(Stillness in the Storm Editor) There are a lot of complexities to this story. One thread that I want to raise awareness about is that the rule of law—if it is to be truly just, honorable and fair—must apply to all. Justice must be for all and equal, it must be blind in that it does not favor one person or group over another. These principles are common sense deductions that even a child can understand.
It shouldn’t be that surprising when we look out into the world and see that true justice is not what we have today. We have the color of law or the illusion of justice. One of the thorns in the side of lady justice is the fallacy of legal immunity. When someone is harmed or damage has been done, restoration of peace, the settling of controversy, and the upholding of rights is what justice is meant to maintain and reestablish.
Principles of law are founded on what has been called Natural Law, which incorporates nature and human life.
Does gravity pick and choose who or what falls to the ground? No.
Do the principles of thermodynamics cease to function because we say so? No, they don’t.
Similarly, if human beings want true justice, the law must apply to all. Law within society is different from nature for one primary reason: we have to willingly choose to honor the truth and when we don’t people and society suffer. It’s that simple.
While immunity might be legal, it’s not lawful—because Natural Law has no such loopholes.
Consider that vaccine manufacturers have enjoyed legal immunity that enables them to avoid justice for the deplorable hardship suffered by those who have complications from their products—and this is just one glaring example. In the same vein, some industries pollute the environment and destroy the planet for all life because they were given the legal privilege to do so, but obviously this doesn’t make it right.
In our limited liability society, we’ve been led to believe we can avoid the consequences of our actions, but in real life this isn’t true.
If you stub your toe, you feel pain.
If you overcook food, it gets burnt.
And if you acted unkindly to others, it may result in a damaged relationship.
Only by recognizing the truth—in fullness—can we be empowered to gain wisdom and restore the balance. This is what true justice is all about.
To be clear, the passage of the bill enabling terrorism victims to sue foreign governments is arguably not an ultimate solution but it did raise awareness about the difference between true justice and what we have on Earth today. Something we would all do well to reflect on in my view.
Source – The Free Thought Project
by Staff Writer, September 28th 2016
The US Senate voted 97-1 to override President Barack Obama’s veto of the bill that would allow Americans to potentially sue Saudi Arabia for 9/11. This is the first veto override during the Obama presidency.
Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nevada) was the only one who voted to sustain the veto, The Hill reported.
Obama vetoed the bill last week, explaining that the “Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act” (JASTA) would erode the doctrine of sovereign immunity and expose the US to lawsuits around the world.
The override vote was the “single most embarrassing thing the Senate has done” in over two decades, White House spokesman Josh Earnest told reporters Wednesday afternoon.
JASTA, which passed unanimously in both the House and the Senate, allows US judges to waive sovereign immunity claims when dealing with acts of terrorism committed on American soil – potentially allowing lawsuits against Saudi Arabia over the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks. Fifteen of the 9/11 hijackers were Saudi nationals.
The issue appears to cross party lines, with Senator Chuck Schumer (D-New York) pushing for a veto override while Foreign Relations Committee chairman Bob Corker (R-Tennessee) is concerned it would “end up exporting [US] foreign policy to trial lawyers.”
Today is an important one for the widows & children of those murdered on 9/11. As always, I stand with them. #JASTA— Chuck Schumer (@SenSchumer) September 28, 2016
Defense Secretary Ashton Carter has argued that allowing JASTA to become law could lead to US being sued in foreign courts and subjected to an “intrusive discovery process.”
This could put Washington in the “difficult position of choosing between disclosing classified or otherwise sensitive information or suffering adverse rulings and potentially large damage awards for our refusal to do so,” Carter wrote to House Armed Services Committee chairman Mac Thornberry (R-Texas) earlier this week, according to the Military Times.
The House is expected hold a veto override vote later on Wednesday.
Sources involved in #JASTA tell me it may get a House vote to override @POTUS veto in House this pm after Senate does the same this am.— (((Cameron Joseph))) (@cam_joseph) September 28, 2016
If Obama’s veto is successfully overridden in the House, it would be 111th time in US history that this has happened, and the first in Obama’s presidential term.
The first-ever veto override took place in March 1845 and involved President John Tyler’s attempt to build military ships without the approval of Congress. Andrew Johnson (1865-1869) holds the record for most vetoes overridden at 15, while Harry Truman (1945-1953) and Jimmy Carter (1977-1981) are tied at second place with 12.
_________________________
Stillness in the Storm Editor’s note: Did you find a spelling error or grammar mistake? Do you think this article needs a correction or update? Or do you just have some feedback? Send us an email at [email protected]. Thank you for reading.
Source:
http://thefreethoughtproject.com/senate-overrides-obamas-veto-saudi-911/
Reader Interactions
This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.
Leave a Reply