policy is not law.” So, if Administrative policy isn’t law, why are we enforcing as if it is? Policy and orders weren’t created by the legislature or Congress so how can it be law? There is no other way to explain it. Is there?
In the Executive, the Governor can make EO’s but they apply to those in his branch, not the people because he is not a King. Mayor’s Orders are the same way. He or She can make orders but they don’t apply to the people, they apply to those that are under his/her authority. At this point, it should not make any difference why these policies were created or what their mindset was when they made them, they either have lawful authority or they don’t and the Mayor’s clearly don’t so why is law enforcement enforcing them?
This calls into question the purpose of law enforcement. Are they do defend the state from the people or to defend the people from the state? The latter would clearly be more consistent with the Oath to the Constitution than the former.
Law enforcement I believe was best understood by reading Sir Robert Peele’s Principles of Law enforcement and I believe people’s relationship with law enforcement would be better if they were adhered to but you know like I do, when a society becomes increasingly lawless it has the need for more masters as our founders said and this is where we are today but the average person has lost the understanding of the most basic problem. If we have more laws today than ever and society is becoming more lawless not less, have we not learned anything?
The Problem is that We have become Godless and no amount of law or force will bring that back. More law will force more people, even the lawful to become unruly.
Did you also know that law was created to punish those that did evil and that it was not meant to incrementally clamp down on a lawful free people? If it were, how would people then remain free?
To support policies and laws that restrict a free people would also be inconsistent with that oath, wouldn’t it?