Fejfar Law, Politics, and Public Policy: Enforicing Sheriff's Law under the Natural Law Nat...

Fejfar Law, Politics, and Public Policy: Enforicing Sheriff's Law under the Natural Law Nat...: "The United States of America has a legal right to survive. The survival of The State is a good that must be recognized. When there is corr..."

Enforicing Sheriff's Law under the Natural Law National Security Act

The United States of America has a legal right to survive. The survival of The State is a good that must be recognized. When there is corruption, incompetence, and treason, to the extent that The United States is not a Just or Near Just Society, The United States reverts to the Territorial Constitution of 1781, and the Natural Law Natural Security Act which enforces Sheriff's Law, The Law of Logic, which criminalizes Sophistry under the federal crimes of Treason and Criminal Nuisance. A person who is Law Review, Order of the Coif, and a Member of The United States Supreme Court Bar becomes a National Security Judge with the legal power to Enforce federal Sheriff's Law. Sheriff's Law crimnalizes a person engaging in criminal acts of sophistry, such as, The Fallacy of Shifting Ground and the Fallacy of Hypocrisy. Sheriff's Law, The Law of Logic is cross-culturally and universally valid, and therefore can be enforced against traitors and those who are engaging in espionage for a foreign government, a treasonous organization, or a rump government. This legal approach to National Security is a middle ground between no national security natural law at all and at the othr extreme, assertions of national security which are totally arbitrary and self-serving by the very persons who are the traitors, typically in government or other key socio-political sectors of American culture. In this way, it is legally possible to recover from a situation where an unjust american society has developed, using legal natural law principles which are anterior to the state. Since the Law of Logic can be proven cross culturally and universally valid with concrete logic and logical positivism, this Law of Logic can legally attack the corrupt, traitorous state, legally using natural law which is anterior to the state, as the Declaration of Independence tells us with the natural law princples of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

Perpetual (C)Copyright (2011 C.E) by Anthony J. Fejfar, Joshua Avery Fejfar, Cristina Elise Fejfar, Neothomism, P.C., (PA), and the American People as a Public Domain Copyright.

Fejfar Law, Politics, and Public Policy: Liberty-License and Criminal Law

Fejfar Law, Politics, and Public Policy: Liberty-License and Criminal Law: "Following John Locke and Grotius, Liberty is based on Reason, while License is based upon Unreasonable Sophistry. Now, following Magna Chart..."

Liberty-License and Criminal Law

Following John Locke and Grotius, Liberty is based on Reason, while License is based upon Unreasonable Sophistry. Now, following Magna Charta, Grotius, The Pennsylvania Charter of 1681, and the Declaration of Independence, Law or Governement, or any Group which purports to apply law or enforce law, must act in accordance with Reason in order to comply with the Requirement of Natural Law. Natural Law, which is based upon the Law of Logic and the Rule of Reason, provides that Government can only criminalize behavior is involves license. The government cannot criminalize that which is accordance with Liberty. You see, government is required to act in accordance with reason. Yet, at the same time, it is clear that if a person or existant, is acting reasonably within his,her, or hae, zone of Liberty, then such libertarian conduct or speech or thought cannot reasonably be criminalized by the State. You see, there is not gap between Liberty and license. The govenment can only lawfully prohibit or regulate license, not Liberty. You see, there is no gap between that which is reasonable and that which is unreasonable, either it is, or it isn't. Accordingly, if what a person or existant does or says is reasonable, then the government cannot criminalize it nor can the government regulate it. Following Magna Charta, Grotius, John Locke, The Pennslyvania Charter of 1681, The Declaration of Independence, The Pennsylvania Constitution, and the American Constitution, governement can only interfere with a person or existant's Liberty of reasonable conduct and speech, if the government's law and actions are in accordance with reason, and in addition, where the law or governement actions are ratioinally related to a legitimate state interest. (See, Lochner vs. New York, NAACP vs. Button, Lugar vs. Edmundson Oil, all soundly reasoned and valid United States Supreme Court Cases). Thus, we can see that it is unreanable and irratioinal and illegitimate for government to attempt to criminalize or regulate conduct and speech of a person or existant which is reasonable. In other word, it is illogical sophistry, and a Violation of Sheriff's Law for the goverment to criminalize or regualte that which is reasonable conduct, or beliefs, or speech. That which is reasonable cannot be reasonably criminilized, such a move would be sophistry on the part of government and would be a violation of Sheriff's Law.