Main Menu

When the Law Becomes a Political Weapon

The law is deified as the supreme authority upon which coercive government justifies their oppression and demands for universal submission. As for the myth that there are good governments, pray tell; name one. At the root of every regime, the infliction of pain and suffering marks the eventual threat that government’s use for intimation of citizens to conform and accept the dictates from the authorities. No, one does not have to be a card carrying anarchist to understand the validity of this assessment. For even the disconnected and apathetic, life under political correctness has become second nature within the sheeple society.

 

The latest dubious legal persecution is being played out for all to see. The Special “Lyncher” Counsel in the person and illicit office of Robert Mueller is a prime example of the system destroying any opposition to the ruling disorder. This serial reprobate has built a career in law enforcement as a prosecutor of opponents that threaten the political establishment system. The lack of any honest investigative intent and practices reeks of a foul odor and gives the social control trade an undeniable smack of illegitimacy.

 

Mueller makes the abuses of Inspector Javert look tame in the quest to take the Les Misérables société to its knees. The partisan attorneys who staff the office of the High Executioner perform the character offing in the bloody ritual of Charles-Henri Sanson.

 

When Rousseau states that “Force does not constitute right . . . obedience is due to only legitimate powers”, the basis of what, if any authenticity of the Deep State possesses must be confronted.

 

Sound thinking people understand that the power elite will use any means to remove Trump from office with the goal of destroying the genuine nationalistic populism movement that elected The Donald, President of Real Americans. Yet, for all those Hillary diehards or Bernie True Believers, that eagerly relish in the deposing efforts of unscrupulous legal hacks, their short sightedness is unparalleled.

 

Imagine the hysteria in their insincere cat calls to apply the rule of law and order to take down an America First President. Somehow that same outrage evaporates when the Kalifornia mental asylum jury acquits Jose Ines Garcia Zarate for his murder of Kate Steinle. This preoccupation with protecting habitual criminals, while taking the whip to a retired Army Three Star General in Michael Flynn, is par for the course in the Union of Socialist Apartheid (new name for the USA) culture where only brain dead collectivists have rights.

 

Applying the edits of equity in the defense of anti-traditionalists, while using the will of the mob to destroy all jurisprudence for authentic constitutionalists, has become the primary function in the application of the law.

José María Maravall in a working paper penned in 2001 writes in THE RULE OF LAW AS A POLITICAL WEAPON. It attempts to warn about the politicization of the judiciary and the practice of the law.

 

“The rule of law also provides extraordinary resources to politicians when democracy is an equilibrium. This is particularly so when institutional reforms lead to a lack of responsibility of a decentralized and independent judiciary, and create conditions for unrestricted judicial activism. Such reforms have been introduced in both common law and civil law countries, but the paper focuses on the latter. Institutional reforms, in countries where the judiciary was hardly independent from past authoritarian regimes, have resulted in an unchecked judicial power. If rulers are scarcely accountable politically, and reduce their political responsibilities to legal liability, incentives for a judicialization of politics will be strong. If an opposition has been losing elections for a long time, and its prospects for the future are not hopeful, it will have incentives to introduce this new dimension of competition in order to undermine its adversary. A government that wants to reinforce its hold on power can also judicialise politics and use independent, partial judges to weaken opponents.

 

Politicians can transform a decentralised, independent judiciary into a political weapon against their adversaries if they have a strong urge for power now, have little fear of retaliation, partial judges are available, and their opponents will be substantially weakened as a result of the strategy. The latter will comply for the opposite reasons: if they value the longterm under democracy, even with rules of the game that are now unfavourable; if they cannot find similar resources in the judiciary, but hope to compensate this imbalance with the votes sometime in the future; if voters punish resistance to judicial decisions. I have examined two strategies of this kind: in one, the judicialization of politics is used to dislodge the incumbent; in the other, to silence opponents. In both strategies, what ultimately limited the destructive capacity of the selective use of the law as a political weapon were the political credentials of the higher court on which the final verdict rested.

 

When the rule of law becomes a political weapon, some of its principles are eventually undermined. Thus, the end justifies the means; cases are selected for political reasons; “judicial populism” leads to violations of the presumption of innocence and legal guarantees; cases last several years, and become general inquisitions in search of causes; secret proceedings become public.”

 

Do not be confused, between equating ‘judicial populism” with political populism as applied by the pro Trump faction during the 2016 election campaign. Governance within the DC Swamp has certainly proven to be far more difficult when the permanent technocratic bureaucracy resists every effort to apply common sense business principles to the administration of central government.

 

What is being played out in the mass media delusion is a Psyop propaganda theater run by the establishment to prevent meaningful change to their close knit game of permanent control. So where is the sufficiency in practice to justify compliance by a public where so few fully understand the makeup of the servitude society?

 

Anyone who has ever been a defendant in a court action filed by an adjunct of government has learned the hard way that the magistrate is an ordained sentinel for defending the system. Natural law rights are expendable in this post constitutional culture. Clearly, such an abdication is never justified because individual inherent and intrinsic rights are not ever arbitrary. However, this principle has very little to do when the effective power of political imposition is enforced and becomes weaponized.  

 

Rousseau begins The Social Contract with the most famous words he ever wrote: “Men are born free, yet everywhere are in chains.”

 

“To Rousseau, the collective grouping of all people who by their consent enter into a civil society is called the sovereign, and this sovereign may be thought of, metaphorically at least, as an individual person with a unified will. This principle is important, for while actual individuals may naturally hold different opinions and wants according to their individual circumstances, the sovereign as a whole expresses the general will of all the people. Rousseau defines this general will as the collective need of all to provide for the common good of all.”

 

As quaint as this viewpoint may appeal to idealist utopians, the collective group in Rousseau era is basically none existent in the progressive civil campaign to eradicate the essential elements that formed the ethos, which formed the American Republic.

 

For the Statist who replaced God with the STATE, their religion does not resemble a social contract among free citizens. No, their tactic is to forcibly compel the remnant practitioners of traditional values by hijacking legal precedents and fiat court decisions to accept a foreign totalitarian collectivism that can and will never be acceptable to faithful patriots.   

 

Revolution has historically been the norm when this specious Social Contract sinks into absurdity and illegitimacy. The difference in this country is that the forces of perdition control are well entrenched as the establishment. As the conservative populism awareness grows, more of the public regain their rational capacity to realize their basic self-interest and that of the larger community.

 

Politics is inevitable and cannot be avoided. Voting for office holders is a mere substitute that can be easily manipulated or outright stolen. Engaging directly with the administrative, legal and court bastions of coercive compliance is the alternative. Civil disobedience is the objective. 

 

William Rogers Brubaker writes in The French Revolution and the Invention of Citizenship:

 

“The institution and the ideology of national citizenship were first worked out during the French Revolution. The formal delimitation of the citizenry; the establishment of civil equality, entailing shared rights and shared obligations; the institutionalization of political rights; the legal rationalization and ideological accentuation of the distinction between citizens and foreigners – The Revolution bought these developments together on a national level for the first time”.

 

The General Will fashioned with and by the Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen used the edict of the revolution to off the heads of their political enemies. Little has changed under the pretense of law in the Union of Socialist Apartheid, except that the trail of blood is now collected by the court bailiff.

 

SARTRE 

 

 

 

.