richardmurray

The future of law in the USA is executive orders or mandates

How did the USA get here? It is simple and it started with the legal origins and their disconnect with cultural reality , culminating to the legal era of the civil rights act 1963 , immigration act of 1965 or voters rights act of 1965. The USA was started with a legal canon called the declaration of independence plus the articles of confederation. The constitution was later, most people seem to forget this. The declaration of independence when initially made did not relate to reality in the thirteen colonies of the british empire or to anything that will functionally occur if said colonies became independent from the british empire. I will repeat myself. The declaration of independence when initially made did not relate to reality in the thirteen colonies of the british empire or to anything that will functionally occur if said colonies became independent from the british empire. What does this mean? The declaration of independence does not relate to reality or function, it relates to philosophy. The declaration of independence related to a philosophy of government or a philosophy of law. Sequentially, from those times to today, when people speak of the declaration it is a philosophical point, but not a functional point or a realistic point. All humans know all humans are human throughout the entirety of human history: we hold these truths to be self evident that all men are created equal.  BUT, a government is a thing that governs. By default, those that govern are not of the same race as those that are governed. That is the functional truth. So functionally, government by default breeds inequality. And, while anarchism is stated as a philosophy of no government, the reality is, individuals will mostly need to not be human for individuals to relate to each other cohesively absent some sort of government. Now some will say, the point of the declaration is that those who govern are those who are governed. The problem is the reality of government proves that is never true. Show me any government in human history where the governed is equal to those who govern? So, the declaration of independence is a philosophical declaration touted, functionally or realistically false, as the key stone to a government or legal code. The problem with the declaration of independence of those colonies is the perception of it as a cornerstone of government or law has led to a community of people in the colonies or the latter usa , to the time of this writing, who use a philosophical idea as the engine for their governmental or legal positions. When people march in the usa and talk about universal rights, that is a call to the declaration of independence, a nonfunctional or nonrealistic declaration. Note, the declaration is not dishonest or a lie, the declarations of independence's role for many as a governmental or legal declaration is dysfunctional or unrealistic.  The next is the historical failure while governmentally applicable or realistically functional articles of confederation. The question is obvious, how can something be governmentally applicable or realistically functional while a historical failure? What you have to realize is the reality of the thirteen colonies. Their bond was never about anything but a militaristic freedom from the british empire. To restate, the unity of the thirteen colonies had no cultural or financial  or governmental connection. The colonies individually had cultural or financial or governmental goals in ceding from the british empire. But they had no desire to align to each other in any way. That reality was embedded in the articles of confederation. The articles of confederation functionalized the reality by having a federal government for war. The federal government under the articles had no other role but to be an institution if the colonies were ever attacked by an outsider. How did the historic failure occur? Simple, any military union based on a purpose can't survive when the purpose no longer exist. When the british fled, the former colonies had a great absence in the articles of confederation. Said absence was the lack of a comprehensive agreement on how the thirteen colonies were to relate to each other, not outsiders. The articles of confederation was perfect to allow states in the usa to grow relationships outside the thirteen states, but was absent in comprehending how the states need to relate to each other. But how should they relate? was the issue governmental or legal? no. The issue was financial. The states had between them a complete free market in the articles of confederation. That was a problem. Why? The financial desires of the states was always competitive with each other, when colonies, never managed in an exact way. Sequentially, when free from the british empire, thirteen financial plans interacting with each other absent any control or management leads to chaos. And the federal government under the articles was meant for external threats, not internal. Sequentially, the articles of confederation failed. But, a worst problem was created when the constitution was born. The constitution didn't solve any of the financial absences that led to the articles failure but added all the governmental or legal constructs that the articles of confederation evaded realistically or functionally. To restate, the constitution became all the dysfunctions the articles was not. When people speak of the war between the states, they forget it was inevitable. The second the constitution was born the trail of tears/ civil war/military takeover of northern mexico/jim crow/the pro vs anti vaccination movement in the usa became inevitable, cause the constitution  demands a federal legal system or government have suzerainty over a collection of states, that do not have to be similar or alike, ala slave or free states. <Note: even though slavery was still legal in the free states>. The articles of confederation comprehended that states, don't have to be alike. Some states can want immigrants, some can not. Some states can want phenotypical equality, some can not. Some states can want a greater connection between church and state, some can not. But, the constitution states a federal government can be used as a tool to demand all states or people in all states be forced to live under a viewpoint. Thus , chaos. But why was the constitution chosen? That choice relate to the declaration. The declaration in its philosophy is beautiful, reaches to peace, but when you apply that view in government or in law, you create an environment where multiracial reality, multivides that are human, become dysfunctional. Cause, the equality in humanity has no way to be written into law , has no way to be imagined as a government. Sequentially trying to reach a living representation of said humanity as a government is automatically a failing venture. The USA from the end of the articles to the , time of this writing, federal executive order or state or city mandate legal or governing era , has continually failed to reach making government embody humanities equality, while alluding to it constantly. The modern USA government is the most multiracial representative governmental body while the most dysfunctional. Why? The equality in humanity is natural but is not about presence, it is about images , the equality of humanity exists absent agreement, absent similarity, absent union. How can a government do that? The legislative branches of the usa from the congress to state senates or legislatures to city or town councils, are failing to handle the multiracial populace. They can't handle being of everyone while doing for everyone. In their defense no government can. The proof is why governments throughout humanity at the time of this writing are pulling extremely away from multiracial bodies or considerations.  All humans know all humans are human throughout the entirety of human history, but the ways of life that said humans want to live is beyond any one government to cohesively/functionally/peacefully maintain or govern. Thus, legislative bodies, bodies of law, can reach no consensus usually.  Judicial bodies, bodies of justice, become tools of agenda usually. Executive bodies, bodies of government executions or actions, become dictatorial usually. The dictation of government in the usa, at the time of this writing, is in the form of executive orders or mandates.

Now , for the historical truth. Executive orders or mandates are not uncommon in the usa. But, their use has risen more and more from their existence, first with the constitution which is why it was born, to the time of this writing. At the time of this writing, executive orders or mandates, from the federal level to the state level to the city level are on a path to becoming the judicial or legislative function through the executive branches.  But, don't chagrin them. The use of executive or mandates was inevitable. It goes back to the philosophical nature of the declaration and how that nature was used to replace the articles of confederation to make the constitution. From the beginning, the human beings in the usa were not one. Native americans/the enslaved<black native or other>/females were not of one mind or near one mind. Thus their consensus needed to make laws to decide justice was always fleeting or nonexistent. The only thing they all agree on is the need to execute demands. But, who among them will make the demands? Only one can be the president/the governor/the county executive/the mayor... only one.

Executive orders or mandates are the future of law in the usa, and the battle over who gets to make them and the final resolution over who will make them will change from state to state, with the battle over the presidency one that is only in its infancy of modern violence.