Mike, sorry I didn't get back to you. When I read many of the comments on this blog I am reminded of Einstein quote: "the only constant factor in the Universe is change" That which is absolute will always remain absolute the change that takes place is our understanding. And, I have use on many an occasion that other famous quote from about 3500 years ago: "He who understands, understands not, he who understands he understands not understands" The absolute of Natural Law will never be understood, because if we did, we wouldn't exist - have a great day, Robert

Nice rhetoric if only it was true - you speak your mind and you will loose your freedom

Mike, just returned and didn't want you to think I hadn't read your reply - its good, but its late, and I'll get to it tomorrow. Thanks for you thoughtful response - Lechyd Da

Archer, that was metaphorically speaking and so we go on. So if your mother didn't want you in the first place who is there to protect you? Your world Archer is very black and white. I'm afraid life isn't that simple. Who has the right to define Natural Law? what is Natural Law - do you mean what is naturally right? Nature knows no law it is a law to itself. All the philosophies have different understandings of Natural Law. If Natuarl Law means happiness then I'm for it but alas we all have different values when it comes to happiness - one mans happiness is another mans misery. We use the term Natural Law as though we should all agree with its interpreters understanding. Archer, I like your comments, but I'm afraid this one got my goat. Sorry, have to go, nature is calling me - dinner in the sin city, Key West

I agree but isn't this quote contradictory? a compact is a compact numbers are irrelevant. When we stepped out of the cave we made a compact with our fellow cave dwellers, then after a while we decided to appoint a leader that would speak on our behalf - where's the difference?

Right on Mike and Archer - its the essence we should discuss not grocery shop. The quote simply is about governments using emergencies for their own interest and not that of the people; there are many examples of false-flag (Emergencies) as was quoted by Churchill and Hoover in yesterdays blog (read about Operation Northwoods [1962], unknown to the American public until 2001; others will come to light when those in government have long gone). The Japanese code was broken two weeks before Pearl Harbor - you do the math. Emergencies also turn the people into frighten rabbits who will even allow torture under the guise of security (as did the German people did). We the the people must take back our country our government - we must stop this continual cycle of one corporate executive after another running our country and get back to a leader based on trust and integrity. We better start learning Chinese.

Mike, thanks again for your time to further define how law and government collaborate. Mike and Archer, yes, it's probably semantics that separate our thought processes. I'm very much a person that cuts to the chase and believes firmly that what is right shall always prevail - the idea that we all perceive what's right differently is to some point true but there are basic and fundamental understandings that transcend those differences. Law, the constitution, the bill of rights, etc, etc., will, in my humble opinion, play a secondary role to that principle - it is after all the only constant factor in the Universe (nicked from Einstein).

Archer, I just returned (dinner was great) so forgive me for not sending a reply. Thank you for your explanation - in short, for rights to be rights they must be practiced and not left in some text book. I believe that justice must be seen to be just. I'll write more on civil rights tomorrow. We fool only ourselves when we see what should be or shouldn't be. Government is the people and the people can take it back.

Mike, thank you for your thoughtful reply, but I'm afraid I must disagree. There are certain rights which transcend individual (state) regulation, however those who do transgress may be individually dealt with by the appropriate authority. The Supreme Court upholds (or they are meant too) the rights of the individual regardless of religion or ethnicity - those rights are not subject to majority rule. Universal Human Rights is the core of this argument "Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness". States rights which can be used to discriminate MUST and always be secondary to Universal Human Rights. Common Law by definition is Universal (as the Supreme Court is the final arbiter, based on precedential decisions and other legal and common law interpretations) and not applied arbitrarily by individual states. States do not have the governing decision but the people do - they can change government not States. States are but vehicles to administer the law of the LAND. Would we still allow slavery in one state and not another; would we still subject women and children to the abuse of men in one state and not another. There are indeed Universal laws, which agreed on by the people, remain Federal; and, only the people can change that. Otherwise, leave the Union.

Jack, I disagree, there are inalienable rights which should be protected by the constitution those rights are not for individual states to decide upon they are inalienable. Civil Rights for all law abiding citizens are not up for a vote.

We do not live in a world of absolutes - we live in a world of constant change and that applies to all applications, but not course of the form, that, time cannot change.

Law is reflection of those it protects - if those it protects are rogues so shall the law be. RBE

"I am not afraid of an army of lions led by a sheep; I am afraid of an army of sheep led by a lion." AG

Yes, yes, yes.

O dear James, if only you were alive today to see what a mockery we are making of this incredible document. Unfortunately, those enlightened ones who were so careful and thoughtful of others to create this precious legacy have long gone, and now we have been hijacked by greed and avarice and are no longer the stewards we were meant to be.

Now that was an intelligent statement. If only he could speak now, now that it's being attacked by fundamentalists and the fascists in Wall Street and corporate board rooms.

What a stupid statement - another who thinks America is the be all

Terry you may be right and it may be the only way our of this quagmire. Yes, it will be managed by those that were responsible for the mess in the first place. The wave of forgiveness that we are currently experiencing by the White House makes a mockery out of Nuremberg trials. Up setting the apple cart is what we need to do - so perhaps we should reinstate all those employees that resigned over our use of torture and the COMPLETE and unconscionable theft of trillions by our financial institutes. I voted for Obama but I am very, very, disappointed with his attitude with regard to these crimes - if we are to move forward as a great nation we must first deal with crimes of the past and not as usual brush them under the proverbial carpet. The current government attitude just goes to prove Carlin's point that we are not represented government and that government represents corporate and wall street interests as they are the truth overlords. We have squandered our wealth and integrity for short term greed and misplaced security. I see just an extension of pre January politics - sad, very sad. It's now obvious that America needs to reform its so-called democracy - a democracy governed by oligarchy and not its people is bound to fail.

well said Archer

A stupid statement coming from a most eminent speaker and politician.

Lets cancel our phone, stop using electricity, take our money out of stocks, sell our cars, stop flying, have bastard children, and live for ever, Have a flat tax of 15 percent with no exceptions; no property tax on homes less than 150k; and increase the tax on cigarettes, alcohol, gas, and all luxury stuff. Cut military spending and government in half.

Now telling a lie or manipulating the truth are two different things, the first is stupid and the second unethical - whenever I lie about golf my next shot is always terrible.

Half of what Ronald is quoted to have said he didn't. The trickle down theory really worked (for the wealthy). His economic aftermath still affects us today. I'll give this three stars regardless who wrote it.

Yes, I love George Carlins skit on the American Dream "AND YOU'RE NOT A MEMBER OF THE CLUB". Also watch his skit on religion - it's so funny.

The more you have the more you are controlled by others - detach yourself not just from the clutter of mindless thoughts but also the shackles (shekels) that hold you down.