When a man declares he is the law ... by Matt Giwer, © 2002 [August]
... his actions are personal and do not have the protection of law. Should the law choose to protect him, the harmed people have the moral right to personal vengeance. In addition everyone in the chain of command from that person to the person harmed is liable for both criminal and civil penalties. The laws enabling the US Constitution clearly require specific procedures before a person can be deprived of life, liberty or property. When those forms are not followed the deprivation is done by the people involved without recourse to the protection of law. They do not have the protection of law because they have not followed the law. It is as simple as that. More extensive reasoning Governments are instituted among men with limited powers delegated to them by the people. Governments have no more powers than individuals have. What is not moral for an individual is not moral for a government. That is not the way most people think of governments but that is exactly the basis of governments in the United States. The people delegate the exercise of their powers to the government. People cannot delegate the exercise of powers they do not have. Governments, as human creations, cannot exercise powers not given to them. The crucial point here is the people do not delegate the power itself only the exercise of the power. A corollary is the government has the responsibility to exercise the powers given to it. It follows, should the government fail to exercise those powers, the people have the right to exercise them. A very unlikely example is the people have given the government the power to punish thieves. Should a government for some reason decide to stop punishing thieves, the people still have the right to exercise that power. The delegation of the exercise of a power is conditional upon both the exercise and the proper exercise of that power. If it were otherwise the failure of the government to exercise a power would cause the power to vanish under the principle of once delegated it is forever lost to the people. That is not reasonable. The exercise of these powers are granted within a specific framework which much be followed for the power to be exercised. If the proper form is not followed then the power is not being justly exercised and it ceases to be the government exercise of that power. A current example is the government is delegated the exercise of the power to protect the citizens of the country within the framework only. People are presently imprisoned without charges in the US. The framework for the exercise does not permit that. Therefore the imprisonment is not being done by the government but by the individuals involved from the person who ordered it to the lowest level jailer. The imprisonment is unlawful. As such the government must exercise the power to prevent unlawful detention. If the government does not exercise that power then the people may exercise their power to prevent it. And the people have the power to punish it. As US governments are formed by "We, the people" any person or persons may act in the absence of government exercise. As Attorney General Ashcroft is not acting in accordance within the required framework of law he is acting without the protection of law. His actions are his personally without connection to his government position. The consequences of his actions fall upon him personally. Should the government decline to exercise its obligation to arrest and punish Ashcroft, the exercise of the people retain the power to do so. The individual harmed by Ashcroft may choose to exercise his power to punish Ashcroft. It is necessary to point out the people have delegated no extraordinary powers nor exceptions to the rules for proper exercise of powers to the government in time of war. The people have had over two centuries to do exactly that and have enacted many laws covering war time powers. A constitutional amendment suspending parts of itself during war has not been done nor even proposed.
Page reads: 14376