If This Be Insurrection Then Make The Most of It

[ziero0]

Fact and law are the divisions of ignorance. Ignorance of a fact is never criminal. Ignorance of foreign law is really ignorance of a fact. And what comes under the category 'insurrection' is indeed actually identifying a foreign law as factual. A law that says two people of the same gender can marry to me is a foreign law. A law that states debt is money and that obligates me to pay is a foreign law. These are both facts about which I profess ignorance and not insurrection

[ziero0]

Bouviers 1856 Law Dictionary

IGNORANCE. The want of knowledge.
2. Ignorance is distinguishable from error. Ignorance is want of
knowledge; error is the non-conformity or opposition of our ideas to the
truth. Considered as a motive of our actions, ignorance differs but little
from error. They are generally found together, and what is said of one is
said of both.
3. Ignorance and error, are of several kinds. 1. When considered as to
their object, they are of law and of fact. 2. When examined as to their
origin, they are voluntary or involuntary, 3. When viewed with regard to
their influence on the affairs of men, they are essential or non-essential.
4.-1. Ignorance of law and fact. 1. Ignorance of law, consists in the
want of knowledge of those laws which it is our duty to understand, and
which every man is presumed to know. The law forbids any one to marry a
woman whose husband is living. If any man, then, imagined he could marry
such a woman, he would be ignorant of the law; and, if he married her, he
would commit an error as to a matter of law. How far a party is bound to
fulfill a promise to pay, upon a supposed liability, and in ignorance of the
law, see 12 East, R. 38; 2 Jac. & Walk. 263; 5 Taunt. R. 143; 3 B. & Cresw.
R. 280; 1 John. Ch. R. 512, 516; 6 John. Ch. R. 166; 9 Cowen's R. 674; 4
Mass. R. 342; 7 Mass. R. 452; 7 Mass. R. 488; 9 Pick. R. 112; 1 Binn. R. 27.
And whether he can be relieved from a contract entered into in ignorance or
mistake of the law. 1 Atk. 591; 1 Ves. & Bea. 23, 30; 1 Chan. Cas. 84; 2
Vern. 243; 1 John. Ch. R. 512; 2 John. Ch. R. 51; 1 Pet. S. C. R. 1; 6 John.
Ch. R. 169, 170; 8 Wheat. R. 174; 2 Mason, R. 244, 342.
5.-2. Ignorance of fact, is the want of knowledge as to the fact in
question. It would be an error resulting from ignorance of a fact, if a man
believed a certain woman to be unmarried and free, when in fact, she was a
married woman; and were he to marry her under that belief, he would not be
criminally responsible. Ignorance of the laws of a foreign government, or of
another state; is ignorance of a fact. 9 Pick. 112. Vide, for the difference
between ignorance of law and ignorance of fact, 9 Pick. R. 112; Clef. des
Lois Rom. mot Fait; Dig. 22, 6, 7
Lois Rom. mot Fait; Dig. 22, 6, 7.
6.-2. Ignorance is either voluntary or involuntary. 1. It is
voluntary when a party might, by taking reasonable pains, have acquired the
necessary knowledge. For example, every man might acquire a knowledge of the
laws which have been promulgated, a neglect to become acquainted with them
is therefore voluntary ignorance. Doct. & St. 1, 46; Plowd. 343.
7.-2. Involuntary ignorance is that which does not proceed from
choice, and which cannot be overcome by the use of any means of knowledge
known to him and within his power; as, the ignorance of a law which has not
yet been promulgated.
8.-3. Ignorance is either essential or non-essential. 1. By essential
ignorance is understood that which has for its object some essential
circumstance so intimately connected with the: matter in question, and which
so influences the parties that it induces them to act in the business. For
example, if A should sell his horse to B, and at the time of the sale the
horse was dead, unknown to the parties, the fact of the death would render
the sale void. Poth. Vente, n. 3 and 4; 2 Kent, Com. 367.
9.-2. Non-essential or accidental ignorance is that which has not of
itself any necessary connexion with the business in question, and which is
not the true consideration for entering into the contract; as, if a man
should marry a woman whom he believed to be rich, and she proved to be poor,
this fact would not be essential, and the marriage would therefore be good.

[keehah]

Corrupt Federality insurrectionalism is about insurrection bad, insurrectionality good?

tandfonline.com: On Insurrectionality: Theses on Contemporary Revolts and Resilience (https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/14747731.2015.1100855?journalCode=rglo20)

This analysis asks are civil uprisings by adaptable popular resistance groups of insurrectionists openly allowed in today's unstable world system? Does power legitimize its rule by constantly sparking revolts only to contain and suppress them in spectacles of control to evince the resilience of established regimes? Such embedded cycles of regimes collapsing, and then reconstructing their rule, illustrate this dynamic of ‘insurrectionality’. Like other ideologies of good works, including ‘accountability’, ‘diversity’, or ‘sustainability’, do the logics of insurrectionality unfold tactics of flexible control to maintain a new globalized regime of resilient power? An emergent logic for maintaining order might mobilize disorder to generate new power and knowledge for renewing order. And, these strategies appear to be implemented by permitting groups of insurrectionists to exist openly and tolerate, to a large degree, the legitimacy of insurrectionism as a civil/political/social freedom, if not, a new type of right.
taylorfrancis.com: Insurrectionality: Governance through Resilience (https://www.taylorfrancis.com/chapters/edit/10.4324/9781315459059-14/insurrectionality-governance-resilience)

In too many ways, the growing inequalities and social divisions in post-Fordist neoliberal economies are barriers very rarely experienced everyday in mass behavior. The fabrication of walls, fences, checkpoints, and other dividers simultaneously imply insurrections can be both fueled, and actively contained, by the structural violence of neoliberal dispossession (Lazzarato, 2012). In stimulating and then sparking insurrection, then, how normalized is insurrectionality becoming in these decades-old patterns? And, after multiple cycles of insurrection-and-suppression, to what extent have resilient responses become, in fact, an emergent regimen of governance rather than entrenched embattlement?

[ziero0]

The organic constitution was overthrown by the 14th amendment. Trump is in insurrection to the 14th but in synch with the original system. Meanwhile Democrats insist everyone be onboard with their concept of what governance is. And their concepts have every nation-state in a debt based culture that is unsustainable or dependent on the U.S. for handouts.

[monty]

The organic constitution was overthrown by the 14th amendment. Trump is in insurrection to the 14th but in synch with the original system. Meanwhile Democrats insist everyone be onboard with their concept of what governance is. And their concepts have every nation-state in a debt based culture that is unsustainable or dependent on the U.S. for handouts.

In my opinion The 14th Amendment was not Constitutionally ratified. To quote Dr. Edwin M. Vieira Jr., "My opinion and $.2.00 will get a cup of coffee at Starbucks"

[ziero0]

In my opinion The 14th Amendment was not Constitutionally ratified. To quote Dr. Edwin M. Vieira Jr., "My opinion and $.2.00 will get a cup of coffee at Starbucks"

That belief is all that is required to convert domestic law to foreign law.

[monty]

That belief is all that is required to convert domestic law to foreign law.

Regarding the 14th Amendment that might be a good thing