De-Centralization and Federalism:

"Federalism", Confederation, Republicanism, and Democracy:

To try to bring this broad subject together into a more sharply-defined focus, it is good to focus again on the powerful American Constitutional Concept of "Federalism". This specific term is an immensely rewarding study, and it can be argued that a clear comprehension of this word will be the single most productive term for study in producing powerfully usable insight into the Fundamental Principles of our American Constitutional System of Law and Government. Remember please how, earlier in this document, Professor Hart was quoted as declaring that the "Constitutions of the States" are where one must look in order to find "Revealed" the "Theory and Practice of American Federalism". Those words indicate that, under this concept of "Federalism", America's "State Constitutions" are not obsolete/archaic documents, as some would infer. While most scholars admit that there are numerous Flaws in our nation's various written State and National "Constitution" documents, citations such as Professor Heart's clearly indicate that these documents unanimously at least Profess to Seek Harmony with our American National Community's Higher "Natural-Organic Law" . Another powerful citation which really brings this point home nicely, and which is one of this author's favorites, and which is from very large, scholarly, and reputable book, reads as follows:

"Encyclopedia of the American Constitution"; (1986) 1 .

"Federalism (History): ... Prior to 1787, the term "federalism" had been used to signify confederation, a system in which the Sovereignty remained with the constituent states ... in which the central authority's legislature merely could propose measures to the states for approval. ...

Federalism (Theory): Federal democracy is the authentic American contribution to democratic thought and republican government. Its conception represents a synthesis of the Puritan idea of the covenant relationship as the foundation of all proper human society and the constitutional ideas of the English natural rights school of the seventeenth & early eighteenth centuries. Contractual noncentralization - the structured dispersion of power among many centers whose legitimate authority is constitutionally guaranteed - is the key to the widespread and entrenched diffusion of power that remains the principle characteristic of and argument for federal democracy.

Federal democracy is a composite notion that includes a strong religious component. The religious expression of federalism was brought to the United States through the theology of the Puritan, who viewed the world as organized through binding covenants that God had made with mankind, binding God and man into a lasting union and partnership to work for the redemption of the world ... . ...

According to federal theology, all social and political relationships are derived from that original covenant. This theological perspective found its counterpart in congregationalism as the basis of church polity and the town meeting as the basis of civil polity. Thus communities of believers were required to organize themselves by covenant into congregations just as communities of citizens were required to organize themselves by covenant into towns. The entire structure of religious and political organization in New England reflected this application of a theological principle to social and political life.

... The behavioral pattern resurfaced on every frontier ... in the wagon trains that crossed the plains, whose members compacted together to provide for their internal governance during the long trek westward. ...

In strictly governmental terms, federalism is a form of political organization that unites separate polities within an overarching political system, enabling all to maintain their fundamental political integrity and distributing power among general and constituent governments so that they all share in the system's decision-making and executing processes. In a larger sense, federalism represents the linking of free people and their communities through lasting but limited political arrangements to protect certain rights or liberties and to achieve specific common ends while preserving their respective integrities. To reverse the order, federalism has to do, first and foremost, with a relationship among the entities, and then with the structure that embodies that relationship and provides the means for sustaining it. Originally federalism was most widely recognized as a relationship to which structural questions were incidental; but since the creation of the American federal system, in which a new structure was invented ... federalism has become increasingly identified in structural terms. This usage in turn has contributed to a certain emphasis on legal and administrative relations between the units and to the neglect of the larger question of the relationships federalism is designed to foster throughout the polity."

As indicated in this above citation, one very important Fundamental Principle of our "Federal" system 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. This is how all of this was actually working among the Anglo/Saxons of England, 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 at least as far as 3400 years. That is what the above-mentioned "Puritans" believed.

Another very insightful citation has been rendered publicly by Ex- President Clinton, on the 4th of August, 1999; in his "Executive Order 13132". Here-in Mr Clinton clearly affirms that the general American Constitutional Principle of "De-Centralization of Power" applies even to the to the Federal Government. Mr Clinton's powerfully insightful words read 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. These "Special and Local" State Constitutional Provisions Support the above quoted "Principles of Federalism", just as do the Ninth and Tenth Amendments on the National Level. 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 Sixth and Seventh Amendments. 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. The Statutes of Oregon and many other States make these powerful governmental power de-centralizing concepts even more clear. Recent Federal Court Decisions have affirmed that Local "County Sheriffs" have the Constitutionally-Lawful Authority to tell Federal IRS, FBI, BATF, and other officers, to "Stay Out" of their Counties, or to put serious restrictions on these federal officers if they are allowed to operate there-in2.

This author believes that every state in the union has similar constitutional provisions, as the one cited above from Oregon; although most are not so explicitly detailed. Here-by; this Fundamental Principle of "Federalism" is brought home to each and every State, and to its smaller County, Precinct, and Township communities. 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 such State Constitutional "Prohibitions" as quoted above, 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 each State. Here-under; the State's Legislative Assembly is Prohibited from Passing Statutory-Laws which Micro-Manage the Issues which can be Responsibly Addressed at those Smaller Levels of Government which are known as "Local" or "Special". The "Local" Governmental Jurisdictions mentioned there-in, would be such as Counties, Precincts, Townships, and perhaps even Households; and from the Federal Level, the States. On the other hand, "Special Government" Jurisdiction would be such non-geographical associations 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".

This means that, if every smaller local jurisdiction is functioning at such Efficient Levels of Common-Law Self-Governing, that there are "No Needs" in any of them; then governmental process at the larger State level, could be entirely "Shut-Down, at least until someone might sound an alarm, at some possible future date. And of course, the same principle would apply at the National level, as the above quotes from the "Seventh Amendment" so implies.

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 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.

Each of these "Local and Special" Jurisdictions have the Constitutionally-Lawful Authority to "Responsibly Self-Govern"; and there-in they should insure to all other communities that their members will Not engage in any Public-Law Crime involving any Malum-In-Se based Common-Law Trespass against any other Real/Natural Person. Please remember, from the above citations, that: "Common-Law" Is "General Law"; and that "Common-Law Crimes" are "General-Law Crimes"; and that both of the phrases refer to "Public Crimes" and to "Constitutional 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 Seek "Peace". This Higher-
Law Mandate of "Peace" is Constitutionally-Required by the Prioritized Mandate set forth in the "Preamble" of the written Federal Constitution, which commands "Domestic Tranquility". The various State "Constitution" documents similarly prioritize Keeping the "Peace" in those documents respective "Preambles".

Here-under; Governmental Officers are Not Constitutionally Allowed to become a "Source" for any "Breach of the Peace". Those Officer must Wait, Patiently, for a "Breach of the Peace" to occur; and if one never occurs, well then, the Constitutional Goal of "Peace" has adequately been Secured, and everyone is suppose to be happy.

This Prioritized Mandate for "Keeping the Peace" is Essential to keep in mind when-ever one is seeking to correctly Define an American Constitutional "Crime". These American Constitutional Definitions of "Crime" are firmly based on a ancient and related Common-Law idea known as "Malum-In-Se"; as quoted previously in "Black's Law Dictionary". These concepts are Essential Elements of not only our "Republican" forms of National and State Governments; they are 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 out-side authoritarian meddling in their lives; then their democratic votes will systematically be coercively manipulated by the "powers that be", and Representatives chosen will be compromised in their loyalties, and there-under accountability in government will there-by be reduced to an elusive dream.

The results of any community focusing exclusively on this common-law/malum-in-se based definition for "Crime", is that, here-under; the previously referenced and very desirable "Single Voice of the Law" will be clearly heard in every community. When the only issue of controversy before the decision-making forum is whether or not a "Breach of the Peace" has occurred; then traditional Anglo/American Principles of "Due Process of Law" will be invoked, all so-as-to focus sharply, with this harmonious "single-voice"; possibly from multiple sources, but still speaking with such harmony as to amount to that "single-voice".

It should be clear to the reader that this process harmonizes 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 resuscitated so-as-to conform with the "More Perfect Union" ideal set forth in the Preamble, as well as more precisely with the un-known ideals of our ancestors in the ancient world, from whence its history is clearly derived.

In Conclusion here-under; it should now be very clear that "Federalism", upon which is based the Fundamental Principles of our American system of Constitutional-Law, Requires that our various Governmental Jurisdictions "De-Centralize" as much as reasonably possible, so that they may there-by 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.

De-Centralization of American Government:

Examining how Common-Law produces a truly workable and honorable plan for responsibly De-Centralizing the Authority of the National and State Governments.

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 the entirely Different "Common-Law" Model of Self-Governing. This point is well illustrated by the following partially-repeated citation, from 'Black's Law Dictionary'; 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. ..."

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 what Black's Law Dictionary Clearly Says, and numerous other citations (here-in and else-where) firmly support this modernly un-fashionable proposition. This is a Powerful 'Fundamental Principle' of our American Constitutional Form of Government; and those who profess to support the Fundamental Constitutional Ideas of what America is suppose to be all about, need to either embrace and conform with these true Fundamental Constitutional Principles, which are derived from our Anglo/American "Common-Law", or they need to prepare themselves for prosecution and ostracism from our American organic body-politic.

Here-under; it is important to keep in mind the earlier quoted citation from "Professor Hart", where-in he said:

"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, ...".

When readers consider that American Constitutional-Law must "Speak with Only One Ultimately Authoritative Voice", and that: "Constitutions Must be Construed with Reference to the Common-Law, since ... federal and state constitutions ... Cherished the established Common Law and ... without reference to this common law, the language of the Federal Constitution could not be understood"; then, if and when sincere American Patriots finally decide to focus tightly on "Specific Terms or Labels" which "Precisely Define" the Core Issues and Fundamental Principles of our American Constitutional System of Government, then the Simplest Summarizing Label to place on our True American Constitutional System of Government is "Common-Law".

To drive this point home further, please contemplate the profound implications of the "Seventh Amendment" to the written "U.S. Constitution" document; which, again quoted, reads as follows:

" ... no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise reexamined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law."

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 Lawful 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, in re-examining that case; 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. In fact, this Seventh-Amendment wording clearly recognizes the the ability of the Common-Law Juries of this nation to Try Every Case In This Nation, and there-by to Shut-Down and Displace All Summary forms of Jurisdiction exercised by the "Judicial Department" of the Civil United States Government. They would have to entirely Abandon All Proceedings under Civil, Equity, Administrative, Commercial, Admiralty, and Maritime Jurisdiction. This would cause the United States Supreme Court to either "Cease to Exist"; or to Adjust its Organization and Procedures so as to function exclusively as a "Common-Law Court".3

If the wording of this "Seventh Amendment" is examines closely, this dynamic will be clear. The aristocrats who conspired to subvert our nations original "Articles of Confederation" were in such a mad rush to vehemently oppose true organic/constitutional "Common-Law Juries" deciding this nation's judicial cases and controversies; that, they left this very conspicuous "Gaping Hole" in their Civil Judiciary, as reflected in this wording of the "Seventh Amendment". In their mad Rush to Gain the Support of the Other and More Honorable Convention Delegates in colorably enacting the so-
called written "U.S. Constitution" document over our people's American organic body-politic; they were forced into this compromise, and into leaving this very wide and powerful Hole in their obedience-commanding lex-scripta based oppressive scheme.4

Private/Man-Made-Law Vs Public/Natural-Law:

Human History has produced only basically "Two Modes" for Governing Human Conduct; both of which have been in Conflict with each-other, probably since their very beginning. One of these Modes of Governing Encourages the Common People to "Responsibly Self-Govern", through seeking to Non-Coercively promote Social Harmony with Fundamental Principles of "Natural-Law", as descended from the ancient Torah-Laws of Israel, and as preserved through the old "Malum-In-Se" -based English "Common-Law". The other Mode of Governing seeks to "Coercively" Impose a Confusion-Generating Body of "Malum-Prohibitum" -based (so-called) "Law", as Implemented through-out the Babylonian-Empire, and later through the "Roman-Empire", for the more effective Governing of the many Slaves which they Conquered, and which has modernly become known as "Municipal-Law", or "Civil- Law".

In efforts of this author to paint a complete picture of American Constitutional-Law, I must refer to a citation which is painfully long; but which also provides precious insight into the importance of this "Common-Law" as the Constitutionally-Preferred Method of Dispute-Resolution in our American Constitutional System of Government. This citation also points out well that there is an Opposing Body of so-called "Laws" in place, which are battling against the Common-Law, from behind the scenes, and with powerful supporters; all of which is derived from the very powerful and ancient system Roman System of so-called "Civil -Law", and which is more accurately called "Municipal-Law".

This is a "Conflict of Laws", and it is very ancient, reaching back literally for thousands of years. It has so Profoundly Influenced our modern American concepts of "Constitutional-Law"5, and the study of this "Conflict" can not be avoided in any document which purports to speak authoritatively on this subject of American Constitutional-Law. This "Conflict" between the so-called "Civil-Law", and the "Common-Law"; is also between Individual People who advocate that our American People view one or the other of those diametrically-opposed bodies of law as "Constitutional". These points are quoted here-in, through this rather long quotation, from text composed in 1871 under the title of "Of the Civil-Law and the Common-Law", by a Professor of Law at Columbia College, named Samuel Tyler II,D.6 . This text reads as follows:

"There have grown up in the history of nations only two great systems of law, the civil law of ancient Rome, and the common law of England. All the most civilized nations in the world are governed by either of these two great schemes of justice. Though the civil law and the common law have much in common, yet in many important particulars they are the opposites of each other. In the course of his studies, the student of law finds so much said, in an incidental way, about the civil law, that is calculated to mislead his judgment in regard to the true character of that scheme of justice, that it is important, at the outset of his walks over the fields of the common law, to give him some account of the civil law, and point out in what it differs essentially from the common law. This is a matter of much importance to every student who aspires to a comprehensive and enlightened knowledge of jurisprudence. ...

... it was under the empire, when the glory of the republic was gone, that the jurists attained their eminence, and in fact became the architects of the great system of Roman law. ... Oratory was no longer, as it had been during the glorious period of the republic, the great art by which men rose to eminence in the state. Its voice was now silent; when to speak of the rights of Roman citizens was treason. ...

The administration of the law, too, was subordinate to the imperial authority, not only in theory but in practice, the courts being organized accordingly. Under the republic, the courts were open to the public in both civil and criminal trials. Under the empire, open courts disappeared, and an appeal lay in all cases to the emperor in his imperial court. Thus a perfect system of despotism, disguised under forms of law, was built up on the ruins of the republic. ...

If we now turn to the common law of England, we will find that, as far as administrative principles and forms of procedure are concerned, it is the opposite of the Roman civil law as it was molded under the empire. The principle which, in the practical administration of the two systems, marks the primary essential distinction between them, is the relative obligatory force under them of precedent or former decisions. Under the common law, former decisions control the court unconditionally. It is deemed by the common law indispensable that there should be a fixed rule of decision, in order that rights and property may be stable and certain, and not involved in perpetual doubts and controversies.

Under the civil law the principles is different. Former decisions have not so fixed and certain an operation, but are considered as only governing the particular case, without establishing as a settled rule the principle involved in it. When a similar case occurs, the judge may decide it according to his personal views of the law, or according to the opinion of some eminent jurist. ...

Let anyone, who wishes to examine a specimen of this perplexity in regard to a fundamental classification which the civilians make of laws into personal statutes and real statutes, refer to the opinion of the supreme court of Louisiana, by Mr. Justice Porter, in Saul v. His Creditors, in 17 Martins' Reports. After referring to the jurists of the different European countries who have treated of this distinction, Justice Porter says:

"The moment we attempt to discover from these writers what statutes are real and what personal, the most extraordinary confusion is presented. Their definitions often differ; and, when they agree in their definitions, they dispute as to their application."

And Mr. Justice Story, in his "Conflict of Laws," when speaking of the civilians who have treated of the subject of his book, says:

"The civilians of continental Europe have examined the subject in many of its bearings with a more comprehensive philosophy, if not with a more enlightened spirit. Their works, however, abound with theoretical distinctions, which serve little purpose than to provoke idle discussions and metaphysical subtleties, which perplex, if they do not confound the inquirer. * * *

Precedents, too, have not, either in the courts of continental Europe or in the judicial discussions of eminent jurists, the same force and authority which we, who live under the influence of the common law, are accustomed to attribute to them; and it is unavoidable that many differences of opinion will exist amongst them, even in relation to leading principles." Such is the fluctuating wind of doctrine with which the judicial mind is liable to veer under the civil-law institutions where precedents have but little force. ...

The common law, in broad contrast to the civil law, has always wholly repudiated anything as authority but the judgments of courts deliberately given in causes argued and decided. "For (says Lord Coke, in the preface to his 9th Report) it is one amongst others of the great honors of the common law that cases of great difficulty are never adjudged or resolved in tenebris or sub silentio suppressis reationibus, but in open court: and there upon solemn and elaborate arguments, ... where they argue ... seriatim, upon certain days openly and purposely prefixed, delivering at large the authorities, reasons, and causes of their judgments and resolutions in every such particular case, ... a reverend and honorable proceeding in law, a grateful satisfaction to the parties, and a great instruction and direction to the attentive and studious hearers."

Nothing less elaborately learned and cautiously considered than such a judgment of a court has a legitimate place in the common law. By such adjudication has that great system of jurisprudence been built up. The opinion of no lawyer has a place in the system of common law. And this wise principle of the common law is never lost sight of by those bred in its spirit. When Lord Coke wrote his commentaries upon certain statutes of England, from Magna Charta to Henry VIII, which are called his II Institutes, he did not give his personal opinions of their meaning, but gave the judicial interpretations of them, which had been made. In the conclusion of the preface to the II Institutes he says:

"Upon the text of the civil law there be so many glosses and interpretations, and again upon those so many commentaries, and all written by doctors of equal degree and authority, and therein so many diversities of opinions, as they rather increase than resolve doubts and uncertainties, and the professors of that noble science say that it is like see full of waves."

"The difference, then, between those glosses and commentaries are written by doctors, and which be advocates, and so in a great manner private interpretations; and our expositions or commentaries upon Magna Charta and other statutes are resolutions of judges in courts of justice in judicial courses of proceeding, either related and reported in our books or extant in judicial records, or in both, and therefore, being collected together, shall ... produce certainty, the mother and nurse of repose and quietness."

Such is the doctrine of the common law! Nothing but the solemn voice of the law itself, speaking through its constituted tribunals, is of any judicial authority. And how august is that authority, reposing as it does upon the solemn decisions of courts which have administered justice in the very same halls for nearly eight hundred years! In vain shall we search the history of nations for a parallel to this stability of law amidst the fluctuating vicissitudes of empire. It is this stability of law, ruling over the prerogative of the crown and administering equal justice to the high and the low through so many centuries, that vindicates the "frame and ordinary course of the common law" to the consideration of the present times.

It is this primary difference in the principles of practice, under the two systems of law, which gives to the common law its great superiority over the civil law, as a practical jurisprudence regulating the affairs of society. It has the great advantage of producing certainty in regard to all rights and obligations which are regulated by law. But, above all, it excludes private interpretations and controls the arbitrary discretion of judges. In the common law the principles of interpretation are fixed and certain. Rules of interpretation were early adopted, and have never been departed from. Other rules from time to time have been adopted, but when once introduced into practice they become precedents."

Note-worthy points to summarize here-from are that: "Common-Law" is said to produce a process where "rights and property may be Stable and Certain, and not involved in perpetual doubts and controversies"; and that the opposing Roman-based "Civil-Law" seems Purposefully Designed to generate "Confusion" and "Despotism". Modernly; the point of view expressed in this citation is certainly un-fashionable, and many modern readers, and even scholars, might refuse to admit its truthfulness. However; if one reviews the sections of this text which cite quotations from "Black's Law Dictionary", one will see that "Common-Law" is Harmonious with "Natural-Law", and Civil-Law is Opposed to that "Natural Law". Particular citations to review are ""Malum In Se", "Common-Law", "Natural Rights", Civil-Action", "Civil-Law", "Mancipium, "Municipal Function", and "Municipality". Keep in mind please, that "Civil-Law" is defined as the equivalent of "Municipal-Law"; and that the latter here is based on the word "Mancipium", which is defined as a "Slave". Here-under; these modern "Black's Law Dictionary" citations, strongly indicate that the words contained in Mr Tyler's citation, above, are very true.