Apr 15 2010
Quiz Answers 1-3 – What is wrong with each of these statements?
(This post is part 11 of a series. Please click here to read all previous posts from earliest to latest.)
Statement 1: Out of 73 Supreme Court decisions, 32 were decided by 5-4 votes in the 2006-2007 term.
Answer: The judicial branch in a republic represents mathematical truth. Thus, the purpose of any judge is to represent mathematical truth in administering justice according to the law, maintaining the rule of law, and upholding the constitution (a representation of the supreme law), which is why the rules of judicial conduct always presuppose the attributes of static intelligence – impartiality, objectivity, rationality, etc. Because the judicial branch represents mathematical truth in a republic, no judge at any level should disagree with another on an issue. Mathematical truth cannot conflict with itself; if a conflict exists then it is a conflict of truth against falsehood or falsehood against falsehood. In other words, when two judges disagree, either one of them is incorrect or they both are.
In the case of the Supreme Court, a dissenting opinion indicates that this branch as a whole no longer represents mathematical truth but that one or more of the judges has ignorantly or deliberately based their ruling on their own active, internal man-made philosophy and not the static, external mathematical truth which they are required by law and by oath to acknowledge and uphold. This type of bad judicial behavior results in one of two different scenarios based on the actions of the legislative and executive branches: correction or destruction. For example, if the people recognize the correct constitution of law, which is: 1) mathematical truth; 2) an authored statement and 3) confirmation and execution of the authored statement, the people will also recognize that a judge who fails to represent mathematical truth in upholding the law has lost his authority as a judge, and will enact new laws to protect themselves from being governed by the judge’s personal philosophy or they will take action to remove or impeach the judge due to his failure to represent mathematical truth (bad behavior). The correction of the judicial branch in a republic always requires the collective acknowledgement of an authority higher than man, which is the only way man can protect himself from being governed by man-made philosophies.
If the people do not recognize the correct constitution of law (and thus the correct role of a judge), dysfunction in the judicial branch will lead to the swift demise of the republic as judges who rule based on their own personal opinions set precedents (binding or persuasive) which hold the appearance of new legislation. The befuddled citizenry begin to uphold false judicial rulings as binding law, which not only is a usurpation of the authority and power of the legislative and executive branches to author and confirm law, but also introduces disordered “laws” into the republic, both of which will cause the republic to self-destruct according to the nature of the disorder.
In the scenario above, the frequent dissention among the members of the Supreme Court indicates ignorance of or malevolence towards constitutional law, in which the members’ personal philosophies in many instances are either setting precedent or are very close to setting precedent, which will ultimately seal the fate of our constitutional republic if such precedents are upheld by the citizenry as binding law.
Statement 2: The Secretary of the Treasury, Timothy Geithner, has asked Congress for the authority to regulate the executives of a privately-owned company.
Answer: Congress does not have the authority to grant the Secretary of the Treasury or any public official authority to “regulate” any person in a privately-owned company. In this request, we see that a public republic (the U.S. government) is seeking to usurp the authority and power of a private republic (the company) to create and execute its own private law. Under normal circumstances, only the private company can grant Timothy Geithner a position of authority over its employees, an action commonly known as “hiring.”
However, those familiar with the details of this scenario understand that this is not a normal circumstance. The reason a member of the government is asking another branch of government for authority over the actions of a private republic is because the private republic has sold the power of its liberty to the government in exchange for taxpayer dollars. Because the private company is now operating on capital that the company itself did not produce, it is no longer a private company free to confirm and execute its own private law. Instead, it finds itself subject to the legislative authority and executive power of the U.S. government, whose members consider themselves administrators of the furnished capital who will assume the authority to govern the company irrespective of the law. This authority is assumed under the guise of “protecting” the citizens of the country from the “disastrous effects” of a dysfunctional organization deemed by the men in government as “too large” or “too important” to experience the natural consequences of its behavior.
Here we find an increasingly common rationalization in which a government elected to protect and preserve the inalienable rights of the people seeks to extend this duty to include the protection of the individual from the consequences of his violation of natural law. (This rationalization seems to occur most frequently when those experiencing such consequences are the fervent political supporters of the government in question.) When a private republic fails, it is because the laws created and executed by that republic are mathematically incorrect. When this happens, competitors operating on mathematically correct laws provide a superior alternative and naturally gain prominence. However, when this natural process of self-destruction threatens the financial support of certain political parties, leaders or candidates, instead of allowing a company to self-correct or self-destruct, these political beneficiaries rush to legislate against its demise by plundering the wealth generated by other citizens operating on correct laws and redistributing it to the failing enterprise.
Contrary to popular opinion or practice, this action has the opposite of its desired effect: In the process of trying to “save” a disordered republic from the consequences of its actions by engaging in plunder, all the republics involved will become disordered and will eventually self-destruct as the plunderer (the government), the recipients of plunder (the failing company) as well as the victims of plunder (successful producers that allow themselves to be plundered) are each in violation of natural law and thus are sentenced to destruction as a whole.
(See also “Lemon Socialism” and “Privatizing Profits and Socializing Losses”)
Statement 3: Barack Obama said to a private citizen during his campaign, “I think that when you spread the wealth around, it’s good for everybody.”
Answer: The main problem with this statement is that it does not matter what Barack Obama thinks is good. It only matters what actually is, in fact, good. When it comes to human behavior, actions that are “good” are in accordance with natural law, and actions that are “bad” are in violation of natural law. Because the only natural law known to govern human behavior is the law of equality (“All men are created equal” or (God > man) and (man = man)), our only consideration must be whether the action in question is in accordance with this law or in violation of it.
That being said, the proposition that one superior man should be granted the authority and power to take wealth from some citizens and redistribute it to others as he deems necessary is a violation of the natural law of equality. The philosophy of “wealth redistribution” is based on the presumption that all men are not created equal and as such, a superior man must be delegated the supreme duty of equalizing men according to his own opinion. This act removes God’s definition of equality as the basis of law and replaces it with Barack Obama’s definition of “equality”, which definition can only be determined by Barack Obama himself.
When Barack Obama’s opinion replaces static mathematical truth as the basis of law, all laws created by the American republic become null and void and Barack Obama becomes the sole arbiter of law. A republic that removes static mathematical truth as the basis of law (abandons the image of God) is no longer a representative government that operates according to the rule of law (constitutional republic) but becomes a disordered republic (unconstitutional republic) that operates according to the opinions of men and is thus sentenced to destruction according to the nature of its disorder. Recall that a republic can become disordered in four different ways depending on the relationship of authority and power in that republic.
For example:
1. If the citizens consent to allow Barack Obama to redistribute their wealth according to his own unwritten opinion, the citizens have confirmed and executed laws that have not been legislated and have thus taken upon themselves the disorder of Socialism.
2. If the citizens consent to allow Barack Obama to redistribute their wealth according to written legislation based on his own opinion, the citizens have confirmed and executed false laws, or laws that are not based on mathematical truth, and thus have taken upon themselves the disorder of Communism.
3. If Barack Obama grants himself the authority to redistribute wealth without the consent of the citizenry, the republic has taken upon itself a Fascist disorder.
4. If Barack Obama grants himself the authority and power to redistribute wealth against the will of the citizenry under threat of injury, imprisonment or death, then the republic has taken upon itself a Totalitarian disorder.
All of these scenarios will result in the degeneration and destruction of the republic due to the fact that all are in violation of natural law.
The personal belief that all men are not created equal but that one man must be elevated to a position of superiority over others in which he himself can grant equality to the human race is not only a violation of natural law but a malicious attempt to subjugate mankind and usurp the Creator’s position as the source of man’s equality and inalienable rights. Any person engaging in such redistribution efforts would become an enemy to God and to the republic as they pervert the law into an instrument of ‘legal’ plunder, best described in Frederic Bastiat’s essay, The Law.