Modern Applications of "Government by Unanimous Consent":

Exploring Modern Logical Applications of Fundamental Constitutional Principles; including "Government by Unanimous Consent", "Due Process of Law', and a Heavy Reliance on "Common-Law Juries".

Constituents, Elections, Leadership-Selection;
Consent, Consensus, Vetos, and Instantaneous-Recall

When-ever any Government Office-Holder wishes to implement any social-behavior regulating Policies, while plausibly claiming he is only implementing Policies which are "Constitutional"; then that Governmental Office-Holder must implement those policies in manners which the Individual Law-Abiding and Reputable Members of that Community seem to consider Justifiable, Reasonable, Conscionable, and Socially-Responsible. Here-under; there must be some kind of Public-Evidence that the Reputable Members of these communities have Voluntary "Consented" to be Governed by these policies. These Policies must be viewed by these Reputable Members of the community as Not being merely Superficial; but also as Meaningfully Addressing the "Organic Needs" of the Sociologically-Natural "Body-Politic" of the People they claim Constitutionally-Lawful authority to govern.

In the word's community-oriented and Natural/Organic/Sociological sense; in order for any Governmental-Policies to be lawfully considered as being truly "Constitutional", those Governmental-
Policies must allow for All Reputable Members of the Community to Quickly and Efficiently Develop, Alter, or Modify their "Consensus" around Who is their Preferred "Community Leader"; and to Quickly and Efficiently "Replace" their present Leader with the new one, once such a decision has been made.

In order for any individual to voice a Constitutionally-Lawful Claim that he is The "Constitutionally-Lawful Leader" for any Community of People, then that individual Must present some form of Meaningful "Evidence" that the general law-abiding "Constituents" over whom he claims authority to govern are Routinely and Consistently "Consenting" to be governed by him-self, and by the Policies and the Machinery of Government which he is seeking to En-Force in that Community. This Evidence of "Consent" from these "Constituents" is "Constitutionally Necessary", because of this direct, logical, and phonetic Relationship between these words Consent, Consensus, Constituent, and Constitution.

Modernly fashionable Anglo/American Civil Leadership Selection Process, at all levels of government, does Not Allow for that Process of Quickly and Efficiently building or modifying the Consensus around any particular Leader for any given community. Here-under; that modernly fashionable Civil Leadership Selection Process is "Un-Constitutional"; even though much of it's basic process may be written in the various state and national so-called "Constitution" documents.

Under True Constitutional Government, Selecting the Leaders is More Important than is focusing on the Governmental "Policy Decisions" facing the community. This is true because, if good Leaders have been selected, then the "Policies" which they implement will be few, and they will reflect the will of all reputable members of the community. When-ever "Law-Abiding Constituents" Formally Object to the Policies which their present Leaders are implementing in their small community; and Respectful Answers are Not Forth-Coming from such Leadership as-to Why these Leaders are following such policies; then the reality of the situation quickly becomes clear that such an "Un-Justifiable Policy" will Not be Changed, until that Leadership is Changed. Here-under; traditional Anglo/American "Common-Law" has long recognized that the single most quick and efficient Remedy for Corrupted Policy from Government Office-Holders is to "Change the Leadership" which has been implementing that Corrupted Policy.

The civil, written, "Constitution" documents of this Nation, and probably all it's States, seem to declare firmly that desires from the responsible members of the community in question to Change what they honestly believe to be "Un-Justifiable Governmental Policy", should be Restricted Exclusively to enacting or modifying "Legislation" from the State or National "Legislative Assemblies", or through the "Referendum" or "Initiative" process, or even possibly through "Impeachment" proceedings. This is all-ways a "Majority-Rule Process", and there is little or No Mechanism in place for Separating the People of Good Reputation in their Communities, from those who are either incompetent or self-serving. The entire present election process is so abysmally-
dysfunctional, that these really basic ideas of seeking to Develop "Consensus" around Core "Constitutional-Issues" is not even jokingly considered as a realistic proposition.

Here-under; it should be fairly obvious to the reader, that, this modern "Civil Governmental-
Policy-Making Process" is Not even Capable of Responsibly Addressing the True "Constitutional-
Needs" of the Organic Body-Politic/Community of People which they are suppose to be primarily concerned about. The present civil state and national so-called "Constitution" documents have been Engineered so-as-to colorably and artificially Restrict the ability of the Members of the Congressional-
Assemblies of our American state and national bodies-politic, so that they are Not Able to Efficiently Respond to the true Organic-Needs of their Constituents. These Members of these Congressional-
Assemblies are either Not Aware of their Pre-Existing Natural/Organic Constitutional Authority to respond to these true Natural/Organic Needs of their Constituents, or they are have become Intimidated into Non-Action by those who desire to Pillage and Plunder their Constituents; or they are Complicit in using these documents as Excuses to "Give Aid and Comfort" to those who desire to Pillage and Plunder their Constituents.

Truly "Constitutional Leadership-Selection Policies" Must be Designed to Constantly Allow for the Individual Law-Abiding Members of the Community in question, to Quickly and Efficiently Change Their Natural-Right to Delegate Their Sovereign Authority to a New Representative or Leader, whom they may suddenly recognize from among them-selves to be "More Confidence-
Inspiring". No Individual Leader has Any "Inherent Right" to the Possession of a Public Offices. The person who has the most support from frequently-held and smaller community-based "Votes of Confidence" are the Only People who are Entitled to the possession of such offices, under "Constitutional Law" any-way. And When-Ever any group of "Qualified-Electors" or "Constituents" of Any Community come-together in "General Assembly" for the purpose of Holding a "Vote of Confidence" in their Community's Leadership, and the election results indicate their collective "Lack of Confidence" in that leader; then that Community's Electors should Also Vote, at the same time, or immediately there-after, on Other People of good reputation in their community. whom their members consider to be good choices as New "Leaders" for their Community.

As is implied form the wording, who-ever is ultimately chosen as this community's New Leader, he or she must Not be Blemished through any Constituent from that community having "Broken Consensus" through "Vetoing" his or her being chosen as their community's New Leader. This process must all be accomplished in Smaller Communities, which are composed of only a very Few "Qualified Electors". Common-Law History indicates that the Number of Qualified Electors in each of these communities should never be more than "Twelve", and at the lower grass-roots levels, where consensus-development is less formalized and efficient, it should contain a maximum number of "Ten". It is Only through these Smaller General-Assemblies of "Qualified Electors" that "Consensus" can be maintained around the Leader. Numbers larger than this begin to develop "Factions", where-in never-ending arguments commonly occur.

Alternatively; if some-one in the community is acting "maliciously" in obstructing the ability of their community to form consensus around a truly well-qualified community leader, then the good members of that local community need to recognize this trouble-maker among them, and to chastise him and/or banish him from the community, because of his anti-social, irresponsible, and malicious behavior. This process, under old "Common-Law", was called "Outlawry, because such a person then becomes 'Out-Side of the Protections of the Law", aka he was an "Out-Law". And a new consensus needs to be formed around that ostracism process. Of course, the trouble-maker should be warned, and attempts should be made to reason with him, before any such drastic action is taken.

But maintaining this "Consensus" is critically-important, in any "Constitutional" form of government. The words are related, as shown else-where here-in. And if any individual "Maliciously Obstructs" this process, then the remaining honorable members of the community need to immediately "Re-Focus" their "Consensus-Seeking Process" up-on this new problem suddenly facing their community, and to eliminate it, one way or the other.

All of this can reasonably and efficiently be accomplished when the smaller governmental jurisdictions of our nation are organized into a "Deep Hierarchy", and where-in Power is purposefully De-Centralized to the maximum extent reasonably possible. Here-under; All People Must Recognize the Necessity of Forming Government, and of Efficiently Selecting Leaders, to Protect the People of the Community from Hostile Forces. Any Person who Un-Justifiably "Breaks Consensus", may be declared to be an "Out-Law" by the community general-assembly, and there-by he may be Banished from that community. Further here-under; every member of the community has a "Duty" to deliberate with the community's other members in "Good-Faith". "Breaking Consensus" is Not something which should ever be done for light or transient causes.

Whenever the weight of the good-faith opinions of those whom any Leader governs, no longer reflects Confidence in his continuing in that leadership position, his primary duty then is to "Step Down" from that public office. It should not be difficult for the general-assembly of the community to find another leader who they can all collectively "Consent to be Governed' by. The best example is that of the primary individual common-law communities of the "Townships", where-under the average number of individual members in the general-assembly or town-counsel is only approximately "Ten". With approximately only Ten "Heads of Household" to obtain Validation from, "Consensus" should be very easy to obtain. And because the approximately 10 Leaders of the 10 Townships of the Precinct are the delegates to the general counsel of the precinct; here-under, again, decision-making and leadership-selection may be had easily through obtaining the "Consensus" of the ten leaders who collectively represent all of the townships which compose the precinct. Here-under; Only approximately Ten Voters need to be consulted in order to gain what may justifiably be presumed to be the "Consensus" of the entire approximately one hundred household heads in the entire precinct. If one household head does not like the leader his town-constable has approved of at the precinct level, then he may veto his consensus to be governed by his own town constable; and there-
after, either he may seek the position him-self, or he may nominate a new town constable more supportive of his views. This is all of the reasonable power which the local household-head needs. Here-by, he may effect precinct-level leadership change, if he can obtain support form other members of his township or precinct. But if he is the only one making a stink and seeking to break consensus, then he either needs to sit down and be quiet, or he will risk being banished for unjustifiably disturbing the decision-making process of the other members of the township and precinct.

Again, all of his rights are protected through this process. This peer-pressure-based and Localized "Consensus" Formation Process, is the largest part of the beauty of the de-centralized common-law, torah-law, governmental-model. Remember please that Israel was Sub-Divided into "Twelve Tribes" who were represented by "Twelve Princes" as described in the book of Numbers, i believe at chapter 1. This, together with the previously partly quoted Exodus 18 and Deuteronomy 1 described "Hierarchy", based obviously on Sub-Divisions of the "Tens"; indicates that the entire governing structure of ancient Israel was Sub-Divided at the upper levels in-to "Twelves", and at he lower levels, in-to "Tens". This entire Hierarchy seems to have Permeated the Entire Nation, until every household was fully accommodated in its governmental needs.

From the citations presented here-in; it is obvious that ancient England and Germany were similarly sub-divided at the lower levels. Although admittedly, upper-level governmental sub-division evidence seems thin; the legend of King Arthur and his "Round Table" at Camelot is at least one indicator that the Israelite Twelve Divisions may have been being followed at those upper levels of Government in England.

This is sufficient Evidence, to Presume, that Israelite Torah-based Common-Law, in its Ideal Form, Should cause any nation/state in question to be Completely Sub-Divided, from top to bottom, into Hierarchies of Tens and Twelves. If such a governmental model as this is embraced, then the precious "Consensus" can be Maintained at Each Level along the Entire Governmental Hierarchy; and there-under, a Natural-Law based "Perfect Union" may reasonably be sought to be obtained.

Further; those people who have for so long, criticized the god of the true nation of Israel, by alleging that he has done nothing to bring peace and happiness to humanity, will now finally have sufficient solid evidence placed before them, to cause them to hold their tongues.

Modern National and State Applications:

How modern applications of true natural/organic "Constitutional-Law" might logically appear at the National and State Levels.

Yet the current civil U.S. "Supreme Court" and "Legislative Assembly" almost always make their "Declarations of Law" along these precise "Majority Rule" guidelines. Because this present civil "Majority Rule" process is in Square "Conflict" with the Unanimous Decisions which emanate from common-law Juries who follow constitutional "Due Process of Law", and because Both Processes Seem to be Authorized by the obviously dysfunctional present "U.S. Constitution" document; here-
under, some-how, some-way, this "Conflict of Law" Must be Resolved. In this author's humble opinion; there is probably no question before the people of this nation of greater importance.

The primary solution advocated by this author, through this document; is for honorable patriotic Americans to Organize to Invoke a Return to a form of Government substantially similar to the Original Uni-Cameral "Congressional Assembly" which was in place under the "Articles of Confederation". That single Uni-Cameral Assembly had Lawful Authority to quickly and efficiently Assemble "Juries" from the "Reputable Members" among their Delegates; and there-by to Unanimously "Speak Law" with that "Single Voice" of their True Organic Natural-Law and Common-
Law Authority.

Again, please remember from previous citations how Professor Hart so eloquently described a "Single Voice" as being Necessary in order for "Law" to be Accurately Defined in our American Constitutional Federal System of Government. By basically returning to the "Articles of Confederation", as "Originally Intended"; and by slightly modifying or perhaps tweaking it's basic guide-lines a bit, to direct that General Assembly to Select Twelve Jurors from their membership, to function as their more efficient unanimous decision-makers; here-under; Modern Government Office Holders Can Lawfully Speak with that Unanimous "Single Voice" which is Necessary for them to verbalize, in oder that they may "Govern" this Nation in that specific manner which truly Harmonizes with the Fundamental Principles of our American People's ancient and organically true "Constitutionally Law".

This ancient constitutional mode of administering "Due Process of Law", is a workable, pragmatic, and "Scientific Process", for responsibly addressing all concerns of any legitimate government. It is not only still recognized in our modern American Constitutional System of Government; but (when the chaos and confusion of the subversive elements is finally dispelled), it is Requited there-by. There really is no other "Lawful" choice here.

Modern Local Applications:

How modern applications of true natural/organic "Constitutional-Law" might logically appear at the Local Levels.

The Central Issue which this documents seeks to explore and define, is our American Constitutional System of Law and Governing, and the "Fundamental Principles" upon which they rely. Under both Written and Un-Written Definitions of this concept of our "American Constitution", another powerful word may be used Synonymously. This word is "Federalism", and as shown elsewhere here-in, that word properly means "Maximizing Local Responsible Sovereign Self-
Governing Authority".

Here-under; Public Servants of every sort will generally admit that, the "County Sheriff" possesses the Supreme Lawful Authority to declare how Force will be administered with-in the geographical boundaries of his county. Within the boundaries of his county, the "County Sheriff" has more Lawful Authority that the President of the United States, more authority than the Chiefs of the FBI, the US Marshals, the Department of Justice, the CIA, the IRS, or the Joint Chiefs of Staff in the Pentagon. He has more Lawful Authority than the Governor of his State, than the State Police, and the State's National Guard. Under both our Written and our Un-Written Organic American System of "Constitutional-Law, the "County Sheriff" is the "Highest Law Enforcement Officer of the Land" (at least with regard to all larger geographical jurisdictions, as mentioned above). The Written "U.S. Constitution" and the various written State Constitutions all recognize this; and probably all popular constitutional-law scholars will at least begrudgingly admit this.

The previously cited definition from "Black's Law Dictionary" of the word "Sheriff" specifically declares that: "He is ... the chief conservator of the peace with-in his territorial jurisdiction". This basic common-law 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 not also be 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. This is true because the Entire Larger Purpose of placing this tremendous amount of Law-Enforcement Power in the hands of the Local County Sheriff, is to allow the Local County Community to "Responsibly Self-Govern", to the fullest extent that it is capable.

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 outsiders 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 above citations concerning "County", "Comitatus", and "Shire"; clearly indicate that the Anglo/American Constitutional "County" is "Sovereign" in conducting these "Peace Keeping " responsibilities. And further research indicates clearly that the "County Officers" actually have a "Duty" to to "Keep the Peace" through Their Own "Courts of Justice", aka: "Courts of Law", in this essentially "Sovereign" Manner. This is the entire thrust of the "Special and Local", hands-off, provisions in the various State Constitutions; such as previously quoted from Oregon's Constitution, at Article 4 Section 23.

How-ever; the advocates of authoritarianism have routinely objected that such policies will lead to chaos, confusion, and anarchy; with each local jurisdiction enforcing radically differing rules of social behavior, thus causing break-down of respect among society's differing jurisdictions. In response; this author admits that each such small jurisdiction does have the lawful authority to experiment with its own community's unique ideas concerning how "Natural-Law" should operate in their own community (as seemingly was done among the Anglo/Saxons prior to 1066-ad). How-ever; this author also contends that such a break-down in the general norms of behavior in the larger jurisdictions is very unlikely occur because of at least two significant factors.

First, the Fundamental Principles of Organic Constitutional-Law Require that, when the Leaders of each of these smaller sovereign jurisdictions is Elected to his Community Leadership Office, at the same time this same general Organic-Law Requires that the Community Delegate to him or her the Full Lawful Authority to act as a "Representative" and Delegate from his smaller community, in-to the the next larger jurisdiction in the common-law hierarchy of townships, precincts, counties; and so-on, above them. If, some-how, theoretically speaking; the community members from with-in one Leader's smaller jurisdiction are habitually invoking policies which are at significant Divergence from "Natural-Law"; then, in the General-Assembly or Court of the Next Larger Jurisdiction, the collected delegates there-in will surely communicate significant "Peer-Pressure" on that smaller jurisdiction's representative/delegate to communicate to the members of his smaller jurisdiction, the concerns of their larger community, that the smaller community is acting irresponsibly.

This is true, because, at the even larger jurisdiction still, a "Single Voice" has to be presented from all of the community leaders, as to how "Natural-Law" is suppose to function with-in their communities. Here-under; "Good-Faith Communications" about how to Define this Sociological "Natural-Law" Must be Maintained at All of the Jurisdictional Levels. And any community member, at any level, who actively obstructs the ability of his next larger community of delegates to Speak with a "Single Voice" concerning how Natural-Law should function with-in their general jurisdiction, is there-by setting him-self Out-Side of the supreme Sociological Natural-Law, which in turn makes him an "Out-Law", who needs to be removed from the community, with what-ever force is necessary. Through this last-resort tool of Community Ostracism, Consensus and Order is maintained in each level of each common-law community. Here-by, each separate smaller sovereign community maintains its collective duties to their neighboring and larger communities to responsibly self-govern. This is a very important factor to note, and it makes it extremely improbable that proper common-law communities will degenerate into anarchistic chaos and confusion.

Second; the Unanimous Verdicts of the Twelve (12) Member "Juries" of the Common Reputable People in each of these Local Communities of this nation is Very Difficult to Obtain. Clearly; it is very Difficult to gain Full Agreement between Twelve Individual Free-Thinking People. When that Unanimous Agreement is finally Achieved, in each of this local communities, it is Reasonable to Presume that the Verdict rendered there-in is at least a fairly Close Approximation of Sociological "Natural-Law". There-under; such verdict, if at all divergent from pure "Natural-Law" may reasonably be presumed to be Not Diverging very far there-from.

To build on this second point further; the Juries of these separate local sovereign jurisdictions are fully capable of Responsibly Judging whether or not Higher "Natural/Organic Law" is being followed or broken by their own local County Sheriff, or by any other individual with-in their county's geographical boundaries. In other words; these Unanimous Twelve-Member Juries are fully capable of insuring to all concerned out-side jurisdictions that "Natural-Law" is being sufficiently Respected with-in their jurisdiction, so that there is absolutely no justification for any other outside jurisdiction to interfere in that local jurisdiction's own internal affairs.

This is how every smaller local County and Precinct Jurisdiction in our entire American nation is Suppose to Function under our written State and National Constitutions, and under the fundamental organic-law principles which are espoused in those documents, and under the traditional and "Originally-Intended" Definitions of "Federalism", "Republicanism", and "Common-Law"; as espoused there-in. In light of these logical realities, it should be quite clear to the reader, that, there are absolutely No Natural-Law based Logical Reasons Why the Common-Law Juries who reside with-in these Local Jurisdictions can not Exercise that "Full Sovereignty" over All "Peace-Keeping" concerns with-in their own jurisdiction's geographical boundaries.

As the above citations indicate; the "County Sheriff" is recognized in both Common-Law, and in most written State Constitutions and Statutes as a "Peace Officer". This "Peace Keeping Function" is his "Highest Duty". Civil "Statutory Laws" are Not Needed in order for him to accurately define, and enforce that simple natural-law based concept of "Keeping the Peace". This is true because Local Fully-Informed "Juries", who have Functional-Consciences and Minimal-Intelligence, are fully capable of following the fairly simple "Rules of the Common-Law", "Maxims of Law", and "Due Process of Law", in their own self-governing decision-making processes. These Juries, in their own Local Courts of the Counties and Precincts, can harmoniously and quite adequately work with their own local Sheriffs or Constables to "Keep the Peace" in their County. There is absolutely no natural need or benefit for any County in our American nation to make any reference what-so-ever to any "Statutory Enactments" from any Majority-Rule governed larger Civil Jurisdiction. Traditional Anglo/American "Maxims of Law" provide all of the guidance and direction which any of those local jurors need. By their complete Abandonment of any mechanism for seeking "Consensus", the fashionable Majority-Rule based "Statutory Enactments" of the Roman-law based Civil Jurisdictions are clearly Not at all Concerned with achieving complete Harmony with the constitutionally-supreme "Natural-Law". On the other hand; when Local Jurors are properly selected from the "Qualified Electors" of "Good Reputation" in their own County and Precinct Neighborhoods, then these "Common-Law Juries" are exceedingly Efficient Assemblies for producing Harmony with that constitutionally-prioritized and supreme "Natural-Law".

There is No Constitutional Provision which authorizes 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", not the "US Marshals" have any Constitutionally-
Lawful Authority to attempt to intervene in these Locally Controlled "Peace Keeping" Duties. Those civil executive officers from the larger jurisdictions, are only constitutionally authorized to exercise a jurisdiction with-in the individual Counties of this nation, if some responsible officer of any such smaller County "Invites Them In" through 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 naturally-
harmonious relations between its smaller and larger organic governmental jurisdictions. The written "U.S. Constitution" document, and the various State Constitutions, all recognize this reality, quite firmly. Ex-President Clinton's above quoted Executive Order clearly Confirms Precisely This, as do other related documents.

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 "Common-Law Police-Officers", called "Peace Officers" and "Constables" at the Township and Precinct levels; and to Elect our own "Common-Law Court Judges", called "Justices of the Peace" at the Precinct level. "Sheriff "and "County Judge" are the general common-law terms to be used at the County-Level. And so long as each of these communities are not clearly guilty of any significant breach of their Common-Law Duty to "Responsibly Self-Govern" under these general Natural-Law guide-lines; then No Other Humans on the planet have any Lawful Authority to Trespass into any of these Sovereign "Common-Law Jurisdictions".

And if any such trespasses do occur, then the members of those communities have the Lawful Right and "Duty"1 to Resist that Trespass with "What-Ever Force is Necessary". And even further, the Jury-Trials for Judging if any such trespassing event was "Lawful", is to be Held In the Courts and before Juries composed of the Electors chosen from That Local Jurisdiction; just as the Sixth Amendment so specifically declares.

<End>