The Logic of Legal Discourse

[Quixote]

I've understood jury nullification to essentially be a power of the jury, but one that they are not, nor have to be, told that they have.

That is correct. But having the power to do something does not give one the right or authority to do it. We all have the power to do a great many illegal things, but that doesn't make it right for us to do them.

[SteveSy]

The founders were Deists. This country was built upon the Protestant fundamentals and the separation of Church and State. That is, no man spoke for God and law was morality neutral (amoral).

There was no such thing as separation of Church and State. The only thing that was commonly accepted is that there would not be a Church formed by the State as there was in England. Separation of Church and State is a disingenuous out of context quote taken from one of Thomas Jefferson’s letters to someone in England concerning matters in England. The colonists certainly accepted God as the ultimate authority and the government would adopt morality based on God’s word. History is riddled with examples showing this was the case. Congress opened with a prayer, certainly not an example of a government based on amoral standards.

I’m not religious but I accept the fact that we were founded upon Christian religious principles.

Just look at the Declaration.

When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

[John J. Bulten]

And, even to the extent that American law is self-contradictory, etc., I am comfortable with that.

Thank you for returning to the Philosophy Department.

Anything inherently self-contradictory can be pressed until it becomes explicitly so. What would you do if presented with an apparently self-contradictory single order of the court? Well, I know, you'd ask for a clarification, because a later statement of the same court can be taken as resolving the contradiction. But what if none were forthcoming? The 30th day arrives, and you still haven't found a way to escape the sanctions for your failure to do X and not to do X simultaneously. I know this is hypothetical, but so is the whole thread, and the corruptive nature of power tends to always manifest the flaws of any system.

Either you take the position "That'll never happen to me", meaning you place certain perfection in an admittedly self-contradictory system; or else "If it does I'll go down with the system", meaning that you have sworn yourself to an imperfect system; or else "If it does I'll find a solution outside of case law", meaning that you really have a different primary authority. You seem to favor the second of these, which is defensible for consistency's sake on one level but not another. But please tell me which you prefer.

I'd also point out that you DO have a second authority somewhere. Like most humans, you take actions everyday based on something (freewill, or conscience, or fate, or soul, or whatchamacallit). This something is authoritative like case law in that it directs your actions, but it chooses all sorts of courses of action for you which are not directed by case law. Perhaps you'd argue that as a lawyer, you have sworn the authority of your will or conscience to be always submissive to the authority of case law. Well, too bad for lawyers, because of the trilemma.

Whatever that something is, it is certainly a different and external chooser from "case law", which was defined as the books and papers. That something decided your going to law school, or your posting on Quatloos, was preferable to, or better than, not doing so. Why do you find some courses of action better than others, if neither is dictated nor prohibited by case law? The answer is some "chooser" in you (I don't know what name you use for it): the same chooser that also chose to swear itself bound to case law in some sense, when swearing was neither directed nor prohibited by case law.

Something free to bind itself to case law is also free to revoke that bond. Since this chooser chose to swear, as "better" for some reason than not swearing, it's conceivable that that same chooser might choose later that revoking the bond is better than remaining bound to an imperfect system. After all, there is nothing in case law to regulate your conscience.

In sum, your trilemma is: either you trust imperfection to never betray you; or you accept imperfection betraying you; or you abandon imperfection. Right now you accept the right of an imperfect, impersonal system to dictate what actions are "better" for you (i.e., legal). You've also stated that your "chooser" has occasionally disagreed with "case law" as "chooser", but you imply that you obey it regardless.

I promise you that someday you will be faced with an irreconcilable conflict between your choice and the choice of the system you've bound yourself to. It may not happen in this life, but it would be better if it did, because then you can escape betrayal by changing your fealty to a perfect system (an extant ideal law). Outside of this life there are no guarantees.

(Offhand, I'm sure you recognize, as any reasonable person would, that my occasional judicious references to "God" are entirely sensitive to the fact that many find "God" an unsettled proposition.)

[Joey Smith]

Hey, if you don't like it here, feel free to leave. There not a single TP that this country could do without. In fact, we ought to trade TPs for the Mexicans who are at least hard working and not live-at-home bums like most TPs.

[natty]

The founders were Deists. This country was built upon the Protestant fundamentals and the separation of Church and State. That is, no man spoke for God and law was morality neutral (amoral).

There was no such thing as separation of Church and State. The only thing that was commonly accepted is that there would not be a Church formed by the State as there was in England. Separation of Church and State is a disingenuous out of context quote taken from one of Thomas Jefferson’s letters to someone in England concerning matters in England. The colonists certainly accepted God as the ultimate authority and the government would adopt morality based on God’s word. History is riddled with examples showing this was the case. Congress opened with a prayer, certainly not an example of a government based on amoral standards.

During the Dark Ages, the kings of Europe turned to the Pope for their authority. Henry VIII of England rejected the Pope and set himself up as the head of the Church as well as the head of State. Church and State were one. Whatever the King said, he spoke for God. The Protestant Reformation brought rejection of any idea that the individual must go through a Pope, Church, or King for their salvation. The only mediator was Christ. That is, each individual worked out his own salvation. The Deists recognized God but believed Man was left to his own devises via Reason. Thus, the Age of Reason. This was the philosophy in vogue at the time of the Revolution.

The reason Church and State were separated in this country was because there would be no confusion in respect that when a law was enacted, God was not the authority behind it. It was merely men's reasoning which is inherently flawed. This is unlike the case in England where when the King made law, he spoke for God. See the difference?

This does not mean men as individuals can not call on their personal morality or what they personally believe God wanted. It only meant that the power of the State would not come down on those whom others thought were "outside the will of God". Sure, every law has moral implications, but morality is not INHERENT in the law. The law is thus amoral.

The result is a more peaceful coexistence, dontcha think? Has there ever been a religious war in this country?

[Cpt Banjo]

The colonists certainly accepted God as the ultimate authority and the government would adopt morality based on God’s word. History is riddled with examples showing this was the case. Congress opened with a prayer, certainly not an example of a government based on amoral standards.

I’m not religious but I accept the fact that we were founded upon Christian religious principles.

The Constitution was and is a secular document, and it doesn't adopt any particular religious viewpoint. After all, the First Amendment permits the belief in and practice of idolatry and polytheism, both of which violate Christian religious principles. And don't forget the prohibition of religious tests for federal offices.

[John J. Bulten]

The Constitution is explicit in the culminating proposition that someone who flourished 1787 years prior should be called "Our Lord".

[Dezcad]

The Constitution is explicit in the culminating proposition that someone who flourished 1787 years prior should be called "Our Lord".

Once again, you've made a distinction without explaining its significance to your point, if you even thought you had one with this statement.

[Cpt Banjo]

The Constitution is explicit in the culminating proposition that someone who flourished 1787 years prior should be called "Our Lord".

Uh huh. I bet you think that if I dated a document "Thursday, January 11, 2007," it follows that I believe in Thor and Janus. Sometimes, an expression is merely the accepted way of stating a date and doesn't mean to convey any religious belief.

[natty]

The Constitution is explicit in the culminating proposition that someone who flourished 1787 years prior should be called "Our Lord".

Who would have thunk that use of the Gregorian calender makes the user a born again Christian...

[grixit]

The Constitution is explicit in the culminating proposition that someone who flourished 1787 years prior should be called "Our Lord".

Who would have thunk that use of the Gregorian calender makes the user a born again Christian...

Well some people think using a zip code makes the user a federal subject.

It's those magic words again.

[DionysusBacchus]

Hey, if you don't like it here, feel free to leave. There not a single TP that this country could do without. In fact, we ought to trade TPs for the Mexicans who are at least hard working and not live-at-home bums like most TPs.

Wow, what an arrogant and ignorant statement. All Americans who protest an unjust tax and monetary system are losers and should leave America, and all Mexicans are hard working patriots that should be given citizenship? All those people are this and all those people are that!


Anyway, I had a question and I found this thread. Very interesting and informative for the most part. Many are definitely benefiting from the current system, so I expect those to support whatever it is that is paying thier bills, people are selfish by nature. Also the people that are afraid to take action will also protest rocking the slave boat, we might make the master mad and he’d come down on everybody. Politically I’m a Libertarian, so even if the current system was legitimate, I still would work to change it. I’m interested in both sides though, I was wondering what you guys thought of this site: http://www.freedomtofascism.com/ and the film “Freedom to Fascism”.
[/url]

[Famspear]

OK, let's see.

People who discredit tax protester arguments must be doing it because the tax system is paying their bills. OK, so people who argue that wages are not taxable must just not like to pay taxes. Now we have that out of the way. Regarding America: From Freedom to Fascism, or America: Freedom to Fascism (whatever the correct title is), this is pretty old and I suspect pretty worn out. Why don't you tell us your feelings about the film?

--Famspear

[John J. Bulten]

Hey, if you don't like it here, feel free to leave. There not a single TP that this country could do without. In fact, we ought to trade TPs for the Mexicans who are at least hard working and not live-at-home bums like most TPs.

Wow, what an arrogant and ignorant statement. All Americans who protest an unjust tax and monetary system are losers and should leave America, and all Mexicans are hard working patriots that should be given citizenship? All those people are this and all those people are that! :shock:

Anyway, I had a question and I found this thread. Very interesting and informative for the most part. Many are definitely benefiting from the current system, so I expect those to support whatever it is that is paying thier bills, people are selfish by nature. Also the people that are afraid to take action will also protest rocking the slave boat, we might make the master mad and he’d come down on everybody. Politically I’m a Libertarian, so even if the current system was legitimate, I still would work to change it. I’m interested in both sides though, I was wondering what you guys thought of this site: http://www.freedomtofascism.com/ and the film “Freedom to Fascism”.

Welcome to the minority report! Yes, "arrogant and ignorant" is pretty accurate for two out of three Quatloos moderators. I couldn't even find the antecedent for "if you don't like it here".

At losthorizons.com (where I moderate), we loved AFTF, and thought it was great theater, but it was a little inaccurate on the taxation portions. I believe Russo is taking the position that the income tax is a direct unapportioned tax, and therefore unconstitutional. The liberating truth is that the income tax is indirect, and therefore relatively benign, if you take a little time to understand the Internal Revenue Code. (The tax is only being misapplied as if it were direct.) For more feel free to check us out.

[LPC]

I’m interested in both sides though,

Yep, the check is in the mail and of course he'll still respect her in the morning.

[Nikki]

Captain, when are you going to learn that subtlety doesn't work with these people?

BTW: In their minds (what there is of them) the rank-and-file types prefer to be called something along the line of Patriotic Sovereign Supporters Of And Participants In The Tax Honesty Movement -- plus or minus a few words and rearranged in different permutations.

They aren't protesting anything. They're all willing to pay all the taxes they owe -- as soon as someone shows them the specific laws making them liable AND refuting each of their cockamamie theories.

As for the promoters, I disagree with your proposal to extradite them. They should be tried according to the law and, if convicted, sentenced to the appropriate amount of time to be served in a third-world country's prison system. Contracting them out will save the taxpayers a great deal of money.

[LPC]

Something free to bind itself to case law is also free to revoke that bond. Since this chooser chose to swear, as "better" for some reason than not swearing, it's conceivable that that same chooser might choose later that revoking the bond is better than remaining bound to an imperfect system.

This is the essence of all of Bulten's (and most other tax denial arguments):

Because the government/judiciary has made a decision that is different from the decision that *I* would make, or MIGHT someday make a decision that is different from the decision that *I* would make, or has made (or might make) a decision that is different from a decision it has made in the past, then I don't need to comply with *any* decision of the government/judiciary, and certainly don't need to pay any of my money in taxes.

In other words, Bulten is just presenting another rationale for self-deciding the law, which is anarchy.

[silversopp]

I've understood jury nullification to essentially be a power of the jury, but one that they are not, nor have to be, told that they have.

That is correct. But having the power to do something does not give one the right or authority to do it. We all have the power to do a great many illegal things, but that doesn't make it right for us to do them.

But is something really illegal if no one has ever been charged, let alone, convicted by committing the act? There are tons of laws on the books for actions that are never enforced. Like adultery, wait, they charged someone with that in Michigan. I think cursing in front of women is still illegal someplaces. I think a law that has never been, and there's no indication it ever will, be enforced is not really a law at all.

In terms of whether it is right or wrong goes off into the moral realm, which is fairly subjective. In Missouri, it was technically legal to kill anyone who was a Mormon for well over 100 years. If on a jury for a murder trial where the victim was a Mormon, would it be right to nullify the law and convict the killer? I'd say that justice would be best served by nullifying the law, even if it meant breaking an oath sworn before the trial.

[Imalawman]

Something free to bind itself to case law is also free to revoke that bond. Since this chooser chose to swear, as "better" for some reason than not swearing, it's conceivable that that same chooser might choose later that revoking the bond is better than remaining bound to an imperfect system.

This is the essence of all of Bulten's (and most other tax denial arguments):

Because the government/judiciary has made a decision that is different from the decision that *I* would make, or MIGHT someday make a decision that is different from the decision that *I* would make, or has made (or might make) a decision that is different from a decision it has made in the past, then I don't need to comply with *any* decision of the government/judiciary, and certainly don't need to pay any of my money in taxes.

In other words, Bulten is just presenting another rationale for self-deciding the law, which is anarchy.

And he's already said that he would never want a court to hear his case. Thus, he's sticking his head in the sand, while screaming "I'm right, you're wrong, I'm right, your wrong...." Scream away buddy and let us know your address when you're in jail. Maybe someone here can use their contacts and get you a cell with Pete H. Then your ultimate dreams might come to fruition.

Meanwhile, the rest of us will keep on "benefitting from the system". Here's to the system!!! (speaking of which, I am attending a 2.5 day long wine fest starting tonight. I may write some pretty crazy stuff on here, if I make it to a computer. I love the system)

[John J. Bulten]

Famspear, out of gratitude for your enlightenment about your views and the current state of legal training, I've posted some further thoughts at:

http://www.losthorizons.com/Forum3/topi ... IC_ID=1584