Author Topic: DM  (Read 30 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Dale Eastman

  • Owner of myself and this website
  • Administrator
  • Promiscuous Poster
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,767
  • Reputation 0
  • This space for rent
    • Synaptic Sparks
DM
« on: October 07, 2022, 12:42:36 PM »
Quote from: 6 12:24
What, specifically, are the traits, properties, attributes, characteristics & elements of "Power(s)" as the word is used in the linked page?
Quote from: 6 22:14
- AS the word is used in Neal's essay, "How I Would 'Fix' the Constitution," "power" refers to the legal right or authorization to act or to not act." But, that is a definition and you asked for "the traits, properties, attributes, characteristics & elements" being intended by his use of the word in the context of his essay. You, Dale Eastman, did not address any particular party, so I shall endeavor to suggest Neal's meaning for the word "Power" in his essay.
.
For context, I suggest the word is used to convey a legalization of violence, although that trait is pointed - to monopolize said violence. That is, no other body is authorized a monopoly on violence. I’m going to say that the attributes and characteristics are one and the same thing for his use of the word “power.” Let me recap here, in the rendering of the attributes and characteristics, before we go into the elements.
.
The first three Articles of the Constitution use the word in the same sense of traits and properties – that as defined by “the legal right or authorization to act or to not act." Yet, the first three Articles use the word in three different senses as viewed by the singular characteristics and attributes in which they are framed: First, Art I says “legislative Powers” which is making, enacting, or proposing laws. Second, Article II says “The executive Power,” to attribute the enforcement of laws as the singular characteristic being conferred. And, third, Art III speaks of “The judicial Power,” which authorizes a system of courts to decide cases and controversies between various parties who may seek suit or satisfaction between situations, properties, events, or actions being contested.
.
Hence, the three Articles has each a different scope of use for each of the types of Powers being authorized. And, thus, each of the three Articles describes different elements of those Powers, so that they will be fit for their individual application.
.
So, in the first sentence of his essay, when he proposes his theme, the question as to too many or too few “powers,” Neal was speaking of “Powers” generically as one may speak of fruit. And, to speak specifically about these Powers, as your questions demand, one may have to narrow the questions to which branch of the government one is questioning. It is like apples and oranges, very different in look and taste, but both fruit, nonetheless. Same with the Powers that were authorized.
Quote from: 6 22:14
The reason I used the word violence is that these three branches of the government have been authorized to use force.
Quote from: 6 22:20
➽ You, Dale Eastman, did not address any particular party, so I shall endeavor to suggest Neal's meaning for the word "Power" in his essay.

And for that, I tip my hat to you sir.

➽ the government have been authorized to use force

Authorized by who?
Quote from: 6 22:37
The federal government has been authorized by the state legislatures, beginning about 1791 and continuing by oath of duty in hiring federal civil servants and by oath of duty all in enlisting soldiers. We each have sworn to support and defend that same document, the Constitution of the United States. Did you serve, Dale?
Quote from: 7 13:27
➽ The federal government has been authorized by the state legislatures

Who authorized the state legislatures?

➽ We each have sworn to support and defend that same document, the Constitution of the United States.

I am assuming you've never heard of Lysander Spooner.

➽ Did you serve, Dale?




« Last Edit: October 08, 2022, 12:27:14 AM by Dale Eastman »
Natural Law Matters

Offline Dale Eastman

  • Owner of myself and this website
  • Administrator
  • Promiscuous Poster
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,767
  • Reputation 0
  • This space for rent
    • Synaptic Sparks
Re: DM
« Reply #1 on: October 08, 2022, 12:31:22 AM »
Quote from: 7 14:32
I stated this wrong. The corrected response to your quest, "Who authorized the federal government," is that it was originally authorized by conventions in each state and then, incrementally, by its usage and amending. The usage by the court system has commonly been taken as evidence that most people will act in its accordance. The Amendments are commonly accepted as evidence that the minor errors are correctable. And, then, all those people who have subsequently sword to up hold it upon hiring for civil service, enlisting for defense serves, and taking office for administering the duties of elective offices. Okay - Spooner. Lysander and I are on a first-name basis. I even re-published two of his essays, "Vices are not Crimes," and "The Unconstitutionality of the Laws of Congress, Prohibiting Private Mails”; his masterful work, "No Treason, No. VI" was his best essay, in my opinion. Why do you ask?
Quote from: 17 10:39
Apologies for the very tardy reply. Sorry.

Why do you ask [about Spooner]?

To verify my opinion/assumption that you had not heard of Spooner.

And to my great surprise, you've read No Treason.

So now my brain is trying to explode because you've done OK 'splaining how the system is claimed to work based upon writings on parchment that Spooner excoriates.

When I use the word "authority" in relation to "government" I use the definition "right to rule".

So now I tweak my question: Who gave the [...] government a right to rule?

Your words have implied to me that you "served". What your words failed to notify me of is if it was military service or civil service. No matter.

Chain of command and chain of authority are synonymous.

I have examined the links in a chain of authority and right to rule, all the way up to the origin of this authority - right to rule.

... <pause for processing> ...

« Last Edit: October 17, 2022, 09:39:45 AM by Dale Eastman »
Natural Law Matters

Offline Dale Eastman

  • Owner of myself and this website
  • Administrator
  • Promiscuous Poster
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,767
  • Reputation 0
  • This space for rent
    • Synaptic Sparks
Re: DM
« Reply #2 on: October 17, 2022, 01:58:21 PM »
Quote from: 17 14:45
Yes . . . about Spooner. He reminds me of Trump. I can find differences in thinking - different from my own thinking; but both of them shook up the system in their own time and I like that about both of them.
Quote from: 17 14:57
Chain of command and chain of authority are synonymous.
I have examined the links in a chain of authority and right to rule, all the way up to the origin of this authority - right to rule.

I originally wrote this as Chain of Authority Examined

Because of subsequent discussions it is now:
Chain of [a right to control] Examined

I am going to change it again to:
Chain of [a right to rule] Examined

30 points. Admit or deny, then discuss denial of specific points.

Are you willing?
Natural Law Matters

Offline Dale Eastman

  • Owner of myself and this website
  • Administrator
  • Promiscuous Poster
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,767
  • Reputation 0
  • This space for rent
    • Synaptic Sparks
Re: DM
« Reply #3 on: October 17, 2022, 06:18:20 PM »
Quote
Seems as though we are not meaning the same thing by some of the words here. Example, I have never seen a case where "right" is used with "rule." I can see areas that speak of the "power" to rule, such as the first sentence in Art I § 8, "The Congress shall have Power to lay and collect Taxes . . ." But, I have heard people suggest that police have the right to arrest a criminal. No, I say, they have the power to arrest criminals. Now, back to your post - "Chain of command and chain of authority are synonymous." I never thought of it that way but, it seems okay at first blush. They seem to be going in the opposite directions, but otherwise, synonymous.
Quote
Seems as though we are not meaning the same thing by some of the words here.

Agreed. However I would word it: "We are not meaning the same thing by some of the words here."

Voltaire's Admonition, "If you wish to communicate with me, define your terms."
I often run into gasominumplaz in discussions when folks assume my definition and meaning of a word or term is the same as theirs.

Chain of Authority Examined

Substituting "a right to control" for authority.

Chain of [a right to control] Examined

1. A chain of [a right to control] has a subordinate end.
2. A chain of [a right to control] has a superior end.
3. Which may also be called a sovereign end.
4. The person allegedly holding a position of a superior [right to control] is presumed to have a higher claim on a person in a position of a subordinate [right to control].

4 of 30.




Natural Law Matters

Offline Dale Eastman

  • Owner of myself and this website
  • Administrator
  • Promiscuous Poster
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,767
  • Reputation 0
  • This space for rent
    • Synaptic Sparks
Re: DM
« Reply #4 on: October 19, 2022, 07:56:58 AM »
Quote from: 18 16:35
Your "logical" progression is mind-boggling to me. Because of something posited by an early Chief Justice, John Marshall, "That . . . authority which is supreme must control, not yield to that over which it is supreme." Source - page 426 of McCulloch v. Maryland, 17 U.S. 316 (1819)
So, on the one hand, like your point 4, above, that the superior position has higher claim over the positions of the subordinates - on the other hand, it was the people, the subordinates, who allowed the national government to wield said power by the ratification process itself. Hence, my mind boggles at the images that obtain. It appears that you and John Marshall are creating the dichotomy which you guys then eschew. Help me out.
Quote from: 19 8:55
First thing. I appreciate that you included the citation 17 U.S. 316.

As a non-lawyer who has read more cases than I remember... I am versed in looking up such cites. I'm not going to fact check this one because it rings true.

It also validates point 4.

I also appreciate that I've put the tip of a dichotomy wedge in your brain.
You are getting ahead of my chain (and claim) with your correct focus on "the people".

5. This also includes a presumed higher claim on the subordinate's property.
6. For comparison, a plantation owner's ownership of a cotton picking slave was presumed to have had a higher claim on the slave than the slave had over him or her self, property, and labor.
7. Any unagreed or forced relationship of superior and inferior [right to control] is by definition: enslavement.
8. The alleged [right to control] of those calling themselves government hinges upon The Consent Of The Governed.

Post script edit to add:
17 U.S. 316, 426
Natural Law Matters

Offline Dale Eastman

  • Owner of myself and this website
  • Administrator
  • Promiscuous Poster
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,767
  • Reputation 0
  • This space for rent
    • Synaptic Sparks
Re: DM
« Reply #5 on: October 19, 2022, 07:29:40 PM »
Quote from: 19 20:11
So, if I understand your chain of logic here, the relationship of superior to inferior by consent makes control into a right; but, the use of coercion of superior to inferior makes the relationship into an enslavement. True? Or, am I dismissing too many steps?
Quote from: 19 20:28
I think you fairly understand my point.

To hammer the point home, I chose an actual master-owner / slave-owned relationship.

9. Governmentalists and Statists presume and pretend everybody has consented.
10. This belief is excoriated just by stating: I DO NOT CONSENT!
11. There are some Governmentalists and Statists who will claim that acquiescence to the laws (politician's opinions) is consent. They are wrong.
12. For example, I always used seat belts before there were laws (politician's opinions) commanding I always wear seat belts. To properly protest that law, I would have to do something that lessens my survival odds in a collision - Not wear the seat belt.
Natural Law Matters