Hannah Cox Misunderstands Law and Human Nature

In a recent Tweet Hannah Cox said “Sheriffs in Illinois are rallying & refusing to enforce this bogus new gun control law. BASED. If police stood up for the constitution this stringently & consistently we’d be in a much better place.” (And if all the rain drops were lemon drops and gum drops…)

Sheriffs in Illinois are rallying & refusing to enforce this bogus new gun control law. BASED. If police stood up for the constitution this stringently & consistently we’d be in a much better place.

Hannah Cox, Rational Libertarian (and if all the rain drops were lemon drops and gum drops)

Don’t say “law” when you mean sheriffs have discretion to do whatever they feel like, and a sufficient legal toolkit (which can be combined with judicial and prosecutorial discretion) to do anything to anyone if they choose. This is nothing more than discretion to exempt your own tribe from law, with legalized injustice available in the toolkit to use against other tribes. This is unconstitutional “legal positivism” aka nazism.

A “Constitutional Sheriff” is not going to care about the Second Amendment when some black teenagers have a gun in their car. So refusal to enforce unjust laws in practice amounts to ethnic cleansing, to the extent it is done very unevenly.

The very definition of law is not the specific laws, but that people are bound by it like a contract. Saying “I like guns” is not law. Saying sheriffs are bound by laws until a court says otherwise, is law. Official discretion is anti-law. Interpretations by cops are not case law. Cops pretending to be judges, is a usurpation and primitive regression.

Hannah is basically saying if cops consistently did whatever some majority demands, that majority would be happy. No kidding. A Twitter mob deciding who goes to prison is essentially fascism. They will elect whatever strongman does what the Twitter majority demands. And then call whatever outcome the collective demands “constitutional” and “law and order”.

Law is the process, not the desired outcome. Both capitalism and communism are sold promising the same result. But different processes lead to different outcomes. Twitter users supporting cops interpreting the law to be whatever they want it to be, or whatever they can politically get away with, is what has led to all the false convictions Hannah complains about. Hey, I have a genius idea: If cops break the law, and if everyone is a good person, it will create utopia!

Here, Hannah Cox advocates a primitive process where the power of the Supreme Court is usurped by shire reeves.

The process Hannah advocates is unconstitutional against Article III Section 2: “the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact…” The Constitution empowers Congress to create tribunals for a process to decide what is constitutional, not police deciding!

The second part is a big “if”. You cannot educate human nature out of cops. The Constitution is there like the Magna Carta, specifically because it is NOT what shire reeves want to do. It is not for lack of education. Shire reeves deciding what is right or wrong preceded the Constitution by like 1,000 years!

There is probably a racist white nationalist suing to block the law, who is doing more for innocent black people than Hannah who simply says “Cops break the law, yay, like!”

Hannah has it totally backwards. There will never be anything “stringent” or “consistent” if sheriffs have discretion. Individual choices are always less just than laws. This is a basic disagreement over the nature of mankind.