No, I am describing human freedom, an absolute, which can fail in its quest to make an intended future. Humans constitute past present and future...

It is absolute that free choice is absolutely without justification. The capacities to realize, to fail, are ontologically absolute, and cannot possibly be overthrown. The double nihilation is ontologically absolute and cannot not be done/performed..
Law, though an absolutism, is not absolute, human freedom to obey/disobey is absolute.

The right/freedom to hold or not hold religious belief is absolute.

I can make neither head nor tail of your thinking Sir...

According to Sartre human freedom is an absolute capacity to intend a particular future, although, circumstances can and will obviate the realization of the intended state.
I have explained double nihilation, I think twice here already, but, here it is: Human consciousness nihilates, i.e., makes a nothing which is a particular intended future state of affairs, which is unrealized; absent; not-yet; hence non-being/nothing. As consciousness establishes that absence as a presence, it transcends the present, rendering the present as past. That rendering present as past is the second nothing making/nihlation wherein the present becomes nothing.

It is not an "absolutism" concerning the future, but proof that the future is real and therefore not as you claim, "nothing". — Metaphysician Undercover

It is not my personal claim. What I am presenting here is J.P. Sartre's conception of how a human act originates by what he calls a "double nihilation", to which I subscribe. 'Nihilate' is a word Sartre invented, and means: to make nothing. Future is a human creation, and is, in current worldwide existential ontological thought, a "present absence".
You have the future determining the person while it is actually persons that determine future.

I understood; and, I responded kindly. You set forward an untoward absolutism of the future; but, you are kind and do not attack one's person.

The future is here with us as an absence. Consciousness, which is freedom, and which makes that absent future, cannot be forced to do anything, except by its own volition, for it is free.
You are positing an absolutism of the future, while, all the while, consciousness is always free and unbound, to imagine its next future...You have become so totally deterministic in your world view, via living in a totally jurisprudentially deterministic world, that you absolutely insist there must always be something Other out there which, cinesiologically, is in motion forcefully moving you...

Surely the future cannot be nothing in any absolute sense, because the future is what forces the human being to act. If a human being did not act, it would be crushed by the force of passing time, (the future becoming the past). Accordingly that human being would be forced into the past, by the future, annihilated. So the future must be something very real, therefore not nothing. — Metaphysician Undercover

Here we are speaking of freedom, which, ultimately, is consciousness.

Consciousness imagines a future state of affairs which it desires to usher into the world. That future is absent; lacking; non-existent; and, hence, as non-existent the intended future is nothing.

The absent future does not, cannot, force free consciousness to do anything, for it is free consciousness which prefigures, imagines, makes the not-yet that is its future existence. Time originates via this nihilative capacity to conceive the absent future, whereby, the present is transcended and made past...
Nothing, nothingness, is consciousness' milieu, wherein consciousness continually makes the not that is the future, is real.

Now you're turning unkind. What the hell?!
I posit something radically avant guarde here and, simply get shit on in return by limited intellects?

Pearls have been thrown before your swine ignoramus idiot ass and all you can do is argumentum ad hominem. Defeat the OP, not me, fool.

Excellent.

You accuse me of a total crock and I can't be outraged!? You are a piece of ignorant treacherous garbage with no place here.

Excuse me for existing. You are pinning too much bull on me. I should actually transplant your brain into my cranium, then, everything will be just swell, I''ll be precisely just as ignorant and as mean as you...
Yes, everyone mistakenly thinks law is determinative...
Get hosed.

Thank you.
It is what is known as the materialist illusion when persons name given, existing states of affairs as the reason/cause for their actions.
The actual, authentic, true mode of origination of human action is consciousness; which proceeds via the double nihilation, wherein consciousness, on the one hand, makes the nothing that is an imagined future state which it wants to be; and, on the other hand, makes the present state nothing by transcending that state toward the not yet existing future which it wants.

You are going off half cocked, when you rush to inhumanely name me delusional, for knowing that law does not, cannot, act causally upon human beings. Law is a given factual state of affairs. Human action only originates on the basis of intended expectations which one has not yet brought to pass; no given state of the world determines human action...that is the existential ontological view, so, you see, you are rather a dummy to deem me delusional for understanding an existentialism which was constructed in 1943 and, has been published worldwide, winning a Nobel prize, which was refused by Sartre, for authoring the reasoning which I parrot here...

The judge convicts the defendant for the reason that the judge deems the defendant to have been under a social obligation to determine his actions in accordance with the law; and, the defendant, from the judge's viewpoint, did not determine to negatively do a requisite inaction.

Personal existential ontological existence is a continual failure to coincide with one's aims. I have been working to cast existentialist constructs in plain language for decades, easier said than done. When I first encountered these radically unusual constructs, I was exceeding at sea; however, I buckled down and did alright. The texts required to be read were not watered down, they were the thinker's original, final, published concepts; so, I know it can be done. One can study one's self out of any fog...

You partly think I have done a terrible job because you, at this point, lack the determination to put in the work requisite to understand ontology; I gave reference to the beautiful original texts for the reader to peruse...it is radically modern stuff.

No one at all has an a priori responsibility to understand my writing, but, if you engage that writing, and engage me here regarding that writing, it is simply your responsibility to work toward comprehension...The precepts I employ were established before all of us were born and, are understandable.

This is a philosophy forum. Not all philosophy transpires in ordinary language. The ilk of philosophy I employ speaks its own idiosyncratic language, which cannot entirely be reduced to ordinary language, without losing the intension attendant upon the central language of the particular ilk's position. I continually work to enunciate existential ontological precepts in the plainest possible language. Nonetheless, it is the reader's responsibility to research and study whatever he cannot understand, until he does understand.

No, I was not trying to say what you guessed I was saying.

I was saying that human origination of an act is a wholly negative process, involving intention to surpass what is, for the sake of attaining what is not yet achieved. The stance that human acts arise via negation originally arose with Spinoza. Then, Sartre founded his existential ontology on Spinoza's dictum "determinatio negatio est"; and, I was opposing that negative/nihilative theory of the origin of human action, to the jurisprudential theory that published language of law is determinative of human action...

I sincerely appreciate your general acceptance of my reasoning, while so many others here are so absolutely unable to fathom the negative structure of human determination to action, that they sincerely deem me to be ignorant and ridiculous...

"You don't need Sartre for this." you wrote, Appears you left a word out here. I don't need Sartre for what?
Excellent Thoreau !

Within that abstruse opening assertion I said law is NOT determinative. All cannot be explained in a first sentence. Therein I merely mention, not explain, that there is an ontological rationality, which rationale I posit subsequently...
Police, judges, prosecutors, lawyers, all think that they are determined to act against persons by the law. Perhaps you have never been before a magistrate in court to hear how they speak about the law which determines their actions against you...
When I wrote an extensive explanation of Spinoza's dictum, I explained, via quoting Sartre's thinking regarding the dictum, the ontological rationale attendant upon action origination.

Of course my statements, founded in Sartreian existential ontology, are surely going to appear to be ridiculous and incoherent and nonsensical, which, really, they are not; they are just radically unfamiliar notions to positivist readers...and very difficult to understand for positivist materialist persons...

Thanks for your straightforward criticism. I amended paragraph two as a result of your responce.

I am not trying to explain why law is made...

Wow. Excellent suggestion regarding focusing on what constitutes humane good.

Yes. I have lately just remembered, a Baptist Minister who's daughter I was once dating, when he taught me that the instant at which Christ died on the cross, a curtain in a Jewish Temple was rent completely down the middle, representing the depassement of the LAW unto a new era of the love of Christ...So the notion of depassing law is nothing new at all...

Since, at present, you have not had any association with existential ontological notions of how nothingness underlies human action, you are mistakenly thinking that my actions have no explanation, while, all the while, my actions are explained by the not yet future which those actions are prefiguring. For example, I intended to write a critique of law, which critique was an absent non-entity, a nothing, which nothing I gave verbal substance...

I do not see law as a cause or as capable of causing persons to act or not act; although everyone else does. Everyone thinks we humans are simply things which can be in motion moved by the language of law.

To precipitate something is to cause something. And, I am saying that law is not causal for human beings, i.e., my freedom cannot be caused by some existing fact to act; for my action only originates ex nihilo, out of nothing/negation.

I am suggesting that we begin replacement by first uplifting the honor, honesty, and dignity of our legislators, judges, prosecutors and police, via assisting them to become reflectively free, and, thus, to lead them upward unto understanding the true structure of the origination of human action; which act-origination has nothing to do with law.
I have not fully envisioned a future. I expect that other intelligences, upon becoming reflectively free, may have some dynamite thoughts regarding future sociospheric possibilities.

Thank you.

A judge, when convicting/sentencing someone, states by what law he is bound and determined to do so.

You deem the OP ridiculous while, all the while, it is simply far beyond your present capacity to comprehend it.

Following the law is a false determination to act on the basis of given law, and, I am pointing out that per existential ontological theory of how human action arises, given law does not, cannot, precipitate any human act whatsoever; which is why all our jails are wholly overcrowded, i.e., the requiring law which the prisoners supposedly broke is not, cannot, be determinative of human action...but the convicting judge thinks the law determines him, and, that it must necessarily determine, by its stolid requirement, the other fellow too...

I am not at all saying that we will be able to govern society via being reflectively free.
Yes, being reflectively free is attaining an understanding of how a human being originates action/inaction. It is simply understanding what double nihilation is, which Sartre fully describes in his "Being and Nothingness", Part Four.
Attaining being reflectively free is done on an individual basis.

Yes, my subject matter is evolving/refining...

I am referring to all law in my theoretical critique of law per se.

Not doing something is what is known as a negative act.

The U.S. Constitution is an admirable attempt to do something radically important via law, even though law is not effectually determinative among persons. Yes, we need to regulate our conduct in all our endeavors;-- I am simply pointing out that law is not the determinative agency that we think it is, so, we need to do a lot of re-thinking about regulating conduct. My proffer is that we first render everyone reflectively free.

The police constantly killing citizens is nothing but chaos.

I had courses in a Phil. Dept. where the lecture was about him and his work B&N. We read B&N. Definitely an atheist. He said consciousness arises as nothingness being introduced into concrete being. I cannot answer all your other questions...

"Apparently energy cannot not be created or destroyed so that also does not seem to fit into a nihilation picture." The nothings being referred to here are projects/intentions.
Sartre is continually providing concrete examples of his take on human existence. There is a free copy of his Being and Nothingness available on the net.
A stage is essentially an open space, an opening whereupon things appear.

"But one may know the law (the weather too) and assess its impact on potential action. I would say it's wise to do that, regardless of its ontological status." Most certainly.

Persons fear possible, imagined harm, to their person. Imagination is nothing. Law means possible harm. Possibility is nothing. The fear is a human reaction to imagined possible harm by possibly harmful law-persons, and, fear is a function of the person fearing, not a quality of the words of the law. In the absence of the prohibited act there in only nothing of action and dread of possible, imagined, punishment. Human consciousness of the law is generating the fear, not the law per se.

Consciousness is nothing in the sense that it is an empty stage whereupon being appears.

Consciousness is nothingness in the sense that it is continuously abandoning/surpassing/discarding its present state, in a continuous thrust toward what it intends to bring to pass. Continually making the given state nothing, and, making the nothing that is the not yet which it intends to usher in. That doubly negative process is what is called "double nihilation". 'Nihilation' means to make nothing. Consciousness continually nihilates nothing.

"How do you intend to preserve positive legal presidents (precedents) and concepts of rights?" I have not performed a double nihilation in that regard yet.