ESSAY: The Distinction Between Legalates and Laws: Understanding the Implications

I need to preface this article with the statement that I beleive the law is a control system made to trick us into doing what we are told, by people who are lying to us for their benifit, not ours. Unless the law is completely voluntary, it is not applicable to free men and woman. Using force on us to acheive compliance, is just rebranded slavery. Alright, on with the essay.

In the realm of governance and legal frameworks, the distinction between a "legalate" and a "law" is significant yet often misunderstood. While both serve to regulate behavior and maintain order within society, they differ fundamentally in their creation, apparent authority, and implications. This essay explores the definitions, characteristics, and consequences of legalates compared to laws, highlighting the importance of understanding these distinctions in the context of governance, legal interpretation, and societal impact.

Definitions and Characteristics

A “law” is typically defined as a system of rules created and enforced through social or governmental institutions to regulate behavior. Laws are established through a formal legislative process, often involving multiple steps, including proposal, debate, and approval by elected representatives. Once enacted, laws appear to become binding and are meant, we are told, to reflect the will of the people, ensuring justice, order, and stability within society. Laws are characterized by their permanence and broader applicability; they are designed to govern a wide range of situations and are subject to interpretation by courts and legal professionals. Law are inaplicable if they violate natural law, which is defined most simply as “ HARM NO ONE”, and are only complied with by consent. ( this is explained in other essays and podcasts). No one has the moral authority to use force to make anyone else comply. As I have explained in my podcasts and essays, government is a control structure that is used to deceive us, law is part of that control structure. The people who control government are in control, not voters.

In contrast, a “legalate” is a term defined by Amaterasu Solar, that refers to an edict or order issued by an apparent authority, under the color of law (not real law), often in the absence of an actual existing law.

"legalate," means any Human-created proscriptions or mandatory things. There are only three Laws.

As defined by Amaterasu Solar: The three Laws of Ethics (Natural Law expressed as the three things not to do):

“1. Do not willfully and without fully informed consent hurt or kill the flesh of anOther

2. Do not willfully and without fully informed consent take or damage anything that does not belong to You alone

3. Do not willfully defraud anOther (which can only happen without fully informed consent)

These cover the things that no One would say were okay to do to them. All else is a matter of taste.

If some controlmind, or ruler adds to this in any way... It's a legalate.”

Legalates may arise in situations appearing to require immediate action or clarification, serving as temporary measures, until a formal law can be enacted. They are often associated with executive powers and can be issued by heads of state, government officials, or regulatory agencies. Legalates are generally more flexible and can be altered or revoked more easily than laws, reflecting the premise for a apparent need for adaptability in governance.

The Authority Behind Legalates

The authority ( or lack thereof) to issue legalates typically resides with individuals or bodies that possess significant power within the government structure. This may include presidents, governors, or agency heads who claim they can act swiftly in response to emergencies or specific situations. The issuance of legalates can be seen as a practical tool for governance, allowing leaders to navigate complex or urgent issues without the delays associated with the legislative process.

However, this concentration of power raises concerns regarding accountability and transparency. Critics can and should argue that the use of legalates can undermine even the appearance of democratic principles, especially if they circumvent established laws or democratic processes. For instance, a legalate might be used to enact policies that would otherwise face opposition in a legislative setting. This can lead to tensions between branches of government and potentially erode public trust in the legal system ( which we should not trust anyway because it is a fraud).

The Role of Legal Interpretation

The distinction between legalates and laws also extends to legal interpretation. Laws at least in theory, are subject to judicial review and interpretation, allowing courts to examine their constitutionality and applicability. This process is crucial for maintaining a system of checks and balances, ensuring that laws appear to align with fundamental rights and claimed democratic principles.

Legalates, on the other hand, may not undergo the same claimed rigorous scrutiny. While they can be challenged in courts, the standards for review may differ, given their nature as executive orders or decrees rather than formally enacted laws. This can result in a lack of clarity regarding their legal status and enforceability. The absence of a robust framework for interpreting legalates can create confusion and uncertainty, particularly for those affected by these orders.

Implications for Governance

The implications of distinguishing between legalates and laws are significant for governance and the rule of law. In times of crisis—such as natural disasters, (real or fake) public health emergencies, or national security threats—governments may resort to legalates to implement swift measures. For example, during the fake COVID-19 pandemic, many governments issued legalates to tyranically impose restrictions on gatherings or mandate health protocols and more. While these measures were often sold as necessary for public safety, they also sparked debates about the extent of executive power and the need for legislative oversight.

Furthermore, the use of legalates can lead to a patchwork of regulations, where different jurisdictions may enact varying measures based on executive orders rather than uniform laws. This can create confusion for citizens and businesses, complicating compliance and enforcement. The lack of a cohesive legal framework can undermine the principle of equality before the law, as individuals may find themselves subject to different standards based on their location and the whims of the local tyrants.

The Ethical Considerations

The ethical considerations surrounding the use of legalates versus laws cannot be overlooked. The potential for abuse of power is a critical concern. When leaders can issue decrees without the checks and balances typically associated with lawmaking, there is a risk of authoritarianism, which has been repeatedly and clearly demonstrated. History has shown that governments have exploited emergency powers to suppress dissent or limit freedoms, raising alarm bells about the preservation of claimed democratic values. Learn the lesson.

Moreover, the public perception of legalates can affect citizens' trust in the government. When legalates are perceived as arbitrary or unjust, they can lead to widespread dissatisfaction and resistance ( and rightly so). Conversely, laws that undergo thorough debate and public input tend to foster a sense of ownership and compliance among citizens, reinforcing the false concept of a social contract between the government and the governed.

Conclusion

Understanding the distinction between legalates and laws is essential for navigating the complexities of governance and legal systems. While legalates can appear to provide necessary flexibility in times of crisis, they also pose significant risks regarding accountability, transparency, and the rule of law. As societies grapple with the challenges of the truth about governance, it is crucial to the system to uphold the premise of democratic principles and ensure that the mechanisms of power appear to remain balanced and just.

The ongoing dialogue about the role of legalates in contrast to laws will continue to shape the future of governance. As citizens, lawmakers, and leaders reflect on these distinctions, it is imperative to advocate for systems that prioritize transparency, accountability, and the protection of fundamental rights. By fostering a deeper understanding of these concepts, societies can work toward a legal framework that truly serves the interests of all its members, ensuring justice, equality, and stability in the face of ever-evolving challenges.

If there is something that clarifies, that the powerful just make things up as they go, for their agenda the concept of Legalate should help highlight how hollow law really us. It is a fraud, unless it is voluntary.

Find out more from my sister in truth about legalates from her here at this link:

https://open.substack.com/pub/amaterasusolar/p/calling-a-legalate-a-law?utm_source=share&utm_medium=android&r=31s3eo