[kdhaskjdhadjk]

You don't get to decree whatever it is that you like and then call it "law". If a "law" is un-Constitutional, as most US "laws" are--or in violation of the highest laws of the Universe (the Laws of Nature), as the most US "laws" are--then it is not law. It's the scribblings of a tyrant.

There just might be an entire army of goons ready to enforce that so-called "law." With an Empire, there always is. But any so-called "law" enacted without permission of the The People are in fact the workings of a tyrant and deserve no serious consideration among free individuals, except whatever minimum is necessary to protect oneself from the tyrant while awaiting (and planning for) his inevitable downfall.

[carefree-bob]

This is called a "strawman" argument. I am not decreeing anything and calling it a law, so you must be responding to some interlocutor that lives only in your imagination, and then pointing out flaws in this imaginary conversation makes you feel better I guess. Or it gives you some kind of virtuous thrill. Why would you do this? Imagine yourself winning verbal victories with imaginary debaters in the shower, don't do it in public in social media.

And now you are going off on some laws being unconstitutional and that "most US laws are", when the point I made had nothing to do with a particular jurisdiction or nation, but when laws are deemed unconstitutional they are struck down and are no longer laws, so by definition you have now positioned yourself as a one man supreme court, voiding most US law, when the actual supreme court does not do this. Wow, what an active imagination you have. How you glorify yourself. But please do all that stuff in the privacy of your own home, no need to do it online. Here, e.g. outside of your imagination, people make arguments and you can if you want respond to that argument. Think about it.

[kdhaskjdhadjk]

"I am not decreeing anything," he said, as he attempts to argue me into the grave concerning the definition of the words "crime" and "law." As if the tyrant's definition should be the only definition and God's (or Nature's, if you prefer) can just be ignored.

It's going to surprise the shit out of you one day when you wake up to find that this entity called the "US Supreme Court" no longer exists, and has been replaced with some other entity which has vastly different ideas about things.

This will likely be accompanied by many people being put on public trial and convicted of various crimes that you and they will vehemently insist weren't against this "law" that you believe you understand the definition of. Yet despite your protestations they will be tried and convicted nonetheless, and in many cases executed.

On that day you will finally understand the definition of Law.