#Law

It's always bothered me for years that sovereign citizens could be right. At least some faction of them. For those who don't know what a sovereign citizen is than here is a funny video to give you the gist https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_NZh8obqalk For a more in depth look at the origins of the movement you can watch the following video https://youtu.be/EpQEslytUlo?si=ZPtWuG1XkOACbtON

While the movement is criticized because it doesn't usually work and because it violates so much about what we all know about the law, what's usually ignored is whether or not the are right. They are just ignored because it's so wildly different than what we understand. Perhaps we really are or should technically be under some various British Laws or early laws before the 1800s. Maybe its the ignorance of modern court systems that prevent us from being under the jurisdiction of those laws.

I don't think it's ignorance of the true law at play. I don't think the sovereign citizens are right either. The more important question is. What if they are right? What makes a law right at all? If I am on former Cherokee land, why are their laws no longer valid? Why are the new laws correct?

I won't dig too into the weeds with that and I assume many of you have already figured out the answer to what's valid anyway, but that urge to acknowledge it is going to create cognitive dissonance for most. Also, What the hell does any of this have to do with Donald Trump who recently quoted Napoleon "He who saves his country has broken no law". https://x.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1890831570535055759?mx=2

The articles of confederation were the original law of the land for the United States. https://www.archives.gov/milestone-documents/articles-of-confederation

Were we breaking the law by ignoring British laws and setting up our own government. I think you all can already sense what makes a law real. That is the power and will to enforce the law. We were going to make the British die if they wanted to enforce their laws and American Citizens were willing to die to enforce theirs. Who was right? Who ever was better at violence was right. The Americans cared as much about British law as the British cared about the laws of native Americans and those laws being unwritten doesn't make them any less real.

The articles of confederation is what joined the states under a federal law. Part of the articles was the law that there should be no standing army in times of peace. Many considered this weak, but its what the founders of the United States wanted. We had a law of the land.

However, what makes a law real? That's right. Whoever is better and more willing to engage in violence to protect their ideal of the law are the ones right about the law. might is right. In 1781 a secret meeting had occurred. Curtains were shuttered, oaths were taken and the articles of confederation were replaced with the constitution by force against the wishes or even votes of anyone outside of a select few. Now the United States had 3 branches of government and the right to form standing armies.

People often praise the stability of the American system. We had the same system since 1776. It's literally the same government. No successful revolutions. It either comes from liberals who see the parts of the system they like as valid and it comes from conservatives that see us as having deviated from the "real system" and have some mythical view of the perfect republic from the 1950s. (barring the racial stuff).

It's not really true. We already covered the first revolt where the articles of confederation were used as toilet paper, but the stability of the government is an illusion. The 2nd revolution came when Abraham Lincoln remade the government. in his image. We won't talk about the 3rd one. The fourth revolt is when FDR created to form the administrative state so he could extend his influence to everything and a lot of this administrative state still stands.

The latest revolt (Ignoring the 2025 one), came about in the 60s. Where we have the first social justice warriors who pretended to be sane in order to fool normies. The normies were so fooled that Barry Goldwater became the biggest loser the Republicans ever had. Without going into some of the most insane shit that happened in the 60s/70s from this revolt you can currently look at speeches of black leaders praising a black woman who shot up a bunch of white coworkers by saying she wasn't targeting individuals but the system. It's literally word for word the same rhetoric used to defend many disgusting things today.

The 60's/70s is also where you can see the seeds of other identity movements such as the modern LGBTQ movement which was literally founded by strong proponents of pedophiles. These facts are not unknown to academics in queer history, it's literally in their curriculum. The history of all this is for a different post. The point is that these revolutions exist and at the end, a radical new understanding of the laws come about. Prior we didn't know that it was okay for a president to force integration of schools at gun point. Which begs the question, of what other changes can he impose on states at gun point?

The constitution is written in such a way where you can interpret it in whatever ways you feel like, which is what allows these revolutions or allows them to fit within the single country narrative. It is also what allows liberals lately to think the words in the 2nd amendment "Shall not be infringed" means "shall be infringed" or why attacks on the first amendment are so popular. It's because we really can nit pick about different words and make it mean whatever we want. It's not the constitution that creates laws, its judges who get to interpret it however they feel like.

As we can see. The correct interpretation of the law is the one which is backed up by violence. Trump has the police, military and the Americans who believe in the 2nd amendment on his side. He has the judges that matter on his side, and as we have seen might means right. It is quite literally true that "He who saves his country has not broken any law". You might not like it, but he can have a third term if he wants. Unfortunately for you he probably doesn't want one and JD Vance has been given the torch.

All the arguments about what the law says coming from the left who only just now cares about law, is as impotent as when sovereign citizens screech. The laws do not depend by what is written on paper, they depend on violence.

This is the same reason the law supported a preponderance of evidence for a rape that occurred 30 years ago for 5 minutes in a random department store. Now think of this from a non political standpoint for a second. How would you get a preponderance of evidence for a 5 minute event 30 years prior that was never reported at the time and wasn't caught on film? Whether Trump is guilty or not, than you know that evidence would be impossible to come across. What really mattered was the court that prosecuted him had more resources to inflict violence on him at the time than he had to inflict on them.

The law is an illusion and you get to choose your illusion if you have the might to back it up.

#sovereign-citizen #law #constitution #Trrump #might-is-right

A lively heated topic unforseen...

Which you can view by going to website address:

A mandated reporter is a person who is legally required to report any suspicion of child abuse or neglect to the relevant authorities. Teachers and psychologists are some examples of people that are required to report any known abuse. The laws are in place to prevent children from being abused and to end any possible abuse or neglect at the earliest possible stage.

Historically, American law has protected a clergy-penitent privilege for a religious confessional that is similar to attorney-client privilege. In other words, clergy are not required to tell anyone about any abuse or rape they know about. Only seven states have laws requiring priests to report this information.

Catholic priests are not the only people who hear people's confession in religious contexts. Scientology uses a process known as auditing which allegedly helps people "rid themselves of their spiritual disabilities." Like priests they are exempt from having to report any abuse they've learned about in a confession or similar process, and do not have to provide testimony in a court of law. 

A lot of people have come forward to report their experience of sexual abuse within all kinds of religious institutions. Many times people in the church know what is going on, but do nothing to stop it. A bill that started making its way through the California legislature last year would have made CA the first since 1999 to require priests to choose between violating the law or violating the seal of the confessional.

As predicted, virtually every religious institution fought back and the law was withdrawn. One bishop argued, "If any legislature can force believers to reveal their innermost thoughts and feelings shared with God in confession, then truly there is no area of human life that is free or safe from government. Another added, "Surely murder, theft, spousal abuse, child neglect and rape are terrible crimes. Would the state determine that priests are obligated to report these offenses to the authorities, should they hear of them in the confessional?"

Um... sure, why not? 

The argument is that forcing individuals to choose between the most sacrosanct part of their religious beliefs and imprisonment is what the Bill of Rights was entirely meant to avoid. Do you agree, and if so do you agree to the point where that applies to clergy and confessionals from ALL religious denominations? For instance, if I said I shouldn't have to report child molestation that I know is occurring because of my devout Pastafarianism and belief in the Flying Spaghetti Monster, would that be acceptable? And if you don't agree, explain why you think the 1st amendment does not apply to rape or child abuse.

(Man I wish I could pose this question to Q-Anon.)