Legalism . . . When There Is No Victim, Is There Any Crime?
Posted by freedomforall 1 week ago to Government
Excerpt:
"if harm done cannot be substantiated, then how can it be said a crime has been committed?
This a question that underlies the old – now forgotten – legal tradition.
That was before the rise of legalism, which is similar to rigid adherence to the strictures of the Old Testament or the Talmud. They encompass the idea that “the law” is “the law” and must be obeyed and enforced because it is “the law.” Not because it even makes sense. Just because it is. This is the kind of law that currently governs the United States and indeed, the entire Western world. It is a warren of case law, each new case giving something new for legalist to parse over, endlessly.
The Bill of Rights is very much in the common law tradition. Its ten amendments are written in clear English and do not require endless, parsing by a kind of rabbinical class of lawyers and judges. Consider the language of the first amendment:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Any person of normal intelligence can easily comprehend this law. It is one long sentence, without any opacity. “Congress shall make no law respecting the an establishment of religion, nor prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” Does it require Talmudic parsing? If it does, then so does “no trespassing.”
Only a Legalist would argue that needs parsing.
Contrast the language of the First Amendment with some of that found in the Constitution – which George Mason, who is credited with authoring/insisting on the Bill of Rights – considered suspiciously Legalistic precisely because of such language as “general welfare” and “necessary” and “proper.” He presciently foresaw that such language would inevitably lead to Legalism, a system of endless and characteristically arbitrary rules endlessly parsed by a rabbinical class of lawyers and judges, who get to decide (among other things) what is meant by “necessary” and “proper” and also what the “general welfare” is. Since it is not possible to fix a definite meaning on such terms, the meaning of such terms is regularly revisited and altered – according to the inscrutable, arbitrary interpretations of these secular rabbis."
"if harm done cannot be substantiated, then how can it be said a crime has been committed?
This a question that underlies the old – now forgotten – legal tradition.
That was before the rise of legalism, which is similar to rigid adherence to the strictures of the Old Testament or the Talmud. They encompass the idea that “the law” is “the law” and must be obeyed and enforced because it is “the law.” Not because it even makes sense. Just because it is. This is the kind of law that currently governs the United States and indeed, the entire Western world. It is a warren of case law, each new case giving something new for legalist to parse over, endlessly.
The Bill of Rights is very much in the common law tradition. Its ten amendments are written in clear English and do not require endless, parsing by a kind of rabbinical class of lawyers and judges. Consider the language of the first amendment:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Any person of normal intelligence can easily comprehend this law. It is one long sentence, without any opacity. “Congress shall make no law respecting the an establishment of religion, nor prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” Does it require Talmudic parsing? If it does, then so does “no trespassing.”
Only a Legalist would argue that needs parsing.
Contrast the language of the First Amendment with some of that found in the Constitution – which George Mason, who is credited with authoring/insisting on the Bill of Rights – considered suspiciously Legalistic precisely because of such language as “general welfare” and “necessary” and “proper.” He presciently foresaw that such language would inevitably lead to Legalism, a system of endless and characteristically arbitrary rules endlessly parsed by a rabbinical class of lawyers and judges, who get to decide (among other things) what is meant by “necessary” and “proper” and also what the “general welfare” is. Since it is not possible to fix a definite meaning on such terms, the meaning of such terms is regularly revisited and altered – according to the inscrutable, arbitrary interpretations of these secular rabbis."
Also, a sarcastic joke I heard long ago regarding the NY legislature: "Two bills are presented that address the same issue. Which one passes? Answer: The one that generates the most revenue for lawyers and politicians."
First ask why American lawyers must be approved by a foreign nation.
Once you've answered that question, you'll have a better understanding the reason behind our EFFed-up Republic.
Control.
Control by foreign powers, particularly control by foreign banks...
Tie it all up with lawyers and their political lapdogs, writing new laws they never had any Constitutional Authority to do.
Then lie your @$$ off about what you're doing and what your intentions are.
This is very old in U.S. history—Jefferson, in the DOI, wrote “…and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. …”
Humans adjust to the realities forced upon them. Which is why America hasn’t had a second Revolution and, probably, never will.
If someone digs up and sodomizes a relative. Were you REALLY injured? (if they reburied them, and you never noticed how do you claim harm?)
Traffic Laws. While you can argue they are not hurting anyone... Let's just approach failing to stop. A Ticket my wife "collects" like some people collect stamps or coins.
Is she hurting anyone when NOBODY is around (save the cop)?
She will argue NO.
But take her position to the extreme, and the injuries start piling up.
What about doing 3MPH on the express way? Are you HURTING anyone? Is there measurable damage? What if it is 3am?
We have some laws which make COORDINATION work, like stop lights, traffic signs.
Speeding is a "victimless crime". Have you seen what happens when people drag race on public streets, and some poor mom is late coming home, FOLLOWS the laws, sees nobody and crosses the intersection. "Because seeing nobody has an implied SPEED behind it, and that's why COP Cars have lights and SIRENS".
But I agree. Our laws should be simpler. We have a Legal system and NOT a Justice System. Basic laws, like "No Fraud on Creditors". "No cheating lesser informed signatories... The guy who wrote Forrest Gump was screwed because he got a piece of the profits, and they inserted a company that could bill anything they wanted, until the profits were gone!"
Congress: If this is the law of the land it would mean any and all assemblies of peoples gathered to discuss their mutual situations. This includes private associations.
The "press" .... a fruit press? I know, it is associative to speech separated by a comma inferred as a noun. I would add a semi colon and add "of press" as a transitive verb. This was defined in Websters as a force of oppression or being impressed to service.
Might be picking the "nit", yet a new scrutiny with clearly posted definitions and their respective sources would clear up a lot of speculation and mischief.