Tag Archives: Cicero

Ancient Lessons for Modern Snowflakes

28 Tuesday Aug 2018

Posted by in Other Columns

≈ Comments Off on Ancient Lessons for Modern Snowflakes

Tags

, ,

Cicero would certainly be banned by the Tech Cabal.

More than 2,000 years ago, the famous Roman politician Marcus Tullius Cicero once accused his enemy Clodius of incest with his brothers and sisters.

But far from being shocking to people living at the time, this type of insult was just a part of normal everyday life, according to one prominent historian.

Professor Dr Martin Jehne of the Technische Universität Dresden says modern insults are nothing compared to those flung around ancient Rome.

According to the historian’s findings, Romans could be even more cruel than the trolls of today and would often stoop to sexual slurs to insult their opponents.

Professor Jehne said withstanding and overcoming insults can ultimately have a politically stabilising effect in society, with those who exchanged vile taunts often working together in the near future.

Recall, if you can, the recent insults hurled back and forth between Trump and Kim and the ensuing peace plan (still a work in progress). Greater minds still get it. The art of the insult. Still works sometimes. Calm the Tweets.

READERS: My departure from the mainstream socials has freed me dramatically. But it has also produced a noticeable drop in traffic. Quality verses quantity, I suppose. Still, try to help by continuing to spread the word. Bring me the intelligent and the inquisitive! Thanks. P

More Laws, Less Justice (Example 3,785,933,501)

14 Saturday Jan 2017

Posted by in Legal/Political Columns

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

, , , ,

Cicero was correct: the more laws, the less justice. The U.S. has total law, complete legislation of everything. Does that mean we have no justice at all? Martin Armstrong thinks so.

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in California has upheld the criminal conviction of Robert Kahre, the man who tried to circumvent the IRS by paying his employees in gold coin. He relied on the face value of the gold coins being below the legal threshold that triggers withholding taxes. A $20 gold coin is legal tender for only $20 — not its gold value. Gold was never demonetized. From a strict construction perspective, Kahre was correct and should not have been charged legally. However, the IRS interprets the value of the gold, not the legal tender value. The Court held that Kahre didn’t do his duty to serve as a tax collector for the United States, for which you, as an employer, are not paid. Kahre is currently serving a 15-year sentence.

You must understand that you are dancing with the devil. There is absolutely NO RULE OF LAW whatsoever and all your constitutional rights are fictional. Your liberty and human rights are in the hands of every petty government officer because they get to do whatever they desire and it has become your burden to go to court to PROVE you have any human rights. This is what happens in all republics. Whenever you have a political class, they always exert their power against the people. There is ABSOLUTELY NO HISTORICAL EXCEPTION!

A couple of things. First, Armstrong is half right: there is a rule of law: total rule under complete legislation of everything. Second, those rights are a fiction. Every once in a while a citizen wins but it is almost always a fluke. The Soviet show trials had a better acquittal ratio. Tried to redress a grievance lately?? Lastly, Kahre was stupid (brave but stupid) to try this. It’s the government’s game and they’ll change the rules when they want to. Simple as that.

This evening I did my initial and incomplete estimations for my 2016 tax returns. I’m not feeling charitable towards the cabal on the Potomac. Wouldn’t it be grand if weasels like Paul Ryan stopped crying for 11 illegal alien criminals for a second and considered a little relief for 200,000,000 oppressed citizen taxpayers?

I’ll stop now…

Somebody Went to a Convention and All I Got Was This Lousy Constitution

09 Saturday Jan 2016

Posted by in Legal/Political Columns, News and Notes

≈ Comments Off on Somebody Went to a Convention and All I Got Was This Lousy Constitution

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

About twenty years ago Newt Gingrich and the Republican party foisted upon the people something called “the contact with America.” It was a typical hollow pledge to do great things – cut the budget, reduce debt, make life freer and happier, etc. It was a gimmick and for that purpose only it was a success. I think every single provision failed. In fact, we got the exact opposite – less freedom but more of everything else government.

The masses love a good gimmick. They also have short memories. This makes for good political sport. As carnival goers flock to one rigged, losing game after another so do the people cheerfully fall for a never-ending assortment of grandiose election schemes.

All this leads me to Jonathan the Tortoise. At age 183 this remarkable reptile is the world’s oldest living animal. Over the long-span of his blissful, apple eating life Jonathan has outlasted dozens or scores of Presidents, Prime Ministers, Congresses, Kings, Queens and various other con artists and criminals. Maybe by the time the spry, jolly turtle turns 283 the world will have outgrown the foolishness of the state.

All this leads me, back around from Jonathan, to the current governor of Texas, Greg Abbott. Greg has proposed the nuclear option of the political gimmick world – a Constitutional Convention.

Actually he has called for a convention of the states which is really the same thing but substitutes idiots in Congress with idiots in state capitals. It’s in Article Five of the old parchment.

“If we are going to fight for, protect and hand on to the next generation, the freedom that [President] Reagan spoke of … then we have to take the lead to restore the rule of law in America,” Greg said to a gathering of policy hacks in the Lone Star State. He proposed to restore that rule of law by adding yet more laws. (What’s a little more sand on the beach?)

His proposal itself ran on for 70 pages and outlined a host of new Constitutional Amendments (more laws). Tully once reminded us that more laws mean less justice. Truly, it only ever results in more government. Fuel on the fire and such.

I would happily support, even participate in, a convention if its sole purpose was to abolish the United States. Of course, even that would only buy a few generations of liberty. People like government and heaps of it. Anyway, here’s a look at Greg’s potential amendments and what they would and wouldn’t do. (All following proposals taken from Dallasnews.com; my remarks italicized).

Prohibit congress from regulating activity that occurs wholly within one state. We already have this protection; it just doesn’t work. Congress can only regulate activities affecting interstate commerce which, over the past century, has been defined as anything. Stating something twice does not deter tyranny.

Require Congress to balance its budget. I almost like this one but I imagine there would be no controls on the amount of the budget nor on how the balancing might be achieved. The thieves could always print money or pile on more taxes as necessary and without end. If the current state system must be maintained, then a better limit would be to ban debt, establish a private gold currency, and abolish taxation completely. In other words, and as it once was, Washington would be left to beg the states or the people for funding without guaranteed results.

Prohibit administrative agencies from creating federal law.
Prohibit administrative agencies from preempting state law. These agencies are not allowed under the Constitution in the first place. Better to put an end to them and their Byzantine rules altogether.

Allow a two-thirds majority of the states to override a U.S. Supreme Court decision. Congress has the power to override the Court or even preempt it as is. It just doesn’t use the power. The States gave up their claim on Congress via the 17th Amendment. States would be free to ignore Court decisions but that might endanger their federal funding. They gave up their money with the 16th Amendment. Almost like a plan or something.

Require a seven-justice super-majority vote for U.S. Supreme Court decisions that invalidate a democratically enacted law. See my answer immediately above. Also, every once in a while the Supreme Court needs to rule on important Constitutional issues, democratic or not. Democracy, mob-rule with a fancy name, should be shunned in civilized places.

Restore the balance of power between the federal and state governments by limiting the former to the powers expressly delegated to it in the Constitution. This might mean repealing 16 and 17 Amendments. It might also mean the exact same as the 10th. The Empire is already so limited on paper, by law. Again, there is no magic in redundancy.

Give state officials the power to sue in federal court when federal officials overstep their bounds. Proper redress under the existing law is carried out in Congress. On paper, that is. In reality, there is no redress. Given the self-imposed legal interference I noted previously, I do not see the value in shifting venue between the branches. Also, as Greg seems to have an aversion to federal courts, this one seems self-defeating.

Allow a two-thirds majority of the states to override a federal law or regulation. I think I’ve covered this already. Those states have essentially given up their authority for cheap federal fiat money. It’s called getting what you pay for. Any state is free to override or ignore any act of Congress it finds offensive. However, the cost is generally prohibitive, monetarily speaking. A really offended state is free to leave the union. But, then, there was the long, painful lesson of 1861-1865.

Another thing to consider is the woeful quality of the people who might attend and vote in the convention. The men who debated the Constitution of old may just as well done so eons ago on a planet long destroyed in some celestial cataclysm. People today obtain their worldview from babbling, paid for nitwits on television. Their “representatives” are the most loathsome, self-absorbed, and corrupt rodents to emerge from the political sewer since Roman times. Knowing who these people are there is no knowing what evil they might do given the chance.

As I have repeated here, repeatedly, repeating laws and policies does not make them stick. It just gives the vampire class more to feed on. One hundred years hence some other governor would likely call, again, for the same failed limitations already set forth in the failed Constitution. Einstein and insanity or something similar.

It would be refreshing if this turned out to be an honest effort, misguided as it seems.  I judge this a gimmick and unlikely to survive November’s slave suggestion box election. But for my reminder who would remember the GOP’s Contract? At any rate, these conventions move at a snail’s pace. It’s more likely than not the next big change in American law will be the implementation of Sharia.

Long live Jonathan!

2FDFF70300000578-3388423-It_was_feared_Jonathan_the_giant_tortoise_was_on_his_last_legs_w-m-51_1452165903037

Jonathan and friend. Dailymail. I would trust this dinosaur with my government more than any current politician.

Reading The Law: The Ancient Alternative to Law School

07 Monday Dec 2015

Posted by in Legal/Political Columns

≈ Comments Off on Reading The Law: The Ancient Alternative to Law School

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

A few days ago I wrote a column about the trials and tribulations of a beautiful, talented young woman enrolled and embattled at the Moritz College of Law at THE Ohio State University. I’ve also written about my legal education.

Law schools have become a collection of expensive but houses where, if one can tolerate the boredom and foolishness, one is allowed the honor of applying for a state license to practice law. The courses studied in these schools bear little resemblance to the actual law. Graduation does not guarantee admittance to the Bar. Bar test preparation is left to the student once he graduates.

Many determined and intelligent students will succeed on their own merits. A few law schools do a fair job readying students for the profession; most are dismal in their attempts. Alan Watson, of whom I have sung praise before, is the preeminent expert on legal philosophy. He wrote a book, The Shame of American Legal Education, which should be required reading for any American giving serious thought to attending law school.

Watson decries the lack of intellectual rigor and dependence of the case method (religious study of court interpretation of the law) which plague American law colleges. He praises the system of his native Scotland where students attend school for a shorter period of time and actually learn both the letter of and the ideas behind the law. Following graduation the Scots apprentice under established barristers to round out their education and transition into the field.

It’s a far better approach than we Americans use. It is similar to our old system which we adopted from the British. They had adopted it from the Romans and the Greeks.

For ages attorneys were educated men who studied the law under the tutelage of a practicing attorney. A few had a short period of standardized class time at a college. This formal lecturing range from a few weeks to a year. Upon completion of the apprenticeship the budding lawyers were either certified by a local court or eligible to sit for Bar examination (if any) or they just started working on their own.

The institution was known as “reading the law.” Most of the greatest attorneys of history were produced this way. Their ranks include: Solon, Cato, Cicero, St. Thomas More, William Blackstone, Thomas Jefferson, John Adams, John Jay, Lysander Spooner, Abraham Lincoln, James Byrnes, and Robert Jackson. All of these men were accomplished attorneys. Some were titans of the field.

Marco_Porcio_Caton_Major

Cato the Elder.

In America this was the standard of legal instruction from colonial times until the early 20th Century. The College of William and Mary was the first American school with formal law lectures. These were designed to enhance the student’s apprenticeship. Jefferson attended lectures at William and Mary.

Young men were encouraged to read the law, to understand theory and application:

If you are absolutely determined to make a lawyer of yourself the thing is more than half done already. It is a small matter whether you read with any one or not. I did not read with any one. Get the books and read and study them in their every feature, and that is the main thing. It is no consequence to be in a large town while you are reading. I read at New Salem, which never had three hundred people in it. The books and your capacity for understanding them are just the same in all places.

Always bear in mind that your own resolution to succeed is more important than any other one thing.

Abraham Lincoln, 1855

Things began to change in the late 1800s. It was then the newly formed American Bar Association began to lobby states to restrict licensing to those who had attended law schools. Later the ABA commenced its practice of certifying the schools. This cartel approach of command and control protected the monopoly of the existing bar members. The results, from a quality viewpoint, were mixed. Blackstones and Jeffersons are hard to come by these days.

The radical expansion of law school power coincided with the massive growth of government. Both resulted in the growth and increased complexity of the laws. As Cicero noted, more laws means less justice. Of course, justice had nothing to do with these trends. They were premised entirely on control and money.

Nonetheless a few states still adhere to the reading tradition although it is frowned upon. Those who stand to lose prestige and tuition frown a lot.

California, Maine, New York, Vermont, Virginia, and Washington still allow reading in place of law schooling. Each has its own standards and in some a period of law school attendance is required. Out of over 80,000 new lawyers minted in 2013, less than 100 read the law.

The surviving process of reading has been lauded of late by Business Insider and the New York Times. Both note the difficulties faced by a reader.

“The A.B.A. takes the position that the most appropriate process for becoming a lawyer should include obtaining a J.D. degree from a law school approved by the A.B.A. and passing a bar examination,” said Barry A. Currier, managing director of accreditation and legal education for the group.

Robert E. Glenn, president of the Virginia Board of Bar Examiners, was less circumspect. “It’s a cruel hoax,” he said of apprenticeships. “It’s such a waste of time for someone to spend three years in this program but not have anything at the end.”

NY Times.

Of course, anything but the cartel’s way is a hoax. The frowners frown. Never mind the vast number of students who drop out of law school or graduate but cannot pass the bar. At least they paid tuition.

A few organizations exist to perpetuate the old tradition. Sterling Education Services is one. “What if, instead of a traditional law school degree and six-figure debt, you could take the bar exam and achieve your goal through hands-on legal experience?” – Sterling. These groups offer study aids and seminars. They’re looking to cash in on the alternative. Then again, these are the exact same bar prep services law school graduates turn to immediately after law school.

Though frowned upon this ancient alternative is viable. If a lawyer reads the law in a reading state and passes that state’s bar, he can then apply in other states. It would certainly warrant examination by those considering the legal profession. Those who follow this path follow in the footsteps of giants.

Gentlemen, Please Rise

02 Thursday Jul 2015

Posted by in News and Notes

≈ Comments Off on Gentlemen, Please Rise

Tags

, , , ,

Here is an excellent story from an excellent blog, Art of Manliness.

You’ve Got to Be a Man, Before You Can Be a Gentleman, Brett McKay, June 29, 2015.

Capture

Cicero, resolute unto death.

Please consider these points in our modern world even as it collapses around us. Now, when such virtues seem most irrelevant is when they are most critical.

Valediction

24 Sunday May 2015

Posted by in News and Notes

≈ 4 Comments

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

As I type this bit up I am listening to several of my friends discuss the graduation of their several children from high school.  It’s that time of year.  All across America eighteen-year-olds are preparing to say goodbye to lifelong friends, to embrace college, to join the workforce, and to become adults.  It is a joyful time.

The local fish wrapper ran, today, a separate pictorial section dedicated to our young people, their early accomplishments and their future plans.  In particular the paper dwelt upon the lives and missions of the valedictorians and salutatorians of local schools. These are young men and women who are poised to go far in life.

The news calls them the “best and brightest.”  By the popular measure of educational achievement, this moniker fits.  However, these words are today minced in a somewhat incorrect manner.  “Valedictorian” and “salutatorian” come from Latin roots – valediction and saluation.  The former is a farewell, the latter a greeting.

At ceremonies coast to coast these meanings serve a justifiable purpose.  The valedictorian speaks first to bid the class farewell to the sheltered academic lives the members have known.  The salutatorian then speaks to the promise of the coming years. Or, something like that.

Those acquainted with the works of John Taylor Gatto or who have children of school age, surely understand the decline of quality in American public education.  Gatto was formerly New York’s teacher of the year (State and City).  His distinguished career spanned decades.  Now he speaks and writes of the critical need for drastic school reform.  His writing is frequently published at lewrockwell.com.  He is the author of The Underground History of American Education: A School Teacher’s Intimate Investigation Into the Problem of Modern Schooling (2000).

Gatto has related the American model of public education to Soviet-era brainwashing:

Two years before I ran across that Atlantic broadside, I encountered a different analysis in the financial magazine Forbes. I was surprised to discover Forbes had correctly tracked the closest inspiration for school psychologizing, both its aims and its techniques, to the pedagogy of China and the Soviet Union. Not similar practices and programs, mind you, identical ones. The great initial link with Russia, I knew, had been from the Wundtian Ivan Pavlov, but the Chinese connection was news to me. I was unaware then of John Dewey’s tenure there in the 1920s, and had given no thought, for that reason, to its possible significance:

The techniques of brainwashing developed in totalitarian countries are routinely used in psychological conditioning programs imposed on school children. These include emotional shock and desensitization, psychological isolation from sources of support, stripping away defenses, manipulative cross-examination of the individual’s underlying moral values by psychological rather than rational means. These techniques are not confined to separate courses or programs…they are not isolated idiosyncracies of particular teachers. They are products of numerous books and other educational materials in programs packaged by organizations that sell such curricula to administrators and teach the techniques to teachers. Some packages even include instructions on how to deal with parents and others who object. Stripping away psychological defenses can be done through assignments to keep diaries to be discussed in group sessions, and through role-playing assignments, both techniques used in the original brainwashing programs in China under Mao.

The Forbes writer, Thomas Sowell, perhaps invoking the slave states in part to rouse the reader’s capitalist dander, could hardly have been aware himself how carefully industrial and institutional interest had seeded Russia, China, Japan, and the Pacific Islands with the doctrine of psychological schooling long ago, nearly at the beginning of the century, and in Japan’s case even before that. All along we have harvested these experimental growths in foreign soil for what they seem to prove about people-shaping.

 – Gatto, The Empty Child, Chapter 13 of The Underground History of American Public Education (2000).

“Slaves,” “people-shaping,” and “brainwashing” are alarming and damning.  However, from my experience I find them succient and apt discriptions of American education.

I was lucky growing up.  I had a slew of teachers, older and steeped in the traditions of real education – the old school way, who actually dared and cared to teach.  I remember them fondly.  Also, in high school, college and graduate school I possessed a hard-headed resilience and independence which plagues me to this day.  You may sense in my writing.

Today schools are little more than prisons crossbred with day care centers.  Our children are marched around like cattle by overweight nitwits.  They are subjected to communist indoctrination and cultural immorality.  State-worship is everywhere.  Rules must be obeyed perfectly.  Freakism of every strip is revered.  God is banned from the building.

In all this idiocy the one thing missing is teaching – learning and educational experiment are vacant in our public schools.  They are unwanted qualities among the people.  As George Carlin used to say, the system wants people just smart enough to operate the machines and file the paper – they do not want educated people capable of free thought or consideration.

By the grace of God Almightly the “best and brightest” are often times exempted from this nonesense.  Many possess those rebellious traits I hold dear.  Many are allowed to pursue real studies in real academic subjects.  These are statistical outliers.  The other children, the majority, are treated like sheep and criminals.

A boy in West Virginian was recently ARRESTED for wearing a t-shirt which expressed support for the NRA and the Second Amendment.  No-one was bothered by the shirt. The lad harmed none.  However, the Second Amendment representing the last hope of freedom for oppressed people (like students), the shirt had to be banned and demonized. In an overreaction typical of modern schools administrators, the teacher and principal called the local Gestapo.  The child was led away in handcuffs – for wearing a shirt.

The charges were later dismissed by an honest judge.  However, great damage has been done.  The boy’s mother is suing the school for violating her son’s civil rights.  Go mama!

Long ago, public schools had civics classes.  In those classes the Constitution, its traditions and foundations were taught.  This included the second amendment and the necessary right and obligation of rebellion against tyranny.  Revolution was celebrated. Today, as best I can gather, such thought or instruction would constitute a criminal offense.  Our babes are taught the government is the end all and be all of human existence.  Its supremacy and place must never be challenged.

This is a crime, in and of itself, equal with all the positive modern instruction concerning dependence, homosexuality, death culture, etc.  Anything goes and is okay, our children are taught, so long as it does not make any sense.  I imagine that math, being completely based on absolute truth, is completely absent from the new schools.  Robots and foreigners can always add for us.  This subtracts from the ability of our people to independently endure.  It cries out for vengeance.  Most ears are deaf to that cry.

Back to our new graduates … the fish-wrapper relayed to its readers how a valedictorian and salutatorian of a local high school treated their classmates to the verse and wisdom of Dr. Seuss.  This is a commonality in schools these days.  Oh, the places you’ll go… This small child’s book was read, in part, in one of my law classes.  Maybe it was at our graduation.  It was foolish and inappropriate.

drseussbook

(Dr. Seuss, keeping children and adults shit stupid since 1937.  Google.)

What kind of world is it when the words of Jesus, Jefferson and Cicero are absent and replaced by the sophomoric rhymes of the kindergarten?  Seuss is the level of the new school – childish, pointless, and optimistically vacuous.

Were I permitted to address a graduating class I too would present a Seuss book.  I would introduce the Cat in the Hat. I would then rip it in half, throw it on the floor and proceed to tell the children that they were, that day, freed from one form of government oppression.  I would congratulate them for surviving without arrest records. I would then extol them of the crucial importance of real learning.  Never let schooling interfere with education.  Never let education interfere with learning.  Question everything.  Accept no mastery.  Put down with brutality that slavery prepared for your adult lives.  I would never be invited back again.

Before I wrote about my experience in college and in law school.  I ridiculed myself for opportunities lost and the system for lack of substance.  Schooling is what one makes of it.  I hope our future generations grasp this.  I hope they reject the new theories of dumbed-down complacency.  I hope they prosper.  Congratulations to the Class of 15.

 

Trial By Jury, The Yellow Ribbon Myth and the Decline of an Ancient Institution

29 Wednesday Apr 2015

Posted by in Legal/Political Columns

≈ 6 Comments

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

The ancient Greeks and Romans had the crazy idea that a man accused of a crime should have the benefit of a public trial.  During this ordeal the accusing party (the State) would have the burden of presenting facts, which might establish a crime.  The Sword of God crowd would hold these base allegations sufficient to show the underlying criminal act.  Our ancient ansestores had other ideas.  To them the issue was important enough to warrant consideration by an assembly of impartial justices – a jury.

Of old the jury consisted of various members of the accused’s peers.  These were his friends whom knew him well.  Why were such pre-disposed men considered impartial, as they were friends of the accused?  The idea was that, being men of honor, they would hear the evidence and weigh it in their minds fairly regardless of their relation to the suspect.  The fact that they were friends of the accused served as a check against an illicit prosecution.

If “X” was charged with a baseless crime, the jury might collectively judge that, “yes, X is given to bouts of indiscretion, but he would never do something like this.  Or, they might find that X, while am affable fellow, might be the sort who would commit such an act as alleged.

The system, while not perfect, worked well.  In Rome, such trials were reserved for the upper classes – for men of privilege.  Commoners were generally tried by magistrates in shorter, more informal settings.  These lessor citizens, being of lessor importance, faced lower burdens of proof and lower levels of punishment.  Fair if not.  Members of the elite classes, given to higher responsibilities, were treated to high levels of justice.  See the defense of Milo (a murder suspect), presented by one Marcus Tullius Cicero, one of the greatest lawyers of antiquity.

This theoretical approach to justice lived on after the 5th Century, being embodied in the Magna Carta, a core right of Englishmen.  Thus, the right to a jury came to America.

Today this right is practically non-existent.  In modern Amerika a jury trial, while nominally “of one’s peers” is one assured not by your peers.  The fact is that very few criminal prosecutions end with a trial.  Most of those end with a conviction (the vast majority).  This is due to the overwhelming influence of the State and the extremely limited powers of the accused to resist such influence.  Every effort is made to ensure that the jury does not, in nay way, know of the accused on a personal level.  Further, only those enslaved to the power and suggestion of the accusing State are favored or empaneled.  The system has been turned on its head.

Lately, several high-profile trials have made the news; these illustrate my point that there is no right to a fair trial in Amerika.

In 1989 Debra Milke was tried for the murder of her four-year-old son, Christopher.  A jury (not of her peers) found her guilty – based solely on the unsupported testimony of a rogue police detective.  Despite all indications of innocence the State’s chosen jury found Milke guilty.  Thus, for several decades Milke lived in the daily terror of Arizona’s death row – dimmed to die for a crime she did not commit.  The guilty parties averred she had nothing to do with the crime.  This did not matter to the State until the matter was finally (thankfully) reviewed by the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals and the Arizona Supreme Court.  See also: Arizona Supreme Court Won’t Allow Retrial of Debra Milke. The prosecutor is, naturally, frustrated by this untimely carriage of justice.

Milke was blessed by higher intervention.  Too often the innocent in Amerika are executed for crimes they did not commit.  A recent admission shows that the FBI and its crime lab have doomed at least a dozen innocents to death.  You have probably never heard of these cases of injustice.  So it goes.

Thus do the innocent, robbed of true justice, resort to filing pleadings in courts entitled, “F*ck this Court.”  This one warrants reading and consideration.

Debra Milke faced execution because a heartless police officer lied under oath.  The officer has since “taken the fifth” so as to avoid prosecution himself for his lies.  The citizens of Arizona will pay millions of dollars to right this injustice.

A thousand miles away, in Boston, Dzhokhar Tsarnev has been found guilty of the Boston Marathon Bombings.   His was one of the most bizarre trials I have ever heard of. See: Boston Marathon bombing trial: 18 jurors at a glance.  The jury was selected based on their indifference toward the accused and their alliance with the state.  Tsarnev was not allowed a defense.  Rather, he, by way of his “counsel,” admitted guilt but relied on specious allegations of the undue influence of his older brother.  His brother and other key witnesses were, conveniently, dead.

The case was tried backwards.  The prosecutor first present victims of the bombing and their woeful statements – this usually comes after guilt has been established, during the penalty phase of the trial.  Tsarnev’s counsel never even questioned these witnesses.  The government then presented an unopposed fable of how Tsarnev constructed and utilized homemade bombs.  Again, no challenge came from the “defense.”  The lack of direct evidence was deafening.

Having admitted guilt and completely failing to challenge the government’s base allegations it was a given fact Tsarnev would be found guilty.  They strategy (if any) of his counsel was that he would attempt to evade the death penalty by way of the supposed undue influence of his dead brother.  Charming.  Pathetic.

It is entirely likely that this young man played a part in the bombings.  Thus, he deserves execution for his crimes.  However, I have long suspected he was only a pawn in a false-flag operation designed to test America’s willingness to endure a police state (shelter in place, and all that).   We will never know the truth here.

As a former criminal defense attorney I am well aware of the failings of the modern, American jury system of “justice.”  Here follows the entire account of one of my trials in federal court, before a jury and bereft of justice.  The names have been changed to protect the innocent, the guilty, and me.  This story was originally designed for publication (never achieved) in a major news journal:

The Yellow Ribbon Myth: Amerikans Do Not Support The Troops, Nor Justice.

Do you “support the troops?” One sees countless bumper stickers proclaiming such support. I no longer believe the propaganda. When someone says, “I support the troops,” I hear, “I support the government.” This concept was made painfully obvious to me during a criminal trial last fall.

My client, “Donny’s” case, in a U.S. District Court, 2012:

I’m am calling my client “Donny” as I have not yet sought his permission to use his name; I also may be restrained from using certain facts due to Orders of Sealing/Impoundment.

Donny enlisted in the U.S. Army while in high school and completed basic training the summer before his senior year. Donny received an appointment to West Point though, after one year, he stopped his education and entered the Army as an enlisted man. He served with the 375th Ranger company in Afghanistan where he was forced to kill men, women, and children. The experience haunts him daily.

While in the field and during additional training he sustained major injuries, which necessitated his retirement on disability: I think his physical was 50%; his mental injuries (PTSD, psychosis, etc.) were 100%. During his tenure he rose to the rank of Sargent and was awarded so many medals and commendations that multiple forms DD-214 were necessary to list them all.

He received continuing physical and psychiatric treatment at the Augusta, GA VA hospital; they placed he on enough narcotics and psycho-tropic drugs to turn anyone into a zombie. His mental condition was initially rated as temporary. Throughout 2011 he pursued the status of “permanent and unemployable.” During this time he suffered marital and mental health-related troubles daily. Towards the end of his bureaucratic ordeal he made a phone call to the VA national “service” center.

During the (recorded) call he made statements which the VA took as terroristic threats – they alleged he said he was going to the regional VA office in Atlanta to kill the first 3,000 people he encountered using unspecified weaponry. My review of the call lead me to believe he was not sane during the call, that the government’s allegations were a wild, composite stretch of the words used, and that VA’s service isn’t. He was originally arrested on State charges. He was legally carrying a pistol at the time though the arrest was without incident. Damningly, his permanent status was approved the next day. He was released on bail only to be rearrested by the feds, charged with violating 18 USC 875, interstate terror threats (a 5-year maximum felony). Had he specified a “weapon of mass destruction” he would have faced 40 years in prison.

I was appointed as defense counsel and immediately moved for a psychiatric evaluation, thinking this would easily end the case. After several months I received a lengthy report from the MCC New York which exhaustively listed Donny’s chronic mental problems and concluded he was permanently psychotic. However, the good (government) doctor also stated he was obviously sane at the time of the call and competent to stand trial.

We elected to present the matter to a jury, figuring no twelve people could possibly convict a sick man for seeking help from the only source available. We were wrong. The government’s doctor explained the extent of Donny’s condition. The VA representative from the call stated she was not threatened by Donny’s language. The VA stated they did not take any defensive measures when faced with this 9/11 magnitude threat from a man they had trained to expertly kill other human beings. The VA storm-trooper in charge testified he lied under oath to the Grand Jury to obtain the indictment and that he, for no reason, held Donny’s elderly, disabled father at gunpoint AFTER the arrest. Despite all this the twelve morons returned a guilty verdict in less than half an hour. As an aside, at trial the government sandbagged me with thousands of pages of previously withheld discovery and they handed me the afore-referenced pistol LOADED in open court (I cleared it in disbelief).

Donny was sentenced to time served with the probationary condition that he continue his torture at the VA. When I walked into the hearing I was greeted by the AUSA and the VA goon who both suddenly agreed Donny was out of his mind during his “crime.” Donny accepted his sentence and declined both an appeal and a request for a Presidential pardon. I fear his condition will worsen, perhaps with morbid consequences. He is a delightful but pitiful and broken man. I was saddened and broken by this affair.

In modern Amerika Grand Juries, while supposedly independent in their deliberations, are little more than tools of State prosecutors.  The defense is usually excluded entirely. The State has the free reign to present any “evidence” no matter how contrived.

The trial that follows (if any) is a showing of prosecutorial imagination and juridical ignorance.  Less that 3% of defendants are acquitted under this system.  The innocent are convicted and often executed.  The lucky escape after years of torment.  Life goes on and things are not likely to change any time soon.

I will, shortly, present an alternative, if primitive, alternative to this mad, fixed system of “justice.”  Until then, be forewarned and prepared.

More Ancient Legal Doctrines of Self-Defense/Preservation

26 Tuesday Mar 2013

Posted by in Legal/Political Columns

≈ 4 Comments

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

This is the second installment in my new series about the Second Amendment, militias, government, and the natural right of self/defense.  After a few more segments I’ll get to the American experience.  This column is concerned with more ancient sources. Read on.

My last segment concerned the Natural Law and the provisions therein allowing for armed resistance of force and tyranny.  For those not acquainted with Natural Law (American attorneys, etc.), it is the universal law instituted by God for the management of human societies.  God’s first draft was extraordinarily simple, as He supposed that people would be capable of easily governing themselves in paradise.  The law was codified as: “Don’t eat that fruit.”  Unfortunately, the first humans were as dense as their descendants today.  They ate the fruit and thus complicated our lives forever. 

God later attempted to set out ten simple laws He expected us to obey.  True to our fallen, fallible, self-determining ways, we messed those up too.  After constantly displaying an inability to adhere to the simple, the ancient Hebrews began to demand of God a “modern” system of government for themselves.  They seemed jealous of surrounding Peoples who had, among other things, kings.  God, in His omnipotence, offered that they Hebrews didn’t really need or want a king.  They begged to differ, instituted a king, and began to suffer immediately.

After the failure of the kings, and the subjugation of the people by more powerful earthly empires, God sent His Son in yet another attempt to clarify His law.  Jesus, simultaneously ratifying the existing law and providing an alternative route to salvation, issued another simple commandment.  We have not been too quick to pick on that one either.  Thus, it appears that people are stuck with their worldly trappings and their constant inability to deal honestly ad logically therewith until the Second Coming.  Thus, in our present state, and if we are even capable, we must attempt to relate our world to the eternal principles of the Lord.  That is Natural Law.  Having ignored and broken the concrete mandates given us, we are left to guess at how such Law applies to our civilizations.  Unlike the laws of science, math, and physics, which are difficult but possible to extrapolate and apply, the Laws of society are much less definable.  This grasping process has been the work of scholars and theologians for millennia. 

The Law as applied to self-preservation has been called the first law of nature.  This makes sense as, without resorting to keeping ourselves from harm, most of the other “laws” we can divine seem to matter little. 

Previously, I examined several Bible verses which supported the right of self-defense and preservation.  I also cited the Catechism of the Catholic Church regarding the duty (not only the right) to defend oneself and those in one’s charge.  This doctrine has existed for thousands of years.  We are commanded: “Rescue the weak and needy; Deliver them out of the hand of the wicked.”  Psalm 82:4. 

King David, definitely not a pacifist, praised God, saying, “Blessed be the Lord my strength which teacheth my hands to war, and my fingers to fight.”  Psalms 144:1.  First Samuel 25:13 described an Israelite muster: “And David said unto his men, Gird ye on every man his sword.  And they girded on every man his sword; and David also girded on his sword.”  The Israelites were a militia, not a standing army, note that David and every man was equipped with his sword, not a government issue model.  Men were expected to report for duty already armed with their own weapons.  That means they had to keep and bear those weapons in order to fulfill their duties to their society.  This was also the early American situation, as it should be today.

These weapons were and are necessary to preserve freedom in society.  Any sane man will pray that he never need use any measure of force in defense however, he should be ready to do so if necessary.  The fifth or sixth Commandment (depending on how counted) clearly sets forth God’s intention to preserve life:  “Thous shalt not kill.”  It is also translated, “Thou shalt not murder.”  Exodus 20:13, Deuteronomy 5:17. 

The second translation is a prohibition on illicit killing, the first is a total ban.  In a perfect world it would be natural to follow a total ban on killing others made in God’s image.  However, as noted above, we have removed ourselves from perfection, be it temporarily.  Thus, given where we are, while we should strive for perfection, we may be limited to keeping from unlawful killings. 

In Leviticus, it appears that everything carries the death penalty.  Many of these provisions have actually been codified into civil law over the ages.  I’m not sure if anyone was ever executed for eating a shrimp.  However, Leviticus gave us the basis for many capital crimes still such today.  Accordingly, killers (murderers) may be executed in contravention of the Lord’s prohibition on killing.  Leviticus 24:16-17.  Numbers and Deuteronomy give further qualification as to which killings are crimes versus accidents. 

Coupled with those passages I cited last time, these dictates seem to logically indicate that force, including lethal force, may be used to repel unjust criminal activities.  The attendant duty upon us is to use the least force necessary to accomplish our defense.

Jesus exercised the ultimate restraint, in this regard, while enduring His treatment at the hands of His native detractors and Pilate.  Jesus made clear His purpose: “I came into the world…to bear witness to the truth; and all who are on the side of truth listen to my voice.”  John 18:38.  Demonstrating an eternal human misunderstanding, Pilate replied “What is truth?”  His purpose was not to overthrow earthly tyranny, but to provide an eternal alternative.  Rather than being an act of non-self-defense, Christ’s actions were the ultimate act of defense of others.  This truth may have been lost on one Roman, it was not on all Romans.

American law has been greatly influenced by our colonial past and our origins under the English Constitutional and common law.  In turn, English law was dependant on ancient Rome for many of its sources.  It must be remembered that the Kingdom of Britain once co-existed with the Eastern Roman Empire.  Thus, the legal traditions passed to the Isle of Britannia were those of earlier Roman glory – from the Republic and the earlier Western Empire.  From the founding of Rome until the time of Cicero, Roman laws were largely unwritten, even the Constitution.  Codification cam much later, under Justinian.  The Codex Justianius was issued in 529 A.D., five decades after the fall of the West.  The Digesta of ancient law was written soon thereafter.  Thus, began our tradition of dual sources of law – statutes and case-law. 

justinian_venice_rgzm

(Justinian.  Google.)

I previously cited to the Codex for its express allowance of the use of armed force to deter attack, by private parties and government agents.  This dual provision is tremendous as it presupposed that no-one is above the law and that even government force may be repelled when illegitimate.  Increasingly in America, the government takes the opposite position – that it is infallible and may not be resisted, even when tyrannical.  This is nonsense and may be disregarded as such.

In the next installment I will delve into the English tradition regarding arms and defense.  This tradition slowly coalesced into the modern theory of the militia being comprised of armed individual men.  Here, I will briefly note some of the long-standing traditions concerning arms in the British Isles before the rise of the common law and the Magna Carta.

“England” has been populated by various peoples probably for about 10,000 years.  The earliest peoples there were organized along the lines of families and tribes, each with its own society and rules.  It is obvious that most of these people were armed as they were constantly at war with one another and with the occasional outsider.  It is clear as mud as to what extent they retained formal doctrines regarding rights, arms, militia duties, etc.  “Self” defense often involved the entire tribe and was given to degenerating into all out war.  We could assign the Lex Talionis “the law of revenge” or the “law of the jungle” as the chief governing principle of these early Britons. 

As the centuries B.C. counted down, civilization and order began to grow in the Isles.  Legend has it that King Arthur was able to unite most of the peoples of lower England under his banner.  Whether he pulled a sword out of a stone is another matter but it seems that by his time (7th Century B.C.) swords were common among the people, both for use defensively and for militia service. 

Thus, when the Romans arrived in 43 B.C., they found a fierce and well armed people, not at all amenable to taming.  Four centuries of Roman occupation saw many changes in English life, including the ordering of the militias more along the lines of precise Legionary lines.  This, civil and engineering upgrades, and Christianity generally served to the benefit of the people, then and following the Roman’s departure.

Following the Romans, came the Angles, the Saxons, and eventually the Normans, each of whom introduced new character to England.  By at least the Twelfth Century England had evolved into a nation-state, not entire undistinguishable from its present form.  Then, standing armies were rare and the kings relied upon their subjects to form militias during times of needs.  Accordingly, free-men were expected, even ordered to keep arms for their and the common defense.  Assize of Arms, Henry II (1181).

King John signed the Magna Carta in 1215 which, in Section 61, provided for armed rebellion of sorts (lead by the nobility) in the event the Crown became tyrannical.  This process, of course, necessitated the continued institution of armed citizens.

magna carta

(Magna Carta Memorial, Runnymede, England.  Google.)

Next time, I will move forward in history and begin covering more modern English sources concerning the people, their rights, especially concerning arms and defense.  This will serve as a prelude to the customs of those English persons who colonized America, carrying the ancient traditions with them.

Natural Origins of Self-Defense

21 Thursday Mar 2013

Posted by in Legal/Political Columns

≈ 2 Comments

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

This is the first in a new series, an expansion of my both my Natural Law column and Second Amendment and related columns.  Here, I briefly examine the ancient and eternal theories behind the basic rights which gave rise to the doctrine enshrined in the Second Amendment.

Legal practitioners and law and political science scholars, along with the general public, many politicians, and the media, often make the common mistake of looking only to the text of the Constitution (State or federal) or recent court cases in order to gain perspective into the meaning and/or application of the Second Amendment (and related State protections).  While government protection of our rights is vital (the only reason for government), rights do not come from government.

My examination here is theoretic in nature and, thus, seeks out existential sources which provide both definition and supporting argumentative and empirical evidence which are fixed throughout history and across all geographic areas.  Of course, as my ultimate view is towards the American experience, I will pay closer attention to sources from Western civilization.

The Bible is replete with approval of self-defense.  “If anyone does not provide for his relatives, and especially for members of his household, he has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever.”  1 Timothy 5:8.  This would seem to encompass the responsibility to keep one’s family safe to the extent possible.  “If a thief is found breaking in and is struck so that he dies, there shall be no bloodguilt for him, but if the sun has risen on him, there shall be bloodguilt for him. He shall surely pay. If he has nothing, then he shall be sold for his theft.”  Exodus 22:2-3.  This provision is the basis for the common-law doctrine against burglary, originally extended to night-time attacks.  The matter of daylight adds an interesting perspective.  Again, this passage addresses a thief, not a would-be murderer of rapist.  It is divine commentary on the value of human life over mere possessions when an opportunity exists to examine the intent of a criminal.  While it is not a prohibition against using force to deter a thief, the provision indicates the Lord’s wish that force not exceed the attendant circumstantial need.

Paul continues this theme of limited aggression in Romans 12:19: “Beloved, never avenge yourselves, but leave it to the wrath of God, for it is written, ‘Vengeance is mine, I will repay, says the Lord.'”  Again, God does not seem opposed to immediate use of force to deter violence but, once danger has passed, he commands that we leave judgment to him.  This is backed by the Old Testament: “Do not say, ‘I will repay evil’; wait for the Lord, and he will deliver you.”  Proverbs 20:22.  Again, for Christians, after the fact of a crime, the matter is God’s to handle.  This is the basis for a general prohibition against vigilante justice.

In Romans 13, often mis-cited as a justification for any and all government action being divine, Paul extolls the virtues of political agencies instituted in God’s Name.  When such an entity exists, then it has God’s authority to pursue prosecution of criminal matters.  I refuse to accept that this concept applies to all governments – I doubt God approved of Hitler’s action, for instance.  Rev. Chuck Baldwin, http://chuckbaldwinlive.com/home/, has extensively commented on this subject – http://www.romans13truth.com/.

Jesus Christ, himself, tacitly endorsed armed defense: “And let the one who has no sword sell his cloak and buy one.”  Luke 22:36.  I say “tacitly” because of the caveats Jesus placed on the use of force, essentially limiting it to only urgent circumstances.  Christ urged us to “turn the other cheek” when possible.  Matthew 5:39.  He also admonished Peter to sheath his sword while repairing the injure Peter had inflicted with his sword.  John 18:11.  Jesus, while defending the 10 Commandments, issued an 11th: “love one another.”  John 13:34.  The Son’s words places strict constraints on the Father’s allowance of the use of force.  It does not foreclose the concept.

JESUS-620_1587358a

(The ultimate Defender.  Google.)

Jesus only once resorted to the use of force, personally.  When He discovered the money-changers (the banksters of their time) abusing the Holiness of the Temple, Jesus violently drove them away.  John 2:15.  This underscores the possibility of defense as an immediate solution, without resort to formal authority or the eventual actions of the Lord.  The Church has formally detailed both the right to such defense as well as the moral duty of such action in need.  “Legitimate defense can be not only a right but a grave duty for one who is responsible for the lives of others. The defense of the common good requires that an unjust aggressor be rendered unable to cause harm.”  Catechism of the Catholic Church (“CCC”): 2265 (emphasis added)(see also CCC: 1909).

The Church also commands dignity be afforded to the human body, generally: “This dignity entails the demand that he should treat with respect his own body, but also the body of every other person, especially the suffering”  CCC: 1004.  While this backs the general prohibition against unlawfully harming others, it also reminds the Believer to respect even his enemy and attempt to limit his forcible response to criminal activity as far as possible to minimize harm.

“… [I]n the case of legitimate defence, in which the right to protect one’s own life and the duty not to harm someone else’s life are difficult to reconcile in practice. Certainly, the intrinsic value of life and the duty to love oneself no less than others are the basis of a true right to self-defence. The demanding commandment of love of neighbour, set forth in the Old Testament and confirmed by Jesus, itself presupposes love of oneself as the basis of comparison: ‘You shall love your neighbour as yourself’ (Mk 12:31). Consequently, no one can renounce the right to self-defence out of lack of love for life or for self.”  Pope John Paul II, Encyclical Letter Evangeliun Vitae (The Gospel of Life), 1995.

The eminent scholar, David Kopel, has documented the general agreement among Eastern Religions along these ideas.  In his review of Confucianism, Taoism, Hinduism, Sikhism, Jainism, and Buddhism, Kopel explodes common myths that these religions do not allow for proper use of self-defense.  David B. Kopel. “Self-Defense in Asian Religions” Liberty Law Review 2 (2007): 79, 80-81 (http://works.bepress.com/david_kopel/20).

Kopel’s expose is excellent.  He also touches on the Eastern version of Baldwin’s critique of Romans 13: “Although Confucianism, like most other religions, has been used by tyrants to claim that revolution is immoral, Confucius himself ordered a revolution against an oppressive regime.”  Id, at 163.  Only the “religion” of the State would decree that the government is above the Natural Law.

Commenting on Exudus 2, above, Saint Thomas Aquinas said, “it is much more lawful to defend one’s life than one’s house. Therefore neither is a man guilty of murder if he kills another in defense of his own life.”  Aquinas, Summa Theologica.

“If a man, in self-defense, uses more than necessary violence, it will be unlawful: whereas if he repel force with moderation his defense will be lawful, because according to the jurists, ‘it is lawful to repel force by force, provided one does not exceed the limits of a blameless defense.’ Nor is it necessary for salvation that a man omit the act of moderate self-defense in order to avoid killing the other man, since one is bound to take more care of one’s life than of another’s.”  Id.

Plato noted that when one acts in true self-defense, taken as a natural right, one may actually do the criminal perpetrator (in addition to the victim and society) a service: if the criminal survives, he may reflect on his wrongdoing positively.  Plato, The Republic, The Problem of Justice.  Plato’s great student, Aristotle, agreed.  Aristotle noted that a true case of self-defense is not necessarily a voluntary action.  Thus, any suffering from the act of defense may be attributed to the aggressor and not the defender.  Aristotle, Nicomachean Ethics.

The possession of weapons and their defensive usage, though regulated, was allowed in both the Roman Republic and the Empire. “We grant to all persons the unrestricted power to defend themselves, so that it is proper to subject anyone, whether a private person or a solider … to immediate punishment in accordance with the authority granted to all [up to, and including, death, if warranted].”  Codex Justinianus 3.27.1.  The Romans regarded the right to use weaponry in defense as implicit to the right itself.

The mighty Cicero opined: “There exists a law, not written down anywhere, but inborn in our hearts; a law which comes to us not by training or custom or reading but by derivation and absorption and adoption from nature itself; a law which has come to us not from theory but from practice, not by instruction but by natural intuition. I refer to the law which lays it down that, if our lives are endangered by plots or violence or armed robbers or enemies, any and every method of protecting ourselves is morally right.” Cicero, “In Defence of Titus Annus Milo,” Selected Speeches of Cicero, Michael Grant translation, 1969.  Again, the esteemed David Kopel gives excellent analysis to this ancient Natural Law position in The Sword and the Tome, America’s 1st Freedom, NRA, 2009.

Cicero’s titanic predecessor, the black-robed Cato, made an interesting analogy along the lines of Jesus’s act of retribution noted above (as noted by Cicero himself): Cato was asked by an ambitious Roman, “What is the most profitable about property?”  Cato answered, “To raise cattle with great success.”   The young man then asked, “What is the second most profitable?”  Cato answered, “Raising cattle with moderate success.”  The inquirer pressed again, “The third most profitable?”  “Raising cattle with little success.”  Finally, the young man cut to his presupposed profession, “How about money-lending?”  Cato answered (somewhat in advance of Jesus), “How about murder?”  Cicero, On Duties.

I by no means equate money-lending or banking with murder but it appears the subject was considered by multiple ancient sources.  It seems the evil of the banksters in as eternal as natural law.  Defense against the predation of this wicked class may be something to consider.

Later political theorists expounded the virtue and necessity of self-defense.  John Locke described self-defense as the first among Natural Rights.  Locke, Second Essay on Civil Government.  Hobbes concurred in this assertion, regardless of the state of any society.  Hobbes, Leviathan, 1651.  Even the craven and generally useless United Nations begrudgingly attempted to acknowledge this fundamental truth: “No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation.  Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks.”  Universal Declaration of Human Rights, U.N. General Assembly, Article 12, December 10, 1948.

In the earliest American tradition, we find acknowledgment of the Natural Law (before the adoption of the Second Amendment).  The Declaration of Independence (1776) begins: “When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.” (Emphasis added).  The Declaration then enumerates the crimes of King George, among them many of which might be defended against under the doctrine explained herein.

sword

(In case of emergency only.  Google.)

Again, self-defense is a God-given, eternal right.  It is also a duty, one to be exercised only in dire need and with a grave sense of responsibility.  As with all matters of Natural Law, man-made legislation must attempt as closely as humanly possible to approximate the divine purposes of the Law.  In the next installment of this series, I intend to examine more ancient legislation regarding weapons and self-defense, specifically Roman Law.

The Decline and Fall of Something…

28 Thursday Feb 2013

Posted by in Uncategorized

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

In my popular Posse Comitatus column, https://perrinlovett.wordpress.com/2013/02/20/posse-comitatus/, I made a possibly confusing and unfair allusion to Caesar bringing about the demise of the Roman Republic and ushering in the Empire.  It seems that “crossing the Rubicon” is too simply of an explanation for what really happened.  The actual process from republic to empire lasted for decades and involved many actors in addition to Caesar.

The Roman Republic existed from roughly 500 B.C. until 27 B.C.  Most republics do not make it that long.  Ours, if it can still be credibly called a republic, is coming apart at the seams after only 237 years.  The Roman Republic replaced the line of monarchs who had ruled Rome for over two and a half centuries.  It was succeeded by the Empire, which lasted from 27 B.C. until the German Odoacer set himself up as the first King of Italy in 476 A.D. 

During the Republic the government was operated by a Senate (congress) and one or two Consuls (presidents).  Most public officials were limited to one-year terms.  Many of these public offices, including the Consuls, survived into the Empire, though with greatly reduced authority.  There had been a tremendous amount of political strife for over 100 years before Augustus Caesar (Caesar Divi F. Augustus) became the First Emperor.

Caesar (Julius Caesar of the first Triumvirate) returned from war and was expected or feared to take dictatorial control of the Republic.  He became a dictator of sorts, but he never got the chance to fully dominate the Senate, being assassinated on March 15, 44 B.C.  His murder at the hands of Casca, Brutus, and Cassius is one of the better known events of ancient history.  However, the conspiracy included dozens of Senators.  Allegedly (according to Tacitus?), once Caesar was killed, the chief leaders of the conspiracy called out repeatedly to Cicero by name, as if to showcase their good works.  It is also alleged Cicero waved off the acts and attention in disgust.

cicero

(Cicero, champion of Constitutional republicanism.  Google Images).

Many have theorized Cicero was a co-conspirator.  I don’t think so.  Marcus Tullius Cicero was a lawyer, statesman, Senator, and former Consul (63 B.C.) and is widely considered one of antiquities foremost figures.  His influence on Latin language is still felt with prominence today.  I quote he frequently as he was one of the most critical opponents of the Constitutional demise and all dictatorial actions.  He would be one of my two picks as the Ron Paul of his day, the other being the black-robed Cato.  Despite his constant opposition to totalitarianism, I do not think he would have sanctioned murder as a means to eliminate the practice.  I think his morals, nobility, and steadfast dedication to the law would have prevented his involvement.

Heedless of his own peril Cicero kept up his criticism of Mark Anthony and Company (the Second Triumvirate) and was, in 43 B.C., labeled an enemy of the state and hunted down mercilessly.  He was captured on December 7, 43 B.C. and immediately murdered by Anthony’s troops.  His last words (according to Plutarch?) were allegedly: “There is nothing proper about what you are doing, soldier, but do try to kill me properly.”  He was decapitated and his head and hands displayed publicly in Rome.

This brutal display of lawlessness and savagery was formerly utilized by would-be or quasi dictators.  Gauis Marius and Lucius Sulla had used similar tactics against their enemies.  Such horrific treatment was the most high-tech form of intimidation at the time, drones were still more than 2000 years away.

Marius served seven terms (at intervals from 107 – 86 B.C.) as Consul despite laws enacting terms limits.  His power was derived from constant warfare and the need for “emergency” powers from the Senate.  War and “emergency” powers go hand in hand with dictatorship.  If you haven’t watched the news in the past 12 years, perhaps you did, at least, see the three Star Wars prequel movies. 

Sulla served two terms as Consul (82 – 81 B.C.) and, like Marius, gained much power as a petty dictator through war powers.  Sulla’s wars were not confined to foreign enemies, marching on Rome itself in 82 B.C.  The Senate foolishly conferred upon him dictatorial powers for life.  These he immediately began to use, murdering 1,000s of enemies, with no semblance of Due Process.  Previously, the Republic had prided itself on justice and faithful execution of the laws, rather than of citizens and nobles.

So, you see, Caesar has a product of his times as much as a dictator.  His short reign came in the middle of a century marked by Constitutional decline.  Caesar is the best remembered name from the period though his actual power differed little from that of his predecessors and successors.  He could have done eternally great service to the Republic and perhaps changed centuries of history if he had followed in the footsteps of one of his ancient precursors. 

History also remembers Lucius Quinctius Cincinnatus, mostly out of awe for his humility in power.  Cincinnatus was Consul and was granted dictatorial powers during a time of war twice, in 458 B.C. and again in 439 B.C.  Unlike 99% of historical figures granted such rare authority, Cincinnatus immediately abandoned his high position once crises abated.  Perhaps Caesar had such intention but was not allowed time to exercise it.  Perhaps not.

I hope you have seen, within this column, parallels to modern America.  To me they seem both unmistakable and also unmistakably dire in their warnings to us.

We currently have a President who, unchallenged essentially, claims the right to murder American citizens without Due Process.  At the same time, we have a craven opposition party which, rather than impeach and remove the usurper, propose to give him Constitutional powers beyond his office.  All of this, consequently, stems from “emergencies” whether martial or economic.  This has become an established pattern since 2001 though it has roots much older.

This year we mark the 100th anniversary of some of the most destructive Acts in our history.  In 1913 the 16th and 17th Amendments killed the States’ fading power against the central government and the Federal Reserve began it’s mission to enslave the nation (publicly and privately) in debt while enabling Washington to potentially spend without limit.  Around the same time the National Guard was formalized and strengthened, giving Washington military control over the entire nation. 

The ensuing 100 years saw an exponential growth in government, the decline of civil liberties, constant foolish wars, and the nationalization of serfdom.

Having recently lost our Cicero and Cato figures to retirement, we can only pray for a latter-day Cincinnatus.