Quote:
Originally Posted by To Be Quite Honest
. When a law is made here called an Act it can't be a real law because it has violated these civil rights.
|
I think you've quoted him fairly accurately based on what I've read before about their theories. What I would like to know is, what is the basis for the above quoted statement? Most freemen say something like this as though you can read it and its truth is self-evident once it's pointed out.
For me, as a lawyer, I have no idea why naming something an "Act" automatically violates its status as law.
I'm guessing it's some sort of semantic argument about laws only being laws if they are worded or passed in some particular fashion, but in my opinion that completely misapprehends the nature of the consent implied by social contract. As long as a government creates laws by the process dictated by the constitution accepted by the vast majority of people living within a political territory and as long as the government has the ability to enforce the laws it creates through coercion because in doing so it does not incite a revolt, the laws passed by that government are de facto legitimate regardless if a certain set of cranks may disagree.