Fundamental Principles of
American Constitutional Law and Government;

with applicability in every nation on earth, and in every state in the union.

A Memorandum/Article Explaining the Fundamental Principles of
Anglo/American Constitutional Law and Government,
and touching on the Divergences there-from.

As Composed by Charles Bruce, Stewart; of Sandy Oregon

Last Edit; April, 2006; V-3.0

Introduction:

This document is written with the intent to empower the reader to effectively argue that 'American Constitutional-Law', when correctly comprehended; is devoted to the Singular 'End Goal' of achieving 'Harmony' amongst the People of this nation with "Natural-Law"; as that term is applied in its sociological sense, in the organic body-politic of our American national community of "We the People".

This author believes that the singular most powerful argument which can be made in support of this proposition, is that the 'Original Intent' of the honorable Framers of our written American Constitution, was that the 'History' of our Anglo/American Jurisprudence should be incorporated into that written "Constitution" document, in large part by way of the "Preamble" of that document, and of the Original Ten "Bill of Rights" provisions. By way of the close examination of this 'History' of the Anglo-American Jurisprudence behind our American Constitutional-Law, as presented here-in; this devotion to securing a society based on "Natural-Law" is intended to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

In this study, a very significant peripheral point needs to be kept in mind, in order to fully comprehend Why this 'Natural-Law' Philosophy is modernly considered to be so un-fashionable. The main point to grasp here is that there are Powerful 'Private Interest Groups' who are attempting to purposefully obscure these very powerful 'Natural-Law' ideas from reaching the minds and hearts of the American people. In fact, these powerful 'Private Interest Groups' have Purposefully Engineered the more modern and presently functioning "Machinery of Government" of these Unites States of America, to Function in "Constitutionally-Lawless" "Un-Natural", and "Oppressive" manners. That discussion will not be seriously explored in this document, but is fairly comprehensively explained in another document by this same author, and entitled: "The DeFacto American Government". This author needs to state this "Conspiracy" proposition, out front; so that other elements of this entire article will fit together, piece by piece; in the larger and very important picture which is here-in sought to be communicated.

In order to illustrate why it is so important to attempt to firmly grasp the "Fundamentals" of our American Constitutional-Law, is illustrated by way of a quote from Washington State's Constitution's "Bill of Rights" at "Article 1 Section 32"; as follows:

"A frequent recurrence to fundamental principles is essential to the security of individual right and the perpetuity of free government."

In order to more fully appreciate this citation, serious students of this subject are asked to picture in their minds, their new observance of a partially hidden and disturbingly noisy machine which is of critical importance to their continued welfare. Clearly, they must discover as much information about the basic mechanical operations of the machine, in oder to judge for them-selves whether or not the noise coming there-from is an indication of the machine's proper or dangerous operation.

By the same token; it is of critical importance for serious students to grasp the Fundamental Principles of of American Constitutional Law and Government, so that they may discern from the noises coming from the public-offices which compose that machinery of government, whether or not those noises are indicators of efficiently balanced mechanical harmony, or whether those noises are indicators of dangerous friction and looming disasters.

Through these studies, one will become empowered to judge for himself whether on not the noises coming from these different offices are proceeding in harmony with higher American Constitutional-Law. This is very powerful knowledge, which less than 1 % of modern Americans presently possess; and once these fundamentals are firmly grasped, they should be tenaciously adhered to.

In the search of these fundamentals of American Constitutional Government; it is pragmatic to attempt to build an honorable consensus around the "Preamble" to the written 1789 "US Constitution" document, which reads as follows:

"We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

Generally speaking, and on its surface; this is a good working statement of the fundamental principles of our American Constitutional Law. This Preamble and the "Bill of Rights" are about all that this author will cite here-in from from that written "U.S. Constitution" document. As implied by the Ninth and Tenth Amendments there-in, a larger study of the History and Philosophy up-on which our American Constitutional-Law are based, will yield much more insightful results than a detailed study of that written document.

This author first wishes to point out two main categories of study covered here-in, consisting of both "Historical" and "Philosophical" sections. The History of the men who fought and died to make this nation free, indicated that they believed in a Philosophy based on "Natural-Law" and "Natural-Rights", and which were then frequently referred to by them as "God-Given Rights". Most of those early American heroes saw No Conflict between this "Natural-Law" philosophy, and the "Laws of God"; and they "Originally Intended" for their Posterity to be governed in full harmony there-with.

As will be shown here-in; the 'History' under-lying our American system of Constitutional-Law can logically be seen as consistently and repeatedly articulating the very same Philosophy of seeking harmony with sociological "Natural-Law". This repeated history of seeking "Natural-Law" will be shown here-in to be the 'primary goal' of our American Constitutional System of Government.

Overview:

For a larger focus or "Overview" of what this subject is all about; it will be good to start with some generally well-accepted Definitions of the word "Constitution" and its related phrases, as follows:

Black’s Law Dictionary 5th Edtn, 1979, West Pub. Co., St Paul Minn.

“Constitution: The organic and fundamental law of a nation or state, which may be written or un-written, establishing the character and conception of it’s government, laying the basic principles to which its internal life is to be conformed, organizing the government, and regulating, distributing, and limiting the functions of the different departments, and prescribing the extent and manner of the exercise of sovereign powers.

A charter of government deriving its whole authority from the governed. The written instrument agreed upon by the people of the Union or of a particular state, as the absolute rule of action and decision for all departments and officers of the government in respect to points covered by it, which must control until it shall be changed by the authority which established it, and in opposition to which any act or ordinance of any such department or officer is null and void. In a more general sense, any fundamental or important law or edict ... .”

“Constitutional Law. (1) That branch of the public law of a nation or state which treats of the organization, powers and frame of government, the distribution of political and governmental authorities and functions, the fundamental principles which are to regulate the relations of government and citizen, and which prescribes generally the plan and method according to which the public affairs of the nation or state are to be administered.

(2) That department of the science of law which treats of constitutions, their establishment, construction, and interpretation, and of the validity of legal enactments as tested by the criterion of conformity to the fundamental law.”

"Fundamental Law. The law which determines the constitution of government in a nation or state, and prescribes the manner of its exercise. The organic law of a nation or state; its constitution."

"Fundamental Right. Those which have their origin in the express terms of the Constitution or which are necessarily to be implied from those terms."

"Organic Law: The fundamental law, or constitution, of a state or nation, written or unwritten. That law or system of laws or principles which defines and establishes the organization of its government."

Unconstitutional. That which is contrary to the constitution. ... This word is used in two different senses. One, which may be called the English sense, is that the legislation conflicts with some recognized general principle. This is no more than to say that it is unwise, or is based upon a wrong or unsound principle, or conflicts with a generally accepted policy. The other, which may be called the American sense, is that the legislation conflicts with some provision of our written Constitution, which is beyond the power of the Legislature to change.

From these citations, this author finds four phrases particularly worthy of extraction and preservation for further examination and discussion here-in. These four phrases are: "Fundamental Law", "Organic Law", "Science of Law", and "Recognized General Principle".

First of all, please note, in our search for the "Fundamental Principles of American Constitutional-Law", properly defined American "Constitutional-Law", is Already "Pre-Existing Fundamental Law". In other words, this search for "Fundamental Principles of American Constitutional-Law", is actually "Redundant". What we are really searching for, are the still unclearly-defined "Fundamental Principles of American Law", without any reference to that monumental written distraction fashionably referred to as the "United States Constitution" document. Only those persons who naively consider that Written "U.S. Constitution" Document to actually some-how be Lawfully Entitled to control the affairs of our government, will need to search any further for these "Fundamental Principles of American Constitutional-Law". However, this author recognizes that those naive people are in the majority, and in order to placate them, they will be indulged at length in this document. This strategy is here-in adopted because that allegedly supreme written national governing document was a compromise between the truly fundamental principles of our nation, and the forces which oppose those fundamental principles. Ans there-under, many passages were purposefully left there-in which contained specific words which were in conflict with other passages there-in, or they used very ambiguous terms. All of that was purposefully insisted on by the more honorable framers of that document so that the modern constitutional-law activists could find footing, as needed, to lawfully 'push the envelope' to effect returns to the more fundamental and organic Laws upon which our nation was truly actually founded.

Please note here-under that, it was Thirteen Years After the Ultimate Battle for Freedom was Already Won by the True Heros of our American nation, that the "johnny-come-lately" Written "United States Constitution" document finally made its mysterious but well-publicized appearance to allegedly save our nation's people from the alleged chaos and anarchy which we were allegedly slipping into.

Yet our American Nation's First First 'Supreme Governing Document' was humbly and modestly called the "Articles of Confederation" (and Perpetual Union). That truly profound document effectively facilitated the ability of our nation's people to voluntarily and non-coercively come-together in "General Congress Assembled", to discuss the "General Principles" of Honorable Collective National Behavior; and there-by to effectively organize so-as-to fight off the most powerful and oppressive nation which then had ever existed on this planet. The humble document under which all of these profoundly heroic actions were undertaken, was derived from the above-mentioned "General Principles" of Constitutional-Law, as inherited by our American People from the "Laws of England", from whence the vast majority of us came.

That document never was so bold as to declare itself to be the "Law of the Land", or a "Constitution"; because, as in times past in England, and now even better; those terms were reserved for the debates in the "General Assembly", as to the honorable course for the peoples delegates to direct the machinery of government to follow.

As clearly stated in the last quote above, the term "Constitutional" in England indicated a "Generally Recognized Principle" or Socially-Organic "Moving Target"; similar to "Justice", "Reasonableness", "Truth", or "Peace". No written document could boast to be the full embodiment, in and of itself, of those very high Principles. Under these then exiting General Principles of English Law; to declare a written document to be "Constitutional", would be acceptable, because that would simply be to declare it to be "Truthful", "Peaceful", "Just" or "Reasonable". And all of those connotations could correctly be applied to the "Declaration of Independence", and to the "Articles of Confederation", because those documents were basically harmonious there-with.

But to claim that any such a document as this, in and of it-self, Was a "Constitution"; would be similar to declaring that that document was, in and of it-self, "Truth", "Reason", "Justice", and/or "Peace".

Under these then generally accepted definitions of these English-Law based terms, such a bold proposition was not at all workable, because the heroic men who famed the "Declaration of Independence" and the "Articles of Confederation" documents, were then humbly asking for fairly well-educated recruits to assist them in fighting against their mutual oppressors from England. Here-under; they dared not play any such word-games with the documents which they were then asking those proud early American heroes to "consent to be governed" by. Those first American Heroes probably did not even consider such usurpations. They then knew full well that such declarations would be viewed as Usurpations of the "General Principles" of the Fundamental, Organic/Constitutional Laws, which they them-selves had derived from the more ancient "Laws of England", and upon which our True American Constitutional Laws and modes of Governing were then actually based.

The "Articles of Confederation" was merely construable as little more than a "Memorandum of Understanding"; it was essentially an un-enforceable pledge amongst honorable communities of men to act together for the mutual protection and benefit of them all. That document was based firmly on the concept of the "Consent of the Governed", as set forth in Americans "Declaration of Independence"; which in abbreviated part reads as follows:

“When in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them to another, and to assume among the powers of the earth the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and Nature’s God entitles them, a decent respect for the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

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. ...

(W)hen a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their security. ...”

Now this is a truly Well-Written Summation of the Truly Fundamental and Organic Laws up-on which our American Nation is based; and it will be referred to frequently here-in. As is logically deducible from the citations and argument presented here-in; the so-called Written "U.S. Constitution" document, as composed in Philadelphia in 1789; under took to "Re-Define" the Pre-Existing Term "Constitution". This activity was undertaken in closed-door and secretive session, out-side of then-existing principle-based organic/fundamental "Constitutional Law", for the explicit purpose of subjecting the American People to a form of private/municipal/corporate government, which could be used, slowly and incrementally, to progressively escalate to higher and higher levels of pillage and plunder of the Organic Body-Politic of the American People.

That being said, further detailed discussion concerning the lawlessness of the colorably adopted 1789 Written "U.S. Constitution" document, will be removed into one or more chapter devoted to that issue in an entirely different and probably accompanying document entitled: "The DeFacto American Government". And in order to provide better focus, the issue of the relevance of our nation's "Articles of Confederation" to our nations True "Constitutional-Law", will be discussed later in this document. Here-under; a narrower focus can be maintained, and this document will be completed in a much more prompt and readable manner.

The specific Provisions in the allegedly supreme written national governing document which can be proven to be Not a part of the "Pre-Existing Fundamental-Law" of our American Nation, are shown clearly by the above citations to Not be a Truly "Constitutional" Part of our True American Constitutional System of Government. It is praise-worthy that Black's Law Dictionary, which does seem to make compromises in other areas, has continued to retain these more true and honest Definitions of this critically important word "Constitution". This citation, from this modern and reputable law-dictionary, shows clearly that the basic term "Constitution" has not been changed by the adoption of the written "U.S. Constitution" document. This means that America's Fundamental/Organic Law is still the Same as it was between 1776 and 1789! This means that, even under modern American "Constitutional Law", that and and all specific provisions in that allegedly supreme written governing document which can be clearly proven to be "In Conflict" with the Fundamental/Organic General-Principles of Law upon which our American Nation was truly founded, can and should be surgically-removed there-from.

Here-under it will be clearly shown that only the good principles embodied with-in that allegedly supreme written national governing document are salvageable; because the bad provisions are in conflict with the over-riding concerns of the good provisions, and since "Law" can-not be in conflict with it-self, something must give, and that means the lesserly important & non-fundamental provisions must be deleted.

Further; the above citation shows that the term "Constitution", is properly defined as "Organic Law". This was the proper definition of this term before the alleged adoption of the 1789 written "U.S. Constitution" document; and at least lip service continued on to be given to that definition for long periods of history after that event. Please note further from these citations that, this word "Organic" is a "Scientific" term, and that this entire focus on American "Constitutional-Law" may also be termed a "Science of Law" focus.

Here-under; our American Constitutional-Law system is recognizable under the "Natural Sciences", and it denotes a living-breathing entity, or an "Organism". It can be a single-celled unit, a multi-celled animal or plant, or a Voluntary "Collective"; like a school of fish, a flock of birds; or even an organic Human "Community of People", which could more appropriately in this discussion be termed as a "Body-Politic". Among societies of people, these Natural/Organic Communally-Accepted "Laws", would regulate such things as how they would collectively breath quality air, drink and bathe in clean water, eat nutritional food, and provide for their clothing and shelter. Those sociologically natural-organic-constitutional "Laws" historically have resolved those simple concerns without very much difficulty.

Beyond these more simple concerns; the Natural, Organic, and Constitutional Law up-on which our nation is based, have solidified other specific sociological rules and "norms of behavior", which are specifically designed for Identifying and Defending our organic-community body-politic from Socially "Violent", "Parasitical", or other-wise Dangerous People. The smallest communities of life-forms on this planet will defend them-selves against hostile invaders. Even single-celled organisms like the "ameba" will defend them-selves from hostile invaders. Schools of fish and flocks of birds will defend them-selves from hostile invaders. This author presumes that every community of humans which has ever existed on his planet, has organized some kind of police-force to defend it-self from hostile invaders. This is a Natural, Organic, and Fundamental "Law", which applies to All Communities of people, not just to Americans.

It just so-happens that our true American "Constitutional-Law" contains a very ancient and very rich source of "Tools of Law" for Identifying and Removing from our organic body-politic those very same "Hostile Invaders"; and even our other-wise seriously-compromised written national "U.S. Constitution" document recognizes and preserved to "We the People" these "Tools of Law". Even that written "U.S. Constitution" document supports the Right of Individual Members of "We the People" to "Push the Envelope" of these boldly unfashionable ideas, to the point that All "Public Servants" are to be subjected to at least Equal or Greater Levels of Scrutiny, for any Hostile/Damaging Activities (Crimes) which they might commit against the Individual Members of the Organic Body-Politic of "We the People". No Person is "Above the Law" under our American System of Constitutional Government; and that include "Public Servants"; and Even our Written "U.S. Constitution" Document can be shown to recognize this "Fundamental Principle".

That very serious issue of holding Public-Servants fully Accountable for the Crimes which they may commit against individual members of our American Organic Body-Politic, are much more fully discussed in a probably accompanying memorandum-document by this same author, and entitled "Quo-Warranto for the Common People".

Now, with these preliminary over-view concepts of our nations Fundamental/Organic Constitutional-Laws firmly in mind; the under-lying Philosophical Aspects of our American System of Constitutional-Law and Government will now be examined more closely, as follows:

General Natural-Law Principles under-lying our
American Constitutional System of Government:

In order to fully comprehend the fundamental principles of our modern American system of constitutional law and government; it is good to review the general "Philosophy" of what our American Constitutional system is all about. If, for purposes of discussion, we at least temporarily set-aside the "Religious" element in all of this; then the more secularly discernible remaining body of philosophical thought may accurately be summarized as Sociological “Natural-Law”. Here-under; this text starts with a citation form “Principles of Business Law” (10th Edition, Corley and Robert, Prentice Hall Inc. 1975, Chapter 1, Law and its Sources, Pages 5 and 6) which reads as follows:

“Law is 'a rule of conduct arising out of the natural relations of human beings established by the Creator, existing prior to any positive precept, discovered by right, reason and the rational intelligence of man.' (Kent) ... This definition gives significance to the idea that man by nature seeks an ideal of absolute right and justice as a higher law by which to measure all other rules of conduct.

Law, when set against a background of divine principles, becomes a rule of reason, pronounced by reasonable men for the benefit of mankind and the establishment of the good community. Man as a reasonable being is able to distinguish between good and evil. Above him there exists law resting on reason and divine authority, which validates man-made law. Thus, when the state by legislation or by judicial process lays down rules of conduct that are unfair, unreasonable, or inimicable to the common good, they are in violation of natural or divine law.”

Such citations as this do shed sufficient light so as to make it self-evident that this general concept of “Natural Law” is the most Fundamental Body of Principles of Law known to mankind. From words such as the above; our American people may find Reason for “Hope”, and perhaps even for “Faith”, that by close adherence to such Sociological “Natural Laws”, our American people can obtain that "Justice", "Domestic Tranquility" (Peace), and "More Perfect Union"; as so eloquently framed in the "Preamble" to our 1789 written "U.S. Constitution" document. The men who framed that written "Constitution" document, affirmed at least token approval of the pre-existing idea that this Sociological “Natural Law” is Supreme over all other man made Rules and Regulations. For example; to again cite the famous English legal scholar, "William Blackstone", who wrote just a few years before the American Revolutionary War, as follows:

“The law of nature, being ... dictated by God Himself, is ... 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 their force, and all authority ... from this original.”

Others such as Grotius, Rosseau, Locke, and many others had also written at great lengths about the necessity for conforming to those “Natural Laws” which seemingly Must govern all human affairs, in order for human Happiness, Peace, and Safety to be Secured. Their voluminous collective writings were distilled at the penning of the "Declaration of Independence", by Thomas Jefferson; who wrote:

These choice passages from America's "Declaration of Independence", really frame the entire issue sought to be addressed by this article very well; and this document will be frequently cited here-in. But here-under may be recognized that, the “Primary Purpose” for the Existence of Constitutional Government with-in these United States of America, is to Secure “Justice”, “Safety”, “Peace”, and “Liberty”, for “We the People”. This is precisely what the above-quoted passages from our nations "Declaration" says. These Rights of our common American People are all parts of sociological "Natural-Law", as specifically declared in that "Declaration". That Declaration was specifically "Not Repudiated" by the 1789 written "U.S. Constitution" document; and in fact, the Ninth and Tenth Amendments were specifically adopted for the express purpose of retaining the under-lying body of each and every "Fundamental Principle of Lawful Government" which was so eloquently set-forth there-in.

Here-under; the point should be clear that “Natural-Law” is that Foundational Cornerstone of greatest importance with-in our "American Constitutional-Law". Many State Constitutions have specific “Natural Rights” provisions, including Oregon. Indeed, the words specifically stated in the "Preamble" to the "U.S. Constitution" document, such as Peace, Justice, and a "More Perfect Union"; are all only coherently recognizable, if those words are viewed from with-in a frame-work of Sociological "Natural-Law". There will be more supportive citations and discussion set forth on support of this proposition further-on in this document.

This entire issue of "Linkage" between our modern American Constitutional-Law, and "Natural-Law"; is an issue which is a very far-reaching and "Fundamental". In further pursuit there-of; it is good to contemplate writings from those who have spoken with tones of authority on the subject, such as follows:

Professor Hart; 54 Columbia Law Review 489-497 (1954)

“The law which governs daily living in the United States is a single system of law; it speaks in relation to any particular situation with only one ultimately authoritative voice, however difficult it may be on occasion to discern in advance which of two or more conflicting voices really carries authority. In the long run and in the large, this must be so. People repeatedly subjected, like Pablov’s dogs, to two or more inconsistent sets of directions, without means of resolving the inconsistencies, could not fail in the end to react like the dogs did. The society, collectively, would suffer a nervous breakdown.” * * *

“In any system of government, responsibility for doing these things is divided among the governments various branches. In the federal system, it is further divided among the government and the governments of the states and their political subdivisions. * * *

“Nowhere is the theory and practice of American federalism more significantly revealed than in the constitutions of the states. These constitutions assume responsibility for dealing, and claim authority to deal, with the whole gamut of problems cast up out of the flux of everyday life in the state, save only in the particular respects in which the Federal Constitution or statutes deprive the states of any competence whatever or provide for an overriding or displacing federal law. They announce clearly, in Madison’s words, that whereas the powers of the federal government ‘consist of special grants taken from the general mass of power [we the state governments] possess the general mass with special exceptions only.”

This scholarly law article from “Professor Hart”, as he wrote for the “Columbia Law Review”; clearly Explains that there is a “Single System of Law” which “Governs Daily Living in the United States”. Multitudes of other similar sources all say basically the same thing, all from a myriad of interesting different angles and voices. These many sources truly “Speak ... with Only One Ultimately Authoritative Voice”; just as Professor Hart above so declares. Here-under; in American society, True "Law" is Universally Recognized, by all honorable Americans; just like the "Law of Gravity" is universally recognized by all honorable scholars who study the natural sciences, as a "Natural-Law".

To achieve this end, below is presented a number of quotations. Many of these will fit smoothly for Defining the “Constitutional State” Ideal, while others are designed to Define what a “Constitutionally-Lawless” State or Nation should look like. They read as follows:

Black’s Law Dictionary, West Pub. Co., St Paul Minn. (mostly from 5th edition)

Body Politic of Corporate: A social compact by which the whole people covenants with each citizen, and each citizen with the whole people, that all shall be governed by certain laws for the common good ... A term applied to a corporation ... Municipality ... School District ... State or nation or public associations ... (Black’s 4th)

Common law. ... "Common law" consists of those principles, usage and rules of action applicable to government and security of persons and property which do not rest for their authority upon any express and positive declaration of the will of the legislature. ... In a broad sense, “common law" may designate all that part of the positive law, juristic theory, and ancient custom of any state or nation which is of general and universal application, thus marking off special or local rules or customs.”

Confederation: A league or compact for mutual support, particularly of nations, or states. Such was the colonial government during the revolution.

Federal Government: The system of government administered in a nation formed by the union or confederation of several independent states. ... a confederation ... denotes a league or permanent alliance between several states, each of which is fully sovereign and independent, and each of which retains full dignity, organization and sovereignty, though yielding to the central authority a controlling power for a few limited purposes, such as external and diplomatic relations. In this case, the controlling states are the units, with respect to the confederation, and the central government acts upon them, not upon the individual citizens. ...

General Law: A law that affects the community at large. A general law as contradistinguished from one that is special or local, is a law that embraces a class of subjects or places, and does not omit any subject or place naturally belonging to such class. A law, framed in general terms, restricted to no locality, and operating equally upon all of a group of objects, which, having regard to the purposes of the legislation, are distinguished by characteristics sufficiently marked and important to make them a class by themselves, is not a special or local law, but a general law. A law that relates to a subject of a general nature, or class, while one relating to particular persons or things of a class is a “special law:”

Malum in se: A wrong in itself; an act or case involving illegality from the very nature of the transaction, upon principles of natural, moral, and public law. An act is said to be malum in se when it is inherently and essentially evil, that is, immoral in its nature and injurious in its consequences, without any regard to the fact of its being noticed or punished by the law of the state. Such are most or all of the offenses cognizable at common law (without the denouncement of statute); as murder larceny, etc.

Organic Law: The fundamental law, or constitution, of a state or nation, written or unwritten. That law or system of laws or principles which defines and establishes the organization of its government.

Organic Act: ... A statute by which a municipal corporation is organized and created is its “organic act” and the limit of its power, so that all acts beyond the scope of the powers there granted are void.

Organize. To establish or furnish with organs; to systemize; to put into working order; to arrange in order for normal exercise of its appropriate functions.

Public Law: A general classification of law; consisting generally of constitutional, administrative, criminal, and international law, concerned with the organization of the state, the relation between the state and the people who compose it, the responsibilities of public officers to the state, to each other, and to private persons, and the relations of states to one another. An act which relates to the public as a whole. ... That branch or department of law which is concerned with the state in its political or sovereign capacity, including constitutional and administrative law; and with the definition, regulation, and enforcement of rights in cases where the state is regarded as the subject of the right or object of the duty, - including criminal law and criminal procedure, ...

Social contract or compact: In political philosophy, a term applied to the theory of the origin of society associated chiefly with the names of Hobbes, Locke, and Rousseau ... . ... Laws resulted from the combination of men, who agreed for mutual protection, to surrender individual freedom of action ... Government must therefore rest on the consent of the governed.

State: A people permanently occupying a fixed territory bound together by common-law habits and custom into one body politic, exercising, through the medium of an organized government, independent sovereignty and control over all persons and things within its boundaries, capable of making war and peace and of entering into international relations with other communities of the globe. ... The organization of social life which exercises sovereign power on behalf of the people. ... In its largest sense, “state” is a body politic or a society of men. A body of people occupying a definite territory and politically organized under one government. State ex rel. Maisano v. Mitchell, ... A territorial unit with a distinct general body of law. ... Term may refer to a body politic of a nation (e.g. United States) or to an individual governmental unit of such nation (e.g. California). ... The people of a state, in their collective capacity, considered as the party wronged by a criminal deed, the public, as in the title of a cause, “The State vs A.B.”

De facto: In fact, in deed, actually. This phrase is used to characterize an officer, a government, a past action, or a state of affairs which must be accepted for all practical purposes, but is illegal or illegitimate. Thus an office, position or status existing under a claim or color of right such as a de facto corporation. In this sense, it is the contrary of de jure, which means rightful, legitimate, just or constitutional. Thus an officer, king, or government de facto is one who is in actual possession of the office or supreme power, but by usurpation, or without lawful title; while an officer, king, or government de jure is one who has just claim and rightful title to the office or power; but has never had plenary possession of it, or is not in actual possession. ...

De facto government: One that maintains itself by a display of force against the will of the rightful legal government and is successful, at least temporarily, in overturning the institutions of the rightful legal government by setting up its own in lieu thereof.

Mala Prohibita: Prohibited wrongs or offences; acts which are made offences by positive law, and prohibited by such. Acts or omissions which are made criminal by statute: but which, of themselves, are not criminal. Generally, no criminal intent, or mens rea is required and the mere accomplishment of the act or omission is sufficient for criminal liability. Term is used in contrast to mala in se which are acts which are wrongs in themselves such as robbery.

To elaborate with special insight on one specific definition above, from another older and frequently precious source, i quote from Law Dictionary; by John Bouvier; 1856; as follows:

“State, government. ... This word ... (i)n its most enlarged sense, it signifies a self-sufficient body of persons united together in one community for the defence of their rights, and to do right and justice to foreigners. In this sense, the state means the whole people united into one body politic; (q. v.) and the state, and the people of the state, are equivalent expressions. ...”

There are multitudes of similar citations, many of which are more powerful than these. But these are convenient to reproduce here, and they seem to make the point adequately. The above citations are as much for this writers reference, as for that of the reader. Surely, even the readers of simplest of minds can see the profound and very broad-based "Natural-Law" based "Fundamental Principles of American Constitutional Law and Government" which are involved in these definitions.

From the above definitions, such comparatively unfamiliar terms as “Body-Politic” and “Organic-Law” can be seen in the larger perspective of such more common terms as "Constitutional-Law" and "Natural Law". These two former terms clearly relate to an “Organic Body”, with Individual People forming its Many Sociological Component-Parts. This term “Body-Politic” is specifically meant to denote a Group of People moving together for their Mutual Protection and Benefit. Again; this is all analogous to a “flock of birds” or “school of fish”; acting together, in concert, organically and harmoniously. These are tangible/real entities, with solidly-physical component-parts. Each of these entities are logically recognizable as Voluntarily-Forming Their Own Separate physical, collective, Organic-Community. A Community of People such as this is a “Constitutional Body-Politic”, specifically and only because it is an “Organic Body-Politic”. The terms “Organic” and “Constitutional” being clearly “Equivalent”; just as the terms “State” and “People” are “Equivalent”; all as shown in the above quotations.

Also as above quoted; Each American Constitutional “Body-Politic” has been Organically Drawn-Together for the Singular Purpose of “the Defense of Their Rights, and to do right and justice to foreigners”. This is the Singular Purpose for the Formation of the Organic (both Un-Written and Written) Constitutional Social-Compacts. This is true at the Federal, State, and All Lower Levels of Government. This is Clear from the Prioritized Position of the term “Justice” in the very “Preambles” of Both the Federal and State Written “Constitution” Documents.

Under these “Social-Compacts”, the Constitutionally-Recognizable “Rights of the People” are the “Top Priority”. These “Rights of the People” are to be secured by the Lawful “State”. To further support these conclusions, it is good to look to the definition of the term “Right”, as follows:

“Right: As a Noun, and taken in the abstract sense, means justice, ethical correctness, or consonance with the rules of law or the principles of morals. In this signification it answers to one meaning of the Latin “jus”, and serves to indicate law in the abstract, considered as the foundation of all rights, or the complex of underlying moral principles which impart the character of justice to all positive law, or give it ethical content. ... And the primal rights pertaining to men ... existing prior to positive law. But leaving the abstract moral sphere and giving to the term a juristic content, a “right” is well defined as 'a capacity residing in one man of controlling, with the assent and assistance of the state, the actions of others'. As an adjective, the term 'right' means just, morally correct, constant with ethical principles or rules of positive law. It is the opposite of wrong, unjust, illegal. ... A legally enforceable claim of one person against another, that the other shall do a given act or not do a given act. That which one person ought to have or receive from another, it being with held from him, or not in his possession. In this sense, 'right' has the force of 'claim', and is properly expressed by the Latin 'jus'. ... Natural rights are those which grow out of the nature of man and depend upon personality, as distinguished from such as are created by law and depend upon civilized society; ... they are those which are plainly assured by natural law; ... those which, by fair deduction from the present physical, moral, social, and religious characteristics of man, he must be invested with, and which he ought to have realized for him in a jural society, in order to fulfill the ends to which his nature calls him.	(Blacks Law Dictionary, 5th Edition)

In all of these authoritative sources, we find that Anglo-American Jurisprudence considers the term “State” to invoke a Socially-Compacted Relationship where-under specific Individual Members who Solemnly Affirm that they have Suffered a Crime, are Guaranteed the Right to “Control ... Others” ... by way of their “Relationship” with the “State”, until that Accusation has been Fully Resolved. Here-under, Logic Dictates that they will not be able to “Control” those “Others”, Unless they can also Control the “Public-Servants” of that “State”.

When a Member of the “Social-Compact” is Directly and Physically Injured by a Criminal Act, it is an Injury To Every-Other Member of that Socially-Compacted Community. It is a “Breach of the Peace”, a “Trespass”, a “Common-Law Crime” of “Malum in Se”, aka: “a Wrong in It’s-Self”. All Members of such communities are Bound-Together under the Terms of this “Social-Compact”, to Defend the Rights of Each-Other against all such Physical Crimes. It is like banging your thumb with a hammer. When one member of the body suffers pain, all other true members of that same body sympathetically and empathetically feel that same pain. These are Natural/Organic “Laws”, and they are the Same for All Organic “Bodies-Politic”, and they are the Same for All “Constitutional States”. This is Why the above citations indicate that “Organic Law” is the same as “Constitutional-Law”.

In order for these powerful concepts to be respected, immense amounts of power need to be placed in the hands of the common people. True to these higher principles of "Law", our American System of Constitutional Government recognizes well that this immense amount of power is truly inherent in the common American people. This point is set forth well in the following citation:

“And the Constitution itself is in every real sense a law - the 'Lawmakers being the People themselves', in whom under Our System All Political Power and Sovereignty primarily Resides, and through whom such Power and Sovereignty primarily Speaks. It is by that law, and not otherwise, that the legislative, executive, and judicial agencies which it created exercise such political authority as they have been permitted to possess.

The Constitution speaks for itself in terms so plain that to misunderstand their import is not rationally possible. 'We the people of the United States', it says, 'do ordain and establish this Constitution ...'. Ordain and Establish! These are definite words of enactment, and without more would stamp what follows with dignity and character of law. The framers of the Constitution, however, were not content to let the matter rest here, but provided explicitly - 'This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; ... shall be the supreme Law of the Land;...' The supremacy of the Constitution as law is thus declared without qualification.

That supremacy is absolute; the supremacy of a statute enacted by Congress is not absolute but conditioned upon its being made in pursuance to the Constitution. And a judicial tribunal, clothed by that instrument with complete judicial power, and, therefore, by the very nature of the power, required to ascertain and apply the law to the facts in every case or proceeding properly brought for adjudication, must apply the supreme law and reject the inferior statute whenever the two conflict.”	Carpenter v. Carter, 298 US 296 (1935)

This citation emphasizes clearly the great power and authority which resides in the common American people. It also states that “a judicial tribunal * * * (is) required to ascertain and apply the law to the facts in every case or proceeding properly brought for adjudication, ...”. Here-under, the Judges before whom any accompanying complaint have been presented, are “Required” to “Ascertain and Apply the Law to the Facts” of this Complaint, directly against those Individuals named there-in”. Another citation in support of all of this, is the following:

"We [Judges] have no more right to decline the exercise of jurisdiction which is given, then to usurp that which is not given. The one or the other would be treason to the Constitution."

U.S. v. Will, ... 1980; Cohens v. Virginia, ... 1821.

These are clearly very powerful citations. They clearly recognize that, under True American Constitutional-Law, immense amounts of power are inherent in each and every American, and that Public-Servants (such as Judges) have "Duties" to Follow American Constitutional-Law, and if they willfully dis-obey their Duties there-under, they can be charged with "Treason".

To now build on this more broadly-based foundation of concepts and terminology; Professor Hart has declared above that the “Constitutions of the States” are where one must look in order to find “Revealed” the “Theory and Practice of American Federalism”. America’s “State Constitutions” are not obsolete/archaic documents, as some would infer. While being fully aware that numerous scholars such as U.S. Supreme Court Judge Thurgood Marshall, and even this author; at least begrudgingly admit that there are numerous Flaws in our various written State and Federal Constitutions; yet from the above citations, it is a clear “Fundamental Principle” of our American Constitutional-Law that all of these foundational documents unanimously profess to seek sociological-harmony with our American National Community's Higher “Natural/Organic Law” .

Early American Constitutional Government

Regardless of the apparent adoption of a "Civil" form of American national government; the Framers of our nations 1789 written "U.S. Constitution" document, unanimously agreed that the smaller jurisdictions, of the States, Counties, Precincts, and Townships; were all basically to remain in place, all basically under then already pre-existing and well-settled modes of local responsible self-governing, and subject only to revision by the free-choices of the people residing there-in. And although it seems also that most of the States also adopted "Civil" forms of governing; it remains undeniable that the even smaller jurisdictions, especially concerning the Counties, Precincts, and Townships; were firmly rooted in an entirely Different Model of Self-Governing. That Model has been traditionally recognized to be based on a very ancient body of laws, derived from the laws of England, and traditionally known simply as the "Common-Law". This point is well illustrated by the following partial citation, from 'Black's Law Dictionary' 5th edition, 1970, as follows:

"State: A people permanently occupying a fixed territory bound together by common-law habits and custom into one body politic, exercising, through the medium of an organized government, independent sovereignty and control over all persons and things within its boundaries, ... The organization of social life which exercises sovereign power on behalf of the people. ... In its largest sense, “state” is a body politic or a society of men. ... The people of a state, in their collective capacity, considered as the party wronged by a criminal deed, the public, as in the title of a cause, 'The State vs A.B.'"

This citation is set forth more completely, along with other related citations from 'Blacks Law Dictionary', further on here-in. But as can be seen above, with-in our American Constitutional system of Government, the People who organically compose the "State" are suppose to be "bound together by common-law habits and customs". This is a Powerful 'Fundamental Principle' of our American Constitutional Form of Government; and it is repeated again in another very powerful citation, as follows:

" ... no fact tried to jury, shall be otherwise reexamined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law." Seventh Amendment; U.S. Constitution.

This powerful wording clearly indicates that the "Rules of the Common-Law" were Originally Intended to be very Commonly Practiced in the Courts of the Federal Government of these United States of America; and the implication is clear there-under that many State and Local Courts were similarly designed to operate in accord with these "Rules of the Common-Law". Further; the terminology used here-in, indicates that there are less powerful modes of procedure available in the federal courts, and perhaps in other courts; but that these "Rules of the Common-Law" seem to be the Most Powerful kind of "Rules of Procedure" which these Federal Courts are capable of following. This wording indicates that if a fact which has not been tried by a jury, but then comes before a federal court; that this fact may be tried by any among a possibly very large number of modes of procedure. But if that fact has been tried by a jury, then the only procedure which is lawful for those federal courts to follow, is that specifically narrow procedure which follows "the rules of the common-law". This wording clearly indicates that these "Rules of the Common-Law" are very powerful rules, which place serious constraints on the discretion which the judges of the federal courts can exercise during their administration of the affairs of that court.

Now this phrase, the "Rues of the Common-Law", is not really very common in modern American terminology, even in the realms of the court rooms of this nation; and so a bit of further explanation is in order here, which is provided through 'Black's Law Dictionary' again, with the following citation:

"Lex Terra: The law of the land. The common law, or the due course of the common law; the general law of the land. Equivalent to “due process of law”. In the strictest sense, trial by oath; the privilege of making oath."

This citation shows that the phrases "Common-Law' and 'Due Process of Law' mean basically the same thing. So, above when the Seventh Amendment speaks of federal civil courts being required to follow the "Rules of the Common-Law" with regard to trying any facts which have already been tried by a Jury, they are speaking of following traditional American constitutional "Due Process of Law". Clearly, these "Rules of the Common-Law" are very powerful and 'Fundamental' provisions with-in our American Constitutional system of government.

To explain the mechanical details of how this localized "Common-Law" Process can reasonably be expected to work to provide for the "Responsible Self-Governing" of these smaller communities; it is good here to explain here a specific traditional American "Process" for causing this “Natural Law” to manifest it-self, all in clearly-recognizable manners, in each and every one of these smaller and more Localized Jurisdictions of our American society. Under the modernly very rare circumstances where-in this Process is properly followed; Harmony with these supreme Sociological “Laws of Nature” can be Scientifically and Consistently Secured. Yet, in the minds of the average modern American, this Process may seem totally incomprehensible. This process, is nothing less than the institution of our traditional Anglo/American "Trial by Jury" process, as conducted in conformity with our American-Constitutional "Due Process of Law" concept.

Here-under; the Twelve Members who are to compose these Juries are to be selected from the 'Reputable Members of the Community', usually at the Precinct level, of about 100 households. These Jurors are to be selected by the Elected Chief "Justice of the Peace" there-in. These Jurors need to be "Fully Informed" of that traditional Anglo/American "Course" of step-by-step Procedures which has been anciently referred to as "Due Process of Law", as recognizable under the "Fifth-Amendment"; and as the "Rules of the Common-Law", as set forth in the "Seventh-Amendment".

These Jurors are to Openly Deliberate, with-out any meddling from any civil-judge; and when they there-by use their "Consciences" and "Reasoning" abilities, to voluntarily arrive at a “Unanimous" Verdict; Then Harmony with Sociological "Natural-Law" has been Achieved. This "Trial by Jury" process, as Originally Intended in our American Constitutional System of Government, is fairly well explained in a law-school “Hornbook” entitled “Civil Procedure”, which is available through “West Publishing Company”; and as authored by Friedenthal, Kane and Miller, in 1985. On pages 476 and 477, it states as follows:

“In America ... (t)he right of juries to decide questions of law was widely accepted in the colonies, especially in criminal cases. Prior to 1850, the judge and jury were viewed as partners ... . The jury could decide questions of both law and fact, ... Legal theory and political philosophy emphasized the importance of the Jury in divining natural law, which was thought to be a better source for decision than the 'authority of black letter maxim.' Since natural law was accessible to lay people, it was held to be the duty of each juror to determine for himself whether a particular rule of law embodied the principles of the higher natural law. Indeed, it was argued that the United States Constitution embodied a codification of natural rights so that "the reliance by the jury on a higher law was usually viewed as a constitutional judgement * * *."

This is how “Natural Law” is “Divined” among communities of honorable people. It is not all that complex, once the fundamentals are comprehended. It is very difficult to get 12 people to unanimously agree on anything. Once that difficult task is finally accomplished, among people of honorable reputation in their communities; then it is reasonable to conclude that Sociological "Natural-Law" has been discovered there-by. These very powerful concepts will be re-examined gain later in this document.

With these powerful terms all placed together, and fully comprehended, it is good now attempt to fully grasp the entire picture involved here. In that spirit, this author now presents some very powerful excerpt from a very powerful book; as follows:

“Administrative Justice and the Supremacy of Law in the United States”; John Dickenson, 1927; by the President and Fellows of Harvard College; 1955. On pages 84-88; he writes:

“To the Middle Ages and the men who were the heirs of the Middle Ages ... law was a transcendental force, “the breath of God, the harmony of the world,” clothed with an inherent and independent authority, and ruling the sovereign from above and without, as the sovereign in his own turn ruled from above and without the individuals and groups who were his subjects. This was the idea which had been used as a weapon against kings in the Middle Ages; one of the counts in the indictment against Richard II was that he had enforced enactments which were erroneous and repugnant to the law and to reason. And this was the idea for which Coke did battle against James.

What was the nature and content of this law, which was not the creature of government but was above government? The idea, as a practical force appears to have had a Teutonic and not Roman origin. The Romans made much, of course, of natural law; but at the time of the invasions they had come to recognize positive law as deriving its authority from the will of the emperor - that is, as we should say, from the government. The Germanic conception of positive law, on the other hand, was the product of less sophisticated institutions. The law that they knew was custom - the immemorial usages which had crystallized within the tribe and were pronounced from time to time in the solemn dooms of the elders. 'It was part of the national or tribal life; it had grown with the tribe, changing, no doubt, but the people or the tribe were hardly conscious of the changes.' 'To them the law was not something made or created at all ... legislative acts were not expressions of will, but records or promulgations of that which was recognized as already binding upon men.' Law was thus naturally conceived as a permanent thing, something always existing and to be found by the elders in council, announced by them but not made. In fact, the greatest possible violation of law was to change it. Hence the clamor against progressive kings raised throughout the Middle Ages by people, demanding back their “good old laws”; every reform had to be distinguished under the appearance of a restoration of long lost legal rights. Gradually from Roman courses filtered in the idea of a law of nature, in England spoken of as simply a law of reason ... Forescure, whom Coke follows in the main on this point, says ... statute does not make new law; it promulgates, and gives greater emphasis and clarity to, what had always been law before.

It is the peculiar relation which subsisted in England between “natural law” or the “law of reason,” on the one hand, and the customary law of the land on the other, that lends the English common law its distinctive flavor. Common law was essentially custom, but it was also something more: it consisted of customs which were regarded as reasonable ... . The common law thus conceived was fused of ... custom (and) ... the “perfection of reason”. So ... was the manner in which these two elements united to form it, that it was a science ... to be known only after hard ... study. On the other hand, such was the intrinsic and independent authority of the elements themselves, natural reason and immemorial tradition, that the common law, so intimately compounded of both, was well qualified from the standpoint of the times to occupy in mens minds a position more venerable than even the sovereign power of a monarch. ... (as) described by Father Figgs:

'The Common Law is pictured invested with a halo of dignity peculiar to the embodiment of deepest principles and to the highest expression of human reason and of the law of nature implanted by God in the heart of man.... there shall be in England as system, older than Kings and Parliament, of immemorial majesty and almost divine authority. ... The Common Law is the perfect ideal of law; for it is natural reason, developed and expounded by collective wisdom of many generations.” Divine Right of Kings, 1st ed., pp.226-228.”

Footnotes: P. 96 97: "Jefferson indicates his belief that common law was a survival of lost enactments of the Saxon period: 'The authentic text of these enactments has not been preserved; but their substance has been committed to many ancient books ans writings, so faithfully as to have been deemed genuine from generation to generation.' The other branch of Wilmont’s doctrine, vis., that common law was natural justice, was adopted by Alexander Hamilton in his argument in People v. Croswell, 3 Johns, Cas. App. 344: 'The common law is natural law & natural reason applied to the state & condition of society.' (Works, ed. Lodge, viii, 421.)"

23: Hooker, Ecclesiastical Polity, Book 1, ch. xvi; or Mr Justice Holmes has phrased it, a brooding in the sky,” Southern Pacific Co. v. Jensen, 244 U.S. 205 at p 222.

27: Discovery of the Theory of Law. This notion of law as something not made, but existing and to be found, was common to European peoples so long as their institutions remained fairly primitive. Thus it forms a part of the well-known definition of law attributed to Demosthens: 'Every law is a discovery, a gift from the Gods, a precept to wise men, a righting of intentional and unintentional wrongs, a compact between all the members of the state, in accordance with which all who are within the state should live', ... For a very early expression of the view that law is a “discovery,” coupled oddly with an anticipation of the doctrine of legislative sovereignty, see Herodotus, III, 31: (Latin) ... For a very late view, see Calvin Coolidge, Have Faith in Massachusetts, p.4 "Men do not make laws. They do but discover them. ... That state is most fortunate in its form of government which has the aptest instruments for the discovery of laws.” For an intermediate view, which dominated the thought of the middle ages, and which identified the “immutable law” with the “law of god,” see St Augistine, De Vera Religione, c. 31: (Latin) ...

This text clearly illustrates how our the ancient Definition of "Law" was viewed by the common people who lived under it; as a system for Discovering Sociological "Natural-Law". And the preceding quote from of the "Civil Procedure" text-book by Friedenthal, Kane, and Miller; clearly indicated that our early American forefathers believed that by their using their "Trial by Jury" Process, they were accomplishing the very same "Discovery of Natural-Law". That same cite further indicated that our early American forefathers also believed that our various written State and National Constitutions "Embodied a Codification of Natural-Rights, so that 'the Reliance by the Jury on a Higher-Law, was usually viewed as a "Constitutional-Judgement". This last citation, is a summary of other very fundamental and powerful citations, and much more could be written here-in based only on those citations and texts. But time constraints plague this author, and so this part of this text will conclude here.

Ancient History of American Constitutional Government

There are many very insightful citations available which reveal precious insight concerning how these smaller jurisdictions were suppose to operate. One especially good citation, which takes us way back to a very different time in history, comes from "The Oregon Blue Book", as published in 1997 by Oregon's Secretary of State; and under its section on “County Government”, where it states the following:

“... the American county, defined by Webster as "the largest territorial division for local government within a state ...," is based on the Anglo-Saxon county of England dating back to about the time of the Norman Conquest. Counties were brought to America by the colonists and were later established in the central and western parts of this country by the pioneers as they moved westward.”

There are numerous other similarly reputable citations which affirm basically the same thing. This citation powerfully supports the proposition that Old English “Law” has been incorporated in large part into the larger body of our Modern American "Constitutional-Law". To argue otherwise, is to argue that “Counties” are not a part of our modern nation's over-all system of general Constitutional-Law and Government. It is unlikely that any modern reputable American constitutional-law scholars will attempt to argue in support of that proposition.

Here-under; it is of critical importance to note the significance of the whole above-referenced 1066-ad “Norman Conquest” event. That event was an immensely tragic event in the history of human freedom. Yet curiously; it seems to be purposefully obscured from our modern knowledge of history. A quick citation here from a reputable publishing company called “Lawyers Co-Op”, in 1947, published a work by George L. Clark; called "Common Law Pleading". It’s first chapter opens by stating :

"Before the Norman conquest of England in 1066, the people were the fountainhead of Justice. The Anglo-Saxon courts of those days were composed of large numbers of freemen, and the law which they administered, was that which had been handed down by oral tradition from generation to generation. In competition with these popular, non-professional courts, the Norman King, who insisted that he was the fountainhead of justice, set up his own tribunals. The judges who presided over these royal courts were the agents or representatives of the king, not of the people; but they were professional lawyers * * * and the courts over which they presided * * * gradually all but displaced the popular, non-professional courts."

"The Anglo-Saxon tribunals had been open to all; every freeman could appeal to them for justice. But there was no corresponding right to sue in the king's courts. That was a privilege which had to be purchased by any suitor who wished to avail himself of * * * royal justice. These privileges were issued to suitors by the king's secretary or chancellor, and the document which evidenced the privilege was called an original writ.”

There are many other citations very similar to this; and those scholars who are aware of this history, and who are honest about it, will not contest the accuracy of the general proposition implied here-in, that profound fundamental change against popularly-supported government was instituted in England at this 1066-ad time of this so-called "Norman Conquest". To be clear, the Anglo-Saxon methods of responsibly “Self-Governing” were less than perfect, as they themselves were invaders from the Germanic nations, hundreds of years earlier. But they shared the same basic and general methodology of de-centralized self governing as the Celts, Brits, and other cultures then in the area; and as a direct result, when their localized conquests were completed, the communities of people who were subjected there-to were not nearly so disastrously oppressed ass what occurred under the totally different and sociologically organic and foreign top-down authoritarian control-oriented Romanistic system which was imposed at the time of the Norman Conquest. Here-under, the Anglo-Saxon culture of Britain preserved the older and truer forms of sociologically-organic "Common-Law"; and the vast majority of the citations on this point are a true delight to read. As with this citation here; these texts illustrate an ancient system of localized, responsible self-governing communities and jurisdictions, which seemingly existed very much in harmony with what can fairly presumed to be a seemingly workable system of sociological "Natural-Law".

It will be good at his juncture to examine a citation which links some very broad time-frame together. Avery valuable text was written just before our American "Declaration of Independence"; at about the year of 1750-ad or so, of the very famous scholar of Anglo/American Constitutional-Law, named William Blackstone. In his famous “Commentaries on the Laws of England”, Mr Blackstone referenced the now 3400 year-old “Laws of Moses", in the following very insightful text:

“SS 43: Early Judicial Systems. – The policy of our ancient constitution, as regulated sand established by the great Alfred, was to bring justice home to every man’s door, by constituting as many courts of judicature as there are manors and townships in the kingdom; wherein injuries were redressed in an easy and expeditious manner, by the suffrage of neighbors and friends. These little courts, however, communicated with others of a larger jurisdiction, and those with others of still greater power; ascending gradually from the lowest to the supreme courts, which were respectively constituted to correct the errors of the inferior ones, and to determine such causes as by reason of their weight and difficulty demanded a more solemn discussion. The course of justice flowing in large streams from the king as the fountain, to his superior courts of record, and being then subdivided into smaller channels, till the whole and every part of the kingdom were plentifully watered and refreshed. An institution that seems highly agreeable to natural reason, as well as of more enlightened policy; being equally similar to that which prevailed in Mexico and Peru before they were discovered by the Spaniards; and that which was established in the Jewish republic by Moses. . . .

In like manner we read of Moses, that finding the sole administration of justice too heavy for him, he “chose able men out of Israel, such as feared God, men of truth, hating covetousness; and made them heads over the people, rulers of thousands, rulers of hundreds, rulers of fifties, and rulers of tens : and they judged the people at all seasons ; and the hard causes they brought unto Moses, but every small matter they judged themselves.” These inferior courts, at least the name and form of them, still continue in our legal constitution : but ... these petty tribunals have fallen into decay, and almost into oblivion ...

Honest historical, legal, and political researchers, will surely recognize that the above very authoritative text has seemingly just shown how two seemingly entirely different bodies of "Law", spanning approximately 3100 years of human history, is all recognizably "Linked-Together". As Mr Blackstone indicates, the history of our American constitutional system of government, reaches back 3400 years into a Christian/Israelite tradition, as set forth in a passage recorded in the Biblical/Torah book of Exodus 18: 14-26; which reads as follows:

“And when Moses' father in law saw all that he did to the people, he said, What is this thing that thou doest to the people? Why sittest thou thyself alone, and all the people stand by thee from morning unto even? And Moses said unto his father in law, Because the people come unto me to enquire of God: When they have a matter, they come unto me; and I judge between one and another, and I do make them know the statutes of God, and His Laws.

And Moses' father in law said unto him, The thing that thou doest is not good. Thou wilt surely wear away, both thou, and this people that is with thee: for this thing is too heavy for thee; thou art not able to perform it thyself alone. Hearken now unto my voice, I will give thee counsel, and God shall be with thee: Be thou for the people to God-ward, that thou mayest bring the causes unto God: And thou shalt teach them ordinances and laws, and shalt shew them the way wherein they must walk, and the work that they must do.

Moreover thou shalt provide out of all the people able men, such as fear God, men of truth, hating covetousness; and place such over them, to be rulers of thousands, and rulers of hundreds, rulers of fifties, and rulers of tens: And let them judge the people at all seasons: and it shall be, that every great matter they shall bring unto thee, but every small matter they shall judge: so shall it be easier for thyself, and they shall bear the burden with thee. If thou shalt do this thing, and God command thee so, then thou shalt be able to endure, and all this people shall also go to their place in peace.

So Moses hearkened to the voice of his father in law, and did all that he had said. And Moses chose able men out of all Israel, and made them heads over the people, rulers of thousands, rulers of hundreds, rulers of fifties, and rulers of tens. And they judged the people at all seasons: the hard causes they brought unto Moses, but every small matter they judged themselves.”

This verse shows that the ancient Israelite nation was directed through its "Torah-Law" to adopt a system of government which was designed to permanently "De-Centralize" that nation's governmental power. This "Torah/Law" commanded the Israelite people to "Responsibly Self-Govern" by way of permanently sup-dividing their collective governmental power, down through a deep-hierarchy, into basic ten-household unit communities. This general description, with its deep-hierarchy, is repeated in the Torah/Biblical book and chapter of Deuteronomy, 1: 13-17.

As Mr Blackstone indicated earlier; this general body of law still survives under our generally recognized "American Constitutional-Law" through that more well-defined and traditionally-recognizable system of governing, which is known simply as “Common-Law”.

The common-law unit of localized self-government known as the “Township” originally consisted of "Ten Families" or Households. The word “Town”, "Ten", "Tenant", "Tenure", and “Tithing”; are all related. The Economic Support for the entire ancient nation of England was Voluntarily Collected by the “Tithing-Man”, or "Deacon"; who was also the directly-elected Police-Officer; Peace-Officer, or “Constable” of that Township. In other words, their tax-collector was also their own directly-elected smaller-jurisdiction spiritual leader, and he also was their directly-elected cop.

The common-law self-governing unit known as the “Precinct” consisted of a “Hundred” Families or Households, which were sub-divided into the Ten Townships. Each "Precinct" had and has the right to Elect their Own Judges, who have traditionally been called the “Justice of the Peace”, or the "Precinct Capitan" ; and who exercised Judicial as well as Executive functions. Although documentation is thin, these chief officers of each of these jurisdictions were probably subjected to "Immediate Recall", from the leaders of the smaller communities below them; if they should ever dare to conspire to abuse the governmental power with which they were entrusted. This is a part of the genius of this deep-hierarchy arrangement; because there-by, each of these governmental jurisdictions only has enough sub-divisions of it's own general body, so that each of the elected leaders of the smaller sub-divisions involved in any specific jurisdiction can call for a "Vote of Confidence" in the previously-elected leader of their immediately larger jurisdiction at any time.

The "Hundreds" of "Hundred Courts" of this ancient torah-law and common-law system of governing, are specifically mentioned in early American colonial writings. By way of the "Social Compact" which the approximately ten-townships of each precinct had entered into; whenever the well-armed people of any individual township faced any kind of organized attack from any group of hostile criminals which they could not safely handle by themselves, the terms of their social-compact obligated them to send "hue and cry" to the "Precinct Capitan" or "Justice of the Peace"; and through him to the remaining Town Constables; to mobilize all remaining members of the Precinct to come to the defence of the Township which was being attacked, and to lend armed-assistance to their fellow Precinct members in that conflict.

And our better known jurisdiction of the "Counties" consisted of approximately a Thousand Families or Households; and it was sub-divided into approximately Ten Precincts, or Hundred Courts. The chief officer of the County has gone by different names in the past, but American Constitutional-Law generally recognizes him as the "County Judge". And when all approximately Ten Precincts got together, they formed a small army, which is still known modernly as "Posse Comitatus", and which was quite capable of defending against very formidable foes.

This is how the "Counties", “Precincts”, and “Townships”, in England and early America were originally Constitutionally Designed to be Organized. The Courts which they ran Proceeded “According to the Rules of the Common-Law”, as those words have been specifically stated in the "Seventh Amendment" to the US Constitution. Here-under, "We" the common American "People" have the Constitutional Right and Duty to form our own smaller communities, so-as-to Elect our Own Police-Officers, called “Constables”; and to elect our own Judges, called "Justices of th Peace".

Some may find the above assertion that our entire modern American "Common-Law" system of County and Precinct government reaches back 3400 years to the times of Moses, a bit audacious. Yet this is precisely what the very reputable Mr Blackstone has so stated. And in further support there-of; the text of the Biblical/Torah passages are quite clear for everyone to review, and even modern law dictionaries show very powerful evidence that this very same 3400 year old system of government is at the very root of our modern American County, Precinct, and Township system of common-law government. And so, it is good here to look for additional "Linkages" between the 3400 year old text in Exodus and Deuteronomy; by examining such fashionably respected authorities as follows:
Blacks Law Dictionary 5th Edition:

“Tithing Man: A constable. ... In New England, a parish officer annually elected to preserve order in the church ... and to make complaint of any dis-orderly conduct. ... In Saxon law, the head or chief of a tithing or decennary of ten families; he was to decide all lesser causes between neighbors. In modern English Law, he is the same as an under-constable or peace-officer.”

“Tithing: One of the civil divisions of England, being a portion of the greater division called a “hundred”. It was so called because ten freeholders with their families composed one. It is said that they were all knit together in one society, and bound ... for the peaceable behavior of each other. In each of these societies there was one chief or principle person, who, from his office, was called “teothing-man” now “tithing-man”.

“Constable: ... He is to preserve the public peace ... He was in general the leader of the royal armies, and had cognizance of all matters pertaining to war and arms, exercising both civil and military jurisdiction. He was also charged with the conservation of the peace of the nation.

“Constituency. The inhabitants of an electorial district.

“Constituent. He who gives authority to another to act for him. The term is used as correlative to "attorney", to denote one who constitutes another as his agent or invests the other with authority to act for him.

“Constiture. Lat(-in). To appoint, constitute, establish, ordain, or undertake. Used primarily in ancient powers of attorney, and now supplanted by the English word "constitute".

“Decanatus:	A deaconry. A company of ten persons. Also a town or tithing consisting originally of ten families of freeholders. Ten tithings compose a hundred.

“Decanus: In Ecclesiastical and old European law, an officer having supervision over ten, a dean. A term applied not only to ecclesiastical, civil but to civil and military, officers. An officer among the Saxons who presided over a friborg, tithing, decannary, or association of ten inhabitants; otherwise called a “tithing man” or “borsholder”, his duties being those of an inferior judicial officer. Decanus militarius; a military officer having command of ten soldiers. In Roman law, an officer having the command of a company ... of ten soldiers.

Hundred: Under the Saxon organization of England, each county or shire was composed of an indefinite number of hundreds, each hundred containing ten tithings, or groups of ten families of freeholders or frank-pledges. The hundred was governed by a high constable, and had it’s own court; but its most remarkable feature was the corporate responsibility of the whole for the crimes or defaults of the individual members. The introduction of this plan of organization into England is commonly ascribed to Alfred, but the idea, as well of the collective liability as of the division, was probably known to the ancient German peoples, as we find the same thing established in the Frankish kingdom under Clothshire, and in Denmark.

Hundred Court: In English law, a larger court-baron, being held for all the inhabitants of a particular hundred, instead of a manor. The free suitors were the judges, and the steward the registrar, as in the case of a court-baron. It was not a court of record, and resembles a court-baron in all respects except that in point of territory it was of greater jurisdiction. ... 3 Bl.Comm. 34, 35.

Precinct: A constable’s or police district. A small geographical unit of government. An election district, created for convenient localization of polling places. A county or municipal subdivision for casting and counting votes in elections.

“Witenagemote: “The assembly of wise men.” This was the great national council or parliament of the Saxons in England, comprising noblemen, high ecclesiastics, and other great thanes of the kingdom, advising and aiding the king in the general administration of government.

It was the grand council of the kingdom, and was held generally in the open air, by public notice or particular summons, in or near some city or populace town. These notices or summonses were issued by the king’s select council, or the body met without notice, when the throne was vacant, to elect a new king. Subsequently to the Norman Conquest it was called “commune concilium regni, cura regis”, and finally “parliament”; but it’s character had become considerably changed. It was a court of last resort, more especially for determining disputes between the king and his thanes, and, ultimately, from all inferior tribunals. Great offenders, particularly those who were members of or might be summoned to the kings court, were tried. The casual loss of title-deeds was supplied and a very extensive equity jurisdiction exercised. 1 Bl.Comm. 147. It passed out of existence with the Norman Conquest, and the subsequent Parliament was a separate growth, and not a continuation of the Witenagemot.

Please note that the "Witenagemote", as referred to above here; was the general congressional legislative assembly of these times; and that it was a very efficient "Unicameral" assembly, so that it could come to make decisions to address the real needs of the people of the nation in a quick and efficient manner. Please note that, in contract to this ancient system, the modern American and English congressional assemblies are divided into Two Bodies. This was done so-as-to Obstruct the assembly's ability to operate in a quick and efficient manner; because from the very start, it was Not Trusted by the American people, or even by their delegates. Yet this Anglo/Saxon Witenagemot congressional assembly was able to operate in this more quick and efficient manner, most likely because it was trusted by the people it governed. From the above description, and other testimony; this ancient unicameral assembly also exercised the "Judicial Power", and it probably also exercised control over the Executive Power of the Monarch. This is all very similar to how affairs were conducted in the general "Congress assembled", as mentioned under the "Articles of Confederation", at it ran for approximately thirteen years prior to the alleged adoption of the 1789 written "US Constitution" document. Both of the earlier modes of organizing national congressional assemblies, are obviously much more in harmony with Sociological "Natural-Law". The current mode of organizing our national congressional assembly, is very dysfunctional, when viewed from this perspective of Sociological "Natural-Law".

The last Citations above are solidly brought within the spheres of modern American Constitutional-Law, by way of the previously referenced citation from The Oregon Blue Book, 1997; as published by Oregon's Secretary of State; and which there-in shows how the "American county ... is based on the Anglo-Saxon county of England dating back to about the time of the Norman Conquest".

These citations provide powerful evidence that a truly "Natural-Law" based system of de-centralized "responsible self-governing" was in place, prior to the "Norman Conquest of 1066 ad", and that this system is still at the very root of our modern American Constitutional concept of "Common-Law". These citations show clearly that this entire "Common-Law" system of government originated 3400 years ago in the times of Moses, and under the Torah-based Biblical Laws of the true Nation of Israel. These citations show also that this very ancient "Common-Law" system of governing survives today under our our nations modern Constitutional system of Localized "Responsible Self-Governing" with-in our American Constitutional concepts of "Counties", "Precincts", and "Townships" (as well as with in other "special" jurisdictional realms).

*******

Natural law snip

*****

One of these Fundamental Principles of American Constitutional Law and Government; is that Power is to be "De-Centralized" down to the smaller jurisdictions as much as is reasonably possible. Here-under; unless there has been some out-side threat, and out-side help has been formally requested; then every law-enforcement related task is to be accomplished in the Counties, or in their smaller Precinct and/or Township jurisdictions. It is not hard to visualize how all of this was actually working among the previously referenced Anglo/Saxons, prior to the Norman Conquest of 1066-ad; and it is not hard to visualize how it was working in the also previously described ancient nation of Israel, reaching back in time 3400 years.

In order for these Counties to exercise this powerful authority, they have to have Full Authority to form their Own “Courts of Justice”, and Try their own Crimes. Their only requirement is that they follow basic American Constitutional "Due Process of Law", which is also known as “the Rules of the Common-Law”, as the "Seventh Amendment" so clearly and profoundly declares.

To explore this issue of local sovereign self-governing authority further; Public Servants of every sort will generally admit that the “County Sheriff” is the “Highest Law Enforcement Officer” of the nation, with-in the geographical boundaries of his County. This Rule is the same all over America. Yet it is clearly dysfunctional for the Sheriff to be the “Highest Law-Enforcement Officer in the County": and yet him not be also Lawfully empowered to bring the Criminals he arrests into a “Court of Law” in which his decisions could be fully adjudicated by the local county people who placed him in that office. If this County Sheriff is going to operate in accord with his “Higher Law” charges to “Keep the Peace” in that county, then it would be self-defeating to allow any out-siders to define whether or not he is Lawfully "Keeping the Peace" there-in. The Sheriff and his deputies would be reduced to puppets of the out-side jurisdiction. The Unanimous Verdicts of Twelve (12) Member "Juries" of the common reputable members of the communities of each and every County in this nation can Responsibly Judge whether or not Higher "Natural/Organic Law" is being followed or broken by their own local County Sheriff, or by the individuals their County Sheriff has arrested with-in their county's geographical boundaries.

This "County Sheriff"is recognized in both Common-Law, and in most written State Constitutions and Statutes as a “Peace Officer”. “Keeping the Peace”, is his Highest Duty. Civil “Statutory Laws” are Not Needed to regulate and define that "Peace-Keeping Function". Fully-Informed "Juries", who follow the “Rules of the Common-Law” and "Due Process of Law" in the local counties and precincts, can harmoniously work with their own local Sheriff to "Keep the Peace" in their County quite adequately. There is No Constitutional Provision which was designed to authorize any Federal or State Officers to monitor or meddle in these localized self-governing common-law jurisdictions. Neither the Civil “State Police”, nor any "Federal Bureau of Investigation", have any constitutionally lawful authority to attempt to fulfill these "Peace Keeping" duties. Those larger civil executive officers are only constitutionally authorized to exercise a jurisdiction with-in the individual Counties of this nation, if some responsible officer of any such County makes a consensus-based public-declaration that an "Emergency" condition exists with-in that county. Other-wise, these local County Jurisdictions are Constitutionally-Required to be Left Alone by the officers of those larger civil executive jurisdictions. This is how American Constitutional-Law is Designed to Work, in its organic relations between the smaller and larger governmental jurisdictions.

One very insightful citation in support of this general proposition that this Fundamental American Constitutional Principle of "De-Centralization of Power" applies even to the to the Federal Government, has been praise-worthily declared by Ex- President Clinton, on the 4th of August, 1999; in his “Executive Order 13132"; which reads as follows:

Sec. 2. Fundamental Federalism Principles. ... Federalism is rooted in the belief that issues that are not national in scope or significance are most appropriately addressed by the level of government closest to the people. The people of the States created the national government and delegated to it enumerated governmental powers. All other sovereign powers, save those expressly prohibited the States by the Constitution, are reserved to the States or to the people. ... The people of the States are free, subject only to restrictions in the Constitution itself or in constitutionally authorized Acts of Congress, to define the moral, political, and legal character of their lives. The Framers recognized that the States possess unique authorities, qualities, and abilities to meet the needs of the people and should function as laboratories of democracy. The nature of our constitutional system encourages a healthy diversity in the public policies adopted by the people of the several States according to their own conditions, needs, and desires. In the search for enlightened public policy, individual States and communities are free to experiment with a variety of approaches to public issues. One-size-fits-all approaches to public policy problems can inhibit the creation of effective solutions to those problems. Acts of the national government - whether legislative, executive, or judicial in nature - that exceed the enumerated powers of that government under the Constitution violate the principle of federalism established by the Framers. Policies of the national government should recognize the responsibility of - and should encourage opportunities for--individuals, families, neighborhoods, local governments, and private associations to achieve their personal, social, and economic objectives through cooperative effort. The national government should be deferential to the States when taking action that affects the policymaking discretion of the States and should act only with the greatest caution where State or local governments have identified uncertainties regarding the constitutional or statutory authority of the national government.

This is truly a very precious declaration from Ex-President Clinton. Most American State Constitutions repeat this General Fundamental Principle of Encouraging even Smaller Jurisdictional "Local Self-Government”, in a number of specific provisions. One of the most specific provisions is in the “Hands Off” Prohibition upon the Legislature’s Authority to Legislate upon “Special or Local Laws”; which is set forth in most State Constitutions, in the chapter there-in, regulating the Constitutional Authority of their State's "Legislative Assembly". Here-under; it is clear that each State's Counties, Cities, Precincts, Townships, Households, Churches, Trade-Unions, and other responsible organizations; were all Originally Constitutionally Intended to retain the “Liberty” to “Self-Govern”. Most such state constitutions declare this fairly clearly, but the original version of Oregon’s Constitution, declares it especially well at Article 4 Section 23, as follows:

“Certain local and special laws prohibited. The Legislative Assembly shall not pass special or local laws in any of the following enumerated cases, that is to say: Regulating the jurisdiction, and duties of justices of the peace, and of constables; For the punishment of Crimes, and Misdemeanors; Regulating the practice in Courts of Justice; Providing for changing the venue in civil, and Criminal cases; Granting divorces; Changing the names of persons; For laying, opening, and working on highways, and for the election, or appointment of supervisors; Vacating roads, Town plats, Streets, Alleys, and Public squares; Summoning and empaneling grand, and petit jurors; For the assessment and collection of Taxes, for State, County, Township, or road purposes; Providing for supporting Common schools, and for the preservation of school funds; In relation to interest on money; Providing for opening, and conducting the elections of State, County, and Township officers, and designating the places of voting; Providing for the sale of real estate, belonging to minors, or other persons laboring under legal disabilities, by executors, administrators, guardians, or trustees."	http://landru.leg.state.or.us/ors/

Here-in is clearly shown a large number of very powerful governmental functions, which are originally constitutionally intended to be protected from meddling from the legislature of the State’s Civil Government. All reasonable people will immediately recognize that the obvious “Original Intent” of the Framers of this Constitutional Provision, is to De-Centralize the Power of the Government of this State as Much as is Reasonably Possible. This is all very similar to how the Ninth and Tenth Amendments are designed to work on the Federal Level, and that Ninth Amendment is of particular importance regarding any accompanying "Quo-Warranto Criminal-Complaints.

The above citation clearly shows that these "Local and Special" Jurisdictions, especially such as the Counties and Precincts, are all Suppose To Be much more "Primary Sources" for Governing the Behavior of the individual members of our American communities, than are the State and Federal Governments. As is shown in the above citation; these smaller "Local and Special" Communities have the Constitutionally-Guaranteed Right (and Duty) to set-up their own "Courts of Justice"; to Select Their Own "Juries", who can try even Criminal Cases before them, all with reference to nothing more than "Common-Law", and all as supported by the Seventh Amendment. And these smaller communities can elect their own "Peace Officers" who have full power to Make "Arrests", and to use "What-Ever Force is Necessary", in order to "Keep the Peace" with-in their own special or local communities. Oregon and other state Statutes make these powerful concepts even more clear,

This author believes that every state in the union has similar constitutional provisions as the one cited above; although most are not so explicitly detailed. With regard to this citation, please note that under our American and various State Civil-Governments, that the “Legislators” are the "Single Source" of what pases as “Law” there-in. And so, under the above Constitutional “Prohibition”, these Legislators are Prohibited from Passing Legislation which does not concern the “General Welfare” of the Common People who form the Public Body-Politic of this State.

In contemplating the above constitutional provision, it must be kept in mind that “General Law” is the Polar Opposite of the “Special Law” referred to there-in. Both of these terms have been clearly Defined in the “Blacks Law Dictionary” Citations further above. Here-under, these Legislators are Restricted in the forms of Legislation which they can Lawfully Pass. Here-under; they can Only enact “General Laws” for the Governing of the “General Public”; and all with-out working any interference with the smaller county and precinct jurisdictions rights to responsibly self-govern there-in. For larger context, please remember: General-Law = Public-Law = Common-Law. These facts are shown by the “Black’s Law Dictionary” Citations, above.

And because the Federal and State Civil "Judicial" and "Executive" Officers Can Not “Legislate”; here-under, All National and State "Civil-Officers” and "Agents", whether they derive their color of authority from the Executive, Judicial or Legislative departments; are Constitutionally “Prohibited" from Interfering with these “Local and Special” Powers and Authorities being Exercised Directly by any such of these Formally Organized and "Responsibly-Self-Governing" Smaller “Local and Special” Governmental Jurisdictions and Bodies-Politic.

Here-under; All Federal and State Civil Executive and Judicial Officers and/or Agents, have No Constitutionally-Lawful Authority to Direct the Administration of Force with-in these smaller jurisdictions. And if, through stupidity or corruption, they trespass, or conspire to trespass there-in; then then They immediately Loose All forms of "Immunity"; and the officers and members of that local self-governing local or special jurisdictions have the Constitutionally-Secured Right and Duty to Arrest all such Trespassing and/or Conspiring Public-Servants with "What-Ever-Force is Necessary".

This is how this entire "Republican" and "Federal" system of American Constitutional Government is Suppose to Operate. At least so long as their separate responsibly self-governing jurisdictions are at all functional; then all of these above-mentioned concerns are “Constitutionally Required” to be handled at these “Local or Special” Levels of Government. And the officers of the State and Federal Governments have Duties to Assist in this "Responsible Self-Governing" process, by these various smaller "local and special" jurisdictions.

Such State Constitutional provisions as above quoted Limits the Jurisdiction of the State’s Legislative Assembly from Passing Statutory-Laws which Micro-Manage the Issues which can be Responsibly addressed at such Smaller Levels of Government as are known as “Local” or “Special”. And as above stated, the Ninth and Tenth Amendments invoke the same limitations and prohibitions over Federal Officers and Agents. The “Local" Governmental Jurisdictions mentioned there-in, would be such as Counties, Precincts, Townships, and perhaps even Households. On the other hand, “Special Government” Jurisdiction would be such entities as Religious Organizations; Fraternal Organizations such as the Masons, Elks, and Lions; and Trade Associations such as the Lawyers “American Bar Associations”, and the Doctors “American Medical Association”.

Each of these entities have the Constitutionally-Lawful Authority to “Responsibly Self-Govern”, at least so long as they do not engage in any Crime involving any Malum-In-Se/Common-Law/Trespass against any other Natural/Real Person. Please remember, from the above citations, that: “Common-Law” Is “General Law”; and that “Common-Law Crimes” are “General-Law Crimes”.

This raises another issue concerning the "Lawful" functioning of the National and State "Legislative Assemblies". Due to such Constitutional provisions as cited above; the “Legislative Assemblies” of this Nation and our “States”, can Only Lawfully Enact Legislation which seeks to Prohibit "Malum-In-Se" based “Common-Law Crimes”. Here-by; all Public-Servants are directed by the "Single Voice of the Law" (which Professor Heart spoke of before) to "Keep the Peace". This Higher-Law Mandate is Constitutionally-Required by the Prioritized Mandate in the "Preamble" of the written Federal Constitution, which commands "Domestic Tranquility"; and the various State Constitutions similarly prioritize the Keeping of the "Peace" in the very "Preambles" of those Constitutions.

Strict Observance of this Malum-In-Se based Common-Law Definition of "Crimes" is Constitutionally-Required under not only our "Republican" forms of National and State Governments; it is also necessary in order to preserve an organically-healthy "Democracy". This is true because unless the Common People are empowered to "Responsibly Self-Govern"; and there-by, to become Liberated from un-welcome authoritarian meddling in their lives; then their votes will systematically be coercively manipulated by the 'powers that be', and accountability in government will there-by be reduced to an elusive dream.

The results of any community focusing exclusively on a common-law based malum-in-se definition for "Crime", is that the previously referenced and very desirable "Single Voice of the Law" will be heard in the community. Such a process would harmonize well with the previously cited text from “Principles of Business Law”, where-in is stated that: Natural Law is “for the benefit of mankind and the establishment of the good community”, and that this is true because: “Man as a reasonable being is able to distinguish between good and evil.”

Under this enlightening perspective, a clear and idealistic picture can be formed of how our modern Anglo-American Constitutional Jurisprudence may be framed to conform more precisely with the ancient world from whence its history is derived.

In Conclusion here-under; it should now be very clear that the Fundamental Principles of our American system of Constitutional-Law Specifically Requires our various Governmental Jurisdictions to Seek Harmony with Sociological "Natural-Law". This author believes that this point has now been made fully clear. It is now appropriate to delve fully into the tools which have been provided by our Anglo/American Constitutional-Law System of Government for holding Public-Servants to an Accountability.

Holding Public Servants to an Accountability:

The fashionable mis-conception is that if the American people are being abused by despotic public-servants; then their only remedy is either to wait until the next election and "vote them out of office", or to attempt to convince both houses of their state or national legislature to "Impeach" that corrupted public officer. Both of these mechanisms are monumentally cumbersome and inefficient in serving "Justice", or the true organic body-politic needs of the American people. There are other remedies which are "Provided by Law", and which are available, through the "Judicial" Process, which are much more efficient. As previously quoted, and again repeated here; the following citation, summarizes a number of very well-respected and scholarly sources on al of this, very well:

“Administrative Justice and the Supremacy of Law in the United States”; John Dickenson, 1927; by the President and Fellows of Harvard College; 1955. In Chapter 2, at Page 32; he writes:

“In Anglo-American jurisprudence, government and the law have always in a sense stood opposed to each other; the law has been rather something to give the citizen a check on the government than an instrument to give the government control over citizens. There is a famous phrase, which has long been attributed to Bracton, ... that “the king has a superior, to whit, the law; and if he be without a bridle, a bridle ought to be put on him, namely, the law.” This “rule of law” as Dicey calls it, or “supremacy of law,” in Libeler’s phrase, has uniformly been treated as the central and most characteristic feature of Anglo-American juristic habit; and nothing has been held more fundamental to the supremacy of law than the right of every citizen to bring the action of government officials to trial in the ordinary courts of the common law. That government officials, on the contrary, should themselves assume to preform the functions of a law court and determine the rights of individuals, as is the case under a system of administrative justice, has been traditionally felt to be inconsistent with the supremacy of law. It was the ground of attack on the Court of Star Chamber, in the days when the Chancellor was still mainly an administrative officer of the King. Lieber mentions freedom from “government by commissions,” & from the jurisdiction of executive courts, as one of the elements of Anglo-American Liberty.” (P-34, 35, 36, 37, & 38.)

“The orthodox doctrine of the supremacy of law has been stated by Dicey as including two principles: “It means in the first place that no man can lawfully be made to suffer in body or goods except for a distinct breach of law established in the ordinary courts of the land.” It mans in the second place “that no man is above the law, but that every man, whatever his rank or condition, is subject to the ordinary law of the realm, and amenable to the jurisdiction of the ordinary tribunals. . . With us, every official, from the Prime Minister down to a constable or collector of taxes, is under the same responsibility for every act done without legal justification as any other citizen.”

(Law of the Constitution, 8thj edition., p.185 & 189(in original document))

“In short, every citizen is entitled, first, to have his rights adjudicated in a regular common-law court, and, secondly, to call into question in such a court the legality of any act done by an administrative official.”	....

Please note that this above citation clearly indicates that when-ever Any Public-Servant Acts Out-Side of his or her Constitutionally-Lawful scope of Authority, they have "No Protections" for their constitutionally-lawless actions. This is a fundamental American constitutional concept; and it has been summarized from a large number of differing reputable citations into the following single citation:

"The general rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having the form and name of law, is in reality no law, but is wholly void, and ineffective for any purpose; since unconstitutionality dates from the time of it's enactment, and not merely from the date of the decision so branding it. An unconstitutional law, in legal contemplation, is as inoperative as if it had never been passed. Such a statute leaves the question that it purports to settle just as it would be had the statute not been enacted.

Such an unconstitutional law is void, ((and when-ever colorably enacted)) the general principles follow that it imposes no duties, confers no rights, creates no office, bestows no power or authority to anyone, affords no protection, and justifies no acts preformed under it ... A void act cannot be legally consistent with a valid one. An unconstitutional law cannot operate to supersede any existing valid law. Indeed, insofar as a statute runs counter to the fundamental law of the land, it is superseded thereby.

“No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to enforce it." . . .

“The fact that one acts in reliance on a statute which has theretofore been adjudged unconstitutional does not protect him from civil or criminal responsibility... Daniel Webster, James Otis, and Sir Edward Coke, all pointed out that the mere fact of enactment does not and cannot raise mere statutes to the standing of law. Not everything which may pass under the form of statutory enactment can be considered the Law of the Land."

Sixteenth American Jurisprudence 2d; SS: 256 & 257; (Pages: 547 & 177?)

Please note that this prominent citation from "American Jurisprudence", is phrased in terms which pre-suppose that some judge, or other public-servant or agent, is acting in basic good-faith, with no obvious malicious-intent, as he acts to enforce a statute which is constitutionally un-lawful, and there-by he violates the Constitutionally-Secured Rights of a free and sovereign American. Yet, as stated there-in; the "Law" still provides that such a public-servant has "No Protections" from attempts to hold him to a "Criminal Responsibility" for any damage which he does to innocent Americans, for any violations of their constitutionally-secured rights, even though he had some color of authority under a statute.

Please note further; that, neither Legislative Assemblies nor Executive Officers have any constitutionally recognizable authority to Judicially Decide whether or not any such "Criminal Responsibility" should be enforced against such a constitution-violating public-servant. Such issues are to be resolved by the "Judicial" authorities of this nation, alone. And the only way for that to happen, under American constitutional-law; is is if there is a "Criminal Complaint" sworn-out by some natural/real American person.

So, if average American Public-Servants have "No Protections" for their Criminal Violations of the Constitutionally-Secured Rights of the American People; even when acting comparatively innocently to enforce a statute that is actually the source of the policy which is resulting in the criminal trespass; then when-ever that very-same public-servant is acting with "No Statutory Authority" so-as-to Criminally Trespass against the Rights of these very-same innocent and free-sovereign Americans; then surely this very-same basic policy of the "Law" will allow for said Public-Servant to be Named Directly in a Criminal-Complaint in the Judicial Courts of this nation, by the very same free and sovereign American against whom he has committed such a constitutionally-recognizable Criminal-Trespass.

It is only through the Constitutionally-Lawful exercise of this "Judicial Power" that such a public-servant can Lawfully be held to a "Criminal Responsibility" for his damage to such a free and sovereign American. This "Criminal Responsibility" is the precise phrase declared applicable against such public-servants in the above quoted and very authoritative text from "American Jurisprudence".

If "Un-Constitutionality Dates from the Time of (the) Enactment" of any such "Un-Constitutional Statute", and if "Law" provides "No Protection" from "Criminal Responsibilities" of Public-Servant Executive Officers, Judges, or even Legislators, who may be in Conspiracy to Further Crimes being committed under the color of the authority which naturally flows through that "Un-Constitutional Statute"; then logic and reason dictate that When these same Public-Servants Begin Acting in Criminal-Conspiracy, with-out even having any tinge of color of statutory or any other lawful authority (as is the case under most of complaints in accompaniment here-to or contemplated here-in); then surely logic and reason dictates that, under "Law", From the very Moment in which these very same Public-Servants Begin Acting in any such "Criminal-Conspiracy", They Then Begin Acting with "No Protection" from the "Criminal Responsibilities", which, as a "Matter of Law" necessarily accompany the Crimes in which they are then engaging. This is a critically-important and pivotal point, which is touched on repeatedly in other accompanying memorandum and complaint documents. This point needs to be kept firmly in mind at every moment when any criminal prosecution against any corrupted public-servant is being contemplated.

And as Mr Dickens text above, and numerous other sources quoted here-in clearly imply, the "Rule of Law" which is Supreme in our democratic American Constitutional Republic, clearly declares that when-ever any corrupted public-servant acts in any obviously malicious criminal-conspiracy to abuse the constitutionally-secured rights of the American People, then these very same Abused American People Have the Constitutionally-Secured Right to Directly File and Prosecute Criminal-Complaints against that corrupted public-servant.

Mr Dickens text above out-lines well this larger general policy of placing this immense power in the hands of each and every American. And the deeper constitutional authorities which he cites, such as from Dicey and Libeler; further support this bold but modernly unfashionable concept. And when coupled with the text previously set forth in this document, which illustrates the fundamental principles of "Natural Law" up-on which our entire American nation is based; and also when considering our constitutional history, going back to the Anglo-Saxons and to ancient Israel; then this larger historical and natural-law philosophical perspective does clearly reveal that the Fundamental Principles of our American Constitutional-Law do truly place this immense amount of power in the hands of Individual members of our organic American body-politic.

And as shown by another memorandum/document in accompaniment here-to, and entitled: "Quo Warranto for the Common People"; this generally constitutionally-secured Right of common Americans to hold their Public-Servants to an Accountability for Crimes which they may commit, is given even greater Clarity and "Authority of Law", when ever these common Americans Frame their Complaints in the form of a "State-Ex-Rel/Quo-Warranto Criminal-Complaint".

Conclusion:

The "Fundamental Principles of American Constitutional Law and Government" are firmly derived from the principles and concepts of Sociological "Natural-Law", as articulated by Blackstone, Locke, and others; prior to the American War for Independence.

Examples of historical real-world applications of these concepts of "Natural Law" may be found in the history of the Anglo-Saxons of England, prior to the "Norman Conquest of 1066 ad", and in the Nation of Israel, 3400 years ago.

In modern America, we still have the right to practice this Natural-Law, through our rights to form our own Juries, in our own smaller "Common-Law Jurisdictions" of our Counties, and even smaller precincts, townships, churches, trade-unions, and other similar voluntary associations.

Average Americans have the Constitutionally-Secured Rights to File and Prosecute Sworn Criminal Complaints against Any Corrupted Public-Servant who may Conspire to Abuse Any Free and Sovereign American.

Confederacy: ... A league or agreement between two or more independent states, whereby they unite for their mutual welfare and for the furtherance of their common aims. ... more commonly used to denote that species of political connection between two or more independent states, by which central government is created, invested with certain powers of sovereignty, and acting upon the several component states as its units, which, however retain their sovereign powers for domestic purposes and some others. See Compact, Confederated States, Federal Government.

Confederation: A league or compact for mutual support, particularly of nations, or states. Such was the colonial government during the revolution. See Confederacy.

Federal Government: The system of government administered in a nation formed by the union or confederation of several independent states. ... a confederation ... denotes a league or permanent alliance between several states, each of which is fully sovereign and independent, and each of which retains full dignity, organization and sovereignty, though yielding to the central authority a controlling power for a few limited purposes, such as external and diplomatic relations. In this case, the component states are the units, with respect to the confederation, and the central government acts upon them, not upon the individual citizens. ...

This 'Constitutionally-Lawless Machinery of Government', has been purposefully set in place, all so-as-to serve the 'Private Agenda' of that powerful 'Private Interest-Group', by way of Conspiracy', so-as-to better enable them to pillage and plunder the organic body-politic of our common American people. These points are much more fully explained in the above-mentioned and probably accompanying document entitled "The DeFacto American Government". That document and perhaps a few others by this author; will be referenced frequently here-in. It is not necessary for students students of American Constitutional-Law to accept this "Conspiracy" proposition, before assimilating this article. But unless serious students are fully aware of this powerful undercurrent of distractions which have permeated our modern American society, and which will surely be brought to bear on their thinking, in one way or the other; then they will be plagued by nagging thoughts concerning 'Why' the arguments which are made here-in, are so very out-of-sync with what passes as scholarship and conventional wisdom regarding these general issues. Be very clear; Pressure Will be Brought to Bear on all such serious students of American Constitutional-Law, to shift their thinking in accord with that conventional-wisdom, so that they are not empowered by their superior knowledge to become another influential critic of and potential threat to that powerful 'Private Interest Groups" which presently actually run this nation. Here-under; it will be very beneficial to keep in mind that it is going to take a significant amount of mental-energy to break through the obstacles of "group-think" which have habitually hindered the great progress which can be made by individuals who seek to seriously study these 'Fundamental Principles of American Constitutional Law and Government'.

:	Do not allow loud platitudes from any fashion-conscious and/or immensely popular gurus in this field to dissuade you from what you personally know to be true. For those with a religious inclination; you will give an accounting before God for how you handle this sacred trust; which through this text, and by the grace of Him, may now be being bestowed up-on you.

:	Yet it is worthy to consider that prior to all of these in importance, is “Truth". For if "We the People" are not able to have access to “Truth”; then "Justice" and all other prioritized end-goals will be compromised, and there-by evil men will surly find opportunity to use deception to pillage and plunder our more trusting and vulnerable organic body-politic members. Here-under; please note that this document is designed to communicate with people who believe that "Truth" can be clearly identified; and that once it has been so identified, that it must be preserved and defended. Those who do not believe that objective "Truth" can be rationally identified by the human mind, such as possibly "Moral Relativists"; may as well put down this document now, because we have already lost you.

This thought is pursued in the spirit of avoiding any un-necessary discussion of the controversial "Religious" realm, but still taking this all at least to a lower-level and comparatively secular-humanist friendly "Spiritual Plane".

:	Russell and Russell, Inc; New York; By Arrangement with Harvard University Press; (Dedicated to Dean Roscoe Pound and Professor Felix Frankfurter; Studies from Princeton, Johns Hopkins, Columbia and Harvard Universities).

:	Russell and Russell, Inc; New York; By Arrangement with Harvard University Press; (Dedicated to Dean Roscoe Pound and Professor Felix Frankfurter; Studies from Princeton, Johns Hopkins, Columbia and Harvard Universities).

Page 28 of 29; Fundamental Principles of American Constitutional-Law & Government.

Fundamental Principes of American Constitutional Law

Same

This document is basically finished.
It could be read through one more time, and maybe minor additions could be made there-to.
But it has been thoroughly examined, and it appears adequate in addresing the very significant issues it is seeking to address.

2006-03-21T16:18:25