What is the difference between constitution and law?

Steven Miller · Originally Answered on Quora October 10, 2018 but removed for violating their terms-of-use policy. Just how offensive is a scholarly discussion of constitution and law?

“We The People” created a federal government by writing a constitution. “We The People” are the superiors (the jura summa imperii). Those who take an Oath-of-office are the subordinates (inferiors) who, by taking an oath of allegiance, owe us allegiance.

This has always been true. In the Bible, Hebrews 6:16 tells us that oaths are only taken to superiors.

And those who hold the truth that all men are created equal would never swear oaths to other equals. See my essay on Allegiance.

By writing a constitution and finding subordinates to obey us, we create a government.
We delegated to our subordinates the 19 things they are authorized to do in Article 1, section 8. We DID NOT delegate any authority that we ourselves did not have. (like taxing our neighbors, canceling their marriage, regulating travel).

Disclaimer: I am not saying that we need a government. We did not have a government for the first 10 books of the Bible. We did not need a government then, and we don’t need one now.

The U.S. Constitution is entitled to exist by the Laws of Nature and the Laws of Nature’s God.

Before I can answer your question on law, we need to know what the laws of nature are.
The first sentence of the Declaration of Independence states that it is the Laws of Nature that entitle the United States to exist. Every Law Dictionary will tell you that “Legibus sumptis desinentibus, lege naturae utendum est, When laws of the state fail, we must resort to the laws of nature.”

The Declaration goes on to say that Governments are instituted among men to secure unalienable Creator-endowed (God-given) rights.

What are these God-given rights?
They are the rights of all mankind.
According to Tucker’s 1803 reprint of Blackstone’s Commentary on the Laws that was updated to include the laws in Virginia:

“residuum of natural liberty which is not required by the laws of society to be sacrificed to public convenience”. . . . ”
“…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’s right. Government exists to protect you from being controlled.

Now that you know what the Law of Nature is, I can answer your question: What is the difference between Constitution and law. Here is what Law is: All Law is consistent with the law of nature. Neither could any other law possibly exist. There IS NO OTHER LAW. “For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God” just as the Apostle Paul told us in his definition of lawful authority (Romans 13).

According to the U.S. Supreme Court, Blackstone’s Commentaries are part of the received-law-of-the-land. Blackstone’s Commentary on the Law in the introduction:

“This law of nature, being coeval with mankind and dictated by God himself, is of course superior in obligation to any other – It is binding over all the globe in all countries, and at all times; 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. …”
…Nay, if any human law should allow [violation of natural law], we are bound to transgress that human law, or else we must offend both the natural and the divine.”

For more information read my essays at www.NotFooledByGovernment.com

==== ::::: ====

Steven D. Miller is a freelance writer producing informative blog posts, white papers, eBooks and high-density documentaries. He is available to offer hope to any audience that yearns to breathe free. Contact him at Steven.Miller@LibertyContentWriter.com

Quarantine Constitutionality?

Quarantine Constitutionality
by Steven D. Miller

Is now the last chance to secure the blessings of liberty? Is resistance futile because you have been assimilated? How can it be constitutional to hold innocent people under house arrest? Join me as we ponder these questions.

Before you decide to stand up to the police state you should prepare to give an answer to the constitutionality issues.

  • Did your State impair the obligation of contracts?
  • Did your State Congress grant legislative powers to the Governor?
  • Do your Governor’s executive orders apply only to his/her employees?
  • Is the U.S. Constitution the Supreme Law of the land, and judges in every state shall be bound thereby?
  • Is every inhabitant in your State guaranteed a republic form of government?
  • Did you State prohibit the free exercise of religion?

Governments are instituted among men to secure the blessings of liberty. They also have the right (as does anyone else1) to prevent deaths by interfering in private affairs. Just as you have the right to enter a burning home without permission, or enter a home when someone is screaming for help.

There is no conflict between these two government duties.  Government can both secure the blessings of liberty and protect rights.2 They can do both even during a crisis. They can do this the way it was always done. With quarantine zones, imposed in dense municipalities, to confine the disease.

Liberty Bell is inscribed with Leviticus 25:10
Leviticus 25:10 Proclaim Liberty Throughout the Land.

They could also do this with quarantine zones around the most vulnerable. Stanford University’s Hoover Institute published an article explaining that shutting down the economy is not necessary. All we need to do is protect the most vulnerable. Link: https://www.hoover.org/research/playing-politics-coronavirus

POLICE POWERS

This authority is called by various names like “police power”, “compelling state interest”, “overriding governmental interest”, “exigent circumstances”, “clear and present danger doctrine”.  Government has a legitimate function that can trump your right to liberty. They can protect an innocent person from grave and immediate danger.

The ruse that you are a danger to someone, without evidence, does not justify loss of liberty.

COVID-19
COV-2 filled exosomes budding from a lung tissue cell.

According to the Supreme Court, “… freedoms of speech and of press, of assembly, and of worship may not be infringed on such slender grounds. They are susceptible of restriction only to prevent grave and immediate danger to interests which the state may lawfully protect” (This phrase was used in many Supreme Court decisions to protect your rights. Carrol v. Princess Anne 393 U.S. 175, Thomas v. Collins 323 U.S. 516, West Virginia v. Barnette 319 U.S. 624, in re Brown 9 Cal.3d 612, West’s Constitutional law, key 84, 90, 91 — etc.)

QUARANTINE LAWS

The 1905 United States Supreme Court ruling in Jacobson v. Massachusetts 197 US 11, concerned an emergency smallpox epidemic where people were dying, and quarantine zones were enforced in Boston. Mr. Jacobson, who had previously been injured by a childhood vaccination, and who raised no religious objections, raised ONLY the Constitutional question of equal protection, and who did not ask for a hearing, was given the option paying the $5 fine (a tax, if you want to use the Obamacare comparison) to remain unvaccinated inside the emergency quarantine zone. The $5 fine applied to anyone over the age of 21. Mr. Jacobson argued that he was denied equal protection because children were exempted from the fine. The Supreme Court determined “this cannot be deemed a denial of the equal protection of the laws to adults; for the statute is applicable equally to all in like condition, and there are obviously reasons why regulations may be appropriate for adults which could not be safely applied to persons of tender years.”

That’s right! The Supreme Court decision that States rely upon as their only authority to force vaccines on children, actually says vaccines are NOT for children. They also ruled that during a smallpox outbreak children would be kept out of public schools until vaccinated.

A law textbook, Cooley’s Constitutional Limitations, 8th Edition, page 1229 quotes this very same Supreme Court Jacobson quarantine decision as proof of the opposite of what your government now says. It concludes:

“The police power is not supreme and is not unlimited. It is subject to the limitations imposed by the Federal Constitution upon every power of government. It will not be suffered to invade or impair the fundamental liberties of the citizen”

That’s right: “fundamental liberties” cannot be impaired by quarantine laws.  Why do we find our fundamental liberties eliminated — from government overreach to a mild disease?  Yes; it is a mild disease. Smallpox killed 30% of those who contracted it.  Yet COVID-19 only kills 5% of those who are sick enough to be hospitalized, most of which have at least two co-morbid underlying conditions.  And many infected people never had any symptoms at all.

Image: The Plague In Rome by Jules Elie Delaunay, painted in 1869

WHAT IS LIBERTY?

Let’s examine some of the “fundamental liberties” that cannot be impaired by police powers during a quarantine.

Law Textbook Definition of Liberty

Back when we had a Constitutional system of government, everyone knew we could get out of our house and exercise “the fundamental laws of our being”.

A Treatise of the Right to Personal Liberty, Second Edition, Book 1, Chapter 1, Section 1.
Rollin C. Hurd, 1876, W.C. Little Co., Albany, NY

Supreme Court’s definition of Liberty.

The US Supreme Court waited for a homeschool case to give us their partial definition of Liberty. In Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 US 390, 399:

The term Liberty “… denotes not merely freedom from bodily restraint, but also the right of the individual to contract, to engage in any of the common occupations of life, to acquire useful knowledge, to marry, to establish a home and bring up children, to worship God according to the dictates of his/her own conscience… the established doctrine is that this liberty may not be interfered with under the guise of protecting public interest, by legislative action which is arbitrary or without reasonable relation to some purpose within the competency of the state to effect.”

FUNDAMENTAL LIBERTIES DURING IMMINENT DANGER

Can it be constitutional to hold an innocent person under house arrest? I don’t know how the courts will rule, but you may want to know the foundations of liberty.

When the republic is in extreme danger of extinction, the law allows a magistrate absolute authority. This law existed in ancient Rome.

Blackstone’s Commentary on the Laws was the 1765 preeminent law textbook used when the United States was created. In the introduction to unalienable rights it says:

“…to imprison suspected persons without giving any reason for so doing; as the senate of Rome was wont to have recourse to a dictator, a magistrate of absolute authority, when they judged the republic in any imminent danger. The decree of the senate, which usually preceded the nomination of this magistrate, “dent operam consules, ne quid respublica detrimenti capiat,” was called the senatus consultum ultimae necessitatis. In like manner, this experiment ought only to be tried in cases of extreme emergency; and in these the nation parts with it’s liberty for a while, in order to preserve it for ever.

The confinement of the person, in any wise, is an imprisonment. So that the keeping a man against his will in a private house, putting him in the stocks, arresting or forcibly detaining him in the street, is an imprisonment. And the law so much discourages unlawful confinement, that if a man is under duress of imprisonment, which we before explained to mean a compulsion by an illegal restraint of liberty, until he seals a bond or the like; he may allege this duress, and avoid the extorted bond. But if a man be lawfully imprisoned, and either to procure his discharge, or any other fair account, seals a bond or a deed, this is not by duress of imprisonment, and he is not at liberty to avoid it. To make imprisonment lawful, it must either be by process from the courts of judicature, or by warrant from some legal officer having authority to commit to prison; which warrant must be in writing, under the hand and seal of the magistrate, and express the causes of the commitment, in order to be examined into (if necessary) upon a habeas corpus. 22 If there be no cause expressed, the jailer is not bound to detain the prisoner. For the law judges in this respect, saith sir Edward Coke, like Festus the Roman governor; that it is unreasonable to send a prisoner, and not to signify withal the crimes alleged against him.”
22. General warrants, commanding the seizure of any persons not named, or whose offence is not particularly described, . . .

THE LAWS OF NATURE

The first sentence of the Declaration of Independence says that the laws of nature entitles the United States to exist. This very same laws of nature tells us:

Legibus sumptis desinentibus, lege naturae utendum est.
When laws of the state fail, we must resort to the laws of nature.

Also see John Locke’s 1690 Second Treatise of Government paragraphs 135, 149, 171, 209.

REMEDIES

No, not virus remedies. Legal remedies.

Deprivation of liberty under the color of law is a CRIME,  at least for 14th Amendment citizens.

Courts award large compensatory damages for deprivation of liberty.  See my essay on How much is your liberty worth?

Insightful Quotes

“… And what country can preserve its liberties, if its rulers are not warned from time to time, that their people preserve the spirit of resistance?”
— Thomas Jefferson on November 13, 1787 letter to future Congressman William S. Smith

“Let your motto be resistance! Resistance! No oppressed people have ever secured their liberty without resistance.”
– Abolitionist Henry Highland Garnet

You know James Otis for his slogan “Taxation without representation is tyranny”.  He wrote The Rights of the British Colonies Asserted and Proved in 1764:

“But if every prince since Nimrod had been a tyrant, it would not prove a right to tyranize. There can be no prescription old enough to supersede the law of nature, and the grant of God almighty; who has given to all men a natural right to be free, and they have it ordinarily in their power to make themselves so, if they please.”

Thomas Jefferson’s inscription on his ring:
“Resistance to tyrants is obedience to God.”

US Supreme Court, Laird v. Tatum, 408 US 1, page 28:

“This case involves a cancer in our body politic. It is a measure of the disease which afflicts us. … Those who already walk submissively will say there is no cause for alarm. But submissiveness is not our heritage. The First Amendment was designed to allow rebellion to remain as our heritage. The Constitution was designed to keep the government off the backs of the people. … The Bill of Rights was designed to keep agents of government and official eavesdroppers away from assemblies of people. The aim was to allow men to be free and independent and to assert their rights against government. … When an intelligence officer looks over every nonconformist’s shoulder… the America once extolled as the voice of liberty heard around the world no longer is cast in the image which Jefferson and Madison designed, but more in the Russian image …”

But we now find out that it is a crime to peacefully assemble to petition government for redress of grievance. In a fictional place that can again become the land of the free.

— — — —

1. Law of necessity is a maxim of law: Illud quod alias licitum non est, necessitas facit licitum, et necessitas privilegium quod jure privatur. That which is not otherwise lawful, necessity makes lawful; and necessity brings in as a privilege what is denied by right.

2. After all, 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.

— — — —

– – – – –

Steven D. Miller is a freelance copywriter producing informative blog posts, white papers, eBooks and high-density documentaries. He is available on a limited basis to offer hope to any audience that yearns to breathe free. Contact him at Steven.Miller@LibertyContentWriter.com  

What’s happening to American democracy?

Answer: The chaos and violence that you are witnessing is the inevitable conclusion to democracy.

Democracy has no place in America. The word Democracy is not in the U.S. Constitution. There is a reason that the writers of the Constitution left it out. The founders of the government knew that democracy would create turbulence, contention, and chaos. The chaos that you see around you is the result of your tolerance of democracy.

According to the Declaration of Independence, governments are instituted among men to secure rights. The Constitution secures the blessings of liberty. Every congressman swore an oath-of-office to secure the blessings of liberty. The Constitution guarantees a republic form of government, NOT a democracy. No form of collectivism can respect individual rights.

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 (Thomas Jefferson, quoted below, says it eats to the heart of the Constitution). 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.

Learn from history.

The writers of the Constitution knew what would happen to a government that allows the greedy to vote. Voting for welfare is a conflict of interest. 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…”

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 taking 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.

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.”

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

You have no right to take from others just because you want to live more comfortably. You have no right to crate a mob to take from others. Coveting your neighbor’s wealth is still a sin — even if done by the government you hired to take from your neighbor.

Domination is the opposite of being 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.

Do not be fooled by misconstruing the Constitution.

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.

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.” They are only for those who would take the risk of loosing their rights in exchange for the chance to dominate others.

Patrick Henry:

“Show me that age and country where the rights and liberties of the people were placed on the sole chance of their rulers being good men without a consequent loss of liberty! I say that the loss of that dearest privilege has ever followed, with absolute certainty, every such mad attempt.”

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.”

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

1.This must have been a popular saying. 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

Thomas Jefferson, Notes on the State of Virginia, Query 19, 1787.  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.

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 — they are the Jura Summi Imperii.

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…”

In 1770, Alexander Tyler, a Scottish history professor at the University of Edinburgh, in his book Cycles of Democracy, had this comparison with the fall of the Athenian Republic some 2,000 years earlier:

‘A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. A democracy will continue until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always vote for the candidates who promise the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that a democracy always collapses over a loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship.’

Note his warning that democracies are “always followed by a dictatorship”.

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

For more information read my free essays.

Steven Miller · Originally Answered Jan 27, 2019

Leave your comments below:

%d bloggers like this: