What about Reason and Law

The un-elected Governor, Kate Brown, of Oregon has stated her intent to enact by Executive Order a Ban on some types of firearms, mainly rifles and carbines. The executive action can only be understood as a restriction or infringement of our unalienable right to self defense and defense against deadly force toward others.

"And that said Constitution be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe…or to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms."

~ Sam Adams ~

I see where the Bush administration has initially indicated support for extending the Clinton-Feinstein-Schumer ban on scores of semi-automatic rifles and on magazines holding more than 10 rounds of ammunition that the Clinton Administration imposed on America back in 1994.  I am seriously disappointed in that decision if it holds.

Laws against violent crimes such as murder, robbery or assault are already on the books and do not require a gun to be used in their commission to be considered criminal acts.  The only thing any criminal needs to carry out such deviant behavior is some means of providing a force advantage over the victim and he could use almost anything for that.

A criminal can just as easily kill or rob with a knife, a baseball bat or his bare fists so what difference does it make which gizmo is used to provide that force advantage over the victim—none whatsoever to my way of thinking.  It’s the act itself that makes such behavior a crime, not the tool used.

Laws are needed to deal with harmful deeds inflicted on people by the misfits of society—those whose behavior deviates from the accepted norm and thus becomes injurious to others.  They are needed to deal with the behavior that inflicts such harm —nothing more complicated than that. 

Crime is the result of socially unacceptable behavior and it is the behavior that determines the crime.  The operative word here is behavior not the implement used by some degenerate. A criminal can choke a person to death with his own mother’s apron strings as well as shoot him.  Is the victim any more dead if a gun is used or is the criminal any guiltier?  I think not. 

There are already laws punishing deviant behavior therefore to my way of thinking, laws pertaining specifically to guns are laws focused on objects incapable of behavior.  A mother’s apron strings can be just as deadly as a gun if the one exhibiting such criminal behavior chooses to use them in that way so should we have laws governing apron strings? Gun-centric laws only restrict, limit, prevent—infringe—upon your right to keep and bear 
arms and do nothing to address violent behavior.

Those 20,000 gun specific laws such as limited magazine capacity, rate of fire, barrel length, registration, licensing, waiting periods, and concealed carry without government permission as examples, do nothing but limit your right of access to guns—infringements upon your rights.  Such is not the mark of a free society.  What harm is there in a 15 round magazine or carrying a gun under your coat?  It’s when that gun is used to harm others that the crime is committed and it’s the criminal behavior that is the crime not the gun.  The gun is obviously incapable of behaving in any way whatsoever—but we all know that don’t we? 

Keep in mind the Second Amendment states, “…the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.”  There are no qualifiers to that statement, as “…shall not be infringed except for…” and you fill in the blank with any of those 20,000 gun laws.

If I could ask the founders their opinion on this question, I would ask if felons, the insane or the immature should be denied access to firearms.  Felons have proven to be unfit members of society and by their own choices have surrendered their rights to fully participate in our society. The insane are not responsible members of society for medical reasons.  The immature, let’s say those that do not know the difference between life and death, and that do not know the difference between right and wrong, and have had no firearms training for the sake of argument, are not yet fully responsible because they are still in the formative years of their lives.

So call me whatever you like but the laws against murder, robbery, and assault exist in Common Law and should be seriously enforced with harsh punishment for violating them—the type of weapon used is entirely irrelevant to the behavior involved.  We should address the behavior of the criminal and leave the law abiding among the rest of us alone. Our right to keep and bear arms is an unalienable right and not a Government granted privileged to be assigned or removed at the whim of anyone. 

Of course, such an approach would allow the general population to be fully armed and capable of resisting an out-of-control government if need be, so maybe that wouldn’t do after all—perhaps that thought just scares the living daylights out of some politicians.  Might that fear then be the genesis of the 20,000?  Remember the words of Thomas Jefferson, 

“When citizens fear their government, you have tyranny; when the government fears its citizens, you have freedom.”

The Founder’s intent underlying the Second Amendment is easy to understand. 
It is fair to say the Founders and Framers obvious intent was to ensure that an individual’s right to keep and bear arms was never threatened or infringed by any government action.

So what have the courts said over the years about such a “radical concept?”  Many times we’re told by anti-gun elements that the courts have maintained no individual right to keep and bear arms exists and pro-gun advocates are just too stupid to understand the intricacies of constitutional law.

Have the courts universally denounced the individual’s right to keep and bear arms over the past 200 years and are you really too stupid to read and understand what the Constitution plainly says?  To believe any of that anti-gun bilge, you’d have to be terminally stupid.  

Let’s read a few examples of what several courts across the country and across history had to say in the years after the Constitution was adopted.  Please judge for yourself and draw your own conclusions. 

One note before starting:  I suspect the Esteemed Readers will never see any of these quotes or rulings either reported or cited on the evening news but that would be just a guess.


1803:  George Tucker, Judge of the Virginia Supreme Court and U.S. District Court of Virginia in I Blackstone COMMENTARIES Sir George Tucker Ed., pg. 300 (App.)

“The right of self-defense is the first law of nature; in most governments it has been the study of rulers to confine this right within the narrowest possible limits...and [when] the right of the people to keep and bear arms is, under any color or pretext whatsoever, prohibited, liberty, if not already annihilated, is on the brink of destruction.”


1822: Bliss vs. Commonwealth, 12 Ky. (2 Litt.) 90, at 92, and 93, 13 Am. Dec. 251

"For, in principle, there is no difference between a law prohibiting the wearing of concealed arms, and a law forbidding the wearing such as are exposed; and if the former be unconstitutional, the latter must be so likewise. But it should not be forgotten, that it is not only a part of the right that is secured by the constitution; it is the right entire and complete, as it existed at the adoption of the constitution; and if any portion of that right be impaired, immaterial how small the part may be, and immaterial the order of time at which it be done, it is equally forbidden by the constitution."


1846: Nunn vs. State, 1 Ga. (1 Kel.) 243, at 251

" The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.' The right of the whole people, old and young, men, women and boys, and not militia only, to keep and bear arms of every description, and not such merely as are used by the militia, shall not be infringed, curtailed, or broken in upon, in the smallest degree; and all this for the important end to be attained: the rearing up and qualifying a well-regulated militia, so vitally necessary to the security of a free State. Our opinion is that any law, State or Federal, is repugnant to the Constitution, and void, which contravenes this right."


1859:  Cockrum v. State, 24 Tex. 394, at 401-402

"The right of a citizen to bear arms, in lawful defense of himself or the State, is absolute. He does not derive it from the State government. It is one of the "high powers" delegated directly to the citizen, and `is excepted out of the general powers of government.' A law cannot be passed to infringe upon or impair it, because it is above the law, and independent of the lawmaking power."


1871: Andres v. State, 50 Tenn. (3 Heisk) 165, 178

“....the right to keep arms necessarily involves the right to purchase them, to keep them in a state of efficiency for use, and to purchase and provide ammunition suitable for such arms, and to keep them in repair.”

“The rifle of all descriptions, the shot gun, the musket and repeater are such arms; and that under the Constitution the right to keep and bear arms cannot be infringed or forbidden by the legislature.”  [ANDREWS V. STATE; 50 TENN. 165, 179, 8 AM. REP. 8, 14 (TENNESSEE SUPREME COURT)]


1876: The Supreme Court, in U.S. v. Cruikshank (92 U.S. 542)

Recognized that the right to arms preexisted the Constitution. The Court stated that the right to arms "is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence."


1878: Wilson v. State, 33 Ark. 557, at 560, 34 Am. Rep. 52, at 54

"To prohibit a citizen from wearing or carrying a war arm . . . is an unwarranted restriction upon the constitutional right to keep and bear arms. If cowardly and dishonorable men sometimes shoot unarmed men with army pistols or guns, the evil must be prevented by the penitentiary and gallows, and not by a general deprivation of constitutional privilege."


1921: State vs. Kerner, 181 N.C. 574, 107 S.E. 222, at 224

"The maintenance of the right to bear arms is a most essential one to every free people and should not be whittled down by technical constructions."


1922: People vs. Zerillo, 219 Mich. 635, 189 N.W. 927, at 928

"The provision in the Constitution granting the right to all persons to bear arms is a limitation upon the power of the Legislature to enact any law to the contrary. The exercise of a right guaranteed by the Constitution cannot be made subject to the will of the sheriff."  


2000: Tuesday, June 13th. Let’s fast-forward to the Clinton years of judicial activism and see how an attempt was made to unscrupulously bastardize this long venerated inalienable right by a dangerously anti-gun, anti-constitution administration in U.S. v. Emerson.

Early accounts from those who attended the week's oral arguments on U.S. v. Emerson (see FAX Alert Vol. 7, No. 23) revealed, with no uncertainty, how the Clinton-Gore Administration truly viewed our Right to Keep and Bear Arms. The attorney representing the government, William Mateja, said that the Second Amendment offers law-abiding U.S. citizens no protections against the government prohibiting them from owning any firearm. Judge William Garwood, one of three judges on the panel that heard arguments, had the following exchange with Mateja:

Judge Garwood: "You are saying that the Second Amendment is consistent with a position that you can take guns away from the public?  You can restrict ownership of rifles, pistols and shotguns from all people?  Is that the position of the United States?"

Meteja (attorney for the government): "Yes".

Garwood: "Is it the position of the United States that persons who are not in the National Guard are afforded no protections under the Second Amendment?"

Meteja: "Exactly."

Fortunately, the court rejected the Clinton-Gore argument—this time.

It’s frightening how tenuous is the jewel of liberty and how easily it can be incrementally eroded if left unguarded by the people and totally entrusted to the Machiavellian machinations of insidious politicians.

James Madison had it pegged, 

"I believe there are more instances of the abridgment of the freedoms of the people by gradual and silent encroachments of those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations.”

If the un-elected Governor, Kate Brown, of Oregon begins legislating from the Executive Branch of the Oregon State Government, she shall be subverting the intent of the Oregon State Constitution, the Law, and the Legal System she was sworn to uphold. Then again, maybe she does not care about reason, the Law, or the Legal System.

It’s my uncompromising conviction that unless the people jealously guard our jewel at every turn and strongly reject any attempt to incrementally infringe on our freedom, we will eventually and unwittingly lose it—piece by little piece.  Once it is lost however, it might be lost for generations. Generations that won’t even know what they’ve lost.

Sources:

Excerpts from:  What The Courts Said by Colonel Dan

http://fixamerica-fredmars.blogspot.com/2015/01/one-more-time-gun-laws.html

U.S. Federal Government Tracking Adults for Health

The Esteemed Readers following this issue may care to learn of the Federal Governments effort to track adults who have not obtained recommended vaccinations. 

Vaccines poorly prepared with unknown contents can cause various permanent conditions to occur. Vaccines improperly prepared with live organisms infect healthy individuals with the diseases they are meant to prevent. 

Proper vaccines are prepared with dead organisms that are recognizable by the immune system. The immune system learns to fight diseases by recognizing the organism. 

← Has the global geopolitical chessboard been set up for World War III?
U.S. Federal Government To Track Adult Vaccination Compliance

Posted on August 26, 2015 by State of the Nation

Adults Targeted as Federal Government Prepares to Track the Unvaccinated

By Theresa Wrangham, NVIC Executive Director

During the National Vaccine Advisory Committee’s (NVAC) February meeting, American adults were put on notice by Big Brother that non-compliance with federal vaccine recommendations will not be tolerated. Public health officials have unveiled a new plan to launch a massive nationwide vaccination promotion campaign involving private business and non-profit organizations to pressure all adults to comply with the adult vaccination schedule approved by the Centers for Disease Control (CDC). (1)

NVAC has authored the National Adult Immunization Plan (NAIP) and, once finalized, the plan will be turned over to the Interagency Adult Immunization Task Force (AIFT) to create an implementation plan. Notably, this task force is composed of “vested interest” stakeholders and no consumer representation for those groups concerned with vaccine safety and informed consent.

NVIC has submitted our public comments and recommendations for the NVAC’s draft National Adult Immunization Plan. (2) Your opportunity to submit your comments and concerns about this plan has been extended to March 23rd. We encourage all of our readers to participate in the public comment process and submit comments to the NVAC on the NAIP. Please forward this article to family and friends and encourage them to submit public comments, too.

What you need to know – the nutshell.

The basis of the NAIP rests on Healthy People 2020 Goals, (3) many of which are arbitrary. (4) The key fact the plan seems to lose sight of in using these goals as its foundation is …THEY ARE GOALS. These goals have no legal authority over your healthcare decisions and are being used by government officials to shape public health policy, which in turn is spurring legal mandates to force you to comply with them. (5)

The adult immunization plan also “incentivizes” doctors and other vaccine providers to convert patient data into Electronic Health Record (EHR) formats that can then be shared across state and federal electronic databases to track national vaccine coverage rates and also track and identify who is and is not vaccinated. Many states already have electronic vaccine tracking registries (Immunization Information Systems – IIS) in place, but do not share this information due to laws preventing the sharing of personal medical information and/or limited vaccination data on adults. This is where financial and other types of incentives come in to convince vaccine providers and state legislators to participate in the gathering of this private medical information on all adults.

Big Government is Partnering with Your Employer, Community & Religious Organizations

The NAIP states that it will take more than providers raising awareness about the adult schedule and encouraging compliance to meet Healthy People 2020 goals. So the NAIP contains objectives that foster partnerships with your employer and your community and religious organizations to make you and all adults get every federally recommended vaccine according to the government-approved schedule.

The NAIP makes it clear that in the future, all American adults will be informed of the recommended adult schedule at every possible opportunity outside the healthcare provider domain. You will be encouraged to comply with the adult schedule not only by your healthcare provider, but also via community-based partnerships to ensure that you have the opportunity to roll up your sleeve at work, school, church and other community gatherings.

NVIC has always supported awareness and access to preventative healthcare options, including access to vaccines for everyone who wants to use them. However, there is a difference between awareness, access, recommendations and mandates. In the past, these types of government vaccine use plans do not just seek to increase awareness and access but also make recommendations that foster vaccine mandates without flexible medical, religious and conscientious belief exemptions that  align with the informed consent ethic.

Tracking Vaccination Status Raises Privacy Concerns

Adults should examine this plan carefully because the U.S. Constitution guarantees American citizens the right to privacy. (6) In that context, it is important to understand that the NAIP objectives include electronically harnessing your personal medical information and that of all adults for the purpose of increasing adult vaccine uptake in the U.S. by tracking your vaccination status, with little regard for your privacy. (7)

There is no language in the plan that provides for consumer privacy protections. This is a glaring omission given the acknowledged and known risks for patient data being hacked (security breaches) by malicious outside entities. (8) The plan does not include provisions for raising consumer awareness of their ability to opt out of electronic tracking and patient data sharing schemes. (9) (10)

Closing Vaccine Safety Research Gaps Not Included in Plan

While the NAIP also supports increased reporting to the federal Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) and ongoing analysis of claims submitted to the federal Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (VICP), it is hollow support. For this to be meaningful, stronger language is needed to support closing vaccine safety research gaps highlighted by the Institute of Medicine’s (IOM) series of vaccine safety reports (11) to lessen the number of VICP off-the-table compensation claims.

These off-the-table claims are a direct result of the continued expansion of the numbers of government recommended adult (and childhood) vaccines without the accompanying identification of vaccine side effects and injury outcomes to expand the federal Vaccine Injury Table (VIT) that governs the awarding of vaccine injury compensation. Off-the-table adult vaccine injury claims now represent the majority of claims (12) filed with the VICP and the compensation process has become  highly adversarial and costly.

As NVIC President Barbara Loe Fisher stated at the U.S. Health Freedom Congress last year when pointing out that responses to vaccines and infectious diseases are individual:

“We do not all respond the same way to infectious diseases (13) and we do not all respond the same way to pharmaceutical products like vaccines. (14) (15) (16) (17) Public health laws that fail to respect biodiversity and force everyone to be treated the same are unethical and dangerous.”
The NAIP fails to acknowledge these facts.

Compliance at the Expense of Bodily Autonomy

Vaccine mandates are made at a state level and the NAIP is a federal vaccine use promotion plan that is has no legal authority to turn government vaccine use recommendations into vaccine use mandates.

However, much like the recommendations made by NVAC a few years ago for healthcare workers to receive annual flu shots,(18) these recommendations are likely to result in future de facto vaccine mandates for adults, whether through employer requirements, (19) or actual state laws. Given the introduction of legislation (20) this year in many states to remove non-medical vaccine exemptions and restrict medical exemptions for school age children in an effort to force parents to comply with the CDC’srecommended childhood vaccine schedule, there is little doubt that that the NVAC’s latest plan will result in similar actions to force adults to use all federally recommended vaccines.

One only has to read stories posted NVIC’s Cry For Vaccine Freedom Wallby healthcare workers who have refused flu shots and are being fired from their jobs to understand the threat posed by the NAIP. Is your profession next? The short answer is yes.

Make no mistake about this plan’s intent, if “awareness” efforts and “incentivization” of vaccine policy do not increase adult vaccine uptake, the partnering with your employer and other community groups is meant to lower the hammer and force you to comply. The electronic tracking systems that are enthusiastically being embraced by not only the federal government but also state governments and employers, without regard for your privacy, will be used to identify noncompliers.

Informed Consent Freedom at Risk

If you haven’t read Dr. Suzanne Humphries’ book Dissolving Illusions,21 you may not realize that history is about to repeat itself. Government enforced vaccination through identification and door-to-door efforts to make everyone comply, like was seen with smallpox vaccination campaigns a century ago, is a real possibility again in America. Only this time it won’t just be about one vaccine – it will be about a lot of vaccines you will be forced to get.

The noose being tightened around the necks of our children is being thrown over the necks of adults as well. The tightening of that noose is growing daily in an attempt to strangle vaccine freedom of choice by eradicating the ethical principle of informed consent.

Adults and their children are being asked to accept a one-size-fits-all vaccine schedule that does not allow for the ability to delay or decline one or more vaccines for religious and conscientious beliefs. This is very dangerous when the medical exemption has been narrowed by government so that almost no health condition qualifies for a medical exemption anymore. Families already personally impacted by vaccine reactions, injuries and deaths will be faced with more loss, including their financial stability if they are forced to be revaccinated.

The human right to protect bodily integrity and autonomy – the core value of the informed consent ethic – is at stake.

This battle is not about an anti- or pro- vaccine position. It is a battle over freedom, values and beliefs.22 What is at risk is your ability as a parent and individual to decide what medical risks you are willing to accept and vaccination is the forefront of this battle.

For over three decades NVIC has supported informed consent protections in all U.S. vaccine laws and policies, which means that parents and individuals must receive full and accurate information on vaccine risks and benefits and retain the right to make voluntary decisions to accept, delay or decline one or more vaccines without being sanctioned for they decision they make.

NVIC Vaccine Freedom Rally

What You Can Do Today – Get Involved!

Your rights are being eroded and vaccine exemptions are under aggressive attack in many states. NVIC will continue to advocate for your freedom as we have done for over 30 years, but this battle will not be won without your voice and action.

Submit your comments on the NAIP by March 23rd to the National Vaccine Advisory Committee and forward this article to your friends and family.(NVIC NOTE 3/20/15:  We have become aware that the NVAC’s representative assigned to receive your comments email account is autoresponding that she is out of the office until the 25th. NVIC has contacted the National Vaccine Program Office and has been assured that comments sent by the 23rd are being collected and forwarded to the NVAC for their consideration. Please ignore the autoresponder – your comments are getting through and will be a part of the record. Many thanks to everyone for making us aware of this situation and for sending in comments on the NAIP! Keep sending in those comments!)

Most importantly, register and encourage others to register on NVIC’s Advocacy Portal today and join with other concerned Americans to protect informed consent rights. This resource is free and will keep you informed on legislative actions underway in your state, provide guidance on what action to take, and connect you with your legislators.

There is no time to waste. Please do not wait for someone else to do this…that someone is you and you can make a difference!

References

(1) CDC. Recommended Adult Immunization Schedule. Feb. 3, 2015.

(2) NVAC. Draft National Adult Immunization Plan. Feb. 5, 2014.

(3) Healthy People.gov. Immunization and Infections Diseases.

(4) A Perspective on the Development of the Healthy People 2020 Framework for Improving U.S. Population Health. Public Health Reviews. Vol. 35, No 1. 2013.

(5) CDC. Vaccines and Immunizations. State Immunization Laws for Healthcare Workers and Patients. Nov. 19, 2014.

(6) Cornell University Law School. U.S. Constitution – First Amendment Table of Contents, Invasion of Privacy.

(7) TEDxTraverseCity 2014. Designing Technology to Restore Privacy. Deborah C. Peel, MD.
(8) Fourth Annual Benchmark Study on Patient Privacy & Data Security, Ponemon Institute, Mar 2014.

(9) Health information exchanges introduce patient consent questions. K. Terry. Medical Economics. Jul. 8, 2014.

(10) CDC Immunization Services Division Presentation on IIS & Health People 2020 Goals to the National Vaccine Advisory Committee, Sep. 2013.

(11) National Vaccine Advisory Committee – White Paper on U.S. Vaccine Safety System. Sep. 2011.

(12) Report from the Department of Justice. Advisory Commission on Childhood Vaccines (ACCV) Certified Minutes. Pg 8. Sep. 2014.

(13) Hill AVS. Genetics and Genomics of Infectious Disease Susceptibility. British Medical Bulletin 1999; 55(2): 401-413.

(14) Kinman TG, Vandebriel RJ, Hoebee B. Genetic variation in the response to vaccination. Community Genet 2007; 10(4): 201-217.

(15) Lemaire D, Barbosa T, Rihet P. Coping with genetic diversity: the contribution of pathogen and human genomics to modern vaccinology. Braz J Med Biol Res 2012; 45(5): 376-385.

(16) Institute of Medicine Committee to Review Adverse Effects of Vaccines. Adverse Effects of Vaccinations: Evidence and Causality. Evaluating Biological Mechanisms of Adverse Events: Increased Susceptibility. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press 2012.

(17) DHHS. Vaccine Injury Compensation Program Data and Statistics. HRSA Updated monthly.

(18) University of Minnesota. NVAC approves recommendations on health worker flu vaccination. Lisa Schnirring. CIDRAP News & Perspective. Feb. 8, 2012.

(19) NVIC. Forcing Flu Shots on Health Care Workers: Who Is Next?. NVIC eNewsletter. Barbara Loe Fisher. Sep. 29, 2010.

(20) NVIC Advocacy. Action Alerts and Bills Monitored.

(21) Humphries, S. MD. Bystrianyk, R. Dissolving Illusions: Disease, Vaccines, and the Forgotten History. Jul. 27 2013.

(22) NVIC. The Vaccine Culture War in America: Are You Ready?. NVIC eNewsletter. Barbara Loe Fisher. Mar. 8, 2015

Allan's Law

I offer this in it's entirety to the Esteemed Readers for their education and information. Please also visit Gregory Allan's site, The Lawful Path for education you will not get from government controlled schools.


"The Origin of Law

by Gregory Allan

It's long past time we explore the meaning of the word "law."

I can't say I know how this knowledge will effect your day-to-day life. I know it has effected mine, but listing the ways would be tough. I only know it's important to me. I hope it is also interesting to you.

I've always been a rebellious sort. It used to get me into trouble a lot. Still does sometimes, though not as often now that I've gotten a little smarter. Wisdom comes with age, or it's supposed to. By the time we know enough to be useful, we're ready to turn in our spurs.

I was born in the sixties, and lived my teenage years through the seventies. It was a time of rebellion. Of resistance to authority. I wasn't the only one. Everybody I knew was that way. We didn't have a particular target in mind; we rebelled against everything.

Most of the children of the seventies eventually grew up. They got "real" jobs, and real families, and surrendered to the establishment. Whether they made money or went broke; raised their children themselves or paid to support their broken homes, they gave up their crazy rebellion.

Not me. I held on so long, I actually figured out the source of my craziness. I didn't have a problem with legitimate authority, only illegitimate authority. I'm not opposed to law. I'm opposed to illegal acts done in the name of the law.

Until a few years ago, I used to speak every month to a group of a hundred or so people. All these people were interested in law reform. There were a handful of us who would pick a topic and study it. Then we'd talk about what we'd learned.

One day while I was preparing a presentation, I looked up the word "law" in Black's Law Dictionary. The definition takes up a little more than one full page. But there was one paragraph which stood out for me:

"Law. [... 6th Edition, 4th paragraph:] In old English jurisprudence, "law" is used to signify an oath, or the privilege of being sworn; as in the phrases "to wage one's law," "to lose one's law."
It took awhile to sink in, but this definition caused an epiphany in me. I've never looked at the law, government, or the legal system in the same way. And it brings me to the main point of today's lesson, which is this:

All law is voluntary, and most laws don't apply to most people.
I know, that sounds stupid. Doesn't it? After all, we live in the United States of America, and this country has a long history of laws going back for more than two centuries. Not to mention that those laws are mostly based on English jurisprudence, going back much further.

This is just a bunch of that "Patriot crap," isn't it? Maybe. But I don't think so.

Does that mean we can just go around, willy nilly, ignoring every law on the books? Of course not. We wouldn't even want to. Society has developed a lot of those laws for our mutual protection. Some of them are important. So how do we know which ones to follow, and which to ignore?

What Law is Not

Before we explore further into what law is, let's clear up what it is not. There are lots of definitions, and we need to be speaking the same language. Blackstone's Commentaries has this to say:

"Meaning of law.-- Law, in its most general and comprehensive sense, signifies a rule of action; whether animate or inanimate, rational or irrational. Thus we say, the laws of motion, of gravitation, of optics, or mechanics, as well as the laws of nature and of nations. And it is that rule of action, which is prescribed by some superior, and which the inferior is bound to obey." (Jones' Blackstone, Bancroft-Whitney Co., 1915)
Laws of nature have long been lumped in with laws of man, and termed collectively "The Law." I believe this is done to intentionally confuse the masses. A deep-seated subconscious belief is created in a man's mind, that the whole body of man's law is as unbending and absolute as the law of gravity. As surely as the sun rises and sets every day, all of a king's subjects must follow the king's laws.

Violating one of the king's laws is therefore subconsciously compared with the planets suddenly spinning out of alignment. The universe must be put back into balance!

It is this confusion we must erase, before we can understand the nature of law. We must separate in our minds the "facts" of nature, which are absolute, from laws made by man. Otherwise we'll never understand the truth about law.

Look at the second part of Blackstone's definition. It presupposes the existence of a "superior" who has the authority to tell people what to do, and what not to do. Where did such a superior get his authority?

Sir William Blackstone was a British subject, so he recognized the British Crown as his superior. What about Americans? Who are our superiors?

The American Declaration of Independence declares:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal. . ."
I didn't see any part in there about an earthly superior.

The Origin of Law

Who made the first law, and why?

No one can say for sure. The Bible says the first laws were established between God and Adam. That may be true, or not. I wasn't there, so I can't say. I have my beliefs, and you have yours. If earlier laws were made, it must have been done long before Man developed a written language. In which case the event is lost beyond memory.

So let's examine God and Adam for a moment. The earliest law we know of was when God told Adam and Eve not to eat from the tree of knowledge. Most people think this was a command that God laid down. They assume a sovereign authority of God over his creation.

I see this as a reasonable assumption. The creator has authority over the creation, as the owner has control over his property. But if you leave off here, I believe you'll miss the point of Man's covenants with God.

God seems to want us to understand the proper order of things. So, if you examine the Scriptures with this idea in mind, you'll discover that God treats us pretty much as equals. He acknowledges our sovereignty. He does this by granting us free agency.

"And the Lord God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat: But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die." (Genesis 2:16-17)
The verse says "God Commanded," but really He made a deal with Adam. He had created Adam, and given him eternal life. Then He told Adam, you may keep your eternal life, so long as you never eat from the forbidden tree. Adam agreed. This is the essence of a contract. When Adam breached the contract, God was generous. He could have killed Adam right way, but He didn't. Instead, He again acknowledged Man's free agency:
"And the Lord God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil." (Genesis 3:22)
He decided to make Adam a different deal. Instead of killing Adam immediately He basically said, "I will spare your life, for a time, if you will go forth and multiply."

Again, a contract. In every instance throughout the Scriptures, you will see the same pattern. God never dictates commands. Instead He says, "If you will obey My Laws, you will have My blessings." That's why it's called a covenant. Covenants are contracts.

Maybe you reject the Biblical version. For the sake of argument, let's look at the "desert island" analogy.

If one man is alone on a desert island, he has no use for any law. He can do as he pleases, without complaint from any soul. He is subject only to the "facts" of nature. If he doesn't eat, drink, sleep, and have sufficient shelter from the elements, he will die prematurely. This goes to the "facts" of nature already discussed. Everything else is entirely up to him.

He can live his entire life without law, and without problems. But as soon as a second man appears on the island, they've both got problems. They will inevitably have arguments. One may be dominant; another submissive. Or they may get along wonderfully, as equals (yeah, right). But if they do, it will be because of mutual agreements.

Whatever the case, in the end they will either agree on rules of behavior, or else one will kill or dominate the other. That is the fundamental truth of Mans' existence. There are only two ways for men to avoid and/or settle disputes: violence, and contract.

So, the two men agree to rules of behavior. This works out fine, as long as both men follow the rules, and as long as no one else arrives on the island.

Sooner or later, one of the men violates his agreement. When this happens, the violator can voluntarily make restitution. Maybe even accept a punishment. Or the victim can voluntarily look the other way. Either of these is an example of contract. The only other alternative is war.

The situation is further complicated when other people start arriving on the island. Women show up too. That means children on the island, who grow up into adults. Since each new adult has his own free agency, he/she can contract, or not contract.

Some may agree to follow the same rules agreed to by the first two men. Some will make their own alliances, and their own contracts. Others may refuse to agree with anyone.

After awhile a few of the stronger men decide it's easier to steal than work. Weaker men with something to lose band together for strength. More contracts.

Some of the more industrious build a common wall around their homes and call it a city. The decide that all denizens of the city (citizens) have to agree to certain rules if they want the protection of the wall. Those who refuse either leave, or are killed. Those who stay, agree to the contract.

Cities promise other cities they will send men to aid in time of attack. Men who promised to fight to defend their own city are now compelled to defend other cities, and people they don't even know. Compelled by what? Contract.

Alliances form and dissolve. Countries are born. "Born," as though they are living creatures. We always say, "France did this," or "England did that." But countries are not living beings. They are groups of people who share many common contracts.

The United States of America has a Constitution which few of its own people who are alive today have ever read. Even the members of its Congress, who we can presume have read the Constitution, don't follow it. Each time they vote to pass a "law," it is supposedly done with the authority of the Constitution. But no matter how carefully one might read the Constitution, they won't find any section empowering Congress to pass those so-called laws.

I have searched the Constitution, and I can't find a single line in the whole document that tells the people living in America what they can or cannot do. The document is nothing more, or less, than an instruction manual for government. It presumes to grant certain powers to the people who work in government capacities. Mostly it limits what they can do, and what they can't. But it doesn't say a thing about you, or me, or anyone else living in the country.

I have asked literally thousands of people this question: "Did you, or anyone you know, actually sign the Constitution? How about the Federal Statutes? State Statutes?" Without exception, everyone answers "No."

"Did your parents, or event their grandparents sign any of those things?" Again, "No."

And here's the kicker: Even if your parents had signed a contract, agreeing to all the "laws," would they have had the authority to obligate you, once you became an adult? The answer is "No, not if each adult has free agency."

"Well then," you ask, "how can any laws apply to me?" And the answer is, "They don't, unless you agree to them." It's all voluntary, right up to the point where you enter into some kind of contract.

The contract can be written, such as an application for driver's license. Or it can be as easy as accepting a "free" handout. Nothing in this world is free. Any time a benefit is given, you can be sure there is an obligation attached somehow.

Many of the things people do, day in and day out, obligate them to contracts without them realizing it.

For example, people register a birth-certificate for their children; get them a Social Security Number, and send them off to "free" government schools. Then they cry out in anguish if the government takes their children away for the slightest infraction. They cry, "These are my children; they're not property of the State!" But they are wrong. Their children became property of the State when the parents put them in the State's care.

Governments resort to this kind of trickery out of necessity. Remember, laws are voluntary. Without law, the only means of compulsion is violence. Governments are good at violence, by their very nature. But government agents are always outnumbered. So they bluff.

They tell us we are subject to laws, and we believe them. They lay benefits at our feet, and the moment we pick them up, we become subject to their quasi-contracts. They tell us we must apply for a license to do something we have the right to do without the license. But once we obtain the license, we are obligated to the rules of the contract. Here's a real-life example:

My father was a land developer most of his life. He started a large development in Michigan, in the 1970s. He didn't have much cash, and he was using all the leverage he could. At the time, even by commonly accepted "laws," he wasn't required to have a real estate broker's license, because his company owned the land.
It was about this time that Michigan started passing all kinds of anti-development laws. The idea (though few knew it then) was to put all developers out of business. He was already half-way into building roads and surveying, when some of these very restrictive laws were passed.

It would have been impossible for Dad to comply. So he had only two choices: non-compliance, or bankruptcy. When Frank Kelly, the Michigan Attorney General tried to prosecute, Dad argued that all those regulations with which he was in non-compliance were tied to the Real Estate section of the Occupational Code. Since Dad wasn't licensed, the regulations didn't apply to him. The AG's response?

Real Estate Broker's licenses have always been very hard to get. You have to show that you've already been licensed, and actively working as a Salesman for at least three years. Then you have to pay a fee, and take a very difficult test. Many people who have been working in Real Estate for twenty years, can't pass this test.

In about 1978, Dad sat in a private meeting with the AG, in the AG's office. Kelly offered to grant Dad a Broker's license, on the spot. No fee, no test. Waive the Salesman's requirement. Dad told me later that he almost jumped at it. But then he realized that Kelly only wanted him to have a license to get a handle on him. If he'd have agreed to accept the license, Kelly would have shut down his development the same day.

There are many of us today who are being bled dry by unjust "laws." Does anything I've said here help bring some relief? You be the judge.

I don't think, at least at this time, we can escape the law buzzards completely. But we should be conscious of what contracts we enter into. Try to limit their number and scope, as much as possible. Realize that the biggest impediment to our success and freedom in this world, is the wall we build around our own minds.

Later we'll explore other terms. Escheat, adhesion, and authority come to mind. Until next time...

--Gregory Allan.

(Isaiah 33:22) For the Lord is our judge, the Lord is our lawgiver, the Lord is our king; he will save us.

The Lawful Path     -     http://lawfulpath.com

Copyright 1996, 2014, by Gregory Allan; All rights reserved."