What is a “religion” in the US Constitution?

The word “religion” only appears once in the U.S. Constitution: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion”.
And in Article 6 we find: “no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States”

Religion was defined in Webster’s Dictionary first edition as:

2. religion as distinct from theology, is godliness or real piety in practice, consisting in the performance of all known duties to God and our fellow men, in obedience to divine command, or from love to God and his law. James 1:26.”

Also notice in definition 4 that Webster included within the term religion, the false religions.

Everyone has a different beliefs on how to perform all known duties to God and our fellow man.  The founders, perhaps with evil intent, did not want to restrict officers of government to certain specific beliefs about their private duties.  Their public duties were well defined by their duties delegated by the Constitution.

The term “religion” might not be an ethical term.  In the King James Bible the word “religion” appears five times.  Four of which are in a negative context, which is in contrast to “pure religion” of James 1:27 where it is spoken of in a positive light.

A treaty with Tripoli ratified by two-thirds of the Senate and signed by President Adams in June of 1797 correctly states in Article 11: “… the government of the United States is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion…”. This quote is from the English language version signed by President Adams, in U.S. archives, even though the original foreign version of this treaty is missing this controversial clause.

President Adams and two thirds of the Senators in 1797 knew the truth about Washington DC. John Adams would have known the truth, after all, he was, with Ben Franklin, a signer of the Peace Treaty with England that ended the war and authorized the U.S. to exist.

For more information read my essays at NotFooledByGovernment.com

Steven Miller · Originally Answered Aug 22, 2018.

How sovereign are US states?

The U.S. government exists only to the extent of the authority delegated to it by the U.S. Constitution.  It was delegated the 18 things the States allow it to do, as listed in Article 1, section 8.

Vice President Thomas Jefferson insisted that State Citizens were subject to only three federal laws. The three crimes mentioned in the U.S. Constitution.

Back in 1798, the people living in Kentucky wanted assurance that they were free from federal law. They knew they were free from most federal laws but they remained skeptical. Vice President Thomas Jefferson reassured them in the Kentucky Resolves that, as a state, the state inhabitants are subject to only three federal laws. The three mentioned in the U.S. Constitution. Piracy, Treason and Counterfeiting.

Vice President Thomas Jefferson wrote both Kentucky Resolutions.
Full text of both Kentucky Resolutions can be found here: Kentucky Resolutions, 1798 and 1799

“… the Constitution of the United States having delegated to Congress a power to punish treason, counterfeiting the securities and current coin of the United States, piracies and felonies committed on the High Seas, and offenses against the laws of nations, and no other crimes whatever, and it being true as a general principle, and one of the amendments to the Constitution having also declared, “that the powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people,”

State inhabitants are subject to ONLY three federal laws. As a State inhabitant, YOU WERE FREE FROM FEDERAL JURISDICTION, until you surrendered.

After the Civil War, while some states were still under martial law of the Reconstruction period, the Supreme Court determined in Ex parte Milligan, 71 U.S. 2 that States must protect their people against the federal government.

Nor are State people protected by the Federal Government. Example: The first eight Amendments do not apply to States and do not protect state people, according to the U.S. Supreme Court in Twinning v. New Jersey in 1908 and in Hague v. CIO in 1939. State inhabitants are not protected by federal protections until they become federal wards. You become subject to federal laws when you voluntarily did so.

You may also be interested in studying:

  • US Supreme Court in Julliard v. Greenman: 110 US 421: “there is no such thing as a power of inherent sovereignty in the government of the United States. It is a government of delegated powers, supreme within its prescribed sphere, but powerless outside of it. In this country, sovereignty resides in the people, and congress can exercise no power which they have not, by their constitution, intrusted to it; all else is withheld.”
  • US Supreme Court in Luther v. Borden, 48 US 1, at page 47: “No one, we believe, has ever doubted the proposition that, according to the institutions of this country, the sovereignty in every State resides in the people of the State, and that they may alter and change their form of government at their own pleasure.

 

When you volunteer into the federal government, you voluntarily submit yourself to a form of government that owes allegiance to two sovereignties.
Yes, you subjected yourself to federal law VOLUNTARILY.
The U.S. Supreme Court in the Cruikshank case, 92 U.S. 542 at 551 tells us that:

“It is the natural consequence of a citizenship which owes allegiance to two sovereignties, and claims protection from both. The citizen cannot complain, because he has voluntarily submitted himself to such a form of government.”

Pay attention to their word “voluntarily“. Your natural birth did not voluntarily submit yourself to the federal government. Contrary to a popular myth that a 14th Amendment birth is your natural birth — a 14th Amendment birth is not your natural birth — Your voluntary birth (by registration) into the federal government is how you submitted yourself.

People in the federal territories became States to free themselves from the federal government. Those who submit themselves to federal government must first deny the purpose of their state to exist. They must mutiny against the purpose that their State government was created. For proof read my essay at Freedom in America – Do Not Be Fooled by Government.

To find out how you volunteered into the federal government, read my book The Citizen Cannot Complain.

 

What is the intent of the U.S. Constitution?

Do the Federalist Papers show the intent of the U.S. Constitution?

The Federalist Papers are not just some antiquated editorial opinion, they are, according to the Supreme Court in Cohens v. Virginia, the exact record of the intent of the Constitution. Cohens v. Virginia 19 U.S. (6 Wheat.) 264 at 418:

“The opinion of the Federalist has always been considered as of great authority.
It is a complete commentary on our constitution; and is appealed to by all parties in the questions to which that instrument has given birth. Its intrinsic merit entitles it to this high rank; and the part two of its authors performed in framing the constitution, put it very much in their power to explain the views with which it was framed. These essays having been published while the constitution was before the nation for adoption or rejection, and having been written in answer to objections founded entirely on the extent of its powers, and on its diminution of State sovereignty, are entitled to the more consideration where they frankly avow that the power objected to is given, and defend it.”

Just in case you think a law or an amendment changed the intent of your Constitution, Think again. A congressman cannot swear an oath to support and defend your constitution and then mutiny by suggesting an amendment to change something that he is sworn to perpetuate. Article V allows amendments TO the constitution, there can never be an amendment OF the constitution. It’s meaning does not change. Here is the proof:

The 1905 U.S. Supreme Court, South Carolina v. U.S., 199 US 437:
“The Constitution is a written instrument. As such, its meaning does not alter. That which it meant when it was adopted, it means now…”

The 1901 Supreme Court in Downes v. Bidwill, 182 U.S. 244, ruled:
“It will be an evil day for American liberty if the theory of a government outside of the supreme law of the land finds lodgment in our constitutional jurisprudence. No higher duty rests upon this court than to exert its full authority to prevent all violation of the principles of the Constitution.”

The U.S. Supreme Court, Byars v. U.S., 273 US 28 (1927) repeating their earlier decision in Boyd:
“…and it is the duty of the courts to be watchful for the constitutional rights of the citizen, and against any stealthy encroachments thereon.”

The U.S. Supreme Court, Headliner note to Cohens v. Virginia, 19 U.S. 264:
“The Supreme Court will construe provisions of Constitution which appear to be repugnant, so as to preserve the true intent and meaning of the Constitution… ”

The U.S. Supreme Court, Boyd v. United States, 116 US 616, Page 635:
“illegitimate and unconstitutional practices get their first footing in that way, namely, by silent approaches and slight deviations from legal modes of procedure. It is the duty of courts to be watchful for the constitutional rights of the citizen, and against any stealthy encroachment thereon. ”

The U.S. Supreme Court, Norton vs. Shelby County 118 US 425 page 442:
“An Unconstitutional Act is not law; it confers no rights: it imposes no duties; affords no protection; it creates no office; it is in legal contemplation, as inoperative as though it had never been passed.”

The U.S. Supreme Court, Miranda vs. Arizona, 384 US 436 page 491:
“Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule making or legislation which would abrogate them.”

The U.S. Supreme Court, Marbury vs. Madison. 5 US 137: All laws which are repugnant to the Constitution are null and void

President John Adams: “Our Constitution was made only for a religious and moral people. It is wholly inadequate for the government of any other.”

Daniel Webster:
“I shall exert every faculty I possess in aiding to prevent the Constitution form being nullified, destroyed, or impaired; and, even thought I should see it fall, I will still, with a voice feeble, perhaps, but earnest as ever issued from human lips, and with fidelity and zeal which nothing shall extinguish, call on the people to come to its rescue.”

John Quincy Adams:
“Posterity – you will never know how much it has cost my generation to preserve your freedom. I hope you will make good use of it.”

 

Originally Answered Jun 23, 2018, by Steven Miller

For more information read my essay The Constitution Does Not Change at https://wp.me/P7yY3A-3q

Can democracy coexist with capitalism?

Can democracy coexist with capitalism?
Originally answered Jan 28, 2019 by Steven Miller

Democracy can never survive.

Capitalism has nothing to do with the demise of democracy.

There are strong moral reasons that the writers of the U.S Constitution did not want a democracy. They knew that democracy would create chaos and violence.

Even in the pagan Roman Empire, everyone knew the maxim of law that a democracy is prohibited. Multitudo errantium non parit errori patrociuum “The multitude of those who err furnishes no excuse for error.” This maxim of law has been perpetuated through the millennia to us today, but you ignore it. Ignorance of the law is no excuse for violating it. [Ignorantia juris quod quisque tenetur scire, neminem excusat. Ignorance of a law, which every one is bound to know, excuses no man.]

The U.S. Constitution promised to ensure domestic tranquility and secure the blessings of liberty. But today’s government exists by violence. Police, laws, courts, taxes, CPS, military and all other institutions of government exist by violent enforcement and threats of violence. Today’s government does NOT exist to protect your safety from violence. Safety and liberty are mutually incompatible. Ben Franklin once wrote that “Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.” — Benjamin Franklin, November 11, 1755; Reply to the Governor. This is inscribed on a plaque in the stairwell of the Statute of Liberty. By the way, Ben Franklin was at the Constitutional Convention. He also signed the Peace Treaty with Britain thereby authorizing the U.S. to exist. Perhaps he knew something about the purpose of the government he authorized to exist. Perhaps you should pay attention, or forfeit both your liberty and safety.

The Constitution tried to secure the blessings of liberty. It guarantees a republic form of government, NOT a democracy. No form of collectivism can respect individual rights.

There is a reason that you do not have any remaining rights.

PLUNDER

Frederic Bastiat in Economic Sophisms, Second Series, Chapter 1, The Physiology of Plunder, 1845:

“When plunder becomes a way of life for a group of men living together in a society, they create for themselves in the course of time, a legal system that authorizes it and a moral code that glorifies it.”

Collectivists cannot recognize individual rights. Collectivists covet their neighbor’s wealth through taxation and usury. Once the cancer of covetousness metastasizes into a democracy, no society can recover. There is no amount of government regulations that can cure the corruption, greed, sloth, deception and perversion that is spread by democracy. If you insist on participating, you will find yourself dominated by those who refuse to manage their own lives.

The writers of the Constitution knew what would happen to any government that allows greedy people to vote. Voting for welfare is a conflict of interest — discussed below. John Locke’s Second Treatise of Government, section 222, tells us that when government officers corrupt society, the result is

“to cut up the government by the roots, and poison the very fountain of public security…”

* ~ ~ ~ *

EQUAL NEIGHBORS ?

Every July Fourth Americans celebrate another anniversary of the signing of a famous document that told the world we had a right to be free and independent because we hold the truth that all men are created equal. The truth that we are created equal is the received law of the land in America. Love your neighbor as yourself, there is no greater moral commandment. This is the essence of being created equal. You do not love your neighbor by forcibly taking plunder from one neighbor to give to another. Forced charity is not charity, it is violence. Taking from others is theft, even if legalized by the mob.

Democracy denies that we have a right to be free and independent. Instead of holding the truth that we are all created equal, a democracy holds the truth that the mob is King.

According to the Declaration of Independence, governments are instituted among men to secure rights. You gave up your rights when you recognized the legitimacy of plunder (government benefits). An ungrateful free man is reduced to slavery.

Partaking in this evil will guarantee that you cannot be free and independent. For many reasons: The received law-of-the-land tells us that availing oneself of benefits “oblige the inferior to take the will of him on who he depends”. Every Law Dictionary will tell you “The civil laws reduce an ungrateful freedman to his original slavery” Libertinum ingratum leges civiles in pristinam servitutem redigunt.

In the words of Samuel Adams’ speech at the Philadelphia State House August 1, 1776:

“crouch down and lick the hands which feed you”.

Samuel Adams was a signer of the Declaration of Independence, cousin of President John Adams, and an activist at the Boston Tea Party, delegate to the first Continental Congress and Governor of Massachusetts. Perhaps he knew something about the purpose of government. Perhaps you should pay attention.

In order to avail oneself of gifts, gratuities, and the benefits of mob rule, one must be willing to take something from his neighbor. By the phrase “willing to take something from his neighbor” — I mean forcibly take from your neighbor if he fails to pay. You hired the tax collector to levy his wages, seize his bank account, and evict him with the force of guns if necessary, and sell his house in order for you to live more comfortably at his expense.  If he resists being evicted from his home he will be held down and his face hammered into the pavement until he stops resisting.  This is YOUR substitute for liberty and justice for all. It is how you love your neighbor as much as yourself, Matthew 19:19 and 22:39.

You have no right to take from others just because you want to live more comfortably. You have no right to create a mob to take from others.

You become dependent on the state benefactors. Your greed has created the world you see around you. You now equate freedom with safety and comfort. Even though they are mutually exclusive. You converted your God-given responsibility to manage yourself into an intolerable burden.

More information on the ways you waived your rights is in my book The Citizen Cannot Complain.

Merely thinking that a collective can chose for you how you will give your charity is the opposite of “all men are created equal”.  Forced charity is not charity. Read my essay on Welfare.

DOMINATION

Domination is the opposite of “all men are created equal”.

Thomas Jefferson was “against every form of tyranny over the mind of man”. You welcomed tyranny when you were the tyrant, and now you complain. Collectivism in any of its forms cannot recognize individual rights.

The Constitution was written in the Quaker State, and the founding fathers would be well aware of traditional Quaker fundamentals. Quaker Apology #14 by Robert Barclay (1678):

“Concerning the power of the Civil Magistrate, in matters purely religious, and pertaining to the conscience:
Since God hath assumed to himself the power and dominion of the conscience, who alone can rightly instruct and govern it, therefore it is not lawful for any whatsoever, by virtue of any authority or principality they bear in the government of this world, to force the consciences of others; and therefore all killing [executions], banishing, fining, imprisoning, and other such things, which men are afflicted with, for the alone exercise of their conscience, or difference in worship or opinion, proceedeth from the spirit of Cain the murderer, and is contrary to the Truth; provided always, that no man, under the pretense of conscience, prejudice his neighbour in his life or estate; or do anything destructive to, or inconsistent with human society; in which case the law is for the transgressor, and justice to be administered upon all, without respect of persons”
He cited Luke 9:55-56; Matthew 7:12,29; Titus 3:10

Many people are fooled into thinking that the United States is a democracy. The US Constitution, Article 4, section 4 guarantees to every inhabitant a REPUBLICAN form of government.

THE U.S. CONSTITUTION DOES NOT CONTAIN THE WORD DEMOCRACY because democracy has no place in America. You have no right to dominate others. Others have very limited right to dominate you.

In a democracy, a majority votes to force their will on others. But in a nation where everyone is created equal, those who know right from wrong will never covet their neighbors’ goods, will not plunder the innocent, will not exercise dominion over others.

Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for dinner.

Any political party that seeks to dominate others is evil. Don’t send your benefactors out to take money (taxes) from your neighbors. The Constitution controls government, not people. Anyone who participates in an election agrees to the outcome, regardless of how abhorrent. Don’t dominate others. Do unto others, as you would have them do unto you. Using force (the force of law) to bleed your neighbors dry is evil. Using the force of law to regulate your neighbors out of business is evil.

In a republic, everyone has rights. Your Constitution guaranteed you a republican form of government. In a democracy, the misguided mobocracy forces their will on the minority. The word “Republic” comes from the Latin idiom `Libera res publica’, which means “free from things public”.

HISTORY

Alexander Hamilton:

“We are a Republic. Real Liberty is never found in despotism or in the extremes of Democracy.”

James Madison, 1787, Federalist Paper #10:

“Democracy is the most vile form of government … democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention: have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property: and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths. …

Theoretical politicians who have patronized this species of government, have erroneously supposed that by reducing mankind to a perfect equality in their political rights, they would at the same time be perfectly equalized and assimilated in their possessions, their opinions, and their passions”

Of course democracies are “spectacles of turbulence and contention.” Democracies are only for those who would take the risk of loosing their rights in exchange for the chance to dominate others.

Fisher Ames, who was the author of the words of the First Amendment, said:

“A democracy is a volcano which conceals the fiery materials of its own destruction. These will produce an eruption and carry desolation in their way.”

John Adams, 1815:

“Democracy … while it lasts is more bloody than either [aristocracy or monarchy]. Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There is never a democracy that did not commit suicide.”

John Marshall, Chief Justice of the Supreme Court:

“Between a balanced Republic and a democracy, the difference is like that between order and chaos.”

When we were convinced that it was no longer a sin to desire benefits at the expense of our neighbor “Faith, Hope, and Charity began to flee out of our Church”. [The Twelve Conclusions of the Lollards, The First Conclusion.]

Greek Historian Polybius The Histories Book 6, section 9:

“But when a new generation arises and the democracy falls into the hands of the grandchildren of its founders, they have become so accustomed to freedom and equality that they no longer value them, and begin to aim at pre-eminence; and it is chiefly those of ample fortune who fall into this error. So when they begin to lust for power and cannot attain it through themselves or their own good qualities, they ruin their estates, tempting and corrupting the people in every possible way. And hence when by their foolish thirst for reputation they have created among the masses an appetite for gifts and the habit of receiving them, democracy in its turn is abolished and changes into a rule of force and violence. For the people, having grown accustomed to feed at the expense of others and to depend for their livelihood on the property of others, as soon as they find a leader who is enterprising but is excluded from the houses of office by his penury, institute the rule of violence; and now uniting their forces massacre, banish, and plunder, until they degenerate again into perfect savages and find once more a master and monarch.

Abraham Lincoln, September 11, 1858:

“Familiarize yourself with the chains of bondage and prepare your own limbs to wear them. Accustomed to trampling on the rights of others you have lost the genius of your own independence and become the fit subjects of the first cunning tyrant who rises among you.”

A popular saying attributed to American patriots:

“A simple democracy is the devil’s own government.”1,2

1.This quote is often attributed to several American patriots. Most often to Benjamin Rush, or Jedidiah Morse (the “father of American Geography”), but it was actually written by a Presbyterian pastor. L.H. Butterfield, ed., The Letters of Benjamin Rush, vol. 1 (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1951), 454, quoting John Joachim Zubly, Presbyterian pastor and delegate to Congress, in a letter to David Ramsay in March or April 1788.

2. William Elder, Questions of the Day, (Philadelphia: Henry Baird publisher, 1871) page 175, attributes the quote to Thomas Jefferson.

* ~ ~ ~ *

A CANCER SORE WHICH EATS TO THE HEART OF THE CONSTITUTION

Notes on the State of Virginia, Query 19, 1787. Thomas Jefferson. In the paragraph starting at the bottom of page 290:

“Dependence begets subservience and venality, suffocates the germ of virtue, and prepares fit tools for the designs of ambition. … The mobs of great cities add just so much to the support of pure government, as sores do to the strength of the human body. It is the manners and spirit of a people which preserve a republic in vigour. A degeneracy in these is a canker which soon eats to the heart of its laws and constitution.”

[Venality is the condition of being susceptible to bribery or corruption. The use of a position of trust for dishonest gain. The American Heritage Dictionary]

Why would he mention subservience?

SUBSERVIENCE.

Actions speak louder than words. Once you salute your new master you have acknowledged that you are the inferior, no longer equal.

Welcome to your Novus Ordo Seclorum secular new world order.

The words ballot and bullet are etymologically the same word. You have no right to dominate others with a ballot, or a bullet. Both are just as evil. We are endowed by our Creator with certain unalienable rights. You had no respect for the rights of others. By registering to vote, you declare that you want a chance to dominate others. You got what you wanted. You consented to be governed. You wanted a system of domination. By registering to vote, you consented to the outcome. Again: you got what you wanted.

YOU GOT WHAT YOU WANTED

Do you have a God-given right to be protected against the consequences of your acts? Do you have a right to be protected against God’s discipline? Which god protects you?

Maxim of Law:

Ex dolo malo non oritur actio. He has invited what has come, and he must accept it.

The Supreme Court in U.S. v Cruikshank case, 92 U.S. at 551:

“It is the natural consequence of a citizenship which owes allegiance to two sovereignties, and claims protection from both. The citizen cannot complain, because he has voluntarily submitted himself to such a form of government.”

YOU CONSENTED TO BE GOVERNED

Those registered to vote agree to the outcome of the election, no matter how abhorrent.

If there is a bond issue on the ballot, then those who are registered to vote put up their real estate is collateral for the debt. Even after they sell their interest in the property to foreign buyers, the original collateral is subrogated until the bond is paid.

Those registered to vote are represented. They have entered society. Once represented Procurationem adversus nulla est proæscriptio. There is no prescription for procuration. If you are represented, then you cannot be damaged by your representative. Your submission must be a complete submission with the full understanding that you cannot be damaged by your representative.

UNREASONING MOBS DEMANDING YOUR MONEY?

Unreasoning mobs do not have authority.

Bouvier’s 1870 Law Dictionary, Vol 1, page 13 tells us that “The term republic, res publica, signifies the state independently of its form of government.” That’s right. The sovereign people are independent of the administrating governments in all republics. Freemen are free from civil authority. `Libera res publica’ (free from things public). In the Bible a Roman officer cannot arrest a Roman citizen according to Acts 22:27,29. Freemen are free from civil authority. However, the Roman law which still exists in America today also warns us that: “The civil laws reduce an ungrateful freedman to his original slavery” Libertinum ingratum leges civiles in pristinam servitutem redigunt.

In a democracy, which we have had since 1933, you can vote to plunder others while demanding benefits. You too can exercise your democratic rights to persecute others. But, you must suffer the consequences.

Every voter has agreed to abide by the outcome of the election, even if he finds it abhorrent. Governments’ derive their powers from the consent of the governed. You have consented to be governed. So you’ve agreed, by registering to vote, that any misguided majority determines your moral values. Even the Supreme Court in a voter discrimination case(92 US@551) said: “The citizen cannot complain, because he has voluntarily submitted himself to such a form of government.” Registered voters consent to be taxed. Conversely, there would be no taxation without representation. Memorize this legal maxim: “He who consents to an act is not damaged by it.” Did your government school teach this?

If you are a registered voter, you have consented to the results of the election. If an election passed a bond issue, then you agreed to have a lien on your property until the bond is paid, even if you didn’t vote.

CONFLICT OF INTEREST

Those with a conflict of interest will insist on dominating their neighbors.

`Conflict of interest’ is legal terminology for those who can influence a government decision to enrich themselves. This is not limited to Elected Officials or civil servants. Welfare partakers are, by voting, also influencing government to receive their check. Anyone who receives a government check, be it a paycheck or an entitlement check has a conflict of interest that morally prohibits them from voting. Voting becomes, for them, a government granted privilege that can be revoked at any time. On the other hand, Government’s sovereign masters have a right to control their servants. Jura Summi Imperii.

You are no longer in a Republic. Prove it to yourself. Ask yourself some questions: Can a majority of Congressmen, and a judge now conspire to take all your rights from you? Can a city government prohibit you from owning a dog unless you first beg for permission and pay a fee? Can you repair your front porch without begging for permit and paying a fee?

Democracy cannot be considered as a form of government. Although it starts as a form of government, it quickly dissolves into corruption. The moment a politician makes a promise, is the moment democracy ceases to be a form of government. To use a public office to grant favors to those who elect you is corruption. It is the very definition of corruption. Go look it up in a law dictionary. DEMOCRACY IS CORRUPTION. According to John Locke’s Second Treatise of Government section 222 the use of a public office to influence your electors will “cut up the government by the roots, and poison the very fountain of public security…”

Ben Franklin, closing speech at the Constitutional Convention, September 17, 1787:

“I agree to this Constitution with all its faults, if they are such; because I think a general Government necessary for us, and there is no form of Government but what may be a blessing to the people if well administered, and believe farther that this is likely to be well administered for a course of years, and can only end in Despotism, as other forms have done before it, when the people shall become so corrupted as to need despotic Government, being incapable of any other.”

Socialist bullies gang up to force their will on you. We called it fascism. They cannot use a Republic.

Government exists to secure the blessings of liberty. Don’t claim to live in a free country if you have never seen liberty.

YOU MAY ALSO BE INTERESTED IN

NotFooledByGovernment.com essays exposing government lies that enslave us.

For more information on a specific topic, reply. below

Why is it that social security cards cannot be laminated?

Along with checks and other instruments, all items in commerce cannot be laminated either.  They must remain paper that can be endorsed by each party that has custody of the instrument.

The patent number for the social security card (patent number 1,904,650) refers to a carefully worded technique involving a manifold web with permanently retained record and transfer strips.

WHY WOULD SIMPLE CARDS NEED THEIR OWN PATENT? If you were a suspicious skeptic, like me, you could find legal definitions:

  • manifold = having many sides or phases, multiplied
  • web = a tangle, as the web of life; a trap, as a spider’s web; to cover with a web; entangle
  • record = a written account of an instrument, drawn up under authority of law, by a proper officer, and designed to remain as a memorial or permanent evidence of the matters to which it relates
  • transfer = removal from one place to another, conveyance of property from one owner to another; to convey to another as property; an act of the law by which title to property is conveyed from one person to another

The patent class is 462/2, which also includes the “federal drug testing custody and control form (CCF)”

As with other debt instruments in Commercial Law, perhaps you have a custodian, and remain as colleterial for the National Debt.  After all, the Constitution was constituted by constitutors.

Black’s Law Dictionary definition of Constitutor

If you want to know why the U.S. Constitution had to transfer the responsibility for Ben Franklin’s war debt, read my essay on CIVICS.

If you want to know how you became responsible for paying the National Debt, read my book The Citizen Cannot Complain.

Does the federal government refuse to support marijuana legalization?

In the year 1919 everyone knew that we needed a Constitutional Amendment to ban a substance.*
The same is true today.  Do not be fooled by legislation pretending to ban a substance. The drug laws are all derived from truth-in-labeling laws.

Everyone has a right to self-medicate. It is part of the right to self-defense against corporal assaults. And governments are instituted among men to secure those rights.

Back in 1919 everyone knew that no authority existed for government to ban a substance, so wackos demanded a Constitutional Amendment to ban liquor. The Amendment itself said that congress had the power to enforce it by appropriate legislation. The Amendment was NOT self-enforcing as part of the Supreme Law of the Land which would bind judges in every State (as required by Article 6).

It had to be enforced by legislation onto State courts.  We repealed the 18th Amendment in 1931 after creating too many criminals yearning to breathe free.

Don’t be fooled. We still need a Constitutional Amendment to ban substances. [Civil] Servants do not control their masters.

No one has a right to interfere with regulated commerce. Pharmacies are regulated under the commerce laws. Drug laws prohibit licensed pharmacists from possessing the unregulated untaxed drugs because there is a presumption that they possess it for the criminal intent of adulterating the pure (taxed in commerce) stuff.

The United States has the highest per-capita incarceration rate of all the nations on earth. Higher than any totalitarian regime anywhere on earth. American’s live in the least free country in the world.

IS DRUG ENFORCEMENT LEGAL?

Government was created to protect rights. If drugs are a right, then how can government get away with putting so many people in prison?

Many people are fooled into thinking that drugs are illegal. This is a self-fulfilling prophecy. Many people are in prison for confessing to crimes that never happened. Prosecutors put a lot of effort into convincing snitches and juries that drug laws make drugs illegal. 34% of our prisoners are in prison because informant criminals were rewarded for their testimony, according to a book on snitching. It is the snitches that create evidence that drugs are a crime. This snitch-created evidence (the affidavit suborned by the prosecutor) is then used in court to arrest and convict the harmless, while corrupt aggressive prosecutors remain free to bully others. Juries are tricked into believing that drugs are criminal, even though the drug statutes are never codified with the criminal laws.
The United States Supreme Court In REID v. GEORGIA, 448 U.S. 438 (1980) explains Reid’s fourth and fifth amendment rights. Mr. Reid was a passenger arriving in Atlanta on a flight from Columbia with a duffle bag full of cocaine. He was stopped at the airport by federal agents of the Drug Enforcement Agency. He consented to a search of his bag. He then ran, abandoning his bag. What do you think happened? Read the case.

What about prescription medications? – Why do you need government authorization (a prescription from a government licensed, government regulated doctor) in order to buy what was once a considered an absolute inalienable right, a right to fight disease and pain — A right equal to any other self-defense against bodily assaults?

A right of self-defense includes a right to fight any affliction — including mental depression, pain, or anger — not just disease. “We The People” created our government. All political power is vested in the posterity.* Did we really delegate to government any authority to regulate our neighbor’s right to anesthesia?

Does your State now impair your right to take care of yourself?

History topic #1: Liberty includes Your right to take care of yourself.

Government exists to protect rights. You have a right to take care of yourself. If you need to take care of yourself, then begging for permission to buy medications — or any other necessity of life — is not something government can require. They cannot deny rights while claiming that they are protecting rights.
Why do politicians assume that their constituents (posterity of “We The People” who created their office, and elected them) are so irresponsible that we cannot be trusted take care of ourselves? Their job is to protect our rights. Every adult has a right to treat their own medical conditions and suffer the side effects. Yes, even Elvis, Marilyn, Hendrix, Belushi, Morrison, Sigmund Freud, Anna Nicole, Bruce Lee, Howard Hughes, Judy Garland, Andy Gibb, Chris Farley, Michael Jackson, Whitney Houston as well as everyone of us.
Everyone’s right to contract with others to preserve his/her own health is an unalienable right, a “natural liberty which is not required by the laws of society to be sacrificed to public convenience”. (According to Blackstone’s Commentary on the Law. By the way, the Supreme Court considers Blackstone’s Commentary as the received law-of-the-land as it existed when the original states wrote their constitutions.)
The right to self medicate is as sacred as any other right to self-defense. Everyone is “entitled by the same natural right to security from the corporal insults.”
Benjamin Rush, a signer of the Declaration of Independence, during the Constitutional debates in 1787:
“The Constitution of this Republic should make special provision for medical freedom. To restrict the art of healing to one class will constitute the Bastille of medical science. All such laws are un-American and despotic. … Unless we put medical freedom into the constitution the time will come when medicine will organize into an undercover dictatorship and force people who wish doctors and treatment of their own choice to submit to only what the dictating outfit offers.”

History topic #2: THERE WAS NEVER ANY PRESCRIPTION LAW WHEN AMERICA WAS A FREE COUNTRY.

Government exists to protect rights.
Before the original 13 State Constitutions were written, the ONLY prescription drug law was for slaves. Slaves needed their owner’s permission to take drugs.
When America became a free country, the Constitution abolished the only drug law that existed, even though the slaves were not yet free. Law textbooks said that Slave rights had been “wholly annihilated, or reduced to a shadow” and that the Constitution changed this. (quote is from Tucker’s 1803 Virginia law encyclopedia Book 1, Part 2, Note H “The state of slavery”)
That’s right. Prescription drug laws were too harsh in America, even for slaves.
If you are denied the right to take care of yourself, or require permission from your owner, then perhaps your rights have also been “wholly annihilated, or reduced to a shadow”. If you think that there is a law that restricts drug purchasing, then you are worse off than a slave. Don’t claim to live in a free country if you have never seen liberty.

Summary, so far. Prior to the Constitution, drug prescription laws applied only to slaves. After the United States became a nation, the drug laws had to be removed so that the slaves would have a right to take care of themselves. Prescription drug laws, being unconstitutional, were too cruel to the slaves.

History topic #3: SELF-MEDICATE IS SELF-DEFENSE.

Government exists to protect rights. Can there be a law prohibiting someone from medicating himself in whatever manner he chooses?

LAW OF THE LAND

Blackstone’s Commentaries Book 1 “Rights of Persons” (First Edition, Claredon Press, Oxford, 1769) explains our rights as they existed in the received law-of-the-land when the 13 original states wrote their constitutions.

“And these may be reduced to three principal or primary articles ; the right of personal security, the right of personal liberty ; and the right of private property : because as there is no other known method of compulsion, or of abridging man’s natural free will, but by an infringment or diminution of one or other of these important rights, the preservation of these, inviolate, may justly be said to include the preservation of our civil immunities in their largest and most extensive sense.”
I. THE right of personal security consists in a person’s legal and uninterrupted enjoyment of his life, his limbs, his body, his health, and his reputation…..
The commentary continues with a discussion of punishments, including dismembering of a limb. Keep in mind that the US Constitution Amendment 5 requires due process to take “life or limb”.
Page 130…
3. BESIDES those limbs and members that may be necessary to man, in order to defend himself … the rest of his person or body is also entitled by the same natural right to security from the corporal insults of menaces …. though such insults amount not to destruction of life or member.
4.THE preservation of a man’s health from such practices as may prejudice or annoy it, ….”

In many States, the common law is still the rule of decision in all courts.

History topic #4: PRESCRIPTION LAWS

Prescription laws are consumer protection laws to prohibit corrupt pharmacists from diluting the pure drugs with uncontrolled substances.
A rule of statute construction (especially if there is no legislated “express words of nullity” to prove that a law changed the original intent): Verba debent intelligi cum effectu ut res magis valeat quam pereat Words ought to be understood with effect, that a thing may rather be preserved than destroyed.

The Pure Food and Drug Act of 1906 required truthful labels and prohibited tampering with drugs before the pharmacists received them. (and this was back in the days where Coca-Cola contained cocaine – when we were a free country, and the Sears Catalog had opium).

The Food, Drug and Cosmetics Act of 1938 enacted prescription drug laws to ensure the purity of high-quality pharmaceuticals for those who could afford the pure drugs. I have no objection to pure pharmaceuticals being made available to those who can afford the higher quality. This seems like a perfectly acceptable law.
Prior to 1938 all drugs were available without a prescription. Everyone could self-medicate. From 1938 to 1951 manufacturers of drugs made the determination to require a doctor’s prescription. Fears of lawsuits over side effects were the driving factor in their decisions. No one was denied the right to fight their own diseases, provided that doctors kept them informed of the dangers. If you wanted to damage yourself with full awareness of the likely consequences, then no jury was going to compensate you for your injury.
The Durham-Humphrey Amendment of 1951 set the stage for FDA oversight of [ perfectly legitimate ] prescription drug laws. A seemingly acceptable governmental function.
As you can see, none of the written laws destroyed the “natural liberty which is not required by the laws of society to be sacrificed to public convenience”.
Then States started closing the back door to pharmacies, thereby denying a necessity of life. It was only the enforcement efforts — the misconstruing of legitimate laws — that blocked your right to self medicate.

History topic #5: RIGHT TO SELF MEDICATE

Notice that drug laws are not codified with other criminal laws. There is a reason for this.
This is where you have to do some homework. Your state will have a law that allows exceptions to the drug law. In my state, the law allows possession without intent to deliver: (c) “The following persons … may possess controlled substances … (3) an ultimate user or …”
In 2003 too many people were being released from jail by using the ultimate user defense. So the legislature passed the new law supposedly to clarify the existing law — but used words to make it more confusing. It now allows ultimate user possession of controlled substance if by prescription “or except as otherwise authorized by this chapter.”
Lawyers will try to tell you that there is no constitutional right to defend your health and that the law changed in 2003 to eliminate the ultimate user defense. But the legislature stated clearly in the Act that the law revision “is not intended that this act effectuate any substantive change to any criminal provision…”
Apparently Congress was cautious enough to preserve your rights with this loophole. And judges, at least prior to 2003, also recognized your rights. The problem seems to be with law enforcement and prosecutors who do not obey the law.

History Topic #6: ADMINISTRATIVE LAW IS NOT JUDICIAL LAW

Your state congress gives exclusive powers to the Pharmacy Board (or whatever it is called in your state) to enforce the Uniform Controlled Substances Act, which they implement by regulation. The police can assist them, but the law does not give police the authority to act as their agents.
Prior to judicial review of the Pharmacy Board cases, the court must review the record to see that administrative remedies were exhausted by the Pharmacy Board prior to judicial review as required by your state’s Administrative Procedures Act.

CONCLUSION

Your conclusion may be different, but it seems obvious to me that if you are a licensed pharmacist and while you are on duty, you possess an unregulated untaxed “counterfeit” of a taxed drug, then you are in trouble. The legislature presumes that you possess your unregulated, untaxed substance for a criminal purpose (to violate the truth in labeling consumer protection laws of regulated commerce, and fraudulently sell adulterated meds at the higher price), although you have a right to rebut this presumption.
They have a right to regulate you because you are licensed to be regulated. But you still have a right to exhaust your Administrative remedies prior to court.
The lesson to be learned by us non-pharmacists is not to snitch on your fellow slaves. America can once again become be a free country.

HOW DID THIS HAPPEN?

Yes, there are many harmful drugs that will destroy your life. Yes, there are many harmful addictive drugs that lead people to commit robbery and violence in order to satisfy their addiction. But that doesn’t make it constitutional to ban a God-given liberty. After all, even tobacco is addictive and costly. And sugar can destroy your life. And gambling addictions and greedy lifestyles can also lead to a life of crime. So why did we abandon our rights? Did we really give up our rights just because some people commit crimes?

Ben Franklin once wrote that

“Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.” — Benjamin Franklin, November 11, 1755; Reply to the Governor. This is inscribed on a plaque in the stairwell of the Statute of Liberty.

By the way, Benjamin Franklin also wrote about liberty

“That it is better 100 guilty persons should escape than that one innocent person should suffer is a Maxim that has been long and generally approved.” – The Writings of Benjamin Franklin, Vol 9 p 293.

Back when we had a constitutional government we tolerated opium dens, we popularized Coca-Cola that was made with Cocaine, and people still kept their rights.
The words “secure” and “security,” when used in the national Constitution, are only used in the context of protecting the people from their own government.
Who do you fear the most: Rodney King who was a speeding motorist accused of being high on drugs (even though no evidence of drugs was admitted in his trials), or the government processing of a speeding motorist who had harmed no one, or a jury who doesn’t know the difference between right and wrong.
Yes, many useful drugs have side effects that can destroy your life. Life will always be risky. Consider carefully, then choose wisely. But don’t whine to congress for someone else to make your decisions for you.
You might think that people complaining to congressmen about drug induced crimes was why drug laws evolved into unconstitutional violations of congressmen’s oaths of office. But there is another explanation.
America is a superpower because of the infusion into your economy of CIA drug money. What country would not fight — and fight fiercely — to get 600 Billion dollars in drug money into their economy?
The bad news is that the economy is propped up way too high and it is about to collapse. The further the fall the harder we will hit bottom. Even the Bible predicts the future fall of Babylon the Great. “for by thy pharmacy [original Greek word was pharmakeia] were all nations deceived” Revelation 18:23.
For you see, fractional reserve banking (which came to America in 1913, as soon as the Supreme Court decriminalized it) cannot survive without continually expanding capitalization. The CIA was established in 1947 to delay the inevitable collapse of this phony banking system. The CIA controls the drug traffic — and foreign oil — in order to prop up Wall Street by making cheap money available to Wall Street bankers. The Money Laundering Laws don’t apply to any company on the NY Stock Exchange. In order to keep drug profits high, the politicians outlaw their competition. Our prisons are filled with the sacrifices they made for their mammon.

History Topic #7: International law.

Even though self-medication is a God-given unalienable right, the country of Portugal is the only nation that has explicitly decriminalized all drugs. They dared not explicitly legalize drugs due to the international pressure from nations that want everyone to believe that drugs are evil.  It costs less to treat the addicted than to process them in a criminal justice system.
Poppy fields in Afghanistan were eliminated by the Taliban. The U.S. could not tolerate this elimination of opium from the controlled trafficking, so it declared war against the Taliban.
In order to make sense of it all, you must understand that the CIA was created in 1947 to delay the collapse of the corrupt central banking system. Drug money must be used to prop up the perpetually expanding money base. And now that the collapse is near, drugs profits must be maximized.

* because lawful government cannot exceed the authority delegated to it by the Constitution. Example: US Supreme Court in Julliard v. Greenman: 110 US 421: “there is no such thing as a power of inherent sovereignty in the government of the United States. It is a government of delegated powers, supreme within its prescribed sphere, but powerless outside of it. In this country, sovereignty resides in the people, and congress can exercise no power which they have not, by their constitution, intrusted to it; all else is withheld.”

YOU MAY ALSO BE INTERESTED IN:

My other essays at NotFooledByGovernment.com

If you don’t know how to defend your rights, you will lose them.  If you do not know their rules and procedures in their courts, you will lose. For more information on how to defend your rights I recommend a self-help law course. Learn how to hold your civil servants to the rule of law WITHOUT a lawyer.  All the basic court procedures are explained in  “How To Win In Court” self-help course. Click for a tour of the “How To Win In Court” online law course.

 

 

Jury Duty is not what you have been told.

This is from my essay AMERICA HELD CAPTIVE — PART 1, Item #15

A JURY IS 12 PEOPLE WHO KNOW YOU and who can judge the law as well as the facts.

In 1794, the U.S. Supreme Court conducted a jury trial in the case of the State of Georgia v Brailsford in the first jury trial before the Supreme Court of the United States.  In the jury instructions. Chief Justice John Jay told the jury:

It is presumed, that juries are the best judges of facts; it is, on the other hand, presumed that courts are the best judges of law. But still both objects are within your power of decision… …you have a right to take it upon yourselves to judge of both, and to determine the law as well as the fact in controversy“.

The book Elliot’s Debates On The Adoption Of The Constitution (Vol 3, page 579) quotes Patrick Henry as stating:

By the bill of rights of England, a subject has a right to a trial by his peers. What is meant by his peers? Those who reside near him, his neighbors, and who are well acquainted with his character and situation in life.”

Also in Elliot’s Debates we can read (Vol 2, page 516) where another Founding Father, James Wilson, signer of the Declaration of Independence and later a Supreme Court Justice, reassured us that a jury of your peers would always be 12 people who know you:

Where jurors can be acquainted with the characters of the parties and the witnesses — where the whole cause can be brought within their knowledge and their view — I know no mode of investigation equal to that by a trial by jury: they hear every thing that is alleged; they not only hear the words, but they see and mark the features of the countenance; they can judge of weight due to such testimony; and moreover, it is a cheap and expeditious manner of distributing justice. There is another advantage annexed to the trial by jury; the jurors may indeed return a mistaken or ill-founded verdict, but their errors cannot be systematical.”

And again, in Elliot’s Debates, Vol 2, page 110, Congressman Holmes from Massachusetts, assured us that cases would be heard in the local community where the jury of peers could form a judgment based on the character of the accused and the credibility of the witnesses.

That’s right! Your Constitution was ratified on the reassurance, over and over again, that a jury of your peers would always be 12 people who know you.

In 1828 Webster published the first dictionary of American English.  The definition of Jury is:

JU’RY, noun [Latin juro, to swear.] A number of freeholders, selected in the manner prescribed by law, empaneled and sworn to inquire into and try any matter of fact, and to declare the truth on the evidence given them in the case. Grand juries consist usually of twenty four freeholders at least, and are summoned to try matters alleged in indictments. Petty juries, consisting usually of twelve men, attend courts to try matters of fact in civil causes, and to decide both the law and the fact in criminal prosecutions. The decision of a petty jury is called a verdict.

This was the definition of jury when the Constitution was ratified.  Government cannot change pre-existing definitions. Nobody who swears an oath to uphold it can commit mutiny to change it.

In 1969 in US v. Moylan 417 F2d 1002 at page 1006:

We recognize as appellants urge, the UNDISPUTED power of the jury to acquit, even if the verdict is contrary to the law as given by the judge and contrary to the evidence. … the jury has the power to acquit and the courts must abide by that decision.”

As recently as 1972, in the case U.S. v Dougherty, 473 F 2d 1113, 1139 the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia said that the jury has an “unreviewable and irreversible power… to acquit in disregard of the instructions on the law given by the trial judge.”

Here is further proof that a real trial (by jury) is not a trial by government: The Metropolitan News, a Los Angeles legal newspaper on October 25, 1973 quoted Hon. L. Thaxton Hanson, Justice Court of Appeals, State of California (ret.):

In ancient times, the right to trial by jury was called `trial per pals’ – that is, trial by country – or by the people, as distinguished from trial by government”

Lord Hale, 18th Century English Jurist was being quoted in the U.S. Supreme Court’s case Sparf & Hansen v. U.S., 156 U.S. 51 at page 119 (1895):

… if the judge’s opinion in matter of law must rule the issue of fact submitted to the jury, the trial by jury would be useless.”

Read that again. IF THE JURY MUST OBEY THE JUDGE’S INSTRUCTIONS ON THE LAW, THEN A TRIAL BY JURY WOULD BE USELESS.

That’s right. Trial by jury would be useless. Imagine what life would be like a country where people must obey the judges’ interpretation of the law.

In the impeachment Trial of US Supreme Court Justice Chase in 1805, your US Government fought for the right of the jury to judge the law as well as the facts. They impeached Justice Chase because he failed to tell a jury in a murder trial that they can judge the law.  Supreme Court Justice Chase, a signer of the Declaration of Independence, was impeached for [Chase Transcript Article 1, section 2, clause 4]:

  • “… endeavoring to wrest from the jury their indisputable right to hear argument, and determine upon the question of law as well as the question of fact, …”
  • “… to the disgrace of the character of the American bench, in manifest violation of law and justice and in open contempt of the rights of juries, on which ultimately rest the liberty and safety of the American people.”

That’s right. The liberty and safety of the American people depend upon the jury’s indisputable right to determine what the law is.  Imagine what life would be like a country where jurors must obey* the judge’s interpretation of the law.

Why, you might end up in a country that has 4% of the world’s population, 25% of the world’s prisoners, 70% of the world’s lawyers and 93% of the world’s lawsuits.

The jurors have the power to ignore the court’s instructions and bring in a not guilty verdict contrary to the law and the facts. Horning v. District of Columbia, 254 U.S. 135 (1920).

But things changed. Juries now should not be told by the court that they have this power. United States v. Krzyske, 836 F.2d 1013, 1021 (6th Cir.), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 832; United States v. Avery, 717 F.2d 1020, 1027 (6th Cir.1983), cert. denied, 466 U.S. 905 (1984); United States v. Burkhart, 501 F.2d 993, 996-997 (6th Cir.1974), cert. denied, 420 U.S. 946 (1975).

We have lost our rights: Juries must now be told that it is their duty to accept and apply the law as given to them by the court. United States v. Avery, 717 F.2d 1020, 1027.

*  We give up our rights by swearing a juror’s oath. Jurors represent a cross section of the society that created government.   We are the jura summa imperii that is responsible for oversight of our subordinate’s ruling.  The Jury is the highest officer (a plural officer) in the courtroom.  An oath is only taken to a superior (example: Hebrews 6:16). In country where all men are created equal — no equal would ever swear an oath to another equal (Example: Matthew 5:34).  No created equal juror, who is still equal, would ever swear a jurors oath. Judges are the ones who swore oaths to be inferior to the society that created government. The Jury represents that society in the courtroom. We are all created equal and endowed with certain unalienable rights that governments are instituted among men to secure.

— —

YOU MAY ALSO BE INTERESTED IN

If you don’t know how to defend your rights, you will lose them.  Learn how to hold your civil servants to the rule of law WITHOUT a lawyer.  All the basic court procedures are explained in  “How To Win In Court” self-help course.

Click for a tour of the “How To Win In Court” law course.

Liberty and Justice for all who can qualify

LIBERTY AND JUSTICE is available for all who can qualify, but most people disqualified themselves from both Liberty and Justice.  They were tricked out of their rights by legalities they did not understand.

The Declaration of Independence tells us why someone would want to create a government. It says that Governments are instituted among men to secure certain unalienable rights.

The Constitution was ordained and established to secure the blessings of liberty to their Posterity. If we can keep it. Unfortunately, ungrateful freemen rejected our liberties. They preferred “wealth greater than liberty, the tranquility of servitude greater than the animating contest for freedom.”1 Ungrateful freemen then tainted2 the ballot box.

What is Liberty?

Liberty is freedom from every known method of compulsion. This was the understanding in 1803 Virginia law books. Under the U.S. Constitution, government protects you from all known methods of compulsion — until you became ungrateful for your liberties. Rights only come with responsibility.

Ungrateful freemen
  • Every Law Dictionary will tell you “The civil laws reduce an ungrateful freedman to his original slavery” Libertinum ingratum leges civiles in pristinam servitutem redigunt.
  • If you apply to government for a SSN, you are asking for help with your old-age retirement planning. You are confessing that you are incapable of managing your own affairs.3 You are ungrateful for your freedoms. The civil laws then reduce you to a condition of servitude.4 But it is much worse. You sold your birthright for the promise of a future bowl of stew. Just like Esau sold his birthright.
  • If you ask for employment benefits such as unemployment compensation, minimum wage or any other fair labor compensation, worker injury compensation, family leave, job safety regulations, employee polygraph protection act, etc… — you are an ungrateful freeman deemed to be unable to manage your own agreements, or even capable of assuming risks. By asking for slave benefits, you are demanding that the government impair the obligation of contracts — which is contrary to a freeman’s constitutional protections.  
  • YOU were once in the same class of people as “We The People” who had the authority to create government, and the responsibility to control what we created.  But you didn’t want responsibilities. Now you want to be protected by someone else (your former servants). Whereas masters protect their (civil) servants.
  • As was most eloquently stated in Blackstone’s Commentary on the Law: “a state of dependence will inevitably oblige the inferior to take the will of him on whom he depends, …”
Getting a SSN waives your rights.

Those who get an SSN waive their right to religious liberty. The Pilgrims came to America to have religious liberty. The Quakers came to America to have religious liberty. The Amish and Mennonites came to America to have religious liberty. The First Amendment limits the federal government from impairing religious liberty of people living in the District of Columbia.5

The Amish will not normally have an ID Card, and they are already exempt from Social Security. They believe that Social Security insurance is proof that you do not trust God. An Amish man, Mr. Lee, once left his community to try the English ways. He was fraudulently told to get an SSN to get a job. He believed the lie. There is no law requiring anyone to get a SSN to live or work in the USA. The Supreme Court ruled that he waived his right to religious liberty.

By getting a Social Security Number, you waive your religious rights to this “overriding governmental interest”6 according to the Supreme Court in U.S. v. Lee (455 U.S. 252).

That’s right. Those with SSNs cannot qualify for liberty.

The Constitution was constituted by Constitutors.
Black’s Law Dictionary definition of Constitutor

 

Those who become federal citizens (lower case c citizens)7 are liable for the national debt. Your representatives re-presented you.

Now go to the USdebtClock.org and find out how much your custodian must pay to redeem our freedom. Debt per taxpayer on the top line. And on the bottom line you will find unfunded liability per taxpayer, this is the amount that was borrowed from future SS payments (and a few other “entitlements”).

Now that your future forced labor is collateral for the National Debt, the U.S. has a fiduciary duty to maximize the value of the collateral and mitigate damages to the collateral. They will offer health benefits and safety benefits, regulate dangers, force vaccine protections, and demand minimum wage protections in order to maximize the value of the collateral. They will even protect the collateral from barking dogs and unlicensed lemonade stands. And a foreign trade treaty (Public Law 103-465 section 742) requires you to register your children as future collateral to pay the national debt.8

YOU are the one who demanded that your representatives borrow against the future of your children in order to live more comfortably now. Your covetous practices have cursed your children, just as we were warned two millennia ago.

Voluntary servitude remains entirely constitutional. Thomas Jefferson could not free his slaves because he had debt.  Slaves are collateral for debt. What chance does your master have of paying off the national debt?

There was once a government of the people, by the people, for the people.

The courts and the jails were for your use.

And we allowed our government servants to use them too. If you witnessed a crime or had an objectively9 reasonable belief that someone committed a crime, you had the moral duty to prosecute them yourself, or you could file a writ and let your civil servants do your job for you. Or we could settle our own disputes by extra-judicial remedies such as by dueling.  Servants cannot interfere with their master’s disputes.

The U.S. Supreme Court eliminated private prosecutions in 1981.10 Your State may still allow them, but federal citizens are protected from private prosecutions. You no longer have a government of the people or by the people.

BANKRUPTCY

I mentioned private prosecutions and private imprisonment to introduce you to the topic of bankruptcy.

The US Constitution does not allow personal bankruptcy.  Bankruptcy in the U.S. Constitution (Article 1, section 8) is still only for government bankruptcy.

The Right of Personal Liberty, and the Writ of Habeas Corpus, Second Edition, Rollin C. Hurd, W. C. Little & Co., Albany, N.Y., 1876, Book 1, page 13

There is still no such thing as personal bankruptcy. If YOU can declare bankruptcy it is because YOU became part of a government. Private imprisonment was protected. The jails were for our use. Back then, everyone who was not living in a poorhouse was considered to be a grateful freeman. People were held responsible for their contracts. As you can see, under the U.S. Constitution, courts could not hear, and could not consider, Habeas Corpus pleadings for private imprisonment.

ONLY people with SSNs can declare bankruptcy. Not only are they wards of the government, and also liable for the national debt when it comes time to seize the collateral, but it gets worse. Since bankruptcy is only for government, they have become part (perhaps as property, perhaps as an officer4) of the U.S. government. People with SSNs are now protected from a system of justice.

What is Justice?

Here is the definition of Justice:

Justice is the constant and perpetual will to render to every man his due.

 

People with SSNs are PROTECTED from Justice. As you can see from the definition of Justice, those who can qualify for bankruptcy are exempt from justice.

They have NO right to complain that there is no justice. Although they can demand what they are protected from, there is no reason to grant them such recourse. Rights only come with responsibilities. That is why they have no right to expect redress of grievance.

Emperor Justinian wrote several law books summarizing all Law. He reduced all law to three principles: Live honorably, harm no one, and render to every man his due.

Those who have SSNs have rejected all of these.

  • They cannot live honorably. They applied for SSNs that they do not qualify for. They sold their birthright. They rejected responsibility. Rights only come with responsibility.
  • They falsified federal documents, under penalty of perjury, that they live as paupers11.
  • They fraudulently confessed that they qualify for funds12 from the Treasury.
  • They are prohibited from a system of justice, and can refuse to pay their debts. They agreed to a scheme of plunder that allows them to live more comfortably at the expense of their neighbors. They reject the ethical maxim that Thou shalt not covet thy neighbors’ wealth. They accept socialism, knowing that socialism cannot respect the rights of others.13 They are card-carrying socialists.  Socialists cannot become Citizens14 of the United States

 

FOOTNOTES

1 Quote from a speech at the Pennsylvania State House (1 August 1776) by Samuel Adams (who was a signer of the Declaration of Independence, cousin of President John Adams, and an activist at the Boston Tea Party)

2 Unclean hands shall “never pollute the pure fountain of justice” according to 1841 Supreme Court decision Groves v. Slaughter, 40 US 449. And now those with SSNs are protected from justice.

This was more eloquently stated by John Locke’s Second Treatise of Government, paragraph 222: “… when he goes about to set up his own arbitrary will as the law of the society.  . . . what is it but to cut up the government by the roots, and poison the very fountain of public security? ”

3 Others may step in to manage the affairs of those who cannot take care of themselves. “An implied procuration takes place when an individual sees another managing his affairs and does not interfere to prevent it”.  (this is the law dictionary definition of tacit procuration). Those who are managed have no say in how they are treated.  There is no cure (prescription) for those who are damaged by their agent.  Procurationem adversus nulla est præscriptio. And there are dozens of other legal reasons. The Supreme Court said “the citizen cannot complain because he has voluntarily submitted himself to such a form of government.”
Rights only come with responsibilities.  If you cannot manage yourself, then you have no right to manage your servants.  Do you even have a right to contract?   “For what compact can be made with a man that is not master of his own life?” as John Locke asked in his 1690 Second Treatise of Government, Chapter 15.  Since rights only come with responsibilities, you waived your right to manage your government servants.  Attorneys have every right to Attorn those who cannot manage their own affairs, which makes you a ward of your former servants.

4 Your actions speak louder than words — you cannot complain. You are now subordinate to your former (civil) servants, even if you don’t swear an oath of allegiance.*  An oath of allegiance, according to the Department of Homeland Security 8 CFR 337, is a commitment to “perform work of national importance under civilian direction when required by the law; …”.  This is unlimited perpetual slavery.  Your forced labor is collateral for the national debt. All those empty cities in China are there for a purpose.  Also see footnote 6.

*Supreme Court definition of 14th Amendment citizenship in Elk v. Wilkins: “completely subject to their political jurisdiction, and owing them direct and immediate allegiance.”

5 The First Amendment does not apply to States according to the U.S. Supreme Court in Twinning v. New Jersey and in Hague v. CIO. State inhabitants are not protected by federal protections until they become federal wards.

6 See my essay on Police Powers.
Government has the right to regulate what it funds.
According to the Supreme Court in Ashwander v. TVA anyone who “avails himself of a benefit” cannot then question the legality of the law that he benefited from.  The Supreme Court WILL NOT consider the case.
Partaking of benefits is absolute estoppel against complaining that you are participating in a fraud.  YOU are the one who signed under penalty of perjury, stating that you knew what you were doing.  Whatever you say can be used against you in a court of law.  Stop complaining.

7. In the 11 occurrences in the U.S. Constitution of the word Citizen, the word is ALWAYS capitalized — until the five occurrences in the 14th Amendment, where the word is always in lower case. The authors of the 14th Amendment knew the English language. So should you.

8. Never let someone tell you that you must register your children with the authorities. In the middle ages, the conservatives burned the anabaptists at the stake for refusing to register their children. The victims endured a painful death knowing that their orphans would be raised by their murderers. The anabaptists became today’s Amish, Mennonites and Baptists. They were true Christians. They stood*. Today’s self-called “Christians” refuse to understand the Gospel of Christ. They will line up to register their children to be raised by pagans at their neighbors’ expense. They know the educators are anti-Christian. Yet they even claim they are doing God’s will. See my essay on public schools.
* The English word apostate comes from the Greek. It means failure to stand, or to stand away from.

9 An objectively reasonable belief is NOT a subjectively reasonable belief.

10 Leeke v. Timmerman

11 A pauper is someone supported at public expense.  The U.S. Constitution was constituted under the Articles of Confederation.   Article IV requires paupers to have the same rights as a fugitive from justice.

12 The Social Security Act, Section 205(c)(2)(B)(i)(II), (Link), requires applicants for Social Security Numbers to be an “applicant for or recipient of benefits under any program financed in whole or in part by Federal funds”
The Social Security Act was passed in 1935.  The Roosevelt socialists that passed the Social Security Act were well aware that federal welfare to individuals was unconstitutional. They were also well aware of a very narrow exception for indigents that could make Social Security legal  (as a tax only, just like Obmacare)  by using an assumption that everyone would understand — that only indigents are eligible to receive benefits under any program funded by government funds: (later confirmed in a Supreme Court decision in 1941, Edwards v. California, quoted below. This is just as it was for the 14th Amendment). Social Security was a humanitarian effort, during the great depression, to save States from the expense of taking care of paupers. People who qualify for government funds are defined in the U.S. Supreme Court case of Edwards v. California, 314 US 160 at page 172: “…only persons who are presently destitute of property and without resources to obtain the necessities of life, and who have no relatives or friends able and willing to support them.”
This is the only Constitutional way to qualify for welfare, including SS.   But you must give up your rights when you give up your responsibility to take care of yourself.   Since rights only come with responsibilities, you give up all your rights and are forevermore a ward of the system.  Congratulations.  You now fraudulently qualify, under limited circumstances, to convert Treasury funds to private use — “financed in whole or in part by Federal funds”.  Government has a right to regulate whatever it funds.

13 Abraham Lincoln, September 11, 1858:

“Familiarize yourself with the chains of bondage and prepare your own limbs to wear them.  Accustomed to trampling on the rights of others you have lost the genius of your own independence and become the fit subjects of the first cunning tyrant who rises among you.”

14 In the 1891 naturalization case of Mr. Sauer, Title 81 Federal Reporter page 358, the court held that Mr. Sauer, although an industrious, law abiding man, could not become a citizen because he claimed to be a Socialist.  This was 40 years prior to the Social Security Act.

YOU MAY ALSO BE INGTERESTED IN

How lawyers destroyed marriage.

America was founded on two millennia of ethical values.  Nowhere in the Bible does divorce cancel a marriage.  Divorce in the Bible only refers to living separately. Even the U.S. Supreme Court in 1888 said that “marriage is a relation for life”.

Question: How did marriage change from “the basis of civilized society and of sound morals…” in 1841 where it was considered by lawyers to be  “the source of all natural relations of mankind… the source of all industry and economy…. The origin of all subordination and government, and consequently of all peace and safety in the world, and, finally the foundation of all religion,  …” — to today’s contempt for family values?
Answer: lawyers changed the definition of marriage.

Question: How did the crime of adultery change from a felony which was also the greatest of civil injuries “… wherein the damages recovered are usually very large and exemplary.” — to a protected right?
Answer: lawyers changed the definition of marriage.

Question: How did marriage change from “a relation for life” in 1888, to a contract with the State for a disposable spouse?
Answer: lawyers changed the definition of marriage.

Question: How did courts get the authority to seize half of the family wealth and give it as a reward for the — now unpunishable — crime of adultery?  Even though traditional family values clearly say:

 

Answer: lawyers changed the definition of marriage.

Question: How did children become property of the State?
Hint: Law textbooks used in early America said “bastards are not looked upon as children to any civil purposes”.
Answer: lawyers changed the definition of marriage.

Question: How did THE crime against nature become protected by government, when it had always been more detestable than child rape?
Answer: lawyers changed the definition of marriage.

YOU MAY ALSO BE INTERESTED IN:

My book Unlicensed Marriage.
And don’t miss my new essays at NotFooledByGovernment.com

Do natural rights exist, or are all rights granted by government?

Yes we have natural rights.
The first sentence of the Declaration of Independence says that it is the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God that entitles the U.S. to exist.

The basis for the Declaration of Independence was our right to throw off our previous government. Our right to reclaim government is from a maxim Legibus sumptis desinentibus, lege naturae utendum est. When laws of the state fail, we must resort to the laws of nature.

Some people claim that there is a Social Compact which requires us to submit to government. Some people believe we must forfeit rights and freedoms to have a “civil and orderly” society. Thomas Jefferson was there and he had no such thought.  
The social compact theory of government says we give up some rights when we enter society. Yet twenty-nine years after the Constitution was written, this theory was refuted by Thomas Jefferson when he warned about this emerging dangerous theory.

According to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/So…

“Social contract arguments typically posit that individuals have consented, either explicitly or tacitly, to surrender some of their freedoms and submit to the authority of the ruler or magistrate (or to the decision of a majority), in exchange for protection of their remaining rights.”

Have your neighbors infused into government an authority that “We The People”, who created government, did not ourselves have? Some people believe we must forfeit rights and freedoms to have a “civil and orderly” society.

Thomas Jefferson was there and he never had such a thought:
 • Thomas Jefferson: “the idea is quite unfounded that on entering into society we give up any natural rights.” – letter to F. W. Gilmer 1816.

• Younger Thomas Jefferson, in 1774, proclaimed that rights do not come from government: “

“These are our grievances, which we have thus laid before his Majesty, with that freedom of language and sentiment which becomes a free people, claiming their rights as derived from the laws of nature, and not as the gift of their chief magistrate.” — Jefferson, Rights of British America, 1774, page 141

Rights do not come from government.

We are born free, with the rights of all mankind.

We are all created equal. We are endowed by our Creator with unalienable rights.

  • Equals have no duty to obey other equals. Equals would not salute other equals. Equals will not consent to be governed.

Governments are instituted among men to secure Creator-endowed unalienable rights. Government is an artificial entity created on paper by “equals”. The “equals” are responsible for controlling what they create.

  • If we are all equal, then where will equals find subordinates that can be controlled? Their artificial entity cannot be run by equals (who have no duty to obey other equals); it can only be run by subordinates.

One becomes subordinate by swearing an oath-of-office* – thereby agreeing to faithfully serve the artificial entity created by superiors. Their superiors will only govern their subordinates by the consent of the governed subordinates. Oaths are only taken by subordinates (in the Bible ever since Abraham swore an oath to King Abimelech to settle a dispute, and Hebrews 6:16, etc.)

Nature’s God is mentioned in the first sentence of the Declaration. You had a right to your God-given free will — until you voluntarily waived your rights.

Rights only come with responsibilities. There is a reason that you do not have rights.

Government now encourages us to be irresponsible. The same government that once required us to be responsible.

People are tricked out of their rights by legalities they did not understand.

The civil laws reduce an ungrateful freeman to slavery. The maxim is found in every law dictionary:

“The civil laws reduce an ungrateful freedman to his original slavery” Libertinum ingratum leges civiles in pristinam servitutem redigunt.

You lost your rights when you voluntarily confessed, on a permanent irrevocable federal document, that you are an ungrateful socialist who cannot manage your own life. In order to do this, you had to deny that we are created equal, you had to covet your neighbors’ wealth, you had to worship grave images, you had to change your citizenship, and you had to bow down to a graven master/provider/protector/lord. And you agreed to swear oaths (contrary to Matthew 5:34 and James 5:12).

* (even though contrary to moral principles)

You voluntarily consented to be governed

Texas Supreme Court In Dallas v. Mitchell, 245 SW 944:

“The rights of the individual are not derived from governmental agencies, … or even from the Constitution, but they exist inherently in every man, and are merely reaffirmed in the Constitution and restricted only to the extent they have been voluntarily surrendered by the citizenship to the agencies of government.”

Back in 1798, the people living in Kentucky wanted assurance that they were free from federal law. They knew they were free from most federal laws but they remained skeptical. Vice President Thomas Jefferson reassured them in the Kentucky Resolves that State Citizens are subject to only three federal laws. Vice President Jefferson wrote both Kentucky Resolutions.

“Resolved, that the Constitution of the United States having delegated to Congress a power to punish treason, counterfeiting the securities and current coin of the United States, piracies and felonies committed on the High Seas, and offenses against the laws of nations, and no other crimes, whatsoever, and it being true as a general principle, and one of the amendments to the Constitution having also declared, “that the powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people, . . . “

As a State Citizen, YOU WERE FREE FROM FEDERAL JURISDICTION, until you surrendered. When you volunteer into the federal government, you voluntarily submit yourself to a form of government that owes allegiance to two sovereignties. You voluntarily deny that we are created equal.

The U.S. Supreme Court in the Cruikshank case, 92 US at 551:

“It is the natural consequence of a citizenship which owes allegiance to two sovereignties, and claims protection from both. The citizen cannot complain, because he has voluntarily submitted himself to such a form of government.”

Your natural birth did NOT voluntarily submit yourself to the federal government. You voluntarily entered the federal government when you signed a federal form. You also have to be “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof”. See Elk v. Wilkins* for the extent to which you must be subject. (“not merely subject in some respect or degree to the jurisdiction of the United States, but completely subject to…“)

We are endowed by our Creator with certain unalienable rights. That to secure those rights governments are instituted among men. The social compact theory of government says we give up some rights when we enter society. Yet twenty-nine years after the Constitution was written, this theory was refuted by Thomas Jefferson when he warned about this emerging dangerous theory.

*The U.S. Supreme Court ruled on the meaning of the first sentence of the 14th Amendment in Elk v. Wilkins in 1884 (112 U.S. 94,): The persons declared to be are `all persons born or naturalized in the united states, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof.’ The evident meaning of these last words is, not merely subject in some respect or degree to the jurisdiction of the United States, but completely subject to their political jurisdiction, and owing them direct and immediate allegiance.”

What did you sign that waived your rights by legalities that you did not understand?

The three rights of all mankind.

What were your rights under the original understanding of the U.S. Constitution?

The Declaration of Independence defines government secured Rights in one long sentence:

We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness—That to secure these Rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the Consent of the Governed, that whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these Ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its Foundation on such Principles, and organizing its Powers in such Form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

The ONLY rights mentioned in The Declaration of Independence are unalienable Creator-granted rights. They are God-given. They are not granted by government. There is NO mention of civil rights. Your God-given rights are to be secured by government — which is the ONLY stated reason that governments are instituted among men.

I will now prove that in the United States “the rights of all mankind” are the rights that government was instituted among men to secure.

The purpose of government was to protect your God-given free will from all known methods of compulsion.

Here is the proof.

The common law in colonial America had three human rights (called “the rights of all mankind” and also called “the residuum of natural liberty” — quoted below) that could never be surrendered to government: The right to personal liberty, the right to self-defense, and the right to own private property. The English common law considered these to be the residual of natural liberty which could never be “required by the laws of society to be sacrificed to public convenience … ” The preservation of these rights, inviolate, secured the preservation of civilized society (according to the introduction to the 1769 book Blackstone’s Commentaries on the Law, Book 4 — this linkis to an 1803 revision that includes Virginia law.)

The rights themselves, thus defined by these several statutes, consist in a number of private immunities, which will appear, from what has been premised, to be indeed no other, than either that residuum of natural liberty, which is not required by the laws of society to be sacrificed to public convenience; or else those civil privileges, which society hath engaged to provide, in lieu of the natural liberties so given up by individuals. These, therefore, were formerly, either by inheritance or purchase, the rights of all mankind; but, in most other countries of the world being now more or less debased and destroyed, they at present may be said to remain, in a peculiar and emphatical manner, the rights of the people of England. And these may be reduced to three principal or primary articles; the right of personal security, the right of personal liberty, and the right of private property: because, as there is no other known method of compulsion, or of abridging man’s natural free will, but by an infringement or diminution of one or other of these important rights, the preservation of these, inviolate, may justly be said to include the preservation of our civil immunities in their largest and most extensive sense. “

That was the understanding of American rights under the U. S. Constitution in 1803 Virginia.
 If your God-given (Creator-endowed was the terminology used in 1776) are now subject to government compulsion, there must be a reason.

What did you sign that ensnared yourself to legalities that you did not understand?

Civil Law in the U.S.

Every law dictionary will tell you “The civil laws reduce an ungrateful freedman to his original slavery” Libertinum ingratum leges civiles in pristinam servitutem redigunt. Before you can understand that you voluntered into slavery, you must understand the purpose of government benefits that are offered to those who confess they need government assistance.

So just what is this Civil Law that reduced us to our slavery?

It is the same Roman Law that executed Christ.

Black’s Law Dictionary definition of Constitutor:

Black’s Law Dictionary definition of Constitutor

Ben Franklin’s 18 million Livra Revolutionary War debtwas due January 1, 1788, and we could not pay it. So your “founding fathers” held a Constitutional Convention to transfer the debt to you. The Constitution was ratified by Three-Fourths of the States.

The Constitutional Convention was constituted under the Articles of Confederation. The Articles of Confederation require a unanimous passage of any agreement between States. No group of States can gang-up and speak for remaining States. How did 3/4 get the authority to speak for the remaining States?

The 18 Million Livra debt has not been paid yet, thanks to principalities and powers in high places. So keep paying.

EQUITY

Equity is defined today as “the quality of being fair or impartial; fairness; impartiality”

In the law it has been “called chancery. A system of jurisprudence or a body of doctrines and rules developed in England and followed in the U.S., serving to supplement and remedy the limitations and the inflexibility of the common law. ”

According to Webster’s 1913 Unabridged Dictionary: [unstated: By the year 1873 …]

“when rules of equity and of common law, in any particular case, conflict, the rules of equity are to prevail”.

And the Encyclopedia Britannica of 1911 (11th edition, Vol IX, page 727) stated of equity jurisdiction:

“The evils of this double system of judicature…were enforced by the Act of 1873 which consolidated the courts of law and equity, and ordered that law and equity should be administered concurrently.”

That’s right! The Encyclopedia Britannica called your judicial system evil. You should recognize evil when you see it.

William Blackstone’s 1765 Commentaries on the Law are considered by the Supreme Court to be part of the received-law-of-the-land. In the introduction to this 4 volume law textbooks there is a summary of the law that is derived from the laws of nature:

“… no human laws are of any validity, if contrary to this: and such of them as are valid derive all their force, and all their authority, mediately or immediately, from this original.. … Neither could any other law possibly exist; … for we are all equal, without any other superior but him who is the author of our being.”

AUTHORITY IS ALWAYS WHERE IT BEGAN, WITH THE AUTHOR

Martin Luther’s Secular Authority: To What Extent It Should be Obeyed, was published in 1523. Samuel Rutherford published Lex Rex in 1644. We executed King Charles I in 1649. The divine right of Kings to rule was completely refuted in 1688 by John Locke’s First Treatise of Government.

Law is King (Lex Rex) refers to divine law, not to tyranny. “Where-ever law ends, tyranny begins

The divine laws of nature and of nature’s God are mentioned in the first sentence of the Declaration of Independence as the authority that entitles the United States to exist.

It was recognized in Protestant cultures that all sovereign authority is vested in the people. Supreme power – jura summi imperii – resides in the people. They can create their government to protect their unalienable God-given rights. They can write whatever law and delegate whatever authority is needed to control the government they create. Or alter their form of Government. The Declaration of Independence says “it is their right, it is their duty to throw off such Government”

This principle was valid when Wycliffe wrote the introduction to his English Bible translation. He said that the Bible creates a government of the people, by the people and for the people. Lincoln became famous for quoting it.

This principle was our right since the beginning. Alexander Hamilton, Federalist #28:

“If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no resource left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defense which is paramount to all positive forms of government, … if the persons entrusted with supreme power become usurpers, … The citizens must rush tumultuously to arms, without concert, without system, without resource; except in their courage and despair.”

Does that sound like Hamilton expected us to blindly obey government powers because they are somehow ordained of God to be higher powers?

The law of nature requires us to supervise our civil servants, and if they fail to enforce the divine law of nature, we are restored to the nature that we were in prior to creating government, for we are all equal. See Locke’s Second Treatise paragraphs 135, 149, 171, 209. . Legibus sumptis desinentibus, lege naturae utendum est. When laws of the state fail, we must resort to the laws of nature.

This principle was still valid when Abraham Lincoln made his First Inaugural Address, March 4, 1861:

“This country, with its institutions, belongs to the people who inhabit it. Whenever they shall grow weary of the existing government, they can exercise their constitutional right of amending it, or their revolutionary right to dismember or overthrow it.”

Does that sound like Lincoln expected us to obey government powers ? Did Lincoln’s words go over your head?

If you don’t understand why a president would speak of overthrowing government then you don’t understand authority. Abe knew where his authority came from. We The People are the jura summi imperii that created a limited government (limited to the 18 things we delegated to them). The posterity of We The People are responsible for controlling the creature we created.

%d