Legally or Lawfully

[palani]

Legal ... a thing that is permitted

Lawful ... a thing that is not prohibited

Examples ...

It is unlawful to murder someone. It is legal to abort a fetus.

It is lawful to travel. It is legal to drive (commercial activity) with a license.

It is lawful to wed. It is legal to obtain a state sanctioned marriage license.

It is unlawful to charge usury (any interest at all on money). It is illegal to charge usury (excess interest).

It is lawful to bear arms to defend yourself. It is illegal to carry concealed weapons (not arms ...weapons) without a permit.

Any other examples?

[ximmy]

It is unlawful for a man not to eat anything set before him
It is legal for a woman to refuse food portions set before her

[osoab]

Lawful to use money. Legal to use currency. My best shot.

Oh and this.

Unlawful to pass up free beer.

[palani]

It is unlawful for a man not to eat anything set before him
It is legal for a woman to refuse food portions set before her

Could be closer to say it is lawful to eat certain animals that were “clean” --- those with cloven hoofs which chewed the cud such as cattle, goats, sheep, deer and so forth. All fish with fins and scales, and insects of the locust family were also “clean.”--- and illegal to drink unpastuerized milk, portion size being an individual choice.

[palani]

Lawful to use money. Legal to use currency.
Currency as in legal tender laws. Money as in honest weights and measures.


Unlawful to pass up free beer. Hospitality laws .... Thou shalt not enter the den of Hells Angels and refuse drink. ... I don't ever recall reading this one but it is only common sense.

[iOWNme]

It is Lawful to live by the 10 Commandments.

It is Legal to live by the 10 Planks.

[palani]

It is Lawful to live by the 10 Commandments.

It is Legal to live by the 10 Planks.

Covers practically everything possible. I would point out though that living by the 10 planks is not possible. That is where the dead go.

[midnight rambler]

My own observation which I find most fascinating: all four definitions of the term 'legal' in Bouvier's 1856 Law Dictionary have something to do with cestui que trust and cestui que use.

[Hatha Sunahara]

It is illegal to sell raw milk, but it is good for you to drink it. Similar thing for marijuana. Why do they prohibit things that are good for you and they don't care if you do things that are bad for you. For example, why is it lawful for you to take prescription drugs? Why are they trying to make it illegal to sell 'nutritional supplements'? What good is this distinction between legal and lawful when you are presumed guilty until punished by the criminal justice system which everyone should consider unlawful? Don't all these fine distinctions reduce peoples' respect for the law? I suppose people have difficulties seeing how corrupt our criminal (and political) justice system really is?

Hatha

[Glass]

My own observation which I find most fascinating: all four definitions of the term 'legal' in Bouvier's 1856 Law Dictionary have something to do with cestui que trust and cestui que use.

That is very interesting. The Cestui Que trust is what the redemption movement claim they are accessing when they file their claim documentation. From a laymans point of view the cesui que trust was supposedly used for persons who were lost at sea or in lands across the sea. After 7 years missing, a "person" can be declared dead and their estate claimed but if they show up, under cestui que laws the persons estate must be made whole again.

So the theory goes, when you are born and registered as a person, a trust is setup for you. It may be or probably is not a separate trust for you but a recording of your interest in the trust. For instance the Social Security Trust.

Now if you do not claim your interest in the trust and appoint a fiduciary within the first 7 years of your life (the 7 years missing clause) then they (govt) declare you lost and appoint a fiduciary of their own to determine who your interest in the trust is used. Of course you want them to have it. It would have been your wish.

The important parts are that a person is a legal fiction (corporation in commerce), the word legal relates to a trust and all crown ruled lands operate under admiralty beause the crowns power derives from the Lord High Admiralty.

So I find Bouviers definitions interesting in this context.

[midnight rambler]

It is illegal to sell raw milk, but it is good for you to drink it. Similar thing for marijuana. Why do they prohibit things that are good for you and they don't care if you do things that are bad for you. For example, why is it lawful for you to take prescription drugs? Why are they trying to make it illegal to sell 'nutritional supplements'? What good is this distinction between legal and lawful when you are presumed guilty until punished by the criminal justice system which everyone should consider unlawful? Don't all these fine distinctions reduce peoples' respect for the law? I suppose people have difficulties seeing how corrupt our criminal (and political) justice system really is?

Hatha

Why do they do what they do? Because they are Satan worshipers, and that's what Satan worshipers do - keep people from pursuing what is good and wholesome.