The Two-Tiered System
What Is The Rule Of Law?
Let us again make use of the research in Wikipedia…
The phrase “the rule of law” refers to a political situation, not to any specific legal rule. Use of the phrase can be traced to 16th-century Britain, and in the following century the Scottish theologian Samuel Rutherford employed it in arguing against the divine right of kings. John Locke wrote that freedom in society means being subject only to laws made by a legislature that apply to everyone, with a person being otherwise free from both governmental and private restrictions upon liberty. “The rule of law” was further popularized in the 19th century by British jurist A. V. Dicey. However, the principle, if not the phrase itself, was recognized by ancient thinkers; for example, Aristotle wrote: “It is more proper that law should govern than any one of the citizens”
The rule of law implies that every person is subject to the law, including people who are lawmakers, law enforcement officials, and judges. In this sense, it stands in contrast to a monarchy or oligarchy where the rulers are held above the law. Lack of the rule of law can be found in both democracies and monarchies, for example, because of neglect or ignorance of the law, and the rule of law is more apt to decay if a government has insufficient corrective mechanisms for restoring it. The preamble of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms says “the governments of European countries which are like-minded and have a common heritage of political traditions, ideals, freedom and the rule of law”.
The Spanish Catholic historian Juan de Mariana put forward the argument in his book De rege et regis institutione (1598) that since society was formed by a “pact” among all its members, “there can be no doubt that they are able to call a king to account”. Mariana thus challenged divine right theories by stating in certain circumstances, tyrannicide (the killing or assassination of a tyrant or unjust ruler, usually for the common good) could be justified. In its sixth chapter the question whether it is lawful to overthrow a tyrant is freely discussed and answered in the affirmative, a circumstance which brought much odium upon the Jesuits, especially after the assassination of Henry IV of France, in 1610. Cardinal Robert Bellarmine also “did not believe that the institute of monarchy had any divine sanction” and shared Mariana’s belief that there were times where Catholics could lawfully remove a monarch”
What Is Injustice And The Two Tiered System?
The rule of law is not supposed to be highjacked by some Goauld government, and be used as an empty phrase that would give means to tyrannical powers to put a fist in the mouth of the constituency. When freedom of speech ceased to exist, the rule of law ceased to govern. The tyrannical powers took over the governing of the people. The freedom of speech, an inherent right recognized by all constitutional governments of the day, always goes hand in hand with freedom of assembly.
Censorship of “inconvenient truth” came a long way from WW l censorship of letters sent home by the British soldiers, to WW ll propaganda that “loose lips sink ships”, to Joseph Stalin’s “sanitization” policies and culminating with the 1989 tragedies of Tiananmen Square. The Chinese students protested for democracy, greater accountability, freedom of the press and freedom of speech. From Chinese leaders voicing regret, to the international community, human rights organizations and political analysts condemning the Chinese government, to virtually all who were of age at the time or studied about the events in school, are aware of the facts of ‘the June event’. What remains less understood is what led to those events.
One would hurry in telling me about the one Communist Party, etc.. I, was raised in Communism and lived literally the second half of my life in the most celebrated democracy of all, and am here to tell you: Do not take freedom for granted. Do not fall prey to propaganda and to the Goauld theories about allowing a hand full of (ill prepared but vociferous) individuals (they call themselves master Goaulds) to suppress what they call ‘tendencies of secession’ or ‘insubordination’ or another thing they talk about: ‘inciting to rebellion’.
Their call for Communism with an ‘iron fist’ as they say at subliminal level, on the line, so many times, is just as dangerous today in America as it was during Stalin’s rule at overliminal level in USSR. Is it not? No, it is MORE dangerous! They talk about their wish for communism only at night, when mostly they are on the line. During the day, they reiterate their right to be a protected ‘minority’ in America. They want an American Goauld State. They are but few, they sound stupid and they are, they sound ridiculous, but they are DANGEROUS. How to fight them? By keeping vigil around our democratic values, by demanding that the rule of law be recognized, that freedom of the press and freedom of speech are not highjacked in the name of The Game.
The Goauld masters around the world who managed to get themselves elected, claim they have a mandate to rule, now, as they wish. Do not ignore such claims, do not assume everybody will discount that ‘idiot’. Remember Edmund Burke: “When bad men combine, the good must associate…”, remember the social contract and exercise one’s civic duties. “…a function of free speech under our system of government is to invite dispute. It may indeed serve its high purpose when it induces a condition of unrest, creates dissatisfaction with conditions as they are, or even stirs people to anger.
Speech is often provocative and challenging. It may strike at prejudices and preconceptions and have profound unsettling effects as it presses for acceptance of an idea.” – Justice William Douglas-Terminiello vs Chicago 1949 “Justice William Brennan, reaffirmed the notion that words may not be banned simply because of their offensive or vulgar nature. Political speech is not a true threat Watts v. United States, 1969 Supreme Court ruled that Watts’ statements were “a kind of very crude offensive method of stating a political opposition to the President.” The court said the law engenders “a profound national commitment to the principle that debate on public issues should be uninhibited, robust, and wide-open, and that it may well include vehement, caustic, and sometimes unpleasantly sharp attacks on government and public officials.” “…whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government..”-(1776)
The most insidious of crimes, the biggest injustice is when a recognized tribunal, decides to deprive the citizen of his or her rights to justice and of their equality under the law. The Communist era gave us many examples of how the “rule of law” can be highjacked by a handful of individuals while the society at large feels and finds itself deprived of the right to justice. Below there is some research from Wikipedia about injustice- which as usual, I bring as supporting evidence for my argument against the Goaulds and a Goauld state.
Injustice is usually felt in relation to human action such as misuse, abuse, neglect, or malfeasance that is uncorrected or else sanctioned by a legal system or fellow human beings. The sense of injustice can be a powerful motivational condition, causing people to take action not just to defend themselves but also others who they perceive to be unfairly treated. Injustice within legal or societal standards are sometimes referred to as a two-tiered system.
A relatively common view among philosophers and other writers is that while justice and injustice may be interdependent, it is injustice that is the primary quality. Many writers have written that, while it is hard to directly define or even perceive justice, it is easy to demonstrate that injustice can be perceived by all. In the name of The Game, and supposedly in order to protect my person, the Governments had given free reign to the Goaulds.
They are now overwhelmed by the long list of trespasses of human rights, they are overwhelmed by the existence of the machine, by the queens of Sheba network, even by the existence of my invention, the Hexagon. Fear to face the music, and to become accountable makes them commit crimes today after yesterday they were only guilty of some negligence and mistakes in judgement.
“In “Federalist No. 51”, James Madison distills arguments for checks and balances in an essay often quoted for its justification of government as “the greatest of all reflections on human nature.” “The Structure of the Government Must Furnish the Proper Checks and Balances Between the Different Departments”, is an essay published on February 8, 1788, under the pseudonym Publius, The biggest threats to the government of the United States would be the ability of one governing branch to obtain too much power over another, and of factions to cause a tyranny of the majority…
The “if men were angels” quote was meant to imply that not everyone has communal interests in mind and that certain governmental officials are inevitably going to push legislation that is in their own interests, rather than in the interests of their constituents. “Federalist No. 78 argues that the power of judicial review should be used by the judicial branch to protect the liberties guaranteed to the people by the Constitution and to provide a check on the power of the legislature: Where the will of the legislature, declared in its statutes, stands in opposition to that of the people, declared in the Constitution, the judges ought to be governed by the latter rather than the former. They ought to regulate their decisions by the fundamental laws, rather than by those which are not fundamental.
Whenever a particular statute contravenes the Constitution, it will be the duty of the judicial tribunals to adhere to the latter and disregard the former.”“In The Passions of the Soul written between 1645 and 1646 Renee Descartes discussed ethics as a science, the highest and most perfect of them. Like the rest of the sciences, ethics had its roots in metaphysics. In this way, he argues for the existence of God, investigates the place of man in nature, formulates the theory of mind-body dualism, and defends free will. However, as he was a convinced rationalist, Descartes clearly states that reason is sufficient in the search for the goods that we should seek, and virtue consists in the correct reasoning that should guide our actions. Nevertheless, the quality of this reasoning depends on knowledge, because a well-informed mind will be more capable of making good choices, and it also depends on mental condition. For this reason, he said that a complete moral philosophy should include the study of the body..”
As always, I brought over some supporting quotations from Wikipedia, to justify my daily call for ‘Freedom of the mind, body and spirit’-without which the battle for the rule of law is fruitless.