Advertisements

The Liberty Test

The Supreme Court uses logical tests to determine if something meets a certain standard.   We The People, should do the same.  This test, anyone can apply to any sort of policy, order, or legislation tests it’s support or opposition to freedom, and expands or contracts freedoms, for all or some people.

About the test:

There are four prongs to this test.

If the answer is “no” to any of the prongs, there is a secondary prong, a sub-prong that digs deeper into a potential negative aspect.  This aids in seeing and exposing harmful side effects and potential risks.

The first prong seeks to examine if the the policy, official order, regulation, ordnance, law, or legislation even supports any rights.  If not, then we must question if it now creates hardships, difficulties, and obstacles for exercising that right.  Either it supports freedom or makes freedom harder.  This prong, in modern times, is more easily passed over.  A lot of people now would rather suffer with harder freedoms to exercise to feel safe.  But, for those who hold liberty and freedom to the highest standard and value, if it fails the supportive-ness of a right, it isn’t worth it.

The second prong seeks to examine the effect on the right itself.  How does the policy, official order, regulation, ordnance, law, or legislation effect the right and what does it do to that right.  Does it expand it, which would be the absolute best result, or does it contract it and restrict it, which would be the absolute worst result.  Having no effect on the right is not necessarily a bad thing, depending on the context and the issue.

The third prong seeks to ensure we have learned from our past so we do not make the same legal mistakes in the future.  Either we all have our rights supported, expanded or we all suffer from oppression together; which would eventually compel us to refresh the tree of liberty again.  By “all people” literally means, everyone.  Every race, ethnic group, gender, position, stature, wealth, etc.  No future Jim Crow, Segregation laws, and Japanese Internment Camps, no matter which race attempts to impose them.

The fourth prong comes from the “narrowly tailored” prong of the Strict Scrutiny test of the Supreme Court.  This seeks to determine if the law addresses the single primary issue at hand or can be used in the future and applied to things it was not intended for.

 

The Liberty Test

*In the logical tests, the policy, official order, regulation, ordnance, law, legislation, or government action is refereed to as “it” and “them”

  1. Is it supportive of the most related right?
    1. OR does it create hardships and difficulties in exercising such right?
  2. Does it expand the most related right, and or loosen them around that right?
    1. OR does it create or tighten them, increased limitation and contracting that right?
  3. Is it equally levied on all people?
    1. OR do some people receive special treatment or are targeted unequally?
  4. Does it address a extremely specific issue?
    1. OR is it too vast, broad, vague, and subjective?

Example testing:

Jim Crow laws:

  1. No.  It does not support the rights of the people.
  2. No.  It does not expand rights or loosen any laws.
  3. No.  It is not equally levied on all people.
  4. No.  There is specific issue it seeks to solve, aside from being racist in and of itself.

The Liberty Test can easily expose the terrible nature of that system of laws.

Government prohibition of Same-Sex marriage:

  1. No.  It does not support the rights of all people.
    1. Yes, it creates hardships and difficulties exercising the same right others get.
  2. No.  It does not expand rights or loosen any laws.
    1. Yes, it creates obstacles and contracts that right making it a right for some, but not for all.
  3. No.  It is not equally levied on all people.
    1. Yes, some people receive special treatment and targets other people unequally.
  4. Yes.  It does address the specific issue of “same-sex marriage” and the government’s prohibition of it.

Now notice the use of the secondary prongs.  Helps expose the problems with the issue at hand, “Government prohibition of Same-Sex marriage.”  But then the issue seems to pass the last prong as it fails the first three.  This points to the fact that maybe the government should regulate this issue…

general Gun Control laws:

  1. No.  It does not support the rights of the people to defend themselves against criminals, domestic terrorists, or future tyrannical government oppression.
    1. Yes, it creates hardships and difficulties for non-criminal, non-evil persons from having the ability of self-defense of self, family, and community.
  2. No.  It does not expand rights or loosen any laws.
    1. Yes, it creates and tightens limitations and restrictions on the rights of all people.
  3. No.  It is not equally levied on all people in that it creates criminals of actual-non-criminals, people who are not inherently evil or menses to the society.
    1. Yes, non-criminal, law-abiding, non-menesing people are targeted unequally.
  4. No.  It does not address a extremely specific issue.  To address “gun violence” is extremely board and takes on multiple, separate, issues such as school shootings, self-defense, hunting, and sport shooting.
    1. Yes. It is too vast, broad, vague, and subjective.

Why is there no prong examining and testing the effect for the safety of society?

When we read the Constitution, the founding fathers state this in the very first paragraph: “We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”

Common defense and general welfare is not a micromanagement on a community, town, city, county, state level.  That is on a federal level, granted to Congress (federal government) in Article I, Section 8(1).  In 8(11) through 8(16) it states “11: To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;  12: To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;  13: To provide and maintain a Navy;  14: To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;  15: To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions; 16: To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;”  Here we see even the Constitution distinguishes between duties of the local communities and duties of the federal government.

In the Constitution we see that the “safety” of the individual, community, city, and State, was largely left of to them, not the federal government.

Therefore, the safety of a an individual within their community within a society is up to that individual and not the responsibility of the government to oversee their own safe choices and govern their freedom of dangerous decisions.

Just about all oppressive and racist laws that restrict freedom were passed in the name of safety and security.

Gun Control enforced on Native Americans and slaves, was in the name of safety and security.  Jim Crow laws were justified to prevent riots and for the safety of the society.  Japanese Internment Camps were justified for national security after Pearl Harbor.  The Patriot Act which authorized and empowered the federal government to have a greater regulatory hold on freedom was justified by safety and security after 9/11.  Please study Historic American Government Oppression and The Erosion and Limitations of Freedom.

The government regulation or forceful imposing of “safety” and “security” on its people should never be used to justify a law, given the examples above.  BUT supporting and expanding freedom empowers The People to better life safety and provide better for their security.  Essentially, the concept of “safety and security” is incorporated in the first two prongs.

Why is there no prong examining and testing the reliance and dependence on experts and science?

Clearly, from COVID-19 and the mass hysteria of man-caused Global Warming; we see that “experts” are biased, manipulative, and at times, dishonest, when they are supported by governments.  They are not on trial, nor can their “expert” opinions get them in trouble or charged for perjury.  Unless, in an accountable and punishable setting, their “expert opinions” are just that, opinions.

As far as science goes, Science is an ever evolving study of the natural world built on hypotheses and theories that attempt to interpret collected and observed data.  Science does not support or disprove morality.  Science, by this very practice is amoral.  The natural world conducts itself in such a way that there is no such “moral” things that are perceived as “criminal” acts such as rape and murder.  They just act and exist out of instinct and survive, amorally.  Therefore, an amoral application to moral issues is not possible.  That may also render the test less reliable in that it may have justified the schools to teach that the world was flat in the 1500s or that slavery is a form of natural selection in the human species in the 1800s.  We know these can not be correct, thus, an amoral tool to determine the best moral option is defeating and useless.

Since we know that freedom and liberty is the most “good” a being can experience and exist as, these principles guide the others.  A government and society that legalizes rape and murder will still run in conflict with the highest form of good, freedom and liberty.  Even if “experts” of that society use “science” to promote “studies” that attempt to justify the usefulness of “forced procreation” and “permanent removal of unwanted persons” in that society.

Advertisements

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

%d bloggers like this: