 |
PM |  | |
Quote | | |
Reply | | |
Full Topic | |
| Joined: | Mon Nov 21st, 2005 |
| Location: | California USA |
| Posts: | 6399 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: |    |
If we have different tools, perhaps we have different goals.
The tool (word: common law) is, in my case, a tool to be employed in the work of conveying accurate meaning concerning a process called defense of life in time and place.
Tool: a term, and the term is "common law," unless another term is agreeable, I will use this term.
Meaning of the tool (the term common law, or some other term other than common law) is the goal, and the goal is to convey a process from me to you, so as to "get on the same page," and the page is the meaning conveyed with the tool.
The meaning of the tool (common law) is a process by which people defend each other expediently (pragmatically?), in time and place, whereby people are thereby defended.
The same page thereby is the accurate identification of a process by which people defend people in time and place, and if said "same page" is agreed upon first, then perhaps it is possible to then agree upon an agreeable name for that process.
SOURCE:
http://www.barefootsworld.net/trial01.html
QUOTE:
It is fairly presumable that such a tribunal will agree to no conviction except such as substantially the whole country would agree to, if they were present, taking part in the trial. A trial by such a tribunal is, therefore, in effect, "a trial by the country." In its results it probably comes as near to a trial by the whole country, as any trial that it is practicable to have, without too great inconvenience and expense. And. as unanimity is required for a conviction, it follows that no one can be convicted, except for the violation of such laws as substantially the whole country wish to have maintained. The government can enforce none of its laws, (by punishing offenders, through the verdicts of juries,) except such as substantially the whole people wish to have enforced. The government, therefore, consistently with the trial by jury, can exercise no powers over the people, (or, what is the same thing, over the accused person, who represents the rights of the people,) except such as substantially the whole people of the country consent that it may exercise. In such a trial, therefore, "the country," or the people, judge of and determine their own liberties against the government, instead of the government's judging of and determining its own powers over the people.
End of Quote
Above are words that describe to the reader a process, and the process being described was called the common law, and so that is why I call the process the common law now.
Is there disagreement concerning what is the process in view?
Is there disagreement concerning what the process in view (if we agree on it) is called?
I am not, and I will not, give power to the false process that is in place to counterfeit the true process. The true process is described well enough in the quote above, as far as I am concerned, when my concern is to point at, to offer up, to accurately identify, to placed on the table for discussion, and for employment in defense of all, a process.
Is the process that I place on the table clearly in view, and if not, then why not?