Skip to comments.Actus me invito factus, non est meus actus
Posted on 03/22/2010 10:24:48 PM PDT by djf
This is a latin phrase that is part of a collection of items loosely called "the maxims of law".
Now, maxims, in the legal field, are somewhat like axioms in geometry or the rules in a football game. They are guiding principles that are supposed to enter into and be the end result of any legislation or court case.
If you were to ask somebody "What does justice mean?" in most cases, they would reply with an example or a rule that fits with the accepted maxims of law.
Now these are not "written law" or "statutory law" per se, they are more part of the common law tradition. And make no mistake! The founders themselves were very familiar with them, as quite a few are included in their writings, and in fact more than one is directly included in the Bill of Rights!
That would be this one: Accusare nemo debet se, nisi coram Deo. No one ought to accuse himself, unless before God. This maxim is the reason you cannot be forced to testify.
All of the ideas in the maxims have to do with liberty, it's extremes, and how to handle things if liberty is abused. For instance: Commodum ex injuri su non habere debet. No man ought to derive any benefit of his own wrong. So if you kill a midget, you're not supposed to be able to write a book about it and make a million dollars.
There are a number of maxims that have to do with contract law and the powers of government. The one that is the title of the thread is: Actus me invito factus, non est meus actus which means "An act done by me against my will is not my act". So were I to come up to you, put a gun to your head and make to make a threatening phone call, or WHATEVER, then you are basically innocent. You DID NOT CHOSE to voluntarily and freely make the call. I FORCED you! And during the time that I FORCED YOU, YOU HAD NO FREEDOM!!
Here is another interesting maxim: Invito beneficium non datur. No one is obliged to accept a benefit against his consent. It is a well known fact (well, at least it was well known a few hundred years ago), that with any "benefit" comes and "obligation". So IF you have LIBERTY, you can deny the benefit and therefore be free of the obligation.
These are just a few. And there might be a response to this thread that says something like "Well, blah, blah, blah, maxims don't carry the force of law"
Well then I hope they will be able to explain why some maxims are actually codified in the California Civil Code and in the Civil Code of New York State!
read more about it here:
Oh, and btw, the reason for this is that you CANNOT be forced to enter a contract. Contracts themselves are "Meeting of the minds" where everything is done voluntarily, under no duress, and totally above board.
This is awesome ... Thanks for posting this.
You are very welcome.
It always bothers me when people say “That’s not Constitutional” when it sounds like they think the Constitution is first and foremost authority about everything.
But the Constitution did not just appear from nowheres. The founders were very well educated in Western law and history. The principles they put into the Constitution about a limited government letting people govern themselves are the natural rights of man.
Perhaps they appealed to a higher place that doesn’t exist in practice. If you believe that man is a predatory anumal of sorts, and will always do whatever it takes to benefit himself, then they were wrong, and a society based on freedom will always fall to the powerful and convincing.
But I believe and hope that they saw the sense in man. That part that puts him above the dogs and the birds, that part that sees a higher purpose.
The health bill as passed by the Congress of these United States says you can only be a free man if you pay for it.
That’s not freedom.
It’s tyranny, worse yet, slavery.
nati tibi similes in rupibus
ventosissimis exponebantur ad necem.
Roughly translated (as I am told) is
In the good old days, children like you were left to parish on windswept crags.