Reacties op “No. 153 De stallen zijn leeg”

1. 

   mosckerr

   okt 13, 2025

   Torah Courts maintained through Legal Insurance.

   By distinguishing Torts (נזקין) and Capital Crimes (דיני נפשות) as the two pillars of tzedek, this Mishnaic distinction between types of damages — strives to restore equilibrium through compensation — and capital cases — which restore rectification of moral disorder through the mitzva of the death penalty. Both operate laterally, not under a state control – no state-paid judges or prosecutors an essential protection from State imposed bribery.

   Bribery of court officers by the State or others, severs judicial independence from royal or powerful wealthy individuals as well as from corrupt bureaucratic control. Uprooting bribery preserves the oath brit Torah Constitutionally established alliance which originally created the identity of the chosen Cohen people and defines the integrity of this people as well as their culture and customs social identities.

   The idea of national legal insurance to maintain the courts salary economics’ & readiness to pursue fair compensation of damages inflicted by our People upon our own People, without turning justice into a revenue stream, separates Sanhedrin courtroom common law from all other legal systems in all recorded human history. When no cases arise, the system rests — pure potentiality, like the Mishkan between sacrifices; the National legal insurance premiums which the People pay into maintains court economic budget requirements independent from taxes paid to the State.

   So tzedek becomes the procedural muscle of the brit oath Torah Constitutional alliance — ensuring that when the trust foundations of shalom, when breached through damages, that Judicial restoration of justice repairs the shattered bridges of trust among and between the chosen Cohen people.

   This model views the Sanhedrin Courts, not comparable to the American “supreme court”. The latter court system, besides not being a Common law court system, does not have the Constitutional mandate to conduct ‘Legislative Review/משנה תורה over law imposed by statute decrees either from Congress or the President or both. Sanhedrin courts, as a constitutional trust court, maintains the rhythm of justice, something like Levitical guardianship educates the People in פרדס inductive logic reasoning, absolutely essential to operate Torah common law legalism. משנה תורה courtroom justice, neither legislative nor executive, despite the rule of both “other” branches of Torah governance which directs the destiny walk wherein the Cohen people walk before our God unto eternity.

   LikeGeliked door 1 persoon

   Beantwoorden
   1. 

      wzijlstra10

      okt 13, 2025

      77 / 5.000
      What does your response have to do with the content of my story? Please explain.

      LikeLike

      Beantwoorden
      1. 

         mosckerr

         okt 13, 2025

         This scene is beautifully crafted: understated, humane, and laden with quiet constitutional tension. Beneath the simple rural conversation lies the collapse of fiduciary trust between citizen, land, and law. Judicial Legislative Review, brit-based oversight by precedent and oath — would have addressed precisely this fracture by restoring the covenantal bond between human livelihood and state policy.

         1. The Nitrogen Policy as Statutory Overreach … The buyout scheme imposed a bureaucratic abstraction — “nitrogen quotas” — upon the farmer’s brit with the land. This reflects statute divorced from oath.
         A Torah-constitutional Sanhedrin or brit-based judiciary would have subjected such statutes to Legislative Review:

         Is the law faithful to the national covenant of sustenance and stewardship (ברית הארץ)?

         Does it serve tzedek between citizen and soil, or does it transfer national assets abroad (“barns to Poland”) in violation of communal inheritance?

         Under covenantal jurisprudence, the nitrogen decree would fail this test: it breaks continuity with the Avot’s oath to work and preserve the land.

         2. Restoring Consent and Fiduciary Integrity — In De Lege Knip, no one consented to the underlying ideological premise — “nature restoration” defined by bureaucratic fiat.
         Judicial Legislative Review would require public covenantal consent before the imposition of such sweeping programs. The judges, serving as shofetim, would review whether Parliament had obtained genuine assent grounded in brit — not coercive compliance or financial enticement (“buyout above market value”).

         A brit-based court would void such measures as violations of the people’s trust and of Torah’s foundational principle: “Lo ta’ashok et rei’akha” — you may not exploit your fellow’s dependence for policy goals.

         3. Judicial Protection of Productive Stewardship — A brit judiciary does not romanticize “nature,” but integrates Adamah and Adam — land and man — within one oath of responsibility.
         Thus, it would reject “degrowth” laws that destroy local sustenance while claiming moral virtue.
         Legislative Review would interpret environmental law through precedent from Shemitah and Bal Tashchit — ecological restraint that sustains life, not annihilates it.

         4. Preventing the “Fourth Branch” Tyranny — Just as the 1913 Federal Reserve Act created a financial fourth branch, the modern environmental bureaucracy has become an ecological fourth branch: rule by administrative decree, insulated from legislative or judicial accountability.
         Judicial Legislative Review would expose and limit such authority, reasserting that no bureaucracy may act outside the brit — the covenantal trust between the governed and their judges.

         5. Covenant as the Measure of Progress — When Toon says, “When the train comes, you have to jump,” he voices the ideology of progress unmoored from covenant.
         Judicial Legislative Review would reject that maxim. Law’s progress is measured not by trains or markets, but by fidelity to the oath: whether policy builds or severs communal life.

         LikeGeliked door 1 persoon
      2. 

         wzijlstra10

         okt 13, 2025

         Thank you very much for your explanation. The intention here is clear. Your response is greatly appreciated.

         LikeGeliked door 1 persoon