The natural law theory is the point at the crossing between morals and laws. It can be argued that the Declaration of Independence of 1776, which states, “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness,” has conveyed the natural law theory in its finest. The Declaration of Independence puts it, “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator, with certain unalienable rights. ” St. Thomas Aquinas interpreted natural law as the basic notion that good be done, a good that is known by proclivity, and evil be eluded.
For Aquinas, the good is prior to the right. For him, whether the act is right is less important than whether the act is good (Wacks, 2012). So, natural law are the rights that so many believe are ascended unto them from their Creator. Ben’s vision of constitution does not embrace the natural law theory. It presents the Annunaki to be above the humans, virtually sending the humans into slavery. Never has there been a reading of the Creator saying that all humans are intended to be slaves. Instead, the Creator grants life and provided freewill, but there is still consequences for bad choices. Thomas Hobbes
Natural law has taught the need for individual survival, law and government are required if there is to be order and security. Hobbs adopted an authoritarian philosophy which places order above justice. By presenting social contracts, we surrender natural freedoms in order to create an orderly society. An example of said social contract between citizens would take the form of an agreement not to harm one another. Hobbes also acknowledges that out of self-interest we are likely to breach social contracts, and to do that there must be a political sovereign to punish the violators of said social contracts (Wacks, 2012).
Ben’s vision of the future Constitution does demonstrate a contract, but it is not a moral one. It is a contract that humans will obey and act as the Annunaki want them to. Through Hobbes’s theory of natural law, the humans will take the appropriate actions to achieve self-preservation. John Locke Locke’s theory rests on human’s rights and obligations under God. The state exists to sanction the natural rights of its citizens. When the government fails to accomplish this, citizens have the right, and the duty to abandon their support, and rebel.
The social contract preserves the natural rights to life, liberty, and property, as well as the pursuit of happiness, and the common good” (Wacks, 2012). Natural rights to freedom is constrained by the law of nature and its sanction that we should not harm each other in life, health, liberty, or possessions’. Locke advocated a limited form of government, the checks and balances between branches of government, this would reduce government and exploit individual liberties (Wacks, 2012). There is not social contract between Annunaki and humans, which creates wonder if there would be social contract between the humans themselves.
Locke’s theory would have the humans raising up against the Annunaki, to fight for the natural rights granted to all under God. However, the Annunaki are the Gods that have saved the human, and are claiming that it is their divine right to enforce such a Constitution on the humans. Jean-Jacques Rosseau For Rosseau’s works, social contract plays the main role, while natural law takes more of a back seat. As an individual may be egotistic and elect that his/her personal interest should supersede the mutual interest.
But, as part of a community, the individual subject neglects his/her selfishness to create the general will, which accomplishes good for society. Man must be forced to be free, actual means that man gives up freedoms to achieve popular sovereignty. Should an individual slope into selfishness, he/she must be forced to fall in line with the orders of the community. As government represents general will it may do almost anything. Genuine meddling by the sovereign should only advance freedom and equality, not weaken it (Wacks, 2012).
The new Constitution does not have the general will for humans, it makes the Annunaki into dictators. By enslaving the humans, the Annunaki will send the human race back hundreds of years. Every society has fought some form of tyranny to ensure that natural rights receive protection and humankind advances. Legal Positivism Legal positivism has two objectives. First, by requiring that all law be written, positivism guarantees that members of society will be clearly explained their rights and obligations by the government.
Citizens will not be unlawfully burdened by the governmental nuisance of an unwritten legal requirement that was previously unknown or non-existent. Second, positivism trusts that the integrity of the law is upheld through an unbiased and impartial judiciary that is not directed by subjective notions of right and wrong (“Legal Positivism,” 2011). The Annunaki’s Constitution, Article I states that the Annunaki do not have to pass laws, they are given to the humans by the Annunaki. This would leave legal positivists feeling like they Annunaki could make laws up when they please.
Therefore, the humans could never truly be safe from tyranny. Article VI of the Annunaki Constitution states that punishment is eye for an eye. Legal positivists believe in an unbiased and impartial judiciary structure that is fair and just. An eye for an eye may not be the fair and just ways in all cases. American Realism “American legal realism is one of the great paradoxes of modern jurisprudence. No other jurisprudential tendency of the twentieth century has exerted such a powerful influence on legal thinking while remaining so ambiguous, unsettled and undefined” (Wacks, 2012).
However, the core claim is that judges reply largely to the stimulus of facts. Meaning results are obtained on the origin of a judicial deliberation of what seems reasonable on the evidences of the case, rather than on the source of legal rule (Wacks, 2012). Based on the Annunaki Constitution, the judgement is centered on how the ruling will realistically affect those involved and not necessarily on the case precedent holdings. This means that the judge has no real care for the legal regulations, the judge is allowed to be bias and impartial to what every allegiances he/she may hold.
Most likely in the favor of the Annunaki, because that will keep him/her in the judgeship. Emile Durkheim Durkheim’s general concern states, “What is it that holds society together” (Wacks, 2012)? Durkheim makes two major claims. First, as society grows law becomes less punitive and more on restitution. Second, the function of punishment is an expression of collective sentiments by which social cohesion is maintained (Wacks, 2012). The Annunaki Constitution does not provide restitution other than being placed in the mining operations, unless they just kill the accused for his/her crimes.
This is more of a fear tactic, do as the Annunaki want or lose life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness. Max Weber According to Weber, what makes an order a law, is the reality of enforcement that increases the probability of it being obeyed. Weber supported a constructive notion of law, which is quite what the political legislator enacts as law in harmony with a legitimately established process. Under this foundation the form of law cannot draw its genuine force from a coalition between law and morality. Modern law has to be able to authentic power implemented in a proper legal manner.
Weber also acknowledges that an increase in freedom comes from allowing people to create legal penalties of their conduct (Wacks, 2012). Through the Annunaki Constitution, it is clear that the Annunaki do not want humans to have too many freedoms. However, much like every other governing entity, the Annunaki allow the humans to follow the laws to avoid punishment. Karl Marx “Marx argued that there is no absolute concept of justice is what is acceptable in and necessary for a given mode of production” (Wacks, 2012). Marx argued that the law is a product of society rather than society a product of law (Wacks, 2012).
Much like the founders of the United States wanted individual rights protected, the founders had to develop laws which would provide these freedoms to be granted. Therefore, it can be argued that the Annunaki’s main interest is ruling over the humans. This would be why they created their Constitution in such a manner. However, throughout history, laws, regulations, and statutes have changed for what was needed in the United States, so it has to be argued that the Annunaki would need to adapt to similar demands by the humans. Retribution Wrongdoers need to be punished to pay for their crimes.
Lex talionis is the most extreme form of punishment calling for an eye for an eye, or a life for a life, however, this form of retribution has limitation. It does not consider intentional, reckless, and negligent behavior. Since we are rational people, we need to be held responsible for our actions, and what is done to one must be done to all. This means if an individual is kind, then they are expecting others to be kind to them. However, if an individual exploits another, then that individual has authorized his/her mistreatment in return.
But, if this takes place, then we are commending criminal acts with criminal acts. This is why there has to be legal control over the punishment of criminal acts (Wacks, 2012). The Annunaki allow judges to determine the punishment based on the quality of harm. Lex talionis is the approach used to punish humans. In a dictatorship, this could be an easy approach to take, since the dictator is only worried about the control over his/her subjects. What about the punishment of the Annunaki themselves? There is no mention of this in the Annunaki Constitution. There is always one that wants to have control over all.
