Lysander Spooner
"What, then, is legislation?
It is an assumption by one man, or body of men, of absolute, irresponsible dominion over all other men whom they can subject to their power.
It is an assumption by one man, or body of men, of a right to subject all other men to their will and their service.
It is an assumption by one man, or body of men, of a right to abolish outright all the natural rights, all the natural liberty of all other men; to make all other men their slaves; to arbitrarily dictate to all other men what they may, and may not do; what they may, and may not, have; what they may, and may not, be.
It is, in short, the assumption of a right to banish the principle of human rights, the principle of justice itself, from off the earth, and set up their own personal will, pleasure, and interest in its place.
All this, and nothing less, is involved in the very idea that there can be any such thing as legislation that is obligatory upon those upon whom it is imposed."
[Lysander Spooner in 1882]
Floyd Acceptances, 7 Wall (74 U.S. 169) 666 (1869):
“The transaction [***29] by which these drafts were accepted was in direct violation of this law, and of the limitations which it imposes upon all officers of the government. Every citizen of the United States is supposed to know the law, and when a purchaser of one of these drafts began to make the inquiries necessary to ascertain the authority for their acceptance, he must have learned at once that, if received by Russell, [*683] Majors & Waddell, as payment, they were in violation of law, and if received as accommodation paper, they were evasions of this law, and without any shadow of authority.” 7 Wall. 666
[Floyd Acceptances, 7 Wall (74 U.S. 169) 666 (1869)]
Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137; 1 Cranch 137, 2 L.Ed. 60 (1803)
“The government of the United States has been emphatically termed a government of laws, and not of men. It will certainly cease to deserve that high appellation, if the laws furnish no remedy for the violation of a vested legal right.”
[Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137; 1 Cranch 137, 2 L.Ed. 60 (1803)]
Bollow v. Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco, 650 F.2d 1093 (9th Cir. 1981)
"All persons in the United States are chargeable with knowledge of the Statutes-at-Large....[I]t is well established that anyone who deals with the government assumes the risk that the agent acting in the government's behalf has exceeded the bounds of his authority,"
[Bollow v. Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco, 650 F.2d 1093 (9th Cir. 1981)]
Tacitus, Roman historian 55-117 A.D.
"The more corrupt the state, the more numerous the laws."
Law according to the Bible:
"The law of the Lord is perfect, converting the soul; the testimony of the Lord is sure, making wise the simple; the statutes of the Lord are right, rejoicing the heart; the commandment of the Lord is pure, enlightening the eyes; the fear of the Lord is clean, enduring forever; the judgments of the Lord are true and righteous altogether. More to be desired are they than gold, yea, than much fine gold; sweeter also than honey and the honeycomb. Moreover, by them Your servant is warned, and in keeping them there is great reward."
[Psalms 19:7-11, NJKV Bible]
________________________________________________________________________________
"Your righteousness is an everlasting righteousness, and Your law is truth."
[Psalms 119:142, NKJV Bible, speaking about God]
________________________________________________________________________________
"Therefore, just as through one man sin entered the world, and death through sin, and thus death spread to all men, because all sinned--(For until the law sin was in the world, but sin is not imputed when there is no law."
[Romans 5:12-13, NJKV Bible]
________________________________________________________________________________
"Therefore, if you died with Christ from the basic principles of the world, why as though living in the world, do you subject yourselves to regulations--"Do not touch, do not taste, do not handle," which all concern things which perish with the using--"according to the commandments and doctrines of men? These things indeed have the appearance of wisdom in self-imposed religion, false humility, and neglect of the body, but are of no value against the indulgence of the flesh."
[Colossians 2:20-23, NKJV Bible]
"And do not present your members as instruments of unrighteousness t sin, but present yourselves to God as being alive from the dead, and your members as instruments of righteousness of God. For sin shall not have dominion over you, for you are not under the law but under grace."
[Romans 6:13-14, NJKV Bible]
________________________________________________________________________________
Galatians 5:13-18:
13 For you, brethren,
have been called to liberty; only do not use liberty as an opportunity
for the flesh, but through love serve one another.
[COMMENTARY: Who does the Internal Revenue SERVICE
serve?…themselves, of
course, using tax dollars illegally extorted from individuals]
14
For all the law is fulfilled
in one word, even in this: “You shall love your neighbor as yourself.”
[COMMENTARY: Is decriminalizing sin or making it into a right
an act of love?…NO!..that just spreads misery and injustice. Is
the kind of arrogant disinformation, irresponsibility, and complete
avoidance of talking about the law on the part of most IRS agents what
you would call “love”?]
15 But if
you bite and devour one another, beware lest you be consumed by one
another!
[INTERPRETATION: Civilization will be destroyed by pursuits
of the flesh]
16 I say then: Walk in the Spirit, and you shall not fulfill the lusts of the flesh.
17 For the flesh
lusts against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh; and these
are contrary to one another, so that you do not do the things that
you wish.
[INTERPRETATION: Don’t use government to advocate or legalize
sin, and don’t do the things you want, do what is good for your brother
instead!]
18
But if you are led by
the Spirit, you are not under the law.
[INTERPRETATION: If you follow the bible, then no government can
or should pass a law against anything you do. The government can
only regulate and control sinners, not believers. Law is there
to protect believers from the sinful acts of others.]
Mcnally v. United States, 483 U.S. 350 (1987)
When considering how much weight to accord to the doctrine of lenity,
it is appropriate to identify the class of litigants that will benefit
from the Court's ruling today. They are not uneducated, or even average,
citizens. They are the most sophisticated practitioners of the art of
government [483 U.S. 350, 376] among us.
There is an element of fiction
in the presumption that every citizen is charged with a responsibility
to know what the law is. But the array of government executives, judges,
and legislators who have been accused, and convicted, of mail fraud
under the well-settled construction of the statute that the Court renounces
today are people who unquestionably knew that their conduct was unlawful.
Cf. Nash v. United States,
229 U.S. 373, 377 (1913).
[Mcnally
v. United States, 483 U.S. 350 (1987)]
Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, p. 884:
That which is laid down, ordained, or established. A rule or method according to which phenomenon or actions co-exist or follow each other. Law, in its generic sense, is a body of rules of action or conduct prescribed by controlling authority, and having binding legal force. United States Fidelity and Guaranty Co. v. Guenther, 281 U.S. 34, 50 S.Ct. 165, 74 L.Ed. 683. That which must be obeyed and followed by citizens subject to sanctions or legal consequences is a law. Law is a solemn expression of the will of the supreme power of the State. Calif.Civil Code, §22.
The “law” of a state is to be found in its statutory and constitutional enactments, as interpreted by its courts, and, in absence of statute law, in rulings of its courts. Dauer’s Estate v. Zabel, 9 Mich.App. 176, 156 N.W.2d 34, 37.
[Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, p. 884]
In re McCowan (1917), 177 Cal. 93,
170 P. 1100
"Of course, ignorance of the law does not excuse misconduct in any one, least of all in a sworn officer of the law. But this is a quasi criminal action, and in fixing the penalty to be imposed the court should properly take into account the motives and purposes which actuated the accused. Applying these considerations, we think the requirements of the situation will be satisfied by a judgment suspending the respondent from practice for a limited time."
[In re McCowan , 177 Cal. 93, 170 P. 1100 (1917)]
United States vs. Lee, 106 U.S. 196, 1 S. Ct. 240 (1882)
"No man in this country is so high that he is above the law. No officer of the law may set that law at defiance with impunity. All the officers of the government, from the highest to the lowest, are creatures of the law and are bound to obey it. It is the only supreme power in our system of government, and every man who by accepting office participates in its functions is only the more strongly bound to submit to that supremacy, and to observe the limitations which it imposes upon the exercise of the authority which it gives," 106 U.S., at 220. "Shall it be said... that the courts cannot give remedy when the Citizen has been deprived of his property by force, his estate seized and converted to the use of the government without any lawful authority, without any process of law, and without any compensation, because the president has ordered it and his officers are in possession? If such be the law of this country, it sanctions a tyranny which has no existence in the monarchies of Europe, nor in any other government which has a just claim to well-regulated liberty and the protection of personal rights," 106 U.S., at 220, 221.
[United States vs. Lee, 106 U.S. 196, 1 S. Ct. 240 (1882)]
San Francisco Gas
Co. v. Brickwedel , 62 Cal. 641 (1882)
"We have neither the right nor the disposition, by judicial interpretation, to take away the wholesome restriction upon municipalities thus imposed by the Constitution. Of course, in giving effect to this radical change from the pre-existing condition of things, it will not be strange if some shall be found to suffer. But it must be remembered that all are presumed to know the law, and that whoever deals with a municipality*643 is bound to know the extent of its powers. Those who contract with it, or furnish it supplies, do so with reference to the law, and must see that limit is not exceeded. With proper care on their part and on the part of the representatives of the municipality, there is no danger of loss."
[San Francisco Gas Co. v. Brickwedel , 62 Cal. 641 (1882). See also Dore v. Southern Pacific Co. (1912), 163 Cal. 182, 124 P. 817; People v. Flanagan (1924), 65 Cal.app. 268, 223 P. 1014; Lincoln v. Superior Court (1928), 95 Cal.App. 35, 271 P. 1107; San Francisco Realty Co. v. Linnard (1929), 98 Cal.App. 33, 276 P. 368]
Daniels v. Dean, 2 Cal.App.
421, 84 P. 332 (1905)
It is one of the fundamental maxims of the common law that ignorance of the law excuses no one. If ignorance of the law could in all cases be the foundation of a suit in equity for relief, there would be no end of litigation, and the administration of justice would become in effect impracticable. There would be but few cases in which one party or the other would not allege it as a ground for exemption from legal liability, and the extent of the legal knowledge of each individual suitor would be the material fact on which judgment would be founded. Instead of trying the facts of the case and applying the law to such facts, the time of the court would be occupied in determining whether or not the parties knew the law at the time the contract was made or the transaction entered into. The administration of justice in the courts is a practical system for the regulation of the transactions of life in the business world. It assumes, and must assume, that all persons of sound and mature mind know the law, otherwise there would be no security in legal rights and no certainty in judicial investigations.
One of the most instructive cases on the question is Stewart v. Stewart et al., 6 Clark & Finnelly, 911, where the opinion was delivered by Lord Chancellor Cottenham, and the English cases fully reviewed. It was held that a widow, who had entered into a compromise agreement by the advice of her law agent, and received her share of the estate under the agreement, could not be relieved of the agreement upon the ground that she was ignorant of her legal rights. It is there said: “The question is whether a compromise and arrangement fairly and honestly entered into, in which the party now complaining acted under the advice of a professional man, who called to his assistance two of the most distinguished counsel of the Scotch bar, is to be set aside because a point was overlooked in that party's case which, if thought of at the time, might have prevented *428 her from agreeing to the terms proposed, as it might have made a very material difference in the relative situation of the parties. *** All the facts raising the point of law were fully known to all the parties, and the point of law mistaken,**335 or not attended to, was that the pursuer was entitled to repudiate the provisions made for her by her deceased husband, and to claim the jus relictae; whereas the negotiation of the compromise proceeded upon the supposition that, if the law of Scotland was to prevail, she could only claim the benefit of those provisions.” In Gwynn and Wife v. Hamilton's Adm'r, 29 Ala. 233, where the husband, under the erroneous supposition that his marital rights had not attached to certain slaves belonging to his wife, delivered them to the distributees of her estate, the court held that it was a mistake of law, and that equity would grant no relief. In Weed et al. v. Weed, 94 N.Y. 243, it was held that, where a person, with full knowledge of all the facts, but through a mistaken belief that his interest in real estate was not subject to sale on execution, has lost his title through a regular sale on judgment and execution, and a conveyance by the sheriff to the purchaser pursuant to the sale after the time for redemption had expired, the court had no power to permit a redemption, as it was a mere mistake as to legal rights. In Williams v. Thwing Electric Co., 160 Ill. 526, 43 N.E. 595, it was held that a subscription to the capital stock of a corporation cannot be canceled, because the subscriber, through ignorance of law, acted under the mistaken idea that she was purchasing stock of a corporation already organized, instead of participating in the organization of a new corporation. In Meckley's Estate, 20 Pa. 478, it was held that parol evidence was not admissible to show that the parties interested did not understand the will to mean what it had been construed to mean, but that its meaning was that dower was to constitute a part of the purchase money of the farm and not an addition to it, as the matter in dispute was not a matter of fact, but a question of law. The question was considered at an early day by the Supreme Court of the United States in Hunt v. Rousmaniere's Administrators, 1 Pet. 15, 7 L.Ed. 27, and it was there said: “We hold the general rule to be that a mistake of this character [ignorance of law] is not ground for reforming a deed founded on such mistake; and, whatever exceptions there may be to this rule, they are not only few in *429 number, but they will be found to have something peculiar in their characters.” In Cooley v. County of Calaveras, 121 Cal. 486, 53 Pac. 1077, it is said: “The understanding of the law prevailing at the time of the settlement of a contract, although erroneous, will govern, and the subsequent settlement of a question of law by judicial decision does not create such a mistake of law as courts will rectify.”
[Daniels v. Dean, 2 Cal.App. 421, 84 P. 332 (1905)]
Frederick Bastiat, in The Law, 1850:
We must remember that law is force, and that, consequently, the proper functions of the law cannot lawfully extend beyond the proper functions of force. When law and force keep a person within the bounds of justice, they impose nothing but a mere negation. They oblige him only to abstain from harming others. They violate neither his personality, his liberty nor his property. They safeguard all of these. They are defensive; they defend equally the rights of all.
____________________________________________________________________
Law Is a Negative Concept
The harmlessness of the mission performed by law and lawful defense is self-evident; the usefulness is obvious; and the legitimacy cannot be disputed.
As a friend of mine once remarked, this negative concept of law is so true that the statement, the purpose of the law is to cause justice to reign, is not a rigorously accurate statement. It ought to be stated that the purpose of the law is to prevent injustice from reigning. In fact, it is injustice, instead of justice, that has an existence of its own. Justice is achieved only when injustice is absent.
But when the law, by means of its necessary agent, force, imposes upon men a regulation of labor, a method or a subject of education, a religious faith or creed - then the law is no longer negative; it acts positively upon people. It substitutes the will of the legislator for their own initiatives. When this happens, the people no longer need to discuss, to compare, to plan ahead; the law does all this for them. Intelligence becomes a useless prop for the people; they cease to be men; they lose their personality, their liberty, their property.
Try to imagine a regulation of labor imposed by force that is not a violation of liberty; a transfer of wealth imposed by force that is not a violation of property. If you cannot reconcile these contradictions, then you must conclude that the law cannot organize labor and industry without organizing injustice.