Legal or Lawful?

It is crucial to define the difference between legal and lawful. The generic Constitution references genuine law. The present civil magistrates/judges and their courts use the word legal. Is there a difference in the meanings? The following is quoted from A Dictionary of Law 1893:

Lawful. In accordance with the law of the land; according to the law; permitted, sanctioned, or justified by law. “Lawful” properly implies a thing conformable to or enjoined by law; “Legal”, a thing in the form or after the manner of law or binding by law. A writ or warrant issuing from any court, under color of law, is a “legal” process however defective. 

Legal. Latin legalis. Pertaining to the understanding, the exposition, the administration, the science and the practice of law: as, the legal profession, legal advice; legal blanks, newspaper. Implied or imputed in law. Opposed to actual.

“Legal” looks more to the letter [form/appearance], and “Lawful” to the spirit [substance/content], of the law. “Legal” is more appropriate for conformity to positive rules of law; “Lawful” for accord with ethical principle. “Legal” imports rather that the forms [appearances] of law are observed, that the proceeding is correct in method, that rules prescribed have been obeyed; “Lawful” that the right is actful in substance, that moral quality is secured. “Legal” is the antithesis of equitable, and the equivalent of constructive. 2 Abbott’s Law Dic. 24. 

Legal matters administrate, conform to, and follow rules. They are equitable in nature and are implied (presumed) rather than actual (expressed). A legal process can be defective in law. This accords with the previous discussions of legal fictions and color of law. To be legal, a matter does not follow the law. Instead, it conforms to and follows the rules or form of law. This may help you to understand why the Federal and State Rules of Civil and Criminal Procedure are cited in every court petition so as to conform to legal requirements of the specific juristic persons named, e.g., “STATE OF WISCONSIN”, etc. or the “U.S. FEDERAL GOVERNMENT” that rule the courts.

Lawful matters are ethically enjoined in the law of the land—the law of the people—and are actual in nature, not implied. This is why whatever true law was upheld by the organic Constitution has no bearing or authority in the present day legal courts. It is impossible for anyone in alleged “authority” today to access, or even take cognizance of, true law since “authority” is the “law of necessity,” 12 USC 95.

Therefore, it would appear that the meaning of the word “legal” is “color of law,” a term which Black’s Law Dictionary, Fifth Edition, defines as:

Color of law. The appearance or semblance, without the substance, of legal right. Misuse of power, possessed by virtue of state law and made possible only because wrongdoer is clothed with authority of state, is an action taken under “color of law.” Black’s Law Dictionary, Fifth Edition, page 241.

Constitutional Authority ?

Why in the Constitution, are the words 'People' and 'Posterity' capitalized?

Before that question is answered, take note of this definition: a capitonym is a word that changes its meaning (and sometimes pronunciation) when it is capitalized, and usually applies to capitalization due to proper nouns or eponyms.

PREAMBLE to the UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.


There is obviously no living signatory to that declaration (Constitution) - contract, so the next question to ask is:

Are "We" then considered to be one of "We the People"? 

Answer: When the authors capitalized these words (capitonym), the meaning was changed to reflect a particular group of "People" and the "Prosperity" was for the authors' future generations, not ours.

 

This simply means that the U.S. Constitution may only apply to those who have  sworn an oath to uphold it.

(public officials/servants and police/military personnel)  

Have an issue with that? - see the definition of 'cognitive dissonance'.

This is NOT suggesting that the INTENT of the authors' wasn't honorable.  However, when dealing with CONTRACT LAW - all facets must be thoroughly studied. 

SEE THESE IMPORTANT DEFINITIONS: 

Definition of CONSTITUTION, contracts. The constitution of a contract, is the making of the contract as, the written constitution of a debt. 1 Bell's Com. 332, 5th ed.

Definition of CONSTITUTOR, civil law. He who promised by a simple pact to pay the debt of another; and this is always a principal obligation. Inst. 4, 6, 9.

No Treason: The Constitution of No Authority

https://www.lewrockwell.com/1970/01/lysander-spooner/no-treason-the-constitution-of-no-authority/


Audio or book in pdf download

The Constitution has no inherent authority or obligation. It has no authority or obligation at all, unless as a contract between man and man. And it does not so much as even purport to be a contract between persons now existing. 

It purports, at most, to be only a contract between persons living...And it can be supposed to have been a contract then only between persons who had already come to years of discretion, so as to be competent to make reasonable and obligatory contracts.

 http://www.lysanderspooner.org