Nothing is truth! There is nothing that exists which is inherently correct. Without right and wrong, there are no answers. Without inherent answers, there are no inherent questions. What is is all there is. Each particular problem or dilemma is merely a question created by the inquirer. Anything and everything is an answer to that question. The answer selected by the inquirer is that believed to maximize a desired result. Everything is zen! Everything is nothing!

However, once an answer is selected, a system is created out of the universe of anarchy. Within this answer, this system, the components of that answer operate as defining touchstones. Once the answer is selected, these guidelines are "the law" of the system. With a principle defined as "the law," the question arises whether something is legal. Thus, within an answer, there is a question that is the question. The selection of a primary answer is the designation of the secondary question.

To this secondary question, there is a correct answer. The system has defined principles that are, while not inherently so, absolute. Based on these known variables, proposed answers to the secondary question can be judged.

For example, two is not inherently "two," either grammatically or mathematically. Spacial volume and subsequent quantity are a question posed by an inquirer. The numeric system is selected by that inquirer as an answer to that question. Within this created system, there is a designated question of amount, such as the sum of two and two. To this question there are correct answers which are correct, not because of neutral value, but because a subjective system has been created to answer a subjective question. Therefore, within this system, four as the sum of two plus two is a correct answer.

However, the ability to determine a correct answer within a system is directly linked to the specificity of the answer that is the system. A system that is vague or that relies on a vague means of expression, such as language, makes determining a right answer less definitive. The ability to find a right answer within a system is directly proportional to the specificity of that system. As its specificity declines and vagueness increases, the ability to determine a right answer also declines. As some point, the degree of specificity is so low that the ability to determine a right answer is completely impaired. However, this is not because there is no right answer, but only that it cannot be found. Correct answers in a system are possible in a vacuum.

The American legal system is no exception to the maxim nihil est veritatem. Like everything that is, it is nothing. It has no inherent quality or truth.

The Framework of the American Legal System

The American legal system is merely an answer to a question. Neither one is either neutral or true.

The Primary Question

The inquirers chose to define the question in the manner they did. The defined question is what type of legal system will best-fulfill the desires of the inquirers. An infinite number of answers to this question exist; not only are there many types and variations of legal systems, but there are other forms of systems or even non-systems, conceived or presently not yet conceived, that qualify as answers to this question. The inquirers, known today as the "founding fathers," selected an answer to this posed question. Their answer was a constitutional democracy with a number of accompanying principles.

This question that resulted in the American legal system is not the question. The founding fathers were not restricted to the establishment of a legal and political system. Living under the structure of statism is not an inherent requirement of human beings. Likewise, the establishment of a law and legal system are not essential to humanity. Because the need for a legal system is not inherent, the founding fathers's decision to pose the question was exactly that--a choice.

Today, and at the time the question was posed by the founding fathers, people would consider the need for a legal and political system natural to humanity. This perception is entirely subjective. The arrival at this belief has been by social process, not individual intellectual endeavor. Each individual has been brainwashed by their upbringing and the instillation of values by society-at-large. Even attempted individualized perception is most often lost in contextual perceptions molded by the culture. A self-replicating Canon of Statism continues to proliferate this view. People have become canonized to the establishment ideology of statism.

The existence and merit of non-systems has been ignored. While at one time, perhaps, there were individuals that actually deliberated whether some sort of establishment should be created, this is now accepted as fact. In the years following that initial choice, the general population of the entire world has considered there to have never been a primary question. It has been accepted as a given that when there are people living together a legal system is not merely optional but essential. Non-conforming views of statism are summarily discarded. Non-legal-system questions are ignored voices.

Some have argued that such a canon enhances the ability of individuals to discuss the reality that exists. This concept is fatally flawed. It ignores the initial inquiry by skipping the debate of what primary question should or could be asked. It accepts the question of statism as the question and then proceeds to the debate over the answers. It then attempts to justify this step by the fact that it will create a plane on which to debate. However, the plane of debate already exists. Simply moving it past the primary question to its answers fatally flaws the entire latter debate, however enhanced, for it is perceived by the participants as the debate rather than in its actual perspective as a micro debate in a much larger debate in a macro-environment. Canonicity of a debate erroneously accepts a question as the question.

No question is the primary question.

The Primary Answer

Once the inquirers posed the question of what legal system would best suit their desires, they answered it by constructing a tripartite constitutional democracy. This answer is manifested in the Constitution of the United States which included a complete structure of the legal system. For the founding fathers, the American legal system was the answer to their primary question.

This is not, however, the answer. The same people who composed the primary question also conceived and adopted its answer. While their values and subjectivity guided the outcome of the primary question, it simultaneously guided the outcome of its answer. Constitutional democracies are not the answer to the posed primary question of which legal system to adopt.

Some people believe that constitutional democracy is the only system because it is the answer. This belief considers the American legal system to be correct while others such as the former Soviet Union's was incorrect. While this view of correctness may be more limited than that of the primary question, proponents of its inherentness still abound. There is a Canon of American Jurisprudence.

This canon, like that of the primary question, is contingent on social forces that brainwash an individual. Without knowledge of their relative perspective, the individual believes that the held belief is objectively neutral. A Canon of American Jurisprudence professes that there is a correct answer to the primary question--that the American legal system is neutrally the only correct answer.

This canon ignores a myriad of voices that propose alternative answers to the primary question. While articulated alternative primary questions are few, alternative primary answers are many. A significant number of legal systems have been conceived and adopted throughout history. Many of these have operated with as much, or even more success than the American legal system. This fact alone negates the contention that the American system is inherently correct due to superior results.

There is still a contention, however, that the American legal system is still the correct answer to the primary question. Some suggest that, while not all systems are, or have been, constitutional democracies, there is a dialectic in which all states are moving toward this answer and will, eventually, accept the truth of its correctness. This contention suggests that at some point a state chose a wrong primary answer. This would be impossible if there were only one answer to the primary question. If there was only one answer, there is only one choice. How could there be an erroneous choice if there is only option? This dialectic theory of one answer suggests that, while there is an answer that is the answer, there are other answers.

Each primary answer is merely a answer, none more inherently correct than any other. Each answer to the legal-system primary question is a voluntary choice to adhere to a system in order to achieve the goals that led to the posing of the primary question. Each primary answer is a social contract.

The inquirers choose that contract which they believe will best fulfill there objectives. The American founding fathers believed that the Constitution was the answer that would best fulfill their objectives. Toward this end, they voluntarily entered into a social contract in which a specific legal framework would exist. The mandate of the American legal system is limited to that which is enunciated in the Constitution. It derives all of its power from the consent of the governed, not from itself.

No answer is the primary answer.

The Operation of the American Legal System

Once established, the legal framework that is created by a primary answer begins to operate. The answer has designated the secondary question and the secondary answer.

The Secondary Question

The subjective adoption of the constitution as an answer designated, within the chosen system, an objective question. The secondary question is whether something is constitutional (or legal). This question is objective only within the realm of the primary answer because that answer in fact posed the secondary question. The secondary question is the question because the primary answer so dictates.

The Secondary Answer

To the secondary question there is an objectively neutral answer that is the answer. This is an answer as to whether something within the system of the primary answer is constitutional. This does not imply, however, that objective within the system is inherently objective in the universe. Objectivity can only exist within the realm of a created system, within a secondary question and answer. Correct answers exist as to whether a law in the American legal system is constitutional.

Knowing whether an answer to this secondary question is correct is sometimes difficult. Unlike the numeric system, which has a high degree of specificity, the United States Constitution approaches vagueness. The truth of the document is obscured by the interference of imperfect communication. It relies not only on the message, but on an interpretation of its meaning assigned by the receiver of the message. The neutrality of an answer of constitutionality is hidden by the ability to subjectively interpret the document in a variety of ways. While a correct answer of constitutionality may exist, subjectivity destroys any ability to determine what it is. It is impossible to determine the secondary answer in the American legal system.

Positivists contend that there are few instances where a secondary answer that is correct cannot be determined. They suggest that there are difficult cases, but they are few. This concept is flawed because it examines interpretations in a single period and accepts consensus as truth. Consensus for one period of time is not necessarily consensus in another. Every interpretation of the Constitution, however slight, is subjective and contingent on canonical influences that can change over time. Most secondary answers in the American legal system cannot be determined.

Individuals can attempt to find the correct answer to the secondary question. The plain meaning of the constitution can be interpreted; however, even this requires subjective judgment by the interpreter. The intent of the framers can be sought; however, there were many framers and each had his own hermeneutical concept of the document even at the time of signature. The principles of the Constitution can be applied to contemporary situations; however, this requires subjective interpretation and subjective application. The degree of specificity of the Constitution is too low for the correct answer to be determined.

Be that as it may, many answers are continually offered. However, these answers have no claim to correctness. Even if one happened to be correct, it would be impossible to know this fact. Because the primary answer requires an answer to the secondary question (the Constitution requires cases in controversy to reach a resolution), answers are in fact chosen. There is an infinite number of answers to the secondary question, none of which is known to be correct.

Although not the answer, one can attempt to predict those that will be selected. The operation of the American legal system over the past two centuries has evidenced trends and patterns that can be exploited to predict future secondary answers. This predictability comes from the interrelationship of two variables: interpretations of the Constitution by the judge (Judicial Hermeneutics) and interpretations of the judicial opinion by its reader (Popular Hermeneutics).

Judicial Hermeneutics is the group of answers that judges would give to the secondary question. It has two basic branches: actual hermeneutics and disguised hermeneutics.

Actual hermeneutics attempts to actually determine the right answer to the secondary question. It relies on the traditionally legal hermeneutical methods of originalism and plain-meaning interpretation of the Constitution. A judge makes a decision and explains why it is the correct answer.

Disguised hermeneutics offers an answer that is cloaked in a veil of rightness. This strand is evidence of the unity of discourse between law and literature. A judge will decide the answer that is desired and then seek to interpret the Constitution in a manner that supports the pre-chosen answer. Through poethics, which is the combined use of legal logic and literary passion, a judge justifies a specific answer to the posed secondary question.

Popular Hermeneutics is the group of answers that the general population will accept. Some answers would so shock or outrage the public that judges neither entertain nor offer them. While Popular Hermeneutical answers fluctuate more than those of Judicial Hermeneutics, there is always a set of answers which it occupies.

The correlation between these two variables (the first broken down into two sub-variables) is the Window of Determinacy. Within this window are those answers to the secondary question that can be expected to be chosen. The Window of Determinacy is the American Legal Canon.

Thus, the American legal system does not rely on interpretations that are correct, but on those that are offered and accepted. While there is an answer to the secondary question that is the answer, the actual operation of the system relies on answers that are not correct.

The American legal system can accept any answer. The legal canon is not tied to any particular point of interpretation. Even in strict legal interpretation, the answers can change as the constitution is continually evolving through the historical process of re-interpretation. The influence of literature enables an answer to quickly change. The use of passion and literary writing enables judicial interpretation and/or popular perspective to change dramatically and rapidly. Secondary answers are not limited to the primary answer.

In this way, the social contract that is the primary answer is impossible to complete. De jure, there is a social contract that is manifested in the Constitution. De facto, the system to which the founding fathers consented is not the system that is or has ever operated. There are two social contracts.

The de jure social contract is the primary answer to the primary question. It was chosen by the founding fathers because they considered it to be the best way to achieve their goals. That contract was written down in the Constitution and consented to by the people. However, it has never been fulfilled.

The de facto social contract is the manner in which answers are actually reached. While attempting or purporting to pose and answer the secondary question, the inability to determine a right answer deconstructs the system that is the primary answer. The operation of the American legal system does not interpret the Constitution. Any answer can eventually be brought within the window of determinacy and American legal canon, even answers that do not respond to the secondary question of constitutionality. In this way the system that is the primary answer is constantly changing. The de facto social contract is anarchy.

Thus, the only remnant of a social contract is the perceived need for one. American citizens, as with the rest of the global population, is unable to accept that there is nothing that is true and seeks to hide behind a supposed legal system that has truth. Even though they presently operate and function in the realm of anarchy, the perceived need for definable order (whether or not it is real) perpetuates the Canon of Statism. Whether or not one wants to accept it, there is nothing.

Conclusion