Welcome • User Guide
ToS • Privacy • Canary
Donate • Bugs • License

©2025 Poal.co

563

Memorize this. This is your authority.

Ex Parte Milligan, 71 U.S. 2 (1866)

Neither the legislature nor any executive or judicial officer may disregard the provisions of the Constitution in case of emergency.

ANYONE who declares the suspension of Constitutionally guaranteed rights (to travel freely, peacefully assemble, earn a living, freely worship, etc.) AND OR attempts to enforce such a suspension within the 50 independent, sovereign, states of the United States of America is making war against our Constitution and therefore the people.

They violate their Constitutional oath and, thus, immediately forfeit their office and authority and their proclamations may be disregarded with impunity.

Memorize this. This is your authority. Ex Parte Milligan, 71 U.S. 2 (1866) Neither the legislature nor any executive or judicial officer may disregard the provisions of the Constitution in case of emergency. ANYONE who declares the suspension of Constitutionally guaranteed rights (to travel freely, peacefully assemble, earn a living, freely worship, etc.) AND OR attempts to enforce such a suspension within the 50 independent, sovereign, states of the United States of America is making war against our Constitution and therefore the people. They violate their Constitutional oath and, thus, immediately forfeit their office and authority and their proclamations may be disregarded with impunity.

(post is archived)

You are currently inside a comment thread.
Click here to see all the comments (111).
[–] • 3 pts

That's how all authority works whether it's written down or not. That's exactly what the British government would have said to the Declartion of Independence which appealed to self-evident principles above any codified system of legal code. Law is founded in authority. And when authority is unjustly wielded it is null. Would it change your willingness to exercise liberties if the code book said otherwise?

[–] • 0 pt

That's how all authority works whether it's written down or not.

Then why make any pretense about it being some kind of law. Just say, "I'm not listening to what the government says if I think it's not right," and leave it at that?

That's exactly what the British government would have said to the Declartion of Independence which appealed to self-evident principles above any codified system of legal code.

They did say that by sending over troops. Do you have a Continental army ready to defend your position?

Law is founded in authority. And when authority is unjustly wielded it is null. Would it change your willingness to exercise liberties if the code book said otherwise?

Yes, the problem isn't the theory. The problem is who has the authority to decide what is just and unjust? If it's every individual for himself, then there is no rule of law.

[–] • 0 pt

"I'm not listening to what the government says if I think it's not right," and leave it at that?

Because that's not at all what I said. The obligation to obey authority is null if the authority operates outside it's jurisdiction. That's self-evident. It has nothing to do with "if I think" anything.

Do you have a Continental army ready to defend your position?

Obviously not. But what's your point? We know that an unjust authority will use any means within it's reach to maintain itself. Does that mean it is still to be obeyed or that it's proclamations still carry moral force when it operates outside it's jurisdiction?

The problem is who has the authority to decide what is just and unjust? If it's every individual for himself, then there is no rule of law.

It is self-evident that it is morally right or just for an authority to operate only within it's granted scope. Every individual should have the mental capacity to recognize that authority operating outside it's jurisdiction is unjust, false and to be disregarded. That's not an overthrow of the rule of law. In such a case the authority is the one who is attempting to overthrow and sidestep the rule of law. Those disregarding the unjust authority are attempting to return to the just rule of law.

[–] • 0 pt

Obviously not. But what's your point?

My point is that even if you are right, you will still be convicted and imprisoned. You can be sit in your prison cell and think about how right you are for a long time.

That's not an overthrow of the rule of law

Saying it doesn't make it true. Laws mean nothing if they are merely optional and each person is free to choose whether they feel those laws apply to themselves or not.