Kentucky Declaration of Rights - Art. I, Sec. 2 Quote

“Law” has a broad nomenclature that divides into multiple political philosophies, many temporal images, diverse understandings, scores of mental aberrations, and an exponentially expanding difference of systems / exercises / administrations. Law's attributed source, helps define subsequent philosophical applications as well as the applied system of law and justice. – By example:

     1) “the laws of nature and of nature’s God” (Declaration of Independence {a limiting static recognition of natural law, subject nomenclature animating an umbrella of that which is eternal and absolute in nature} natural law – the intended jurisprudence of the de jure States united) Infinite and unwavering rules of nature are categorically understood through assessable proficiencies such as gravity, physics, math, life, liberty and property (an Iroquois Federation measure, the constitutional law of the land).

     2) Legal Positivism; Legal Positivism is arbitrary, “An arbitrary law is one made by the legislator simply because he wills it, and is not founded in the nature of things;” (Bouvier’s Law Dictionary) – Legal Positivism is most often “used in opposition to natural law” (Bouvier’s Law Dictionary).

     3) Legal Realism; Legal Realism is arbitrary and habitually time/situation fleeting, instituted by any source, at any time regardless of natural law or legal positivism (executive, judicial, personal, etc.).

     4) etc.

     Differences that identify a body politic that recognizes “the laws of nature and of nature's God” (a limited administration of natural law or nature's law) from a government that utilizes Legal Positivism, Legal Realism or otherwise is: at natural law administrations, tools such as codes, ordinances, regulations, rules, statutes, etc. are detailed to define the law that already exists. At other than administrations of nature's law, such tools are considered and acted upon as though they were the laws themselves – the legislators, as gods, have the ability to create law.

     One example of applied difference is movement or transporting oneself as an inalienable right. Each individual has an inalienable right to travel. Each person has a right to travel from point “A” to point “B” or point “B” to point “A”. If everyone tried to travel at the same time – A to B or B to A, injury would occur and rights would be violated. At natural law, a “Rule of Order” would be established through a given tool (code, statute, etc.) to have all individuals travel either on the right or the left. Natural Law's Rule of Order then enhances inalienable right and liberty. At other than natural law, the temporal gods establish law (codes, statutes, etc. becomes law – conducting one's self would be made illegal without the gods' privilege). Said laws' mandates would also contain threats of punishment (beyond natural law cause and effect) for violating its compelled compliance. If traveling on the right or left were a natural law issue, either all those in the U.S.A or U.K would be dead.

     A stop sign can be utilized as a rule of order at natural law or an arbitrary tyrannous tenant. Helots, serfs, slaves, theocratical dupes and those mental midgets such as Waffler do not / can not understand the difference. If there are multiple parties arriving at an intersection where "stop signs" are present, a set "rule of order" would establish a procedure that would best serve the inalienable rights of each and every involved. If the situation held that there was only one party in the vicinity of the stop sign laden intersection, the same "rule of order" would not be applicable. At arbitrary tyranny, the so called "law" (corporate bylaw or other despotic mandate for owned chattel) would dictate an entirely different understanding than would be explained by nature's law.