11/15/2022
So-called sovereign citizens, like the Waukesha Parade attacker Darrell Brooks, frequently ask very silly questions during court proceedings. For instance, “Is that a lawful law?” a statement which, judicially, is meaningless. But, philosophically, it’s worth asking what makes a law lawful? A law is only lawful if it can be enforced. Walter Benjamin astutely pointed out how the use of violence is the means by which the law achieves its ends.
Citation:
Benjamin, Walter. “Critique of Violence”.
Darrell Brooks is a habitual criminal, serial domestic abuser, mass murderer, and registered sex offender who on November 21st, 2021 drove his vehicle through an annual Christmas parade killing six people and injuring 60 others. He was charged and convicted on 76 criminal counts, in a trial where he chose to represent himself as sovereign citizen.
If you’ve watched the Darrell Brooks trial, you’ve no doubt heard him ask the question of whether a judicial ruling was lawful law.
Is that lawful law?
Darrell Brooks, known habitual criminal, serial domestic abuser, mass murderer, and registered sex offender
If you ask any judge, lawyer, legal scholar, this is a meaningless statement. No lawyer ever asks this question at court. This is because a law is by definition lawful if it’s a law. An unlawful law is by definition not a law. This definition is both trivial and circular. It’s merely pointing out the principle of non-contradiction: that a law cannot both be a law and not a law at the same time.
But, philosophically, what is a law? A law is a rule applied by the state using force. A law is only lawful if it can be enforced. Hence why, Brooks was held in custody pre-trial on $5 million bail (which, at that point, why even give him bail?), why he was shackled to a table during the trial, why the court does in fact have subject-matter jurisdiction over Brook’s crimes, why his consent is irrelevant to him being tried & convicted, and why he’s going to spend the rest of his life in prison. Because the laws that state all these things can happen can be enforced. And, they’re only enforceable because the state has a monopoly on violence. This means the state is the only entity that can legitimately use violence to enforce its rules.
When we’re talking about violence, we should avoid unnecessary moralizing. We’re not looking at violence as inherently good or bad. Most of us want the state to use violence against people like Darrell Brooks to prevent him from hurting others. In fact, the law cannot exist without violence.
Philosopher Walter Benjamin said,
For the function of violence in lawmaking is twofold, in the sense that lawmaking pursues as its end, with violence as the means, what is to be established as law, but at the moment of instatement does not dismiss violence; rather, at this very moment of lawmaking, it specifically establishes as law not an end unalloyed by violence but one necessarily and intimately bound to it, under the title of power. Lawmaking is powermaking, assumption of power, and to that extent an immediate manifestation of violence.
Walter Benjamin, “Critique of Violence” 248.
Violence is the means by which the law achieves its desired end.
The power that is created through the law is inherently negative. It is the power to take something away from you whether property, money, or freedom.
One of my favorite portrayals of this concept comes from the HBO series Game of Thrones. In this scene Lord Petyr of House Baelish is talking with Queen Cersei of House I Fuck my Brother. Baelish is trying to be cheaky with Cersei by pointing out how knowledge is a form of power. To which Queen Cersei offers a different opinion about what power is.
Now, that’s a lawful law.
For another real-world example of this, we’ll look at an arraignment hearing involving a woman name Kisha Johnson. Johnson is another sovereign citizen who had to appear in a Louisville, Kentucky court on some cannabis charges (victimless crimes). As with all sovereign citizens, she was insufferable throughout the entire procedure asking about whether there’s a lawful law saying she has to be here and whether the court has jurisdiction over her, which is just asking whether the court has the power to enforce the law. This judge is actually trying to be patient with her. He just wants her to come to the podium so she can be heard on the record. When she finally does come to podium, she starts going into the typical sovereign citizen nonsense. The judge finally proves how he has subject-matter jurisdiction by ordering her to be taken into custody. And with just those few words from the judge, six different bailiffs jump into action without question to enforce the lawful law.
After spending a night in jail, all of her questions about lawful laws & subject-matter jurisdiction are gone. It seems they’ve been answered for her.
Moral of the story: don’t be a sovereign citizen.
