Mar 23 2011
(This is a standalone post apart from the chronological grouping of all previous posts. It is meant as a rebuttal to the popular video “Overview of America,” in the video segment titled “The American Form of Government” (video 2 of 4) by the John Birch Society, and will likewise be made into an audiovisual project.)
When Benjamin Franklin exited the Constitutional Convention, he was asked by a woman, “Sir, what have you given us?” His response was, “A Republic, Ma’am, if you can keep it.”
The problem in our country today is that no one, not even our Founding Fathers, has properly defined what a Republic is, which makes it difficult for anyone to know how to “keep” it. In order to keep or maintain something, we first must have a clear definition of what it is and how it functions, in order to recognize when it has become dysfunctional. For example, someone who does not know what a clock is will not be able to recognize when it is working improperly and thus will not be capable of keeping or maintaining it. In order to keep our republic, we must first define it.
In the video segment “The American Form of Government” by the John Birch Society, the word “republic” is broken down to its Latin origin. With “Res” meaning “Thing” and “Publica” meaning “Public,” the author defines a republic as “The Public Thing,” or “The Law.” The video goes on to explain, “A true republic is one where the government is limited by Law, leaving the people alone.” This definition however, serves only to confuse, as it leads us to question, WHAT LAW, or more importantly, WHOSE LAW?
Every republic operates according to its own version of law, which explains the vast differences in each republic today. The Islamic Republic of Iran operates according to Islamic law as interpreted by its Supreme Leader. The People’s Republic of China operates according to Communist law as interpreted by the Chinese Communist Party. The Republic of the Congo operates according to the law established by the next person who successfully executes a government coup and survives long enough to impose it. Each of these forms of government claim to be republics, as each operates according to its own interpretation of law. Here we find the weakness in this definition. If a republic is a government limited by law, but the law is whatever the people or government want it to be, then a republic can be anything – an oligarchy, a communist state, a democracy, etc. – so long as it is written into “law.”
If this is the case, then what prevents the American republic from becoming a theocratic oligarchy like Iran’s republic, a communist state like China’s republic, or a chaotic dictatorship like the Congolese republic?
The answer is: THE LAW.
The law that serves as a foundation for the American republic is fundamentally different from the founding law of all other republics.
To illustrate this difference, we must first understand what a law is.
What is a law?
Currently, dictionaries offer only redundant or inadequate definitions for the word “law.” A common definition for “Law” is: “A rule or collection of rules” which is tantamount to saying, “A law is a law.” Another definition for “law” is “any written rule prescribed under the authority of the state or nation,” which is inadequate due to the fact that there are many laws authorities cannot establish, such as a law banning human beings from being born with navels, or a law establishing red as everyone’s favorite color. Such examples may seem ludicrous at first but serve to demonstrate that certain laws can be made while others cannot. This means that a law is not simply “any written rule prescribed by authorities” but that a law must have a specific composition, or constitution, in order for it to qualify as a legitimate law.
What constitutes a law?
To discover the correct constitution of law, let’s use a simple analogy.
A private law a citizen can create is a legally binding document known as a check, or an agreement to pay another for goods or services rendered via a banking institution. In order to enact this law, it must contain specific components.
First, a check must be legislated. A person authorized to act for the account must legibly author a proposed action, such as the recipient’s name and the amount of money to be paid, along with other details pertaining to the account. This is the legislative component of the law.
Second, a check must be authorized. A person authorized to act for the account must confirm the proposed action, in which the authored part of the check (or the name, amount and other information) is confirmed as correct by the account holder’s signature, which signature qualifies the law for execution. This is part of the executive component of the law. (For the law to be fully executed requires the recipient’s additional confirmation that the check is, in fact, correct, plus any additional confirmations that lead to the complete execution, or cashing, of the check.)
Here we see that the legitimacy of this private law is determined by its constitution. If the check does not contain both the legislative and executive components, it cannot qualify as a law. Without the legislative component, the check contains no proposed action. Without the executive component, the check’s proposed action is not authorized for execution. However, does the combination of these two components constitute a complete law? No. Both the legislative and executive components of the check are null and void if they do not concur with mathematical truth, meaning that the amount to be paid must be mathematically correct, or must truly exist in the bank account in order for the law to be fully executed.
Thus, the most important component of this private law is mathematical truth, a component often overlooked because it is unseen. If the legislative and executive components of the law are mathematically correct, then the law itself is true. If the legislative and executive components are mathematically incorrect, then the law is false, fraudulent, or in other words, a lie. This means that the mathematical component of law is judicial, since it is mathematical truth that determines, or judges, whether a law is in fact a law.
We now have discovered the correct constitution of private law, which we will arrange in its proper order.
— The first component is mathematical truth, since truth is the basis for the other components.
— The second component is an authored or written statement based on mathematical truth.
— The third component is a confirmation that the authored statement does, in fact, concur with mathematical truth followed by the complete execution of the law.
All together, these three components – judicial, legislative and executive – constitute a private law. But does this constitution apply to all types of laws?
All laws fall into one of these three categories:
1. Private laws, which are created by individual or private authority (personal check, contract, etc.)
2. Public laws, which are created by government, or public authority (U.S. Constitution, etc.)
3. Physical or scientific laws, which are created by a higher authority or an authority greater than man since man cannot create, alter or destroy these types of laws (blue and red make purple, 1+1=2, etc.)
Since we are already familiar with the constitution of a private law, let us now determine whether this required constitution applies to public laws, which are created by public or government authority.
The Constitution of Public Law
In order for government authority to enact a public law, it must contain specific components.
First, a public law must be legislated. An individual or group having public legislative authority must author a proposed action, in such a manner that the public can comprehend what is being proposed. This is the legislative component of the law.
Second, the legislation must be authorized. An individual or group authorized to employ public executive power confirms the proposed action by signature or by some other form of consent, which qualifies the law for execution. This is the initial part of the executive component of law. This initial confirmation is then followed by the additional confirmation or consent of all who will execute the law, followed by the complete execution of the law itself. These two acts, the confirmation and execution, comprise the executive component of the law.
Here we see that the legitimacy of public law is also determined by its constitution. If a law does not contain both the legislative and executive components, the legitimacy of the law is in question. Without the legislative component, the law contains no proposed action. Without the executive component, the law is not authorized for execution or it cannot be said to have been received, in which it then cannot be executed. However, does the combination of these two components constitute a complete law? No. Both the legislative and executive components of the law are null and void if they do not concur with mathematical truth, meaning that a public government cannot create any law that is mathematically incorrect, false, or untrue.
Again it is evident that the most important component of public law is mathematical truth, a component often overlooked because it is unseen. Going back to our example, the reason public authorities cannot establish a law banning humans from being born with navels or a law proclaiming red as everyone’s favorite color is because such statements are false, untrue, or mathematically incorrect, seeing as man does not and cannot possess the authority to create these types of laws. Thus, mathematical truth determines the legitimacy of public law in the same manner as it determines the legitimacy of private law. The constitution of public law is therefore identical to the constitution of private law, in that each law made by public authority must also possess judicial, legislative and executive components.
The Constitution of Physical Law
Now let’s take a look at the constitution of a physical law. All things in the universe are governed by physical laws which are fixed, universal laws that cannot be created, altered or destroyed by man. After having observed the existence of these types of laws over the centuries, mankind has discovered that these laws have been authored in a specific, universal language – the language of mathematics. This reveals that there is a legislative component to every physical law.
Because these laws are already in effect and are applicable to all things, it is apparent that these laws have been established by some unknown source possessing the power to execute law on a universal scale. This reveals that there is also an executive component to every physical law.
Additionally, physical laws are not only legislated in the language of mathematics and executed on a universal scale, but are each in complete accordance with mathematical truth, meaning that no physical law is mathematically incorrect or otherwise in conflict with truth. This reveals that there is also a judicial component to each physical law. The judicial component of mathematical truth combined with the legislative and executive components reveals that the constitution of a physical law is identical to the constitution of private and public laws.
Together, this analysis affirms that all laws, whether natural or man-made, share the same constitution. A properly constituted or constitutional law has three components: judicial, legislative and executive . Conversely, an improperly constituted or unconstitutional law is missing one or more of these components, in which case it cannot qualify as a law. The fact that a law’s constitution determines its legitimacy reveals that there is a physical law that governs law, an initially perplexing yet entirely logical concept. If all things in the universe are governed by physical law, then so is law itself.
The fact that law is governed by physical law will prove to be one of the greatest scientific discoveries ever made. This key discovery establishes a scientific basis by which any law can be classified as true or false – a determination that has been plaguing mankind for millennia. With this knowledge, it is now possible to provide a definitive answer for the question posed at the beginning of this segment:
“What is a Law?”
Answer: A law is a combination of: 1) mathematical truth, 2) an authored statement based on mathematical truth and 3) a confirmation that the authored statement concurs with mathematical truth along with the subsequent execution, or fulfillment, of the law. Any law that concurs with this definition is demonstrably true, just, or correct. Any law that does not concur with this definition is demonstrably false, unjust, or incorrect.
Here we find that uncovering the scientific definition of law is crucial to the study and understanding of the form of government known as a Republic. If the word “law” is subject to man’s interpretation, then the word “Republic,” which is a form of government founded on law, is also subject to man’s interpretation. The result is that a “law” and a “Republic” can be defined by anyone in any way, leading to the chaotic condition where any form of government can be declared a Republic including the Monarchy, Oligarchy, Democracy and Anarchy types listed in the video by the John Birch Society1. But because law does have a scientific definition, and is therefore not subject to man’s interpretation, neither is the form of government known as a Republic.
What is a Republic?
We are now able to finally answer the question posed at the beginning of this video: What is a Republic? A Republic is a form of government that is founded on constitutional law, or a law that is mathematically correct. This means that a Republic is a TRUE form of government as it is founded on TRUE Law. By default, all other forms of government that do not fit this definition are demonstrably FALSE. This reduces all aspects of government and law to a simple binary classification of true and false, thus eliminating the need for confusing spectrums and sliding scales as a means for classifying all forms of government (as seen in the JBS video). (Such methods, however, can be useful in the classification of false forms of government – see “Against the Law – The Four Disorders of the Unconstitutional Republic”).
Now that all aspects of government and law are reduced to a simple binary classification of true and false, the next step in understanding the American form of government is to determine whether or not it qualifies as a Republic. In order to do so, the American form of government would have to contain a founding law that can be scientifically proven as mathematically correct. In other words, the American form of government must be founded on a math-based physical law. If this proves to be the case, then the American Founders, including Benjamin Franklin, were much more than a group of revolutionaries with strongly held beliefs or seemingly noble intentions. They were scientists. And whether their experiment proves correct will determine if Americans today will be able to “keep it.”
(Next Segment Coming Soon: The American Scientific Experiment: What is the Founding law of the American Republic and is it mathematically correct?)
1. All forms of government possess a founding law that determines who has the ultimate authority and power to create law. The founding law of a Monarchy dictates that the authority and power to create law is vested in a single superior person. The founding law of an Oligarchy dictates that the authority and power to created law is vested in a small group of superior men. The founding law of a Democracy dictates that the authority and power to create law is vested in a majority, whose will is supreme. Paradoxically, even Anarchy possesses a founding law dictating that there is no authority or power to create law. For more on the definitions of authority and power, click here to read the previous blog posts in chronological order.