Re: Holding Ground

posted Nov 21, 2011, 5:56 PM by Unknown user   [ updated Dec 16, 2011, 5:51 PM ]
Every word is subject to:

How much time does a person spend on awareness of the following in their own actions?

"highest order of constitutional protection, your eating a sandwich is less important, constitutionally."

Highest order of the United States law is not coincidentally found in bankruptcy court -

What if while I am eating a sandwich I am thinking of a new constitution? Why do you get to decide that you are more important than me? ?

3rd party for mediation (government, law, police - all humans), because we may not come to a compromise?

"The principle does not state how the decision is to be made, or what the outcome should be, whether it be independencefederationprotection, some form of autonomy or even full assimilation.[1]

"Drawing new borders

Once groups exercise self-determination through secession, the issue of the proposed borders may prove more controversial than the fact of secession"

Forget borders, and don't attempt to change ( people, and could that maybe a recipe for success? 

"In the post-cold war era, it can however be seen that new emergent norms of humanitarian intervention are superseding the norm of non-intervention. This is based upon the argument that while sovereignty gives rights to states, it also comes with a responsibility to protect its citizens, an argument based upon social contract theory. Under this ideal, states can be justified in intervening within other states if that state is failing to protect (or if it is actively involved in harming) its citizens. This has justified UN sanctioned interventions in Northern Iraq in 1991 to protect the Kurds and in Somalia in the absence of state power. This argument was also used (with strong opposition from Russia and China) to justify NATO intervention in Kosovo and more recently in Libya.

This new norm of humanitarian intervention is far from fully formed, as in all of the UN sanctioned cases the arguments were further couched in Chapter VII threats to international peace and security. This new emergent norm appears to only justify the action of states if they want to act, and does not create a duty of states to intervene."

"Right of self-defence - The theory of self-defence based on rational self-interest maintains that the use of retaliatory force is justified against repressive nations that break the zero aggression principle. In addition, if a free country is itself subject to foreign aggression, it is morally imperative for that nation to defend itself and its citizens by whatever means necessary. Thus, any means to achieve a swift and complete victory over the enemy is imperative. This view is prominently held by Objectivists."

Is there right and wrong? :)

If you tell me that I am wrong and treat me accordingly, I can come up with reasons to satisfy all the criteria and unleash a on you ? 

this is scratching the surface.... 

Before the Civil WarAfrican Americans were legally denied equal rights and freedoms pursuant to formally valid codes prescribing the relations between master and slave. Even though these codes were de jure fully suitable for application in legal practice, yet their enforcement by the then U.S. government de facto violated basic human rights of a significant part of the population.

Generally speaking, the occurrence of such "justly enacted unjust laws" fully depends on the stance taken by the country's political leadership towards the rule of law principle.

In some countries, the political leaders assert that the rule of law is purely a procedural concept. Therefore, they argue that any government may strip its subjects of their fundamental freedoms or infringe their vital interests so long as this is done by way of a duly implemented legal mechanism. For example, at the Nuremberg trials, in an attempt to justify their crimes against Jewish and Romany population of Europe during World War II, some of the former leaders of Nazi Germany argued that they had broken none of the laws effective when Hitler had been in power. And it is only by invoking the rule according to a higher law that the Allied prosecutors were able to legitimately overcome such defenses.[8]

In other countries, conversely, the political leaders assert that all written laws must be kept in line with the universal principles of morality, fairness, and justice. These leaders argue that, as a necessary corollary to the axiom that "no one is above the law," the rule of law requires the government to treat all persons equally under the law. However, the proclaimed right to equal treatment is susceptible to instantly becoming void each time the government denies a sufficient level of respect, dignity, and autonomy to a certain class of individuals or to human rights in general. ".[9] Therefore, the unwritten and universally self-explanatory principles of equality, autonomy, dignity, and respect are said to overrule conventional written laws enacted by the government. It is these principles that are often referred to as "natural law." They also constitute the basis of the "higher law theory."

Nuremberg's Trial Principle VI states,

"The crimes hereinafter set out are punishable as crimes under international law:

(a) Crimes against peace:
(i) Planning, preparation, initiation or waging of a war of aggression

Not allowing me to think while eating a sandwich in a public park is aggression, I say :) 
Penalties were mostly death at that trial... hahahahaha

"To initiate a war of aggression, therefore, is not only an international crime; it is the supreme international crime differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole."


Thank you, all
(intentionally mix-matching laws and principles from "various" disciplinest)