Legal/Lawful Orders

[ziero0]

A subject of Congressional interest recently.

First, what is a valid order?

Simply stated, valid orders have a recognized seal affixed. Seals are heraldic devices along with flags and coats of Arms. These three devices together regulate militia on the battlefield. Sound familiar? Check the 2nd amendment.

Are valid orders lawful?

Documents (including orders) under seal are called specialties. The seal attests to the truthfulness of the authority behind the order. So in the military sense the order is the law and hence is lawful.

That does not suggests that whatever is authorized is right, correct or even moral. But few military ranks take an oath to do what is right, correct or moral.

Is a military order lawful? Is it valid? Does it have a seal or is it verbal? If you are military are you going to end up in Leavenworth if you turn down the order? Given the severity of the punishment wouldn't the prudent path suggest if there is any doubt that the seal version be demanded as a prerequisite? For protection?

The seal signifies truth.

And that is all you need to know.

[ziero0]

Lawful orders and the use of seals to derive the same are a matter of personal standards. If you believe the 2nd amendment is strictly about guns then you have lost the right to a seal along with a flag or coat of Arms.

Being able to assert a right begins with recognizing what that right involves.

And the Spanish are not wrong in their civil code when they tell the defendant he must demand a carte de persona before he answers. If you haven't issued any carte de personas likely one cannot be produced. If you go the "I am a U.S. citizen" route then they have you by the carte de personas.