Let's try this: the two supremacy clauses I referenced above: what do you think they mean? Do you suppose they mean what they say, or the opposite of what they say?

What I'm thinking you mean is that you are the ultimate artificer of your own actions. And that may be. As a member of community I should like to think that your first considerations would be to rules, laws, and customs, for lots of reasons. And as a self-legislator, one hopes you would be thoughtful as a legislator should be. But it appears that while I hold a citizen subject to law, you hold him superior. And if I'm on the right track, then my question would be, how as a member of a civil society do you hold yourself superior to it?

If there is a right to X which pre-exists its reduction to writing, that act of writing does not then subordinate the right to the writing. — James Riley

Not to the writing itself, but to what the writing is and represents. You may claim, and with some justice, a primordial right to say what you want. The constitution takes that away from you and gives it back to you subject to law. And under law, there are some things you are not free to say. Your claim of primordial right is simply a claim of ability: you can talk or yell, lions can roar, bulls can bellow, dogs bark and cats meow.

All the supremacy clauses in the world don't mean shit to that which exists in spite of them. — James Riley

And what is it, exactly, that exists prior to or "in spite of them"? And to save you the trouble, the answer is whatever is prior or "spiteful." But all of that is taken up and subsumed under the law.

This appears to be a have-your-cake-and-eat-it-too conundrum. You seem to want to be outside of the law, and at the same time (I'm guessing) to have the law. And you can't have both.

To the extent your use of the term "under" means "subordinate", my rights don't exist under the Constitution. — James Riley

Just so! My understanding is that they exist exactly under the constitution and in no other way but under the constitution. To be sure, you're correct in that the constitution does not create them out of whole cloth, but no one claims that it does. And being in the constitution also a protection of those rights.

But let's set aside the joys of ignorant opinion, of which I already have more than enough, not needing anyone else's. Let's stick to substance if we can. I invite us back to the supremacy clauses. In what way are they equivocal? I say they're not, that they are in themselves conclusive. What do you say?

I find myself unable to accept the proposition that the law is whatever each of us thinks is not stupid, or not wrong. — Ciceronianus the White

I was impressed by what Cicero had to say about the law. This quote refers to "God" so I need to say he predates Christianity. A better word for his concept of God might be "logos".

“True law is right reason in agreement with nature; it is of universal application, unchanging and everlasting; it summons to duty by its commands, and averts from wrongdoing by its prohibitions…It is a sin to try to alter this law, nor is it allowable to repeal any part of it, and it is impossible to abolish it entirely. We cannot be freed from its obligations by senate or people, and we need not look outside ourselves for an expounder or interpreter of it. And there will not be different laws at Rome and at Athens, or different laws now and in the future, but one eternal and unchangeable law will be valid for all nations and at all times, and there will be one master and ruler, that is God, over us all, for he is the author of this law, its promulgator and its enforcing judge. Whoever is disobedient is fleeing from himself and denying his human nature, and by reason of this very fact he will suffer the worst punishment.” – Marcus Tullius Cicero — Cicero

The law is a system of rules adopted by or which were adopted by a controlling authority or authorities in a nation or society applicable to the conduct of those who are citizens/members of that nation or society, and considered by the relevant authority to be binding, the violation of which may result in the imposition of criminal or civil penalties imposed through a recognized system of enforcing and applying it. — Ciceronianus the White

According to how you have characterized laws already, I think you are wrong to say here "the law is...". You'd have to say "a law is...", because you've provided no premise whereby you might put one law above another law if two distinct societies have laws which are not compatible. So one law might govern one society, and another law govern another society, but we can't say one or the other is "the law", unless we are members of one society, calling our own laws "the law". In this case we'd have to exclude the laws of other societies from the title "the law".

But my question concerned the existence of a law. You seem to be adamant on the assumption that laws exist. What type of existence do you think this "system of rules" has? Does it exist as writing on paper, or some other medium, or does it exist as the writing interpreted by a mind? The difference is significant because in one case laws need to be interpreted, and the interpretation might be subjective, but in the other case they are already interpreted, and so are inherently subjective.

the two supremacy clauses I referenced above: what do you think they mean? Do you suppose they mean what they say, or the opposite of what they say? — tim wood

You'll have to tell me about second supremacy clause. What are you referring to? As to the supremacy clause most people refer to as such, that is simply placing the federal law over state law that conflicts with federal law. It has nothing to do with Natural Law or substantive rights.

As a member of community I should like to think that your first considerations would be to rules, laws, and customs, for lots of reasons. — tim wood

As long as I deem those rules, laws and customs to be just. If I don't, then they are to me as the State would have my interpretation be to it.

And if I'm on the right track, then my question would be, how as a member of a civil society do you hold yourself superior to it? — tim wood

I hold myself superior to it in the same way that it would pretend to be superior to me. It's not all that difficult. In fact, I don't even have to write it down. I just say so. Hell, I just think so. However, if the State submits itself to my jurisdiction and respectfully requests that I do so, I will take that request under advisement, and possibly do so at my earliest convenience. Or not.

The constitution takes that away from you and gives it back to you subject to law. — tim wood

No, it does not. The Constitution does not take away substantive rights. Rather, it imposes upon itself the burden to refrain from messing with my rights.

And what is it, exactly, that exists prior to or "in spite of them"? — tim wood

Natural Law at those substantive rights the Constitution forbids the government from messing with.

And to save you the trouble, the answer is whatever is prior or "spiteful." But all of that is taken up and subsumed under the law. — tim wood

You, like the law, appear to be talking to yourself. You ask a question and then pretend to save me the time by providing the wrong answer. Hmmm?

My understanding is that they exist exactly under the constitution and in no other way but under the constitution. — tim wood

Well, then, you'd be wrong.

I invite us back to the supremacy clauses. In what way are they equivocal? I say they're not, that they are in themselves conclusive. What do you say? — tim wood

See above.

P.S. As a side note; Treaties are the supreme law of the land. HA! Pacta sunt servanda, rebus sic stantibus.

I was impressed by what Cicero had to say about the law. This quote refers to "God" so I need to say he predates Christianity. A better word for his concept of God might be "logos". — Athena

:100: Founding fathers must have been reading Cicero.

You'll have to tell me about second supremacy clause. — James Riley

From the Constitution, Art. 1, § 8. "To make all laws...". And Art. 6. "This Constitution.., shall be the supreme law of the land." — tim wood

I have not yet found the Riley supremacy exception clause.

I have looked up natural law, and I see it means what this or that person wants it to mean. But this seems about right: "Natural law is a theory in ethics and philosophy that says that human beings possess intrinsic values that govern our reasoning and behavior. Natural law maintains that these rules of right and wrong are inherent in people and are not created by society or court judges."

Is this what you mean by natural law? I have no issue or disagreement with this. But with respect to the constitution, it is irrelevant. Where law comes from may be interesting, but in terms of law itself, it's the constitution that rules - meaning all the laws of the land in effect under the constitution including state and local laws, for present purpose all assumed to be constitutional. Or, what law do you accede to if not the law of the land?

From the Constitution, Art. 1, § 8. "To make all laws...". And Art. 6. "This Constitution.., shall be the supreme law of the land." — tim wood

As I tried to teach you before, Article VI, Paragraph 2 of the U.S. Constitution is commonly referred to as the Supremacy Clause. It establishes that the federal constitution, and federal law generally, take precedence over state laws, and even state constitutions. It prohibits states from interfering with the federal government's exercise of its constitutional powers, and from assuming any functions that are exclusively entrusted to the federal government. It does not, however, allow the federal government to review or veto state laws before they take effect.

I don't know were you get a "supremacy clause" out of Aricle I, Section 8. That is the Article that sets forth the powers of Congress to make laws. Congress' power in this regard is specifically limited by the Bill of Rights, as I tried to teach you before.

I have not yet found the Riley supremacy exception clause. — tim wood

Then you failed to read the Bill of Rights.

I have looked up natural law, — tim wood

Now all you need to do is read about how natural law relates to the Constitution. Get back to me.

Or, what law do you accede to if not the law of the land? — tim wood

Who said I don't accede to the law of the land? I do, so long as I consider it the law of the land. To pass that test, it must be just. It does not become just just because the state put it in writing. LOL! It is just if it complies with Natural Law (justice).

Look, when the Constitution creates something, it says so.

"X shall have the power to . . ."

But when the Constitution says "X shall not mess with Y . . " without having first created Y, then Y exists apart from and above the Constitution. Can you show me where the Constitution creates a substantive right?

I'm going to cede the floor to you, until such time as you become a little more familiar with the Constitution and how it views substantive rights, how it did not create those rights, and how it self-limited government in relation to those rights. The Constitution speaks for itself, and the laws and judicial interpretations thereof, and the history, the Federalist Papers and a plethora of information are out there for you. Good luck.

180 and I are aware of this. Stoicism and Buddhism have mush to recommend. Their virtue is not to be found in their metaethics, though. It is found in their commended actions. — Banno

How can virtue be found in metaethics?

Ancient systems like Early Buddhism are examples of virtue epistemology: they start with the premise that in order to know the truth, in order to know "how things really are", one needs to be virtuous. In such systems, moral behavior is a means to an end (the end being complete cessation of suffering).

Founding fathers must have been reading Cicero. — James Riley

Absolutely and so did the philosophers and anyone who wanted to be educated. That would be an important part of liberal or classical education. Cicero is more responsible for our reality today than Jesus.

Among Cicero's admirers were Desiderius Erasmus, Martin Luther, and John Locke.[130] Following the invention of Johannes Gutenberg's printing press, De Officiis was the second book printed in Europe, after the Gutenberg Bible. Scholars note Cicero's influence on the rebirth of religious toleration in the 17th century.[131]

Cicero was especially popular with the Philosophes of the 18th century, including Edward Gibbon, Diderot, David Hume, Montesquieu, and Voltaire.[132] Gibbon wrote of his first experience reading the author's collective works thus: "I tasted the beauty of the language; I breathed the spirit of freedom; and I imbibed from his precepts and examples the public and private sense of a man...after finishing the great author, a library of eloquence and reason, I formed a more extensive plan of reviewing the Latin classics..."[133] Voltaire called Cicero "the greatest as well as the most elegant of Roman philosophers" and even staged a play based on Cicero's role in the Catilinarian conspiracy, called Rome Sauvée, ou Catilina, to "make young people who go to the theatre acquainted with Cicero."[134] Voltaire was spurred to pen the drama as a rebuff to his rival Claude Prosper Jolyot de Crébillon's own play Catilina, which had portrayed Cicero as a coward and villain who hypocritically married his own daughter to Catiline.[135] Montesquieu produced his "Discourse on Cicero" in 1717, in which he heaped praise on the author because he rescued "philosophy from the hands of scholars, and freed it from the confusion of a foreign language".[136] Montesquieu went on to declare that Cicero was "of all the ancients, the one who had the most personal merit, and whom I would prefer to resemble."[135][137]

Internationally, Cicero the republican inspired the Founding Fathers of the United States and the revolutionaries of the French Revolution.[138] John Adams said, "As all the ages of the world have not produced a greater statesman and philosopher united than Cicero, his authority should have great weight."[139] Jefferson names Cicero as one of a handful of major figures who contributed to a tradition "of public right" that informed his draft of the Declaration of Independence and shaped American understandings of "the common sense" basis for the right of revolution.[140] Camille Desmoulins said of the French republicans in 1789 that they were "mostly young people who, nourished by the reading of Cicero at school, had become passionate enthusiasts for liberty".[141 — Wikipedia

How can virtue be found in metaethics?

Ancient systems like Early Buddhism are examples of virtue epistemology: they start with the premise that in order to know the truth, in order to know "how things really are", one needs to be virtuous. In such systems, moral behavior is a means to an end (the end being complete cessation of suffering). — baker

I really like your post. Confucius explains the importance of virtues and Tao is the way. I think it is unfortunate Western civilization became so separate from Eastern. It was not so separate in antiquity.

And if I'm on the right track, then my question would be, how as a member of a civil society do you hold yourself superior to it? — tim wood

Socrates did not hold himself superior to civil society, but he did have a concept of a higher authority. We use the word "God" for the higher authority. We could use words like logos and Tao. I really like Socrates' reasoning, especially as things appear to be falling apart today, the breakdown of family order and the civil unrest that is violent and destructive.

The first argument Socrates makes about obeying law is that every citizen has an obligation to the society they live in to obey its laws. The laws are to be more honored than your mother or father (Crito 51a). He also argues that to bring violence or disobedience to your country is seen as more dishonor than disrespecting your patents (Crito 51c). Socrates believed that you were not only a product of your parents, but because you were raised in Athens, you were also a servant to Athens as were your parents and their parents before them (Crito 50e). — tunetown187

I think Socrates gave his life for freedom of speech and rule by reason. He could have gotten out of trouble by agreeing to stop talking about the things he believed we should talk about. He could have fled as Martin Luther did. He gave his life for a higher cause than his own life.

Alas, Cicero was a lawyer and an advocate, and though he was assiduous in justifying his legal arguments made in practice (carefully preparing written arguments he claimed he made after-the-fact), what he wrote as a philosopher didn't necessarily comport with the law he practiced and the uses he made of it. "True law" has its uses for some, of course, when violating the law. Most famously Cicero a when counsel had Roman citizens executed without trial, which they were entitled to under Roman law, when he thought a rebellion under way (the Cataline conspiracy). Whether he did so appropriately has been argued ever since.

I think you are wrong to say here "the law is...". You'd have to say "a law is...", because you've provided no premise whereby you might put one law above another law if two distinct societies have laws which are not compatible. So one law might govern one society, and another law govern another society, but we can't say one or the other is "the law", unless we are members of one society, calling our own laws "the law". In this case we'd have to exclude the laws of other societies from the title "the law". — Metaphysician Undercover

Not at all. Legal positivism recognizes, as I would think others should because it seems apparent, that legal systems differ. Others may claim that there is or must be only one law or set of laws, governing humanity or the universe at large--e.g. so-called Natural Law. Legal positivists do not. The law in France is the law in France, the law in Japan is the law in Japan, because they are rules adopted by the controlling authorities in those nations deemed to be binding, and are enforceable. We don't have to be citizens of France or Japan to know what law governs in those nation.

I think Socrates gave his life for freedom of speech and rule by reason. He could have gotten out of trouble by agreeing to stop talking about the things he believed we should talk about. — Athena

I like Socrates. You compared him to Martin Luther, while a previous example was made of the difference between Gandhi and Socrates in the formers refusal to obey unjust laws. I like and respect both.

However, I place my fealty first with the land (physical) into which I was born, expanding it then to the Earth, long before I arrive at any tender feelings for the State. I was born, as some in the antinatalist thread might agree, without having been given a choice. The land into which I was born was previously occupied by a State that itself was dependent upon that land, all whilst exercising an unjust, disrespectful, inconsiderate, and brutal control over it. Rape, if you will.

When some of my fellow citizens of the State wrap themselves in it's flag, which they would deny to any who disagree with them, and suggest I leave if I don't like it, they fail to understand that for me, the name we use to describe this land "America" or the "United States" refers first to my home, which they occupy, and I have no intention of leaving.

It just so happens that when we finally move out from the land to other, much less important things like the State, I do happen to hold a grudging respect, and even love for her aspirations and ideals; as they are articulated in her organic documents, as well as in Natural Law. I happen to think she has promise, and that she is deserving of defense. And she is much better than some alternatives. But I think she would do well to remember her place in the order of things. She should remember how much of what she was and is is totally dependent upon the place over which she exercises "control" and much less on some exceptionalism imputed to her citizens. In theory she is one thing, but in practice she is often just the biggest fucking bully on the play ground. Sovereign? Yes, but in my book, might does not make right. It may be the way things are, but that doesn't make it right.

So yes, Socrates, the "State" is worthy of some consideration. But it has to earn it, prove it. And remember that there are other things in this world too.

controlling authorities — Ciceronianus the White

End of argument.

Since I was a child, I've managed by observation and study of my interaction with the rest of the world and others of our kind, to learn and resign myself to the fact that things exist regardless of what I, or others, think. Even controlling authorities like, e.g., any of the states of the United States, any of the cities of the United States, the United States itself, and may others around the world. I've found it to be a useful discipline.

It seems a week does not go by without hearing of yet another person killed by police, and another riot that threatens civil order. I think we live in volatile times demanding strong action. I think family order is basic to civil order and our technological society has been self-destructive. Judging the man, separate from judging the times in which he acts, is lacking in important information.

Reading your words I immediately thought of all the healthy flesh removed from me when the doctor cut out the cancer. I think there are circumstances when destruction is a necessary part of the good. To be clear, the action is more about the circumstances than the man. It would be prudent for us to look at the importance of culture and the best way to transmit a desirable culture that returns us to civil order. Like a healthy diet can protect us from some cancers, strong family values can manifest strong social order without a strong police force. When people rely too much on laws and a strong police force, there will be serious problems. Cicero lived in volatile times.

... he did have a concept of a higher authority. We use the word "God" for the higher authority. We could use words like logos ... — Athena

I do not think Socrates had a concept of a higher authority. He had a concept of "what seems best". He used the word 'logos' to mean to speak, to discuss, or give an account. What seems best is what follows from deliberating together, the stronger argument. It is important to see that the result of such deliberation is not absolute. Socrates reminds us of our ignorance. We are human, not divine beings.

things exist — Ciceronianus the White

They do indeed. The stick that hits you most certainly exists. But the X in the sand is a pretender. The foundation of the stick's authority is, as you so eloquently put it "controlling."

Cicero lived in volatile times. — Athena

I admire Cicero very much. I'm a Ciceronian, after all. But Cicero knew there was a difference between the laws of Rome and the laws of Nature, and would not have confused the two or thought that the laws of Rome did not exist unless they conformed to the laws of Nature. He would simply have claimed that laws which did not conform with those of Nature should be changed, or should not be adopted.

I think there are laws that should be changed. But I don't think the fact they should be changed means that they don't exist or aren't laws.

I admire Cicero very much. I'm a Ciceronian, after all. But Cicero knew there was a difference between the laws of Rome and the laws of Nature, and would not have confused the two or thought that the laws of Rome did not exist unless they conformed to the laws of Nature. He would simply have claimed that laws which did not conform with those of Nature should be changed, or should not be adopted.

I think there are laws that should be changed. But I don't think the fact they should be changed means that they don't exist or aren't laws. — Ciceronianus the White

Exactly, the pope and the church do not rightly have all the authority to make laws, and kings who do not understand the higher law, do not have the questioned right to rule. Everything we value in a democracy rests on the notion of a higher law and the need to comply with it. But without education for democracy, we get reactionary politics based on personal preferences and greed instead of on principles. Power politics such as we have today is destroying our democracy and the only way to correct that problem is through education.

A law or rule of authority that opposes the higher law, will bring down the civilization. Socrates gave his life for his democracy. I think we need to get back to this thinking. It is obvious the racial issues we have today resulted from excluding people of color. Socrates said it may take 3 generations but sooner or later those who are wronged will become a burden on society. We had laws that brought us to trouble, and that is not rightly a law. A democracy is about solving such problems peacefully. Democracy is rule by reason and consensus, not rule by feelings and those who are in power. How bloody stupid to replace presidents who totally destroy the accomplishments of the previous president and put their opposing policies into force. That is not rule by reason. The Bible, Industry, and the Military are about autocracy and the autocrats got ahold of education and used it to produce products for industry instead of preparing the young for citizenship as it once did. Rule by man-made law and police force destroys liberty and that destroys what democracy is all about.

But I don't think the fact they should be changed means that they don't exist or aren't laws. — Ciceronianus the White

Now we are getting down to the nut: I'm not saying the stick does not exist. I'm not saying the X's in the sand do not exist. I'm not saying the link between the two does not exist in the mind of he who wields the stick. All three of those things exist. I don't see the link. A crazy person may see a connection between two things that are only connected because they say so. I'm not crazy.

There are people who think the U.S. Government had been illegally taken over by a Deep State. They thought they were in accord with the Constitution on January 6, 2021. They based their thoughts upon the U.S. Constitution. Had they succeeded, they would have been right, in their minds. I'm not crazy. They think I'm crazy. Any one is crazy who sees the link.

If you want to wield the stick and not be thought crazy, then you must appeal to reason. Natural Law is the reason which gives the X a stage upon which to pretend. If you pretend upon the proper stage, the audience will submit to the willing suspension of disbelief. That's not crazy.

But remember, the stage upon which the X is drawn is itself sand.

The law is a system of rules adopted by or which were adopted by a controlling authority or authorities in a nation or society ... — Ciceronianus the White

How does this square with the claim that "We are a nation of laws not of men"?

I like Socrates. You compared him to Martin Luther, while a previous example was made of the difference between Gandhi and Socrates in the formers refusal to obey unjust laws. I like and respect both.

However, I place my fealty first with the land (physical) into which I was born, expanding it then to the Earth, long before I arrive at any tender feelings for the State. I was born, as some in the antinatalist thread might agree, without having been given a choice. The land into which I was born was previously occupied by a State that itself was dependent upon that land, all whilst exercising an unjust, disrespectful, inconsiderate, and brutal control over it. Rape, if you will.

When some of my fellow citizens of the State wrap themselves in it's flag, which they would deny to any who disagree with them, and suggest I leave if I don't like it, they fail to understand that for me, the name we use to describe this land "America" or the "United States" refers first to my home, which they occupy, and I have no intention of leaving.

It just so happens that when we finally move out from the land to other, much less important things like the State, I do happen to hold a grudging respect, and even love for her aspirations and ideals; as they are articulated in her organic documents, as well as in Natural Law. I happen to think she has promise, and that she is deserving of defense. And she is much better than some alternatives. But I think she would do well to remember her place in the order of things. She should remember how much of what she was and is is totally dependent upon the place over which she exercises "control" and much less on some exceptionalism imputed to her citizens. In theory she is one thing, but in practice she is often just the biggest fucking bully on the play ground. Sovereign? Yes, but in my book, might does not make right. It may be the way things are, but that doesn't make it right.

So yes, Socrates, the "State" is worthy of some consideration. But it has to earn it, prove it. And remember that there are other things in this world too. — James Riley

Gandi is a great example of non-cooperation with unjust power. But what followed has been as poorly thought out as the hippie movement.

You write beautifully!

You write of two separate things. DEMOCRACY which is a totally awesome social organization beginning with Athens, which advances civilization, and the Military-Industrial Complex the US became after defeating it in Germany. The US was the modern Athens and Germany the modern Sparta.

Surely that of which you object to is not rule by reason. That for which the US stood is not what the US stands for today. The same thing happened to Athens when its defense against Persia succeeded. Its military power went to its head and it could not let go of its desire for money which it became accustomed to when collecting from all the city-states for protection. It resorted to using force to collect tribute and united city-states against Athens.

We helped the allies win WWI and WWII and then became what we defended our democracy against. The US is now the Military Industry Complex it defeated and much of the world is uniting against US control of global resources. On a finite planet, this is a serious problem. The standard of living in the US is not globally sustainable.

Books about geology might complement your argument. I especially like Youngquist's book "Mineral Resources and the destiny of Nations".

I do not think Socrates had a concept of a higher authority. He had a concept of "what seems best". He used the word 'logos' to mean to speak, to discuss, or give an account. What seems best is what follows from deliberating together, the stronger argument. It is important to see that the result of such deliberation is not absolute. Socrates reminds us of our ignorance. We are human, not divine beings. — Fooloso4

All Greeks came to a concept of a higher authority. "Logos" is a Greek word meaning reason, the controlling form of the universe made manifest is speech. They came to the idea that even the gods had to submit to the law and this line of reasoning pulled them away from superstition and towards the sciences and democracy. Cicero studied in Athens.

We are as the gods because we have the capacity of reason. Now here is the big argument with Christianity, a religion of miracles. Even the gods were under the law, versus a god who can do anything he wills. Which would you label the more superstitious? Truly we can do far more than Jesus could do, but this is not because of supernatural powers. We can do more than Jesus did because of the power of reason. Not even the Greek gods were all-knowing nor all-powerful and being as the gods does not mean having supernatural power.

What a delicious debate this could become. :grin:

I like Socrates ...

However, I place my fealty first with the land (physical) into which I was born, expanding it then to the Earth, long before I arrive at any tender feelings for the State. — James Riley

There is an irreducible tension between Socrates and the city. His fealty is to philosophy, the examined life. It was in this sense trans-political. Beyond that it is difficult to say where his allegiance was. The problem with thinking his allegiance was to the regime is that it had undergone upheavals and changes in his lifetime. It did not remain the same regime through all those changes. The same problem arises with the law. Having said that, however, it does seem that he was loyal to the city and its laws.

"Logos" is a Greek word meaning reason, the controlling form of the universe made manifest is speech. — Athena

What the Greeks understood by 'reason' is not what the term came to mean for us through modern philosophy. Anaxagoras said 'nous' (mind or intellect) orders the cosmos. Reason is a Latin term, from ratio, used to translate the Greek dianoia, discursive thinking. It differs from noesis, a kind of direct apprehension or seeing with the mind.

What the logos meant for Heraclitus is controversial. When he says: " ... all things come to pass in accordance with this Logos ...", he might mean that the Logos is the guiding force or he could simply mean that what he is about to tell us is the way things are, the truth. Preceding this he begins: "Although this Logos is eternally valid, yet men are unable to understand it – not only before hearing it, but even after they have heard it for the first time …".

It should noted that the Greek philosophers, in imitation of the Greek poets, placed the authority of what they said not with themselves but with God or the gods.

In the Phaedo Socrates says that he had been drawn to Anaxagoras' claim that Nous orders all things, but was disappointed to learn that he gave only physical explanations and did not say why things should be the way they are, that is, why it is best that they be this way. Socrates was left on his own to discover what is
best, that is, his "second sailing", his recourse to speech.

It is not divine reason made manifest in speech, but rather, human speech attempting to know what is best.

How does this square with the claim that "We are a nation of laws not of men"? — Fooloso4

I prefer to think that we are a nation of lawyers, not men. But I'm being silly, and digress.

I think the claim that we here in God's Favorite Country live in a nation of laws, not men, is founded on the belief that laws, once adopted, apply equally to all people that are citizens of our Glorious Union, including members of the "controlling authorities." In theory equality under the law may be true; in practice, not so much, as they say.

Where the law applies equally to all, including members of the controlling authorities, it's possible to contend that the laws govern us all. This doesn't mean that the law never changes, though.

While I think Natural Law is at worst a chimera, at best a misnomer, I think that the more our judgments and decisions, including those regarding law, are guided by informed reasoning, the better they will be. That is the creative, intelligent process of inquiry--a method of making judgments. I don't think this entails a belief that what is sound, or right, or good in particular situations, legal or otherwise, pre-exists somewhere in nature as a law or derivative of a law of nature, however.

I prefer to think that we are a nation of lawyers — Ciceronianus the White

With that thought in mind I will have trouble sleeping tonight.

I think the claim that we here in God's Favorite Country live in a nation of laws, not men, is founded on the belief that laws, once adopted, apply equally to all people that are citizens of our Glorious Union, including members of the "controlling authorities." — Ciceronianus the White

Yes. The laws themselves are, of course, the laws of men - by men for men. (I use the term 'men' here because it is how the quote is phrased).

What I am questioning is the notion that laws are:

... adopted by a controlling authority or authorities — Ciceronianus the White

This implies that the controlling authorities, whoever they may be, can by fiat make or change whatever laws they see fit. There is a sense in which this is true, providing they have to power to do so. And if they do so, us law-abiding citizens have no choice but to comply.