PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL LAW: Justice Assumes Consistency Of Understanding

The idea of ‘Justice” rests upon something we call ‘the rule of law,’ and the rule of law rests upon the written word.  The written word is governed by laws, Natural Laws.  However, there is a group of people who have a mental disability.  These people are known by many names.  I prefer to call them Progressives, but whatever name you give them, they all share the same mental disability: they have convinced themselves that these laws do not actually exist.  Well, if you can give me a little of your time, I can not only prove they exist, I can even prove it to any Progressive who actually reads this post.

I will start by asking you to picture what I mean by this sentence:

“Get my contact out of the cloud.”

Now, what does that mean?  I’ll make this easy: it means, “your dog ate my homework.”  Now, if you are a Progressive, you would accept this.  That is because Progressives honestly believe that words do not have any meaning except that which the individual reader assigns them.  In other words, the individual is empowered to believe words mean whatever they want them to mean.  For the Progressive, words never have a fixed meaning because they change with the reader.  So, if I say “get my contact out of your cloud” means “your dog ate my homework,” the Progressive has no grounds on which to object.  For me, that is what it means.  Incidentally, “Get my contact out of your cloud” actually means “get my call to start my old airplane engine out of your daydream.”

So why did I just put you through all of that?  To show you how meaningless language becomes unless it is governed by a commonly understood set of rules.  In general, language is governed by rules that tell us the sounds represented by each letter; how letters go together to form words; the thing or idea these words represent and how to put the words together to convey those ideas to each other.  But there is a set of laws that underlies this surface set of rules; a set of laws that govern the rule of language.  That law is a Natural Law.  You see, even if we describe the rules of how to use the letters to make words that make sentences, unless that set of rules remains fixed, they are still meaningless.  From the time I write “Get my contact out of your cloud,” the meaning can go from one thing to another, and further still, it can change from one reader to another.  In short, without the Natural Law of “consistency of understanding” governing the rules of language, language is nothing more than babble: we can never know what it means at any given time.

Now, if you and I cannot know what words mean from one time to another, then the rule of law becomes an irrational idea.  By definition, the rule of law is the impartial application of a written law that is commonly understood and fixed in its meaning.  As I just explained, language is governed by such a ‘rule of law’ (consistency of understanding).  It is very similar to the rule of law: it provides a sense of continuity necessary to apply the law in a consistent manner over an extended period of time.  However, the moment language is allowed to become babble, the rule of law becomes an absurdity.  If one cannot know what the written word means, then one cannot make an impartial ruling on that law.  What may be a warning to get my call to start engines out of your dreams today could be an accusation against your dog eating my homework tomorrow.  Now, how do you make a ‘fair’ judgment on anything under such conditions?

This brings us to the definition of justice:

1a :  the maintenance or administration of what is just especially by the impartial adjustment of conflicting claims or the assignment of merited rewards or punishments

b :  judge

c :  the administration of law; especially :  the establishment or determination of rights according to the rules of law or equity

2a :  the quality of being just, impartial, or fair

b (1) :  the principle or ideal of just dealing or right action (2) :  conformity to this principle or ideal :  righteousness

c :  the quality of conforming to law

3:  conformity to truth, fact, or reason :  correctness

Now, do you accept that that definition says justice means whatever I say it means?  Why not?  Because you know the rules governing language and you know that the words of the above definition do not mean that ‘justice’ is whatever I say it is — that’s why.  But what if five people in black robes tell you that the words of this definition mean whatever they say it means?  Will you believe that?  Progressive do.  In fact, that is what the last two ‘Supreme Court’ rulings were: a declaration that ‘justice’ is whatever they say it is.  But does that make it true?

In the case of Obamacare, the law is unconstitutional — by definition.  It originated in the Senate.  It contains taxes and spending.  The Constitution says such a bill must originate in the House.  Therefore, Obamacare is unconstitutional by definition.  That is a fact and cannot be argued against by a rational person.  In the ruling yesterday, Obamacare says that the States have to set up an exchange before the federal government can give people subsidies.  Obama directed the federal government to give subsidies to people living in States without exchanges.  The ‘Supreme Court’ decided that ‘State’ means federal government.  By doing so, they destroyed everything upon which their own credibility rests.  If the ‘States’ = D.C., then the Constitution is null and void, in which case, so is the ‘Supreme Court’ — unless they say otherwise.  You see, the black robes have decided that ‘State’ can mean D.C. when they want to save for Obamacare, but it refers to the fifty ‘States’ when they want to save their own power.

Do you see the contradictions created by ignoring the rules governing language?  If so, congratulations: you understand that there is a Natural Law governing the rules of language.  You understand that the meaning of the language in a written law does not change according to the desires of the person reading it.  However, if you do not see this: if you do not agree with me, then tell me why?  It can only be because you are in my head and my words mean the exact same thing for you as they do for me….or you reject my argument because you recognize what I am saying!

Psst: If you object, then you do recognize what I am saying; and if you recognize what I am saying, you have just admitted that there is a Natural Law governing the rules of language because you just applied it.  🙂

[NOTE: This means that the last two ‘Supreme Court’ rulings are not law, they are the application of force against society  to over-rule Natural Law.  That is defined as an act of war against society.  The States and the People of those States have a Natural Right to nullify and/or disregard these rulings.  In addition, if the Congress refuses to impeach the ‘Justices’ that voted for them, and Obana for defending them and refusing to enforce those laws that have been properly passed, then the States also have a right to arrest those members of the House and Senate, along with the ‘Supreme Court’ and “Executive’ and charge them with subversion.  By ignoring the letter of the Constitution and laws properly passed under it and putting personal desires in their place, our government officials are declaring war against the States and People of America.  It is time we start treating them as what they are: enemies of the People and of mankind, in general.]