United States Supreme Court Quote

Archer, said very well and accurate. “Law” has a broad nomenclature that divides into multiple political philosophies, rendering many temporal images, understandings, mental aberrations, systems and differing exercises. An authoritative 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 {natural law nomenclature animates an umbrella of that which is eternal and absolute in nature} natural law - ) Infinite and unwavering rules of nature are categorically understood through assessable proficiencies such as gravity, physics, math, life, liberty and property (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.

Natural law (the Constitutional laws of nature and of nature’s God), through man’s administrations illustrates three absolutely distinct and separate de jure jurisprudence sub categories; i.e., “common law” (law of the land), “equity” (distinct, as well as including an evolved evolution of chancery orchestration), and that of the sea “maritime” / "admiralty". Judicial activism (Waffler's here case law), Executive Orders (as law) and anti-de jure land jurisdictions are all illegitimate and unconstitutional tyranny.