Consider This

[ziero0]

The laws of another state of the Union are to be proved as those of a foreign country. Musser v. Stauffer, 178 Pa. St 99, 35 ATL 709

[ziero0]

For all national purposes embraced by the Federal constitution, the states and the citizens are one, united under the same sovereign authority, and governed by the same laws. In all other respects the states are necessarily foreign and independent of each other. Buckner v. Finley, 2 Pet. (U.S.) 386; Bracket v. Norton, 4 Conn 517, 10 Am. Dec. 179; Hempstead v. Reed, 6 Conn 480

[ziero0]

The courts of the United States will take cognizance of the laws which were previously enforced in countries acquired by the United States before such acquisition. The laws of such countries are not to be considered foreign laws, but those of an antecedent government. United States v. Permit, 98 U.S. 428

[ziero0]

The laws of Mexico in force in California, before and at the time of the transfer of California to the United States, upon which the title of lands in California depends, must be judicially noticed and expounded by the courts in like manner as other public laws of the state of California. They are laws to be noticed, not facts to be proved. They are not regarded as foreign laws but laws that pass with the territory. Bouldin v. Phelps, 30 Fed. 547

[ziero0]

The courts must take notice of the laws of the mother-country as they existed before the revolution in the same manner as the courts of the several States are bound to take notice of any regulation of the United State, Davis v. Curry, 2 Bibb (Ky) 238

[ziero0]

The laws of a foreign country cannot be noticed by the courts unless they be proved like other facts, but when when countries have once belonged to the same government and the same law prevailed in both, the separation does not tender the law in existence at the time they divided foreign to each other. The courts will therefore take notice of such law. 1 La. 248, 20 Am. Dec. 279

[ziero0]

In the case of Chouteau v. Pierre, 9 Mo. 9, it was held that the courts will take judicial notice of the laws which prevailed in Missouri under the precedent governments of France and Spain.

[ziero0]

In the case of Stokes v. Macken, 62 Barb. (Ny) 145, the court held that if the court has no means of information as to what the law of another country is, it will act upon its own laws; but, if such country once constituted part of the same kingdom or government with that where the court sits, and they were governed by the same laws, the courts will take judicial notice of the laws which prevailed in both before their separation, as a matter of public history, and presume them unchanged, till the contrary be shown.

[ziero0]

Now for your consideration

The government that existed prior to the Democrats creating their own unique ballot rules was precedent to the government-by-fiat- chaos created after?

[ziero0]

And then consider this

The edicts and comments of dictator-by-fiat Fauci, the CDC and the illusions based upon fear of millions of people concerning healthcare fit in the classification of hysteria rather than law either foreign or domestic?

[ziero0]

Then ... Further back in time to previous governments whose laws are still in effect (should you so declare them)

1. The government that existed in Washington D.C. prior to the civil war was precedent to the government brought about after the civil war?

2. The government that existed in Washington D.C. prior to Roosevelt's 1933 gold seizure was precedent to the government he formed after?

3. The government that existed in Washington D.C. before Harry S. Truman committed acts that unconstitutionally extended the powers of the executive branch to periods when the legislature was adjourned (June 1948) was precedent to the expanded extra-constitutional government that he created following that act?

[ziero0]

The issue is raised ...Aren't these laws in effect until they are cancelled or changed?

When this point is brought up consider this ....

Who is going to cancel or change these laws? The governments that created them are no longer in any position of authority. You accept the edicts if the current government when you get benefits from them or engage in contracts with them. One benefit might be voting, another might be cashing social security, another might be free healthcare or vaccine. A passport? A driver's license? The list is quite long. Any of there actions on your part acknowledge your acceptance of the adgenda and edicts of the current government du jour.

This is a hard concept to grasp. Do you mean to say I paid into social security all my working career and now if I accept a monthly check I have to accept Biden's view of world affairs?

Precisely!

I don't know of any observation that will help resolve this conundrum except to point out that social security was sold as social insurance. It was available if you need it. Now compare social security with your car insurance. Say you paid for auto insurance for 40 years and never had an accident. Are you prepared to arrange an 'accident' just so the account can be balanced? If so I would suggest your logic is faulty and you need a keeper. Biden will gladly accept a role as your keeper!