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.

The Declaration of Independence and Sheriff's Law

For me, Anthony J. Fejfar, rock bottom law for me is: First, The Declaration of Independence and the Natural Rights of Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness, based on Natural Law, and as guaranteed by God our Creator. Second, Natural Law, which provides that every person, or existant, public or private, is required to act reasonably when another person or existant's liberty is involved, such that any such other person is not unreasonably harmed. Third, Sheriff's Law, the Law of Logic, provides that no person or existant is permitted to act illogically, with the result that the life, liberty, puresuit of happiness, contract, or property of anther person or existant is harmed. That which is illogical or sophistry, is that which involves a logical contradiction, such as, attempting to assert, wrongly, that you can have A and not A, in and at the same time and the same place. (C)Perpetual Copyright 2011 (CE), by Anthony Faber and Neothomism, P.C. (PA)