Originally Posted by Teak

Do you think the President of this country is elected by the majority of the citizens of this country?

I still prefer living here, even with all our "faults", to living in any other country, and anyone who feels differently is, after all, free to leave.

Originally Posted by mulp

Do you make those statements based on rule of law that incorporates the UN treaty agreement ratified by Congress and its charter principles and human rights declaration, or based on natural law?

I see nothing in the US Constitution that defines the US to be a democracy, and certainly it does not prescribe selection of the president by majority.

Nor do I see anything that allows one to leave without permission of the state, nor nothing that would allow anyone to become free of US law. And Bush as head of state does not allow anyone the freedom to effect what you seem to believe is possible in your last statement.

So, is your last statement per the UN or per natural law?

Originally Posted by Teak

Fuck the UN and all of its failures. There is no anchor in your ass, you can leave any time you want. Unless you happen to be serving a prison sentence.

I've left this country many times, on airplanes and on boats. Noboby questioned it. Hell, I even walked into Mexico a couple of times. Coming back I was ask which country I was a citizen of, but no proof was required. Just my claim of U.S. Citizenship.

Originally Posted by mulp

Did you leave because you were actively protesting the actions of the government, and in the process had become the "nail that needs to be pounded down"?

Try leaving the US and going to Pakistan where you renounce the US while with people that Bush administration has declared a terrorist organization. Do you believe you can take a visible position in some dispute that does not call for any violation of US law, other than the prohibition of free association, petition, and speech that has been declared illegal by Congress and the Bush administration.

And don't think your disagreement with the government of the US can't be turned into a matter of national security and your protest actions deemed terrorism.

Just imagine a liberal landslide in November sweeping to power a bunch of liberals as arrogant as the Republicans from 1994 through 2004.... Your efforts to protest could be deemed terrorism, and by the force of intimidation, you can be accused of conspiracy to commit terrorism without physical evidence of any crime, and then if you flee the country and seek asylum, those liberals can seek your extradition, accusing the government you are seeking asylum with of harboring terrorists.

Of course, if you just fold up your tent and leave, then good riddance. ;-)

Originally Posted by Teak

You are the one asserting that you can not leave. You can, if you want to go to Pakistan, and if they will let you in, go for it. Now if you are stupid enough to contact an individual or a group that has been declared a terrorist organization, by our duly elected government, thats your problem, and a very poor choice. Much like going on a bank robbery and just setting in the car.

My belief has alway been, and remains to this day, if you act like a criminal, expected to be treated like a criminal. At least in this country you will get a day in court. In those you like to create scenarios for there is seldom a court, just a bullet, when they disapprove of what you do, or say.

Originally Posted by mulp

First, Blackstone had no "theory."

Second, the foundation of law in the "west" is common law which grew from ancient practice of leaders/rulers exercising a "divine right" to judge disputes. The division between the "throne" and the "judge" grew over time, with the Magna Carta representing a mythical transformation from a king determining justice based on his personal interests to one of independent judges deciding issues on the basis of facts and reason. Over five centuries, England has develop a body of history that recorded the reasoning behind common justice. Blackstone merely sought to organize that history in a coherent reference.

Third, English common law was the law of the English colonies. Blackstone's Commentary was published concurrent with revolt and insurrection in the English American colonies, which placed those with knowledge of the practice of the law outside society (few members of government seek to overthrow the government they are part of - they might seek to control the government, but not to destroy it). Thus, the traitors to the crown needed to bootstrap their own judicial system, and Blackstone was the handbook for this. More copies of Blackstone were sold in the English American colonies than in England.

Blackstone is significant because he marks the point where the law became independent of the government that ruled the people and territory. He wrote of the separation of the law from religious text, as well from the king. Blackstone didn't change the practice of law, but only noted the transformation.

For the US, Blackstone is significant because his record provided access to the history of case law and the framework for the law and its application to the people who needed to bootstrap their government, and today he is significant because he provides the most comprehensive record of the law at the beginning of the American 19th century and the end of the 18th.

Blackstone's Commentary is a snapshot of the law of the English times, and the law of the English had separated from the church. This was understood by the people of the times who wrote the US Constitution, but the fear that this principle along with many others would be ignored by the mob of democracy resulted in the call for a bill of rights.

That said, religious texts were like all other records of history, assumed to be sources of precedent on which common law is founded. And the US Constitution merely became, and is, one of the historical records used in common law to find justice. Blackstone is relevant because it is as much a part of the historical record as is the US Constitution.

Originally Posted by mulp

But legislation is not natural law. The Declaration of Independence is one of the records of the time, as is Blackstone's Commentary, that the common law of the times was defined by natural law that was superior to any proclamation by any king, or the laws passed by any legislature.

As a political document, the Declaration blames the conflict between natural law and the laws passed by the English Parliament on the King who didn't have the authority to violate natural law. Subsequent writings by the parties to the insurrection and founding of the various independent governments make it clear that many considered natural law to remain superior to any laws by man.

Including the US Constitution.