THE LAW DOCTRINE

Noun.

[ thuh law dok-trin ]

Summary Definition of “The Law Doctrine”

The Law Doctrine defines the hierarchical order of the main categories of law that are recognised by human society:
1. Natural Law (moral, divine).
2. Democratic Law (democracy).
3. Legislative Law (statute, parliamentary legislation).
4. Judicial Law (case, precedent).

Full Definition of “The Law Doctrine”

The Law Doctrine defines the hierarchical order of the main categories of law that are recognised by human society:
1. Natural Law (moral, divine).
2. Democratic Law (democracy).
3. Legislative Law (statute, parliamentary legislation).
4. Judicial Law (case, precedent).

Natural Law supersedes Democratic Law.
Democracy supersedes Legislative Law.
Legislative Law supersedes Judicial Law.

A telling feature of The Law Doctrine hierarchy is that the least legitimate types of law (legislative and judicial) are also the most complex, tortuous and unfathomable to those who are not specifically trained to understand them. Indeed, the legal system even has its own dictionary and language, called ‘legalise’ (or ‘legalize’).

In contrast, Natural Law (timeless morality) and Democratic Law (democracy) can be understood in their entirety by virtually anyone. In fact, The Law Doctrine can be listed in exactly the same order, simply by placing the most straightforward law at the top of the hierarchy depreciating to the most convoluted at the bottom.

This is because the truly legitimate rules of society are always those that make the most sense to the most people, and are thereby the simplest, whereas the least legitimate and most complex social regulations are invariably produced for purposes of control over the populace rather than to serve them.

The more complex they are, the less that those who are not trained in the profession will be able to argue against them, and the more the law will be able to be manipulated or interpreted to serve the ruling order and to benefit only those who operate it from behind the scenes. The phrase, “the devil is in the detail” reminds us of exactly who are the kind of people to utilise this tactic of ‘control via complexity’.

As is expected, certain disagreements exist over the exact definitions that may be applied to these key types of law listed within The Law Doctrine, so the following definitions are made as concise as possible, in order to be as close as possible to their generally understood meaning.

NATURAL LAW
Natural Law is the system of fundamental social rules, commonly considered as ‘that which is right’ to the vast majority of human beings. Natural Law is most simply defined as what is ‘innately moral’.

Natural Law aims to define the most appropriate rules for social prosperity in response to the natural instincts of some, most, or all people. The almost eternal idiom, “do to others as you would have done to you” perfectly exemplifies Natural Law.

The political concept of people’s god-given “inalienable rights” is directly attributable to the idea that Natural Law is innately felt in the hearts and minds of human beings because it reflects that which is divinely positive.

It may be asserted that all which is ‘good’ and ‘appropriate’ within society aligns with Natural Law, while all that is ‘bad’ and ‘inappropriate’ either significantly or wholly disregards Natural Law.

DEMOCRACY (Democratic Law)
The Law of Democracy asserts that the largest proportion of the people, in respect to a political position or a social opinion, should hold sway over other minority positions or views.

Some would argue that the above definition may allow for the subjugation or persecution of minorities by the majority, but so long as the The Law Doctrine is adhered to, and thereby Natural Law always remains superlative to Democracy, any such accusation is rendered meaningless. No legitimate democratic system may supersede or circumvent Natural Law, which broadly protects the individual’s right to fundamental freedom from physical harm, and his or her private property and home from theft or invasion.

A major threat against Democratic Law is in its capacity to be manipulated into a faux-democracy. When a democratic system is significantly corrupted through the control of its political parties, civil service or electoral process by non-elected individuals and institutions, such as Globalist Non-Democratic Organisations (GNO’s), controlled mainstream media or social media, or by toxic wealth, it becomes something less than a true democracy.

The most perfect democratic system is one in which all major decisions are directly voted on by the people in the form of a referendum (perhaps many each year), and in which information on all politicians and political parties – such as all financial, commercial and political connections, and particularly any links to institutions that rely on secrecy – is persistently disclosed to the entire electorate as a key element of the democratic process. Secrecy is the ultimate enemy of democracy.

LEGISLATIVE LAW (Legislation and Statute)
Legislation is constructed by a parliament or similar public body in a supposed attempt to deal with more specific elements of criminality or social concern.

Within a democracy, legislation is meant to be read and analysed by the parliament – the political representatives of the people – prior to its accession into law. However, since a parliament was first formed in England in 1275, the legislative bills of parliament have continued to balloon to what is sometimes many thousands of pages relating a single proposed bill. No politician can be expected to persistently read such reams of small print on behalf of their constituents, and so it can be reasonably claimed that legislative law no longer serves the people, if it ever did.

There is certainly a valid argument in the 21st century for a forward thinking government, which is acting on behalf of the people, to eradicate every single parliamentary Act and to start afresh from a base of Natural Law with a completely new and simplified legal system.

Regardless, in respect to the hierarchy established under The Law Doctrine, there can be absolutely no question that if the majority of any nation state democratically decide to overturn, amend or otherwise make changes to any legislation, or to the legislative system a whole, then they have the absolute right to do so. The power of democracy always legitimately supersedes the power of legislation.

JUDICIAL LAW (Case Law)
When a judge gives a written opinion with a court, it may become Case Law. This sets a precedent within the court system that is then repeatedly built upon by subsequent judges who give their own legal opinions.

Thereby, for different reasons than those outlined in regards to Legislative Law, Case Law also over time becomes extremely convoluted, and ultimately comprehendible only to those who are part of the legal profession. This serves to legally disempower the vast majority of the public.

Both the judiciary and lawyers are complicit in maintaining the complexity of Case Law, because when a member of the public represents him or herself in court and understands the legal terminology as well as knowing the general tricks of the court ‘game’, the gravy train suddenly stops running. The court system has become not much more than a closed-shop for the purpose of its membership’s potential to earn big money. Representing yourself in court is therefore very much opposed by all gatekeepers of the court system. As a barrister once stated to me with a very straight face, “there is no such thing as law, there is only money.” Within the Judicial/Case Law system of justice, that is certainly true.

This Judicial Law existed prior to the first English parliament, and therefore did not originally set precedent in relation to legislation, but rather in relation to Natural Law or to existing laws that had been founded on Natural Law.

The people at the time logically supported this form of law, because it tended to respond to regional and local anomalies, with the judge applying a specific interpretation of the Natural Law for that particular ‘case’, therein it became known as ‘case law’.

However, since the introduction of Legislative Law, which has had over seven centuries to become utterly corrupted by malign influences and interests, judges have been establishing legal precedents based on legislation that serves the corporation and the State, rather than on Natural Law that serves the people.

Ultimately, all Legislative Law that is to be regarded as legitimate must be under the direct control of authentic democracy, and thereby under the direct control of the people.

In practice, a majority of the people could simply elect a parliament, which in turn could create legislation that eliminated the judiciary and court legal system as a whole, and replace it with a pro-people, anti-corporate alternative, based entirely on Natural Law and not on money.

For this reason alone, it must be determined that Legislative Law always supersedes Judicial/Case Law, because Democratic Law supersedes both, and whereas an elected parliament has an ultimate capacity to command a body of lawyers and judges – who only exist to serve the citizenry and the nation – those same lawyers and judges are not elected by the people, and therefore – within any genuinely democratic system – have no predominant or determining power over the people’s parliament.

The most important thing to understand about The Law Doctrine is that it illustrates the very real political power of the people over those who falsely consider themselves to be in control of society. In reality, the politicians, the judges, the lawyers, the civil servants, the banksters, the billionaires, and the globalists, are not in control; you are.

The trick to their illusion of control is that they manufacture ideological divisions within the populace, and petty social concerns that act as distractions from the real issues and the real solutions that they don’t want you to consider, or even to think about.

So the next time you hear a politician or media hack stating in no uncertain terms that the government cannot ignore the courts or breach international law (legislation), you should understand that they are simply attempting to pull the wool over your eyes and to call your bluff.

They know that what they are saying relies entirely on the consent of the people, because they understand full-well – as clearly illustrated within The Law Doctrine – that a majority of the people always has the absolute democratic right to ignore any court or to breach any legislation that it democratically decides is no longer legitimate. All such legislation only remains relevant and binding so long as the people consent to its validity. That is the fundamental reality of democracy; of the democratic system; of the Democratic Law.

The entire political and social system can be dismantled and replaced hook, line and sinker by any democratically elected body, if it so wishes to do so. If the objective is clearly a moral one, which is aligned with Natural Law and the Sovereign rights of a people, and has the clear support of the majority of the people, then its mandate will be respected and upheld by all but the most shameless, sociopathic and uncivilised within society. #TheLawDoctrine.