Federal Magistrate John Buttrick- No Evidence Constitution Applies
This interview is really interesting. The question asked to the magistrate is:
'What evidence is there, or any prosecutor has so far presented, that the Constitution Code applies just because someone is physically within the borders of that State's jurisdiction?'
The magistrate's response is basically that it is a legal pressumption. It is a legal question, not a question of evidence. For instance, he says, 'you could not provide evidence the other way, meaning that the laws don't apply to you when you were within a particular jurisdiction'.
First of all, to try to get out of a circular argument (which will be discussed later) by appealing to the conclusion that the opposite would not be provable either, is not just a fallacy but it does not escape the need to prove the applicability of the codes.
Moreover, if the defendant had no, for example, social security number to identify himself, the government's jurisdiction over his legal person could not be established and thus the individual suspected of commiting a crime could not be jailed nor fined. In Barcelona, for example, there are immigrants selling immitation bags and trainers on the streets with only a blanquet on the floor. But because their legal status has not been established, the state has no jurisdiction over them, making the judge's claim that 'there is no evidence to prove otherwise' false. With this particular example we can see that where there is no legal person, there is no jurisdiction and so that evidentiates that the laws might not apply to living beings but to fictional entities of the state.
If instead of immigrants they were nationals or citizens of the state, they would be able to apply for state benefits and thus would have the 'rights and duties' ascribed to them by the state. They would have the privilege to be able to beg (apply) to the state for a permit or license (permission) to do something which the state has deemed illegal (to sell in the streets). However, if they did not ask for permission while in the 'role' of citizens, they would be 'legitimately' fined or jailed. But because jurisdiction cannot be established, they cannot apply for grants or benefits, but they cannot either be jailed for something deemed by that geographical jurisdiction to be illegal.
One of the times that the interviewer rephrases the same question, the magistrate answers: 'it is just because you are here, [that the laws apply] yes... because that is the scope of the Constitution'.
This is called 'circular argument' or fallacy of 'petitio principii' (begging the question). This happens in most ideologies or ideological constructs in which there is always a first pressumption that is taken as a given but which cannot be proven. The circular argument one is the most frequent fallacy of pressumption: 'the conclusion essentially appears both at the beginning and the end of the argument, it creates an endless circle, never accomplishing anything of substance'.
This is clearly manifested when the interviewer asks:
'If he [the prosecutor] had no evidence to prove the Constitutional Laws apply in the first place, that it was a matter of arbitrarly done 'because we said so', then how do you prove beyond a reasonable doubt that somebody violated the law if you cannot prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the law applied in the first place?'
Because if that is the case and we are pressuming that a valid contract or consent of the other party is not even required; what stops anybody from writing a paper and establishing that it applies to anybody? Who says that the Codes and Statutes apply? The interviewer rightly asks: 'So, what you are saying is that when you as a judge make a determination is different from when I make a determination because it is considered a legal opinion and then there are men with guns that will actually carry it out.'
That is giving too much power to the legal 'society' called BAR, and if only a few decide over others with disregard to any higher moral or principle which could be, for example, Natural Law, then what assures 'the people' that the ones legislating will do so without privileging the few on power? I think by now it even sounds ridiculous to argue that this is not the case at all, when politicians and corporations are doing as they please, having one rule for us and one rule for them.
'If you've got a legal argument and it is not supported by evidence, then it is arbitrary by definition'. Exactly, so what could the evidence be? Neither the judge nor the interviewer can think of anything that would ground 'the law' to factual evidence. I think the closest we could get to that would perhaps be case-law such as Common Law, which is decided exclusively by the people and not by judges.
At one point, the judge makes a really interesting claim which, in my eyes, instead of exposing the absurdity of the interviewer's question, evidentiates the absurdity of the system he is a part of:
'I don't know whether that would be any different than saying: well, you said I commited a murder but what is the evidence that the murder laws apply to me? All you have is evidence of me with a gun and a body lying there, but where is the evidence that those laws apply to me?'
The problem rised by the magistrate is obvious and important, the issue with the argument that laws are arbitrary is that then murderers or thieves can run free without ever being held accountable. But, as he himself acknowledged, the laws are indeed arbitrarily decided between those in the legal system and those in governments. Therefore, it is implicit that those in governments and/or the legal system are not robbing or murdering... is that really the case?
That is precisely the problem with having arbitrarly established rules, codes, regulations, acts and statutes that nobody ever learns in their lifetime. One could be violating any of those without ever realising because those do not stand to common sense or reason and are not simple enough to be known by everybody. What stops the legislators from legislating in their favour if laws are arbitrary? And without actual evidence that the laws apply and are based in something else than 'somebody said so', how can they not be arbitrary?
The magistrate's acknowledgement that this is the case drives him to the realisation that arguments which undermine the system cannot be allowed within the system:
'That is one of the ways to define law, and it is true enough. You have to recognise the futility of making those kind of arguments to anybody within the system. Within the system, those kind of arguments have no weight.'
Obviously the interviewer is an anarchist and so he proposes that if it is a system that people object to and it is not based on voluntary consent, the undermining of such system might not be a bad thing. He states:
'To put people in jail based on 'we are going to apply our law even though it is arbitrary' because we don't want the whole system to fall apart tomorrow, that is not a reason to destroy somebody's life.'
The magistrate cannot agree with that idea, not just because then his job would be pointless but also because it is thought that without a rule of law we would descend into chaos and destruction. It could perfectly be the case, however, why is not the legal system based on a higher principle such as Natural Law or its man-made version Common Law? That would certainly make it less arbitrary... but it would not depend on those in power to decide what it is and what it is not. That is potentially a problem for those in power... but perhaps an advantatge for those who do not wish to be in power.
Even the magistrate at one point evidentiates the absurdity of the way laws are put in place when he proposes a scenario:
'We could have a law that said that it only applies to people wearing a pink hat, and that would be as arbitrary but that would be the law. Instead, it is a geographic area in which these Constitutional Laws apply.'
What makes the current way in which laws are made better than this surreal 'pink hat' proposal? On one hand, it could be argued that the current legal system is based on custom and tradition. However, if we are talking about acts and statutes, this is not the case as governments are constantly changing them. On the contrary, Common Law is a real representation and manifestation of custom and tradition with respect to changing situations and times.
On the other hand, it could perhaps be argued that the changes in legislation are decided through the consciousness of those who have dedicated time and study into the law and morality. First of all, there are plenty of laws made by corrupted law-makers to benefit the few in detriment of the many; and secondly, what makes their judgment better, when by this particular magistrate's responses, we can gather that he does not even acknowledge the internal fallacious argument he takes as a given? How can we trust the judgment of people who do not even realise they are inside an ideological system?
There is another part of the interview that I would like to highlight. The interviewer explains to the judge that what he is doing is not presenting an argument but a question that reveals the 'gun in the room'. He says:
'An essential element of the prosecutor's case would be the applicability of the code. Any element has to be proved beyond a reasonable doubt.'
To what the judge replies:
'Jurisdiction is not an element of the crime, it is fundamental even beyond the element of the crime.'
And the interviewer, in my opinion, presents a crucial insight:
'But there is no crime without the code, and thus the applicability of the code is essential.'
The sociologist Howard S. Becker's (1963) crime theory was based on the conception that deviancy is a social construct, meaning that establishing what is considered normal also defines what is abnormal. In his work, Becker suggested "deviancy is not a quality of the act a person commits, but rather a consequence of the application by others of rules and sanctions to an 'offender'". In some extent, this is the case. There can be no deviancy if there is no straight path from which one could even deviate. That straight path has to be decided somehow, but this type of 'relativism' cannot be mistaken with 'because it is all relative, let's make it even less relevant and more arbitrary'. Instead, it should drive us to ground what we decide as 'right' to the highest and most moral position and principle there is.
This is the main argument of this blog. The 'law' is only moral when it is grounded to a higher principle above all men. Law and morality are not the same because 'we said so', but because the law is a tool that helps prevent injustice from happening or from going without remedy. If anything that those in power label as the 'law' is therefore equated to morality while at the same time it is acknowledged that such a 'law' is established arbitrarily; that would mean that we are already living under tyranny, as just a few decide what is moral. How many times have leaders decided laws that were unjust and had to be abolished and disobeyed?
This is why man-made laws do not apply to living beings:
Comments
Post a Comment