Source: http://uarf.us/modules.php?name=News&new_topic=7
Timestamp: 2019-04-19 08:57:50+00:00

Document:
. . . there is no need for the law to be followed. All that the lawyers, judges/courts and government officials need to do to reach/achieve their politically correct agendas is rely on or create self-serving empirical research, not the law, to reach their politically correct social engineering agendas, not the law.
. . . there is no need for the law to be followed. All that the lawyers, judges/courts and government officials need to do to reach/achieve their politically correct agendas is rely on or create self-serving empirical research****, not the law, to reach their politically correct social engineering agendas, not the law.
Many of us ask how can courts/judges and government officials, do what they do, say what they say when the plain language/words of the laws/promulgations they have sworn to follow say otherwise.
The answer lays in the mind set [political correctness (PC)] of the institutions in which  the judges get their legal education and  PC directives government officials follow, that are passed on to them from the executives/managers above them.
This, I believe, can be illustrated in an exchange of emails between the then moderator [**Professor Patrick Randolph (of blessed memory), University of Missouri, Kansas City] of the **DIRT discussion group and Jack Rooney, Esq., one of the members of that group.
The ABA Real Prop Journal for Summer 2009 has arrived. It contains a detailed discussion of property courses. Courses are going lighter on transactions while bar exams and actual practice are 'heavy' on transactions. Breaking news?
[A]s a Property Law Professor myself, reviewing the chatter going on among other (mostly younger) profs at other schools, I would say that the only reason that transactions are covered at all in most schools is that the teachers, who really are sociologists or economists or anthropologists disguised as law professors, feel pressured to give some lip service to the fact that their students have come to study for law practice.
They feel no personal interest in transactions issues, and the pressure they feel goes only so far.
Huge amounts of time are spent on takings theory, meanings of ownership in society, use regulation for environmental considerations, theories of distributive justice, nationally and internationally, etc. etc.
[A]nd I ask why do you see [I agree] the new law school professors being sociologists or economists or anthropologists disguised as law professors?
It is the trend in the major schools to higher JD/PHd's because they appear to feel that empirical research**** will more adequately back up the policy conclusions reached in law review articles. In fact the Northwestern Dean has declared that he believes no major law school will hire faculty today without PHD's. He certainly won't.
And there it is in a nut shell, there is no need for the law to be followed. All that the lawyers, judges/courts and government officials need to do to reach/achieve their politically correct agendas is rely on or create self-serving empirical research****, not the law, to reach their politically correct social engineering agendas, not the law.
The bullet in the hands of common men defends and protects due process, not bullets solely in the hands of the government.
I suggest that the answer in found in contract law and the organic laws of England - the Charters of Liberties.
The Charta de Foresta is the source of the learned reader and he lets not pass any syllable of this Law in respect to the Excellency of the matter.
Once one reads these sources and the relates them to the obligations taken upon the Sacred Volume of Law by those Holden under the obligations and penalties of both can they understand it was not a rebellion - it was no more than that of holding one to the accountability of his obligations.
The Declaration of Independence clearly sets this out.
The King had pledged that he would not wrong, cheat or defraud nor would he supplant people in their lawful undertakings.
As he failed to honor that obligation Washington, and the others sought to have him honor the same.
When PEOPLE, BLACK AND WHITE, begin to stop obsessing over the color of elected officials' skin and pay more attention to their ethics and morals we can begin to fix most of what is wrong with government.
"the right to be left alone"
Supreme Court justice Louis D. Brandeis suggested that the most important right protected by the Constitution is the "right to be left alone"
The problem Virginia has with Attorney Generals is once they are elected to office they start their run for the Governorship. They fail to do the right thing by Virginia. They fail to sue in federal court to stop the over reach of the federal government [FED] into state affairs and rights. they fail to defend the state's rights under the 10th amendment of the U.S. Constitution, the are to busy trying to become the governor, party chair, or U.S. Senator.
Powers Reserved to States or People. -- The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people. U.S. Constitution U.S. Con. 10th Amd. (1791).
I can not say why they do this, but they do. Both candidates running for AG promise to be a different kind of AG. Time will tell.
Neither candidate has addressed states' rights nor what they are going to do to defend Virginia from an over reaching federal government. They have not said what is their plan to enforce the 10 amendment. Before we cast our vote for either of these two men they need to tell us what they are going to do to protect this Commonwealth from the federal government. They need to tell us how the intend to protect Virginia's sovereignty. Until they do this they can not be considered qualified to be Virginia's Attorney General.
§ 2.2-513. Counsel for Commonwealth in federal matters. — The Attorney General shall represent the interests of the Commonwealth, its departments, boards, institutions and commissions in matters before or controversies with the officers and several departments of the government of the United States. (Code 1950, § 2-91; 1966, c. 677, § 2.1-126; 2001, c. 844.) Virginia Code § 2.2-513.
Article III, Sec. 2. of the U.S. Con. gives the AG the authority to sue the FED for over reaching its authority as set out in the 10th amendment.
Section 2. Jurisdiction. -- The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority;-to all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls;-to all cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction;-to controversies to which the United States shall be a party;-to controversies between two or more states;-between a state and citizens of another state; -between citizens of different states; -between citizens of the same state claiming lands under grants of different states, and between a state, or the citizens thereof, and foreign states, citizens or subjects.
In all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and those in which a state shall be party, the supreme court shall have original jurisdiction. In all other cases before mentioned, the supreme court shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and fact, with such exceptions, and under such regulations as the Congress shall make. U.S. Constitution U.S. Con. Art. 3, § 2 (1789).
Before you casting your vote this fall for the Commonwealth's next Attorney General forget the party affiliation of the candidate. Ask yourself which of the candidates has expressed what he is going to do to protect and defend Virginia from the unauthorized exertion of power over its affairs by the FED. Ask what the candidate has told you he is going to do to protect the commonwealth and you from the FED. The AG is the state's chief law enforcement officer. If the candidate does not have an answer on how he is going to go about protecting the state and you he is not the right person.
Now the major question that begs an answer from the candidates. What current laws of the U.S. exceeds the FED power to set dominion over the states, over Virginia. I know of many do they know of any. If they can not or do not tell us what actions the FED had taken to illegally deny the Commonwealth its solemn, sacred sovereignty, its domain and what they are going to do to prevent and correct those illegal acts they are not qualified to be Virginia's AG.
As we celebrate memorial day and reflect upon all that that people attach to it we should remember it humble but august roots.

References: § 2
 § 2
 § 2
 § 2
 Art. 3
 § 2