The Philosophy of State Law in the United States

State law builds its legal architecture from the philosophy of knowledges sourced from state regions. When it is that two entities of proper court and standing find their respective identities in a legal exchange, state based legality finds place when those two entities are found within a state defined border. With all of the business to be conducted occurring within state parameters, the legal relationships that facilitate the interactions at a state level are the exact same as those tabled in the federal writings of this library. The only real change in legal philosophy is the geography that sets the level of government deemed appropriate. State laws impact and influence state borders and state territories alone. However, the unique constituencies of those regions maintain the sentiment of diversity that finds natural implication along the axes of an intrinsically established human element which typically gravitates toward a developed array, because of the reality presented by its populating architecture. Regardless of the diverse demographics of mention, though, state laws propagate under the banner of state defined boundaries and government defined human identities. Notably, each courting entity within any legal dispute, regardless of its composite parties, must fully house and identify alongside a definable human identity in order to stand or engage in a governed legal affair. One human identity must be present in both of the trying bodies of legal dispute in order to conduct processes rightly and fairly. Wrought legalism dictates that the trying entity in a fundamental exchange is responsible for knowing the life, death, and balance to be reported in a legal matter, and with that responsibility, the entity being tried would present their case of response with what they feel to be the correct life, death, or balance to respond with in kind. Legal dispute constitutes the matter of the opposing side presenting a courtable argument articulating within acceptable prose why it is that the tried party has not responded, conducted business, or facilitated exchange correctly. An example holds in how an event of balance is answered with life, but the persons of the balanced event reside within the legal understanding of either balance or death being appropriate as opposed to the tried entity's example response of life. Furthering the dynamic evolves to see the matter composed of business relations wroughtly based in balanced exchanges that dictate the right and appropriate action every time. The philosophy, within law, courts from the perspective of always ensuring the stability of the union, or the facilitating government body, but within matters that maintain a raw humanist element, the identities representing the courting entities must be held at a standard of whole, or holistic, engagement. Though balance is the key objective, it is not always the response. A trying entity that is properly represented engaging in a dispute where their event of balance was met with the incorrect legal action may receive life as a correction, or death, as opposed to balance, but the life or death is what is giving of balance. A dispute, within legal philosophy and understanding, is what dictates the appropriate and correct action. Proper facilitation is how the correct action is determined. The facilitation is what has been written as a dispute, and the legal philosophy stems from ensuring, within right, lawful knowledge, that balance is achieved. The means by which these disputes find integral positioning within governing literature gains the above described understanding of balanced sentiment from the mission of the nation which is written out in the Constitution. The Constitution of the United States of America, as a reiterate, reads as,

“We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”

Written out in the above excerpt is a six fold agenda that is emphasized within the legal philosophies written so far in this narrative as understandings rooted in base principle. Forming a more perfect union is seeded with community. Establishing justice is contingent upon truth. Domestic tranquility is not possible without peace. The common defense demands protection and integrity. General welfare should be cultivate of prosperity, and securing blessings of liberty call upon one to steep their humanity in freedom and liberation. From the aforewritten embedding of balance from the perspective of legal philosophy, there then comes community, truth, peace, protection, integrity, prosperity, and freedom as the corner points of balance that aid in instrumenting what would be seen as effective and correct for rulings that span between lawfully courting parties. The concept evolves further when states position their multifaceted arrays of focalism into parameters fitting of above. The mission of the state, in any government, is to ensure the propagation of the populace, and in rightful acknowledgement, balance is the means by which this lasting agenda is achieved. Legal disputes then arraign this understanding in the fielded contortion of universally applicable purpose wherein the perpetuating measures of rule find housing in the philosophy of governing American literature.