The "Single-Voice" of "Natural-Law":

True American Constitutional-Law is based on "Natural-Law":

Un-fortunately, there were many "Coercive" elements written into the general body of so-called "U.S. Constitution" document. (This proposition is more fully proven through argument presented later here-in, and in an accompanying memorandum/document entitled "The Un-Constitutional Constitution of the United States of America".) Those "Coercive" elements written into the "U.S. Constitution" document are "In Conflict" with those Fundamental Principles which are Mandated in that very same document's own "Preamble", and its own "Bill of Rights". It is Universally Conceded among Honest Scholars who have studied these sections of this document, that these sections are Clearly Designed to Promote the perpetuation of the True Supreme Natural and Organic Laws of Justice, Peace, Safety, Liberty, and a "More Perfect Union", amongst "We the People".

Here-under: it should be clear, that, from with-in that documents remaining body of conflicting messages, Only the words which there-in articulate "Good Principles" of Governmental Policy, based clearly on "Natural Law", may be accurately referred to as "American Constitutional-Law", in its true, Fundamental, Organic sense. And since True Constitutional "Law" can Not be "In-Conflict" with it-self, something must give. This means that, when-ever a "Conflict" arises, that the lesserly important and non-fundamental provisions must be disregarded, and considered to be of zero importance. This fact, that True "Law" can Not be in Conflict with it-self, is illustrated well through one of this authors favorite quotations, which reads 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 Pavlov'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". This is how "Law" is Suppose to Work in our Constitutional Republic. Multitudes of other similar sources all say basically the same thing, all from a myriad of interesting different angles and schools of thought. 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 Recognizable by All Honorable People; just like the "Law of Gravity" is universally recognizable as a "Natural-Law", by all honorable scholars who study the natural sciences.

The only problem here is that this "Single System of Law" is Seldom Used, mostly because, almost all modern Americans simply have no idea how to either articulate it or to access it. And most bar-member attorneys are suffering under the same affliction, because these originally-intended, organic, people-empowering, constitutional-concepts, are not taught in the orthodox/civil law-schools.

Unfortunately, in the natural universe of human societies, there frequently exists great Difficulty in discovering the true "Single Voice of the Law". Frequently, it is only people of minor social influence who seem inspired to Correctly Discern and Speak the true "Single Voice of the Law". Fortunately, how-
ever; our American Constitutional System Demands that Allowances be Continuously Made for these "Minority Voices" to at least be heard. One particular but generally obscured citation, which this author finds very supportive of this assertion, reads as follows:

"Jurisdiction: 'Jurisdiction' in courts is the power and authority to declare the law. The very word in it's origin imports as much. It is derived from 'Juris' and 'dicto' -- 'I speak the law.' And that sentence ought to be inscribed in living light on every tribunal of criminal power. It is the right of administering justice through the laws, by the means which the law has provided for that purpose. ..." (Words and Phrases)1

When this citation is combined with the "Freedom of Speech" Rights of Every American, as recognized in the "First Amendment"; then, this citation seems to indicate that: exercising a True "Constitutional Jurisdiction" can be done by "Any Person" who merely Accurately Speaks True American "Constitutional-Law". Where-as fashionable American notions about "Jurisdiction" might render the practical application of this proposition a bit difficult, in the light of previous discussion surrounding Professor Hart's citation; it is clear that Any Person who Accurately "Speaks Constitutional-
Law", will Not be in "Competition" with any others who are also Speaking True "Constitutional-Law"; but rather that they will All be Saying precisely the "Same Thing", "Unanimously".

So; any individual American can "Speak Law", authoritatively, so long as he or she does it Accurately. For example, and at the Local Government level; if a "bag-lady", sleeping under a bridge or directly off of the street, attempts to "Speak Law" for the local governing authorities; she should have nothing to fear from the local public-office-holders who are honestly inclined to also speak-law correctly. This is true, because, All Persons Surrounding that local public-office-holder who are Accurately Speaking such "Constitutional-Law" will be Saying the Precise "Same Thing". Here-under; logic and reason will dictate that they should appreciate the added weight of her voice in joining with theirs, as opposed to being critical of it. There Should Be "No Competition" there, among all those who are Accurately Speaking True American "Constitutional-Law". There is absolutely zero reason for any such competition.

If the bag-lady, or any other member of the local community, is "Falsely Speaking Law", then she and/or they can be dispensed with, After they have been heard. Habitual "False Speakers of Law" would soon loose their status as "Qualified Electors" in a properly run local jurisdiction; and there-by the potential for chaos and confusion reducing the entire effort into lawless-anarchy would be very remote. Bag-ladies or others who did not have "Good Reputations" in the smaller communities for Accurately "Speaking Law" would never be allowed to perpetrate chaos and confusion at the larger jurisdictional levels.

Here-under; the First Task at hand is to Discover "Which Voice" among the many conflicting and confusion-generating voices "really Carries Ultimate Authority"; just as Professor Hart has so insightfully declared, as quoted above. At its first examination, the task of discovering precisely which among this chaotic multitude of voices in our Nation's People is Accurately "Speaking True Law" for our National Organic Body-Politic, may seem to be an insurmountable task. Yet, because the True Organic Sources of our Body-Politic's Anglo-American Constitutional-Law are so very "Ancient", honorably-
concerned students of this critically-important study have numerous "Guide-Posts", especially from with-
in the previously-mentioned English "Common-Law", to direct us in this effort.

This notion, that the Common People Can "Speak Law", Is In "Complete Harmony" with our Nations ancient Anglo/American "Common-Law". All of human history reveals very few other "Bodies of Law" which place such grass-roots based Power in the Common People; and there are No Other similar bodies of "Law" of any Significant Influence on our modern planet; and there are No Other "Bodies of Law" of Any Influence At All in the Entire History of the Government of these United States of America.

There are large bodies of older "Maxims of Law" which have distilled the essence of "Common-
Law", and which provide very ancient and well-settled "Guide-Lines" handling almost every conceivable situation in a responsible manner. The main point here is that the Common-Law elements in our American Constitutional System of Government clearly place this Authority to "Speak-Law" in the very Small and Local Communities of American Government, called "Townships", "Precincts", and "Counties". Under True Original "Common-Law" as practiced in early America, prior to the Civil War; and in old England, prior to the so-called "Norman Conquest" of 1066-ad; Common-Law "Juries" were nothing more than reputable members of local communities who "Spoke Law" for each of their local communities. This happened formally in "Common-Law Courts", held mostly at the Precinct and County Jurisdictional Levels. There-in;

American Constitutional "Due Process of Law" was to be followed, by All Twelve Members of the Jury, until they reached a "Unanimous Verdict", as everyone who knows anything about American Constitutional Jury-Trial Process will admit. The people who compose the Jury 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, who knows them all by their reputation. Keep in mind please that he is locally "Elected", and that he can be removed from office and replaced at any time for "cause shown". This means that his decisions about who is qualified to sit as a local Juror should be presumed to reflect the general consensus of the local community regarding who is so locally qualified to sit as Jurors.

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. As "Originally Intended" in our American Constitutional System of Government, this "Trial by Jury" process 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 Unanimously "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. Here-in, and under our above example; our bag-lady would be authorized to sit on the jury, and to articulate "Applicable Law" for the case then before them, until All Other Eleven Jurors (of good reputation) either confronted her for her delusional views, or recognized the truly insightful wisdom which she was articulating. This is how "Law" was "Originally Intended" to be Defined with-in local communities in early America. This is how America was originally and "Constitutionally Designed" to be run. In these smaller localized "Common-Law Communities" of Government, our very profoundly inspired bag-lady or other generally disenfranchised individuals would have the right to demand that their voice be heard, and that the merits of their versions of applicable "Law" would be rightfully discussed, openly and completely, until they are properly recognized as the profound source of wisdom which they are; or, alternatively and unfortunately, until they are recognized as nothing more than a delusional trouble-makers, who should have their "Qualified Elector" status removed from them, because they are generating confusion and chaos in their local community, as opposed to beneficial insight. Again; it is only through this "Common-Law" System of Smaller Localized "Jury Trials", that the "Single Voice" of True Constitutional-Law can be Spoken, Unanimously; and where the natural implications of the word "Juris-Diction" can be given it's True Meaning.

This "Common-Law" would be a very Good Choice to use as a modern "Guide-Post" in Charting the Course of our modern American "Ship of State". This is true for at least three reasons, as follows: 1: Common-Law was Very "Highly Respected" by the Common People in Early America, and in popular use among them from the smallest to the largest levels of government; 2: Common-Law was powerfully Embodied in our American Nations First Written "Constitution" document, which functioned as our Nation's Supreme Governing Document, enabling our ancestors to organize with sufficient efficiency to throw off the tyranny of the most powerful military force on the planet at that time, and entitled as the "Articles of Confederation"; 3: Common-Law was functioning at least for many centuries as "Supreme Governing Law", in pre-1066-ad/pre-Norman-Conquest England; and even earlier in numerous other countries, including Germany and ancient Israel2.

However, and unfortunately; this idea of Power to "Speak Law" by the "Common People" is also In "Bold Conflict" with the modernly Fashionable Belief that Only "Public-Servants" can "Speak Law" for the American People. That False but fashionable idea is derived from the Roman "Civil Law", where-in all power and authority flows from the "Emperor", who was at minimum considered to Speak the "Voice of God", and frequently to actually Be "God". In that Roman Empire, "Slave Trading" was the "Driving Force" that Sustained that Entire Social-Governing System; and the "Common People" could hardly be allowed to "Speak Law" there-in, or their Entire Governmental Structure would be in very dangerous risk of totally collapsing, from any sudden natural manifestation of "Public Conscience" from among the common populace.

The so-called Roman "Civil-Law" and English "Common-Law" are the Only Two Bodies of "Law" which have any significant influence in these United States of America. Admiralty-Law, Maritime, Contract, Commercial, Military, Administrative-Law; these are all derived from Roman-based "Civil-Law". This fact will be proven through reputable citations presented later in this document, and some briefer citations supporting this fact can be gleaned from the "Black's Law Dictionary" Citations presented later here-in.

This existence of "Civil-Law" in our American Constitutional System of Government raises another significant concern. As Professor Hart above indicated; there are multitudes of Other "Conflicting Voices", which, Falsely, but publicly, also declare them-selves to be Speaking "Law" Accurately. These "Conflicting Voices" are frequently articulated by National "Public-Servants" of very high position. Presidential "Executive Orders", and numerous other "Administrative Decisions" from within the Executive Department are excellent examples here. This modern phenomenon closely resembles the dictates of the ancient Emperors of Rome. However; the Judiciary, along with even the Legislature, are also frequently quite Guilty of Contributing to the Chaos and Confusion of what is True "Constitutional Law" for "We the People" who organically compose our American Nation.

But the blame does not stop here. Many people in significant Private positions of influence over our national body-politic consciousness also contribute to the chaos and confusion which is so modernly epidemic there-in. Examples of these Private National Social-Confusion Generating People would be Law-School Professors, Corporate Attorneys, Corporate Media Executives and their Spokes-People, and the very important "Church Leaders". And the Bankers and Insurance Executives who Knowingly and Willfully Feed these "Voices of Confusion" through their Control the Flow of Capital to them, and their Obstruction of that very same "Flow of Capital" to the "True Voices of the American People", also share a very significant part of the blame. Campaign-Financing and Lobbying, in particular, places tremendous pressure from these Private Controllers of our Nation's Financial-Capital on our Nation's Public-Servants, to Confuse our Nation's People's Public-Consciousness in Discovering, Articulating, and Obeying, our National Organic Body-Politic's Single and True "Voice of Constitutional-Law".

But here-under; it is self-evident and probably universally agreed, that, there are many voices seeking the authority to "speak law" for our nation; and that our modern American political (legislative, judicial, and executive) system, is presently acting very "Chaotic"; and that our Nation can probably accurately be described, by applying to it, Professor Harts phrase about "Suffering a Nervous Break-
down". Obviously, in order to insure the Health of our American National Organic Body-Politic, some form of "Remedy" must be found to alleviate this Sickness of "Confusion in the Laws" which Govern our National Body-Politic. Under the True Un-Written Organic "Constitutional-Law" of our American People; All modern Elected Public-Servants have a "Prioritized Constitutional-Duty" to do what-ever is with-in their power to Steer the Machinery of the Governmental Offices which they hold, along the "Well-Charted Course" embodied with-in the here-in expressed and ancient "Fundamental Principles of our Anglo/American System of Constitutional Law and Government". While observing this "Well Charted Course", these Elected Public-Servants are Obligated to Use Their "Conscience" and their "Reasoning" Process, so-as-to Seek Natural/Organic Truth, Justice, Safety, and Peace; for our American Body-Politic of Common People. This is true, because, the ancient Fundamental Anglo/American Principles of our Nation's "Constitutional-Law" Require that our National "Ship of State" be Piloted and Steered Precisely along this course, With-in these Strict Parameters, in order that these Prioritized "End Goals" of our Legitimate American Government, of Truth, Justice, Safety, and Peace; may be finally Secured for our American People.

Here-under, and with All Due Deference to our nations present written "U.S. Constitution" document; if a "Unanimous Jury" declares that "Just Cause is Shown" under the Natural-Law based "Higher-Law" of our nation's ancient "Fundamental Principles" of our Organic "Constitutional-Law", to Adjust the Course of our American "Ship of State", Out-Side of the Parameters specified in the so-called "U.S. Constitution" document; then certainly, and with-out any un-due delay, the Single-Voice of our True American Constitutional-Law Requires All Public-Servants to Immediately Adjust the Course of the Governmental Machinery of the "Public-Offices" which They are entrusted to Control, so that our national Ship of State will feel the inclination from Their Public-Office to also Adjust its Course along this "More Constitutional" Pathway.

This powerful Deference to "Jury Verdicts" is the Clear "Intent" under-lying the "Seventh Amendment", which 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 wording clearly implies that our American Constitutional Common-Law "Trial-by-Jury" process, is the "Highest Decision-Making" process available in our nation's Constitutional System of Government. That is what these words clearly imply. Please take the time her to meditate on these words, if this point continues to elude you. It is a critically-important point.

Under conclusions more fully presented later, but drawn through the study of our American Constitutional "Trail by Jury" Process; and also in light of this documents early quotation from Professor Hart, and perhaps a few other sources set forth previously here-in; a bold and powerful "Fundamental Principle of American Constitutional Government" becomes clear: True Governmental Declarations of "Law" may Only be "Spoken" by the Single "Unanimous" Voice of a "Common-Law Jury". Everything else is "Provisional", or temporary; waiting around until a proper common-law jury decides to take the controversy into consideration.

In more natural-law and common-law terms; these Juries are the Only "Law Declaring" or "Law Finding" power; because, as shown else-where here-in, Sociological "Natural-Law" is the Only True, Essential Definition of "Law" in our American Nation. This is true because this Natural form of "Law" is Already "Pre-Existing"; and it can Not be "Made" by any human or group of humans. It can only be "Found" or "Discovered", through the Unanimous Agreement of the People of Good Reputation in Their Communities. Here-under; the Only Process which even pretends to be capable of accomplishing this significantly burdensome task, is our nations ancient Common-Law "Trial by Jury" process. This "Natural-Law" has already been so "Discovered", in multitudes of previous and ancient jury trials; and it is available in our modern law books under our nation's traditional concept of "Maxims of Law", and as "the Rules of the Common-Law", and as our traditional Anglo/American "Due Process of Law". Once these fundamental principles are firmly grasped, it is easy to conclude that, under our national written "U.S. Constitution" document, our Anglo/American Constitutional "Juries" Are the Only True "Law-
Making Power" of this nation.

Similar citations and further discussion in support of these points will be provided later in this document.

Here-under; all public-servant office-holders who refuse to lend the weight of their voices to such a correct "Speaking-of-Law", are in direct Violation of their Oath to up-hold the Constitution of these United States of America; and that very same "Law" provides that they may be directly and forcibly Removed from the Public-Offices which they hold, for Dereliction of Their Duties to the American People. And mere bag-ladies can Lawfully be placed in charge there-in, if it seems to those honorably concerned that she is the one person in their community who is the most capable of "Speaking-
Law" Correctly for that entire Community of Common People. The only task left to preform is for the executive personnel to promptly implement that Correct Speaking of "Law".

At this point, it is good to lay a broader foundation for further discussion, by citing a number of reputable definitions for basic but also important words, as follows:

Religion, Theology, and Natural-Law:

At the outer-fringes of its secular discussion, the complete "Natural-Law Philosophy" study which must be examined in order to clearly identify the "Fundamental Principles of our American System of Constitutional Law and Government", Necessarily Includes a very broad diversity of "Religious Views". Yet, at the very moment of the first examination of the Wide Diversity of "Religious Views"; our American People's already very emotionally-charged subject of our "Constitution" suddenly turns into possibly the single most mutually dis-respectful, and potentially violent "Heated Debate" on the planet. Why these "Religious Views" engender such "Heat", is a question which can at least temporarily be considered a "Mystery". For the vast majority of this document's discussion, these "Religious Views" will be purposefully avoided. They will probably be addressed in a future document.3

In order for this study to progress in addressing all Secular American Constitutional Issues a pragmatic, efficient, and secularly workable manner; some citations with at least a few strong "Religious Views" will need to be referenced here-in. Thus, in this short section here, all Religious or Theological concerns which at all need to be addressed in this document, will be addressed here in this "Religious" section. And these will not be addressed in detail, but merely for the limited purpose of clearly defining the gate-ways between the religious and the secular realms.

It is necessary to make at least passing reference to these "Religious Views" because of the existence of the phrase "the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God", as it is used in the opening sentence of our nations "Declaration of Independence". Mr Blackstone also used similar wording, clearly "Linking" "Natural Law" with his concept of "God", as is shown by quotations presented from him later here-in. These very reputable sources clearly affirmed that some concept of "God" was involved in all honorable forms of "Constitutional Law and Government" during our nations constitutional inception.

This "Linkage" between "Religion" and "Natural Law" in our American System of Constitutional Law and Government, is reflected in the ages-old and very physical, earthly, and secular Battle between "Good vs Evil". At its more intense levels of discussion, this can be seen in how every nation on the planet professes to be filling a "Natural Law" concern, when-ever they direct the force of their nation/state to Separate those whom they identify as "Criminals" from the more Honorable People who responsibly involving them-selves in their national communities. As a specific example, the policies of the British monarch and his red-coats who pointed guns at our American Founders during our nations "Revolutionary War", were "Evil". That Evil is precisely Why our early American Founders were "Justified" in killing them. Every red-coat who was killed, then, was so killed through "Justifiable Homicide". This is true because, just like the world-war two Nazis at Nuremberg those red-coats were knowingly and willfully participating in "Evil Activities". Both the lower-level Nazis and the red-coats made their spiritually-fatal moral-mistakes when they decided to mindlessly obey the orders of the evil occupant of either Britain's throne or the Chancellorship of Germany.

To focus more tightly on the Fundamental Principles of "Natural-Law" involved in this concern, unless there is a clearly-identified "Evil", then there is No "Justification" for authorizing the guns of the nation/state to be pointed against any individual or group of people. "Evil" is the Only clear "Justification" for pointing the guns of the nation/state at any living/breathing human-being. America's Founders Sacrificed their Lives to Separate them and us (as their posterity) from those "Evil" red-coats, and the other mindless and conscienceless drones of their corrupted British monarch.

As our nation's "Declaration of Independence" clearly indicates, our early American Founders looked to these "Laws of Nature and of Natures God" for their personal guidance and direction, as they courageously risked and frequently literally Sacrificed their very Lives, all so that our American Constitutional concept of "Free Government" would be preserved for our modern society. Please note the obviously similar root-meaning between the words "Sacrifice" and the religious word "Sacred". Because the then-acting British Monarch, as the chief officer of their "Church of England" commanded then to do so, some British red-coats believes that his commands were "Sacred". There-under; those red-
coats "Sacrificed" their lives, for their religious monarch. Conversely; our American Founders also "Sacrificed" their lives, in their efforts to establish a better nation which they "Originally Intended" to operate under their concept of "Natural Law". As the "Declaration" so clearly indicates, through the words in its opening sentence of "and of Nature's God", the concept of America's Founders of "Natural Law", was almost universally considered to be a "Religious" concept. And in the broader picture, there is no reason why these heroic early Americans would "Sacrifice" their very Lives, unless they had some form of "Sacred" or "Religious" Reason for doing so.

Through these words, this author believes that he has adequately shown to all conscience-bound secular-humanists, atheists, or agnostics; that at least very powerful arguments can be made in support of the proposition that the Founders of our once grand American Nation "Originally Intended" our American Nation to exist in such a state of Harmony with supreme "Natural-Law" as to amount to a "Religious" Ideal; and that, at least in very large part, that these "Religious Ideals" were preserved with-
in our nations written "U.S. Constitution" document.

Please note that the "First Amendment" was designed to prohibit favoritism from the civil government towards any particular religious denomination. That First Amendment was not designed to obstruct those particular Religious Institutions which might be very effective at Promoting "Natural-Law based Social-Harmony" from influencing or even stepping into the complete vacuum of control of our American Government. The ability of Natural-Law based Religious-Institutions to Positively Influence American Constitutional Government was Purposefully Left "Wide Open". The specific wording of the First Amendment is very clear on this point. The only possible grounds for objecting to "Religious Influence" over our American Constitutional Government, is if that Religious-Institution is so influencing our national government in an "Un-Natural" or socially dis-harmonious manner.4 Other-wise, the "Establishment of Religion" prohibition in the First Amendment poses absolutely No Bar against Organized "Religious Institutions" Influencing American Governmental Policy.

Having said this, there are two other points this author wishes to make before concluding this section. First, probably all of the issues necessary to raise in order to lay an adequate legal foundation for moving forward in pursuit of the goals sought though this and accompanying documents, have been adequately covered through this brief discussion of these "Religious Issues", and through the remaining and much more secularly focused larger body of the text of this document. Second, because all such goals can be achieved through this largely secular focus of this document, there is no reason left to risk alienating the conscience-bound secular-humanists, atheists, or agnostics, who in many ways can be seen to be quite justified in their hatred of all things "Religious", because of the epidemic of corruption and hypocrisy in most of the larger religious organizations. Indeed; many of these secular-humanists, atheists, and agnostics, are actually more conscience-bound and more harmonious with supreme "Natural-Law" than are a great many people who profess "Religion".

And so, in efforts to seek consensus with conscience-bound and reasonable people who identify them-selves as secular-humanists, atheists, or agnostics; this author will vigorously seek to avoid all further discussion of religious or theological concepts in this document. So please, all secular-humanists, atheists, and agnostics, who possess functional-consciences; please indulge this author as he attempts to lay a very broad-based foundation for this discussion. This document will seek to responsibly address absolutely all of your legitimate concerns in terms harmonious with your solid secular/earthly firmly-
footed, pragmatic real-world foundation. It is you who are framing approximately 96% of this discussion. If you have a functional "Conscience", then the remaining heated "Religious Issues" will not be brought in to the discussion until we have formed "Consensus" with you to move forward.

Natural-Law Philosophy and Principles:

It is best to start this "Constitutional Law and Government" study, by first defining the outer-
parameters of its foundation along the clear lines of the firm Principles and Philosophy under which this entire subject must operate. Clearly; "Constitutional-Law" is a form of "Law". These words clearly indicate that there are specific "Guide-Lines" which intelligent people may use as Tools for clearly Comprehending how these words have already been firmly Defined, by the Original Framers of our American Constitutional System of Government; and earlier, by those preceding them, and up-on whom the Framers relied.

Also; it is good here to note, that, this documents general search for "Fundamental Principles of American Constitutional-Law", may be further simplified; because its wording is actually "Redundant". What we are really searching for, are the still un-clearly-defined "Fundamental Principles of American Law". This search can easily be completed without any un-necessary reference to the word "Constitution"; because the words 'Law" and "Constitution" actually mean the same thing. Of even more pressing concern is that the Word "Constitution" is routinely Modernly Construed Wrongfully as meaning that monumentally distracting written document, which presumptuously declares itself to be the "United States Constitution".5 How-ever, in this document, and unless specifically noted other-wise; the word "Constitution" will be defined by default as the "Un-Written Natural and Organic Law" of Honorable Communities and Societies of People.

Here-under; and as numerous of the above quotations from "Black's Law Dictionary" clearly show, true American "Constitutional Law" is designed to address the "Organic Needs" of the Body-
Politic or Community of People in question. Here-under; Properly Defined "Constitutional Law" should enable the Collective Reasoning Capabilities, Conscience, and Spirit, of these People to "Come Together", in a Natural "General Assembly" to Collectively Address the Organic Needs of the "Constituent Members" of their larger collective Organic "Body-Politic". This True form of "Organic Constitutional-Law" is "Universally Applicable" to every nation on earth, including our own USA. Here-
under; it is important to note that this True "Constitutional-Law" is not to be "Provided For" the People which it governs, from any out-side source. This is true, because, as the words "Organic" and "Body-
Politic" clearly indicate, this "Constitutional-Law" will Naturally manifest from among the intelligent and concerned members of each such community in question, if they are but given a free-hand and a bit of encouragement in assuming their local duties to "Responsibly Self-Govern". This will necessitate the honorably elected and faithfully accountable Representatives of the smallest communities of these common people following their natural instincts to solemnly and generally assemble in un-rushed manners to discuss all government related concerns for their respective communities.

Please note here-under, that: the terms "Consent", "Constituent", "Conscience", and "Consensus", are all directly Related to the word "Constitution". "Constituents" are the Common People who actually compose the Natural, living-breathing, Organic "Body-Politic" in question. Like a quilt, patched together from different component parts; the strong and self-sufficient integrity of each of the individual pieces, is absolutely necessary in order for the larger item to be healthy and strong. Here-
under; it should be clearly recognizable that for any community of people to have a "Constitutional Government", then that government must have some form of machinery in place in the smaller local and private communities, which Enabling the Common People there-in to "Responsibly Self-Govern".

This author particularly enjoys basing his arguments on out-side sources, citations, and quotations; and one particularly insightful citation regarding the general Principles and Philosophy which underlies the "Fundamental Principles of our American System of Constitutional Law and Government", is form a reputable law book called "Principles of Business Law"6; and this text 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.' (Kant) ... 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 (to everyone with minimal reasoning capacity), that this general concept of "Natural Law" is the most Fundamental Body of Principles of Law known to mankind. These words clearly imply that, for all people who are sufficiently patient to study the secular/earthly problems facing humanity, if they have ears to hear and eyes to see the light of these Sociological "Natural Laws"; then Answers to all of these profound concerns will be made available to them. Even without making the above reference to "Divine Authority"; from words such as the above; our American People may find Reason for "Hope", and perhaps even for "Faith", that through close adherence to such Sociological "Natural Laws" as described in this citation, our American People can obtain that "Justice", "Domestic Tranquility" (Peace), and "More Perfect Union"; all as so eloquently framed in the "Preamble" to our 1789 written "U.S. Constitution" document. In fact; perhaps the singular most powerful mainstream argument which can be made in support of this Sociological Natural/Organic Law proposition; is that, through compromise achieved in the composition of the written "Constitution" document, the Principle-based Natural-Law 'History' of our more ancient Anglo/American Common-Law Jurisprudence was incorporated into that document. Without referencing the Common-Law; this "Natural-Law" Linkage to our "Constitution" Document is most easily recognizable through that documents "Preamble" and Original Ten "Bill of Rights" provisions. That "Preamble" 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."

This is a very good "Working Statement" for summarizing the "Fundamental Principles of our American Constitutional Law and Government". All of the convoluted process of bi-cameral legislative-
assemblies and complicated "checks and balances" were allegedly "Intended" by that document's Framers, to Secure this "Justice", "Liberty", and "More Perfect Union" for "We the People". The words of this "Preamble" are clearly Intended to Securing for "We the People" a Society based on this Sociological "Natural-Law". These words clearly have no meaning out-side of expressing ideas for Fulfilling the Natural/Organic Needs of "We the People" who organically compose this nation. And this view all merges very Harmoniously as a "Single-Voice" with the pre-1789 "History" of our nations Anglo-American "Common-Law" Jurisprudence. This Preamble, and various portions of the "Bill of Rights" are about all that this author will cite here-in from the written "U.S. Constitution" document.7

Here this author desires to emphasize the point that: for a long period of time before 1787, before when the so-called "Constitutional Convention" occurred; the words "Constitution" and "Constitutional-Law" were firmly in common use, with these "Pre-Existing Definitions", for clearly identifying Natural-Law based Modes for Governing and Regulating social/community affairs. Further; 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.

In order to illustrate this fact, it is good to examine a single yet profound and far-reaching citation, from one "William Blackstone", who wrote his famous "Commentaries on the Laws of England", in the 1750's or so (just a few years before the American Revolutionary War), as follows:

"This then, is the general signification of law, ... laws ... denote the rules ... of human action or conduct, that is, the precepts by which man, the noblest of all sublunary beings, a creature endowed with both reason and free will, is commanded to make use of those faculties in the general regulation of his behavior. ...

Law of Nature. This will of his Maker is called the law of Nature. "When He (God) created man, and endued him with free will ... He laid down certain immutable laws of human nature whereby that free will is in some degree regulated and restrained, and gave him also the faculty of reason to discover the purport of those laws. "Considering the Creator" ... "is also a being of infinite wisdom, He has laid down only such laws as were founded in those relations of justice, that existed antecedent ... to any positive precept. These are the eternal immutable laws of good and evil, to which the Creator Himself in all His dispensations conforms; and which He has enabled human reason to discover, so far as they are necessary for the conduct of human actions. Such, among others, are these principles: that we should live honestly, should hurt nobody, and should render to everyone his due; to which three precepts Justinian has reduced the whole doctrine of law. ...

As therefore, the Creator is a Being, not only of infinite power, and wisdom, but also of infinite goodness, He has been pleased so to contrive the constitution and frame of humanity, that we should want no other prompter to inquire after and pursue the rule of right, but only our own self-love, that universal principle of action. For he has so intimately connected, so inseparably interwoven the laws of eternal justice with the happiness of each individual, that the latter cannot be obtained but by observing the former; and if the former be punetually obeyed, it cannot but induce the latter. In consequence of which mutual connection of justice and human felicity (happiness), He has not perplexed the law of nature with a multitude of abstract rules and precepts, ... but has graciously reduced the rule of obedience to this one paternal precept, "that man should pursue his own true and substantial happiness." This is the foundation of what we call ethics, or natural law. For the several articles into which it is branched in our systems, amount to no more than demonstrating that this or that action tends to mans real happiness, and therefore very justly concluding that the performance of it is a part of the law of nature; or, on the other hand, that this or that action is destructive of mans real happiness, and therefore that the law of nature forbids it.

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. But in order to apply this to the particular exigencies of each individual, it is still necessary to have recourse to reason: whose office it is to discover ... what the law of nature directs in every circumstance of life; by considering what method will tend the most effectively to our own substantial happiness. . . ."

"The policy of our ancient constitution, as regulated and established by the great Alfred, was to bring justice home to every man's door, ..." 8

Please note, Mr Blackstone's main points may be Summarized as follows:

"the several articles into which it (natural law) is branched , in our (English Constitutional Common-Law) systems, amount to no more than demonstrating that this or that action tends to mans real happiness, and therefore ... it is a part of the law of nature; or, on the other hand, that this or that action is destructive of mans real happiness, and therefore that the law of nature forbids it. 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."

These fundamental principles of Sociological "Natural-Law" were firmly legally entrenched in the English Constitutional System of Government; although, in actual practice, they had significantly diverted from them, as evidenced by their provocation of our American Revolution. The main points which the serious student should glean here-from are:

1: The "Whole Doctrine of Law" may be "Reduced" to this concept of "Natural Law";

2: Conformity with this "Natural Law" "can not help but Induce" the "Happiness of each individual" in the entire nation who abides by it;

3: The ancient English system of Constitutional Laws "amount to no more than Demonstrating that this or that action tends to mans real happiness", and there-fore Harmonizes with this "Natural-Law";

4: This "Law of Nature" is ... "Dictated by God Himself";

5: This "Law of Nature" is ... "Superior in Obligation to any other" Laws;

6: This "Law of Nature" is "Binding" over all the globe "In All Countries", including the U.S.A.; and "At All Times":

7: "No Human Laws are of Any Validity, if Contrary to" this "Natural-Law"; and such of them as are valid derive their force, and all authority ... from this original "Natural-Law".

This seldomly expressed summary of Blackstone's clear words, contain what are obviously very powerful, fundamental, and far-reaching Principles of Anglo/American Constitutional-Law; and they will be referred to frequently here-in, and in related documents.

Please note also (in the last sentence in the full quote further above), that the word "Constitution" is considered by Mr Blackstone to be "Ancient". Please note further that, as every student of the English system of Government is fully aware, their Constitution is is "Un-Written". This citation, in full context, clearly proves that the word "Constitution", as used in England and America, Prior to the American Revolution and prior to the formation of the "U.S. Constitution" document had a "Pre Existing Definition" based on "Un-Written-Law" and "Natural-Law". When the People from England speak of "Our Constitution", they do so Not in a "Private-Law" Sense, as if inferring that these bodies of law which supremely govern our respective nations are some-thing unique unto ourselves. Rather, they speak these words in efforts to communicate an "Ancient" and Pre-Existing body of Social-Behavior Guidelines, which their Ancestors have preserved for them, through great effort by them-selves, as leaders and loyal members of their "Ancient" English Organic Body-Politic of People. The use by the English people of this word "Constitution" simply indicated a body of sociological human behavior guidelines which was simply "More Harmonious" with the "Natural-Laws" which Mr Blackstone above indicated Must Govern All Human Societies.

Because these "Natural-Law" based concepts were so popular amongst Americas Founders, and at least respected among our Written ""United States Constitution's" Framers; here-under; the concept of a "More Perfect Union", as referenced in that document's "Preamble"; seems to clearly imply a desire by the Framers of that document to establish a Nation based on Utopian or Idealistic Principles and Philosophy. The clear implication of these words makes absolutely No Sense want-so-ever out-side of a Philosophical Frame-Work based solidly on "Natural-Law". This is true, because, it is clearly un-
harmonious with the well-settled definitions of these "Utopian" or "Idealistic" words, to identify them with any kind of a society which fails to achieve significant levels Harmony amongst its members with Blackstone's above expressed definitions of "Natural-Law".

In terms which may be more assimilatable for sociologists, these are "Natural-Law 'Norms' of Behavior". It should be clear from these words that it is Only Proper to Use this critically-important word "Constitution" to Describe those "Natural-Law" based "Principles" which "Must Govern, or Limit, Human Social-Behavior". These Sociological "Natural-Law" Ideas generally articulate, that; if communities of people with minimally-functional Consciences are left to them-selves9; then These Natural-Laws Will Voluntarily Be Adopted and Followed. That is Why it is called "Natural Law".

When Blackstone's last cited and quoted sentence above is viewed in its Full Context, as set forth in the larger full Blackstone quote above; it is clear that the "Constitution" for the National Community of the People of England was a general "Body of Principles" and "Philosophy" which was Firmly Based on what can be referred to as "Sociological Natural-Law". And when that text is later viewed in light of English "Common-Law", then it quickly becomes clear that our specifically American Definition and comprehension of the word "Constitution" should more properly adhere to this same more Fluid and "Principle-Based" Definition" which our English kinsmen across the ocean use.

The so-called "Constitutional Convention", which occurred in Philadelphia in 1787, did Not purport to Change these "Pre-Existing Definitions" of the then generally esteemed and revered word "Constitution". The Framers of that document Knew Well of the Natural-Law based Principles which Mr Blackstone and numerous other prominent people had expressed during the Revolutionary period, and that our American Nation was Based Firmly on those Natural-Laws; and so, they had no choice but to at least posture as following those Natural-Law based Principles. Even though many scholars consider it irrational, the proponents of the so-called "U.S. Constitution" document argued during and after the so-
called Convention, that that document was Harmonious with those Pre-Existing, Fundamental and sociologically Natural-Organic-Law based Definitions.10 Further; it is from this precise Natural/Organic-Law based Foundational-Definition that our American nation's "U.S. Constitution" document has gained its popular acceptance, and every iota of its theoretical Legitimacy.

As shown by the above citations; Blackstone, and other constitution-influencing scholars prior to this time, wrote in harmony with these Pre-Existing Sociological "Natural-Law" Ideals, specifically because, similar to all other words describing "Natural Law" (such as in the realm of Physics, the description of the "Law of Gravity"); these words were and are terms which describe Social Conditions which are Absolutely Necessary to Maintain among Every Social Community of People, at least if those Communities of People are going to be able to Organically Respond to the Needs for Their Own Long-
Term Survival, as living-breathing Organic Body-Politic/Communities.

Here-under; the proper Definition of the terms "Constitution" and "Constitutional-Law", should be recognized to refer to a "Pre-Existing Body of Law", which is also known as "Organic Law" and/or as "Fundamental Law". All modern reputable law dictionaries still recognize this "Linkage" to these pre-
1787 definitions of the word "Constitution". The previously cited quotations from "Black's Law Dictionary" are particularly supportive of this proposition. Other citations included later in this document also confirm these words. Scholars on these subjects such as Grotius, Rousseau, Locke, and many others, had all written at great lengths about the necessity for all human societies to conform to these "Natural Laws"; simply because it seemed clear to them that such Natural Laws 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:

"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. ..."

These choice passages from America's "Declaration of Independence", really frame well this entire issue concerning the Truly "Fundamental" and "Organic" Laws up-on which our American National "Constitution" is based. This "Declaration" will be referred to again, and frequently, 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".11 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". These words would be nothing more than empty noise-makings if they were to be allowed to be viewed as divorced form these concerns for these natural-laws which must govern the behavior of all classes of people in any community, if "Peace" is to be maintained there-in.

In light of this idea that properly defined "Constitutional-Law" is actually the more Fundamental "Organic Law", for a living-breathing community of people; here-under, it is easy to grasp the Reason Why it was a "Foreign Idea" to our American Society, prior to the 1787 Philadelphia convention, that a "Written Document" could claim to be "A 'Constitution'". Prior to that date, our American Constitutional System of Government had largely descended from the nation of "England"; and that nation had no written document which made any such an arrogant claim as to be "The Constitution". They continue on to this day with that noble policy, all firmly rooted in our mutually-shared tradition of "Common-Law". "Common-Law" is also known as "Un-Written Law", as shown in the above definition from "Black's Law Dictionary", of "Lex Non-Scripta". Under this "Un-Written Law" policy; people have to "Think" and "Reason" about what is "Constitutional". This policy stands in Stark Contrast to the fashionable practice of scurrying about to "Lawyers", every time an issue of "Constitutionality" is raised; and where-under Lawyers exercise their "conditioned response", like "Pavlov's dogs", to merely open statute or case-law-
precedent citation-books, to read pre-determined and pre-formatted decisions regarding solutions to the current problems facing them.

This mutually-shared tradition of Anglo/American "Constitutional-Law" requires that our responsible government officials enter into Open, Public, Good-Faith Discussions, so-as-to "Reason" about how most Conscionably to administer the affairs of government.12 In its true, organic body-politic sense, the word "Constitution" is Directly Related to this word "Conscience". This is Why the Elected Representatives of the People are Required to "Reason" Openly and Publicly, about what is the "Right Thing to Do"; in response to any and all given controversies. This is the "Conscionable" way to respond to all new controversies. In particular, this is the Duty of each and every one of the twelve Jurors on a "Common-Law Jury".

Here-under; true, organic, "Constitutional-Law" does have firm traditional parameters and guide-
lines which may not be crossed. Yet with-in those parameters, and in response to any and all current issues which may confront them; the true representatives of the common localized people, and especially Jurors, have fully Adequate Room for "Reasoning" about how Best and most Conscionably to "Do the Right Thing".

Once this modernly unfashionable process has again become familiar to the people's delegates, it logically should be able to function in very quick and efficient manners. This is especially true in comparison with the extremely cumbersome and inefficient decision-making process used by probably all modern civil governments on the planet, and especially as practiced in the United States and in Britain.

"Common-Law" and "Due-Process of Law" Embodies the Most Efficient
& the "Most Lawful" Governmental Decision-Making Process:

Fortunately; the ancestors of the English/British People, from whom we derive our American Constitutional System of Government, have Developed a "Scientific" Course of "Step-by-Step" Procedures, for Clearly Identifying Specific Instances of this secularly-based "Sociological Natural-
Law". That specific Sociologically "Scientific Process" was so respected by the more honorable among our nation's founders, that they battled in fierce debate to insist that it be included in the "Bill of Rights", as appended to our nations "U.S. Constitution" supreme governing document. This "Scientific Process" for Clearly Identifying this Secularly-based "Sociological Natural-Law" was here-by Insisted on being included in that "Bill of Rights" document, under its "Fifth Amendment" Mandate that "Due Process of Law" shall be preserved for every American.

This "Process" was also preserved in the "Seventh Amendment" there-in, which, quoted for a second time in this document, 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 is clearly a very powerful constitutional citation. This citation clearly implies that, if other common-law juries were functioning to try all cases in the USA with maximum efficiency, that here would be absolutely "Nothing Left" for the National Court System to adjudicate. That conclusion is clearly implied by this "Seventh Amendment" provision. Please meditate on this important point until it is clear in your mind.

Now this phrase, the "Rues of the Common-Law", is not really very fashionable in modern American court-room terminology; and so, a bit of further explanation is in order here, which is provided through a repeated citation from "Black's Law Dictionary", as follows:

"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 clearly shows that; the phrases: "Rules of the Common-Law" and "Due Process of Law" mean basically the same thing. There are numerous other similar citations available.

However; the important point here, is that this "Process" was and is Constitutionally "Due" to each and every American, when-ever they may be threatened in any way with any governmentally invoked deprivation of "Life, Liberty, or Property". This Process is "Due" to him, because he is a "Component Member" of our our American-National "Organic Body-Politic"; and because These Procedural Rules are the Very "Essence" of How We Distinguish Between People who have Violated the "Rules" of our "Social Compact", and those who have not. This Is "The Law" in this our American Constitutional Republic. This is How We Decide if the "Force of the Government" in Lawfully Authorized to Proceed against Any Person.

Please note that this Constitutional "Due Course of Law" is a Sociologically "Scientific" Process. This is an ancient and well-settled "Course" of "Scientific Step-By-Step Procedures" which was Constitutionally "Due" to Every Individual in the Organic Body-Politic/Community. The Central Feature of this "Due Process" Required the Assembling of Twelve (12) People of "Good Reputation" in that Community, to Deliberate until they could finally arrive at a "Unanimous Judgement" as-to essentially what "Sociological Natural-Law" Required in response to the situation before them. This Scientific "Due Process" is also known as our traditional Anglo/American "Trail by Jury" process. It has been specifically Preserved for All Americans through the various wordings of the Fifth, Sixth, and Seventh Amendments to the "U.S. Constitution" document. These Twelve Jurors Swore on the Bible, Publicly, to "Do the Right Thing" before God. There-by; they were "Bound by their Consciences" to Discover and Implement what essentially amounted to this "Sociological Natural- Law".13

Please note also the obvious fact that it is Very Difficult to get Twelve People to "Unanimously Agree" on Anything. Please note also that, under "Common-Law"; Only People of "Good Reputation" in the Community were Allowed to Serve on these Juries. These people of "Good Reputation" were also known as "Qualified Electors"; and many modern statutes (including those of Oregon) still recognize these common-law based wordings. These "Common-Law Jurors" are to be people who are Concerned with the Reputations of them-selves and their neighbors in Their Community. For it is only through this natural Concern for Their Reputation in Their Community that sufficient "Peer Pressure" may naturally and conscionably be brought to bear (in response to the serious needs of the community), in order to Conscionably Motivate this fairly Large Group of Twelve People into their lawfully-required and Collective "Unanimous Decision". Those who have been involved as jurors in this true common-law jury-trail process, know that it almost always takes a lot of work from all twelve of those jurors, in order to achieve that final "Unanimity". And Logic (Lawgic) makes it clear that People who are not Honorably Concerned for Their Reputation in Their Community, will not feel sufficiently this "Peer-Pressure" to do the necessary juror-work to accomplish "Doing the Right Thing" for the Fellow Members of Their Community.

Please note also that, depending on the differing cases, there were also many other ancient, and well-settled, and traditional "Maxims of Law" in place, for these Jurors to recognize as "Guide-Posts", along their Course of step-by-step Procedures, in seeking to refine this "Sociological Natural-Law" to an even finer "Razor's Edge" of Sociologically "Scientific-Precision".

In light of all of these ancient and traditional Steps along this well-settled "Course of the Law", there is here-under much "Scientific Evidence" available (to the un-biased reader), that, when these Twelve Reputable People Finally Did Agree on a "Unanimous Judgement" in their community, that their Final Judgement had Unanimously Identified a specific instance of "Sociological Natural-Law" which should be applied in this case in their community. And of course, if this "Sociological Natural-Law" is good enough for the local community; then it provides a good foundation for discussing what should be viewed as "Natural-Law" for the Larger Communities.
This Secular, Scientific, Natural-Law based "Due Process" consists of an ancient and well-settled "Course" of "Step-by-Step Procedures"; and in illustration there-of, it has been enshrined in many of our early American documents (such as Article 1 Section 10 of Oregon's State Constitution) under its alternatively-worded but identically meaning phrase of "Due Course of Law".

As shown through previous citations and discussion; there are four distinct and important phrases here, all of which have the same basic meaning. Three of them have been mentioned above, those being "Due Process of Law", "Due Course of Law", and the "Rules of the Common-Law". The fourth basically identical phrase is the "Law of the Land". From the two above quoted definitions from "Blacks Law Dictionary" of "Due Course of Law" and "Lex Terra", these phrases are all shown to share the same basic meaning. This all reaches back to 1215, where in the "Magna Charta", at Chapter 39, the original Latin text is properly translated to read as follows:

"No free man shall be seized or imprisoned 14

Another citation which very nicely bridges the historical gaps to place all of this in a nice historical context can be found on a very reputable Web-Page called "Findlaw.com"; under their section in the "U.S. Constitution" and its "Fifth Amendment", section on "Due Process of Law". This article is actually composed in majority portion of citations from cases from the "U.S. Supreme Court"; and its lengthy web-link is in the footnote here.15 The citation reads (in selected parts) as follows:

"It is now the settled doctrine of this Court that the Due Process Clause embodies a system of rights based on moral principles so deeply embedded in the traditions and feelings of our people as to be deemed fundamental to a civilized society as conceived by our whole history. Due Process is that which comports with the deepest notions of what is fair and right and just.'' The content of due process is ''a historical product'' that traces all the way back to chapter 39 of Magna Carta ... The understanding which the founders of the American constitutional system, and those who wrote the due process clauses, brought to the subject they derived from Coke, who in his Second Institutes expounded the proposition that the term ''by law of the land'' was equivalent to ''due process of law,'' which he in turn defined as ''by due process of the common law,'' that is, ''by the indictment or presentment of good and lawful men . . . or by writ original of the Common Law.'' ... It is manifest that it was not left to the legislative power to enact any process which might be devised. The article is a restraint on the legislative as well as on the executive and judicial powers of the government, and cannot be so construed as to leave congress free to make any process 'due process of law' by its mere will.'' All persons within the territory of the United States are entitled to its protection ...

Early in our judicial history, a number of jurists attempted to formulate a theory of natural rights--natural justice, which would limit the power of government, especially with regard to the property rights of persons. State courts were the arenas in which this struggle was carried out prior to the Civil War. ... The ''vested rights'' jurists thus found in the ''law of the land'' and the ''due process'' clauses of the state constitutions a restriction upon the substantive content of legislation, which prohibited, regardless of the matter of procedure, a certain kind or degree of exertion of legislative power altogether..."

It is worthy to note from this reputable citation, that, prior to the so-called "Civil War" our Anglo/American Constitutional "Due Process of Law" provisions were causing "a number of jurists" to argue that These Written Constitutional Mandates Prohibited Legislatures from Enacting Specific Forms of Legislation. The jurists making these arguments were Supporters of the very same "Natural Rights" and "Natural Justice" theories as is the central proposition of this document. As above noted, this entire line of argument suddenly became Extinct at the advent of the so-called "Civil War".16

But more importantly; this powerful citation, and the case-law precedents from the "US Supreme Court" upon which it relies; show clearly that Our American Constitutional Concept of "Due Process of Law" and "Common-Law", is So Prioritized in our American Republican Constitutional System of Government, that the supreme law-declaring power of our national civil government, the "U.S. Congress", is Not Lawfully Authorized either to Re-Define it or to Circumvent it. Similarly; the words from this citation also indicate that the "U.S. Supreme Court" is also Constitutionally Prohibited from Re-Defining "Due Process of Law", as is the Executive power, also. And because these four terms are virtually identical, as the above citations and argument show; it is true to say, that, the Common-Law is the Central and Most Important Concept and Idea in our American Constitutional System of Government. In other words; in our American Constitutional System of Government, the "Common-Law" is the "Law of the Land".

This is an extremely important point to assimilate. Please meditate on it until its full implications are clear.

This author will return to many points contained here-in again. But in attempts to "wrap-up" one significant controversy presented through this last citation, another immensely powerful, related, and critically-important citation is quoted, as follows:

"An important cannon of construction is that constitutions must be construed with reference to the common-law, since, in most respects, the federal and state constitutions did not repudiate, but cherished the established common law. ... in interpreting the Federal Constitution recourse may still be had to the aid of the common law of England. ... without reference to this common law, the language of the Federal Constitution could not be understood. This is due to the fact that the instrument & the plan of the government of the United States were founded on the common law as established in England at the time of the Revolution.

Therefore, it is a general rule that phrases in the Bill of Rights taken from the common law must be construed in reference to the latter. ... It is a cardinal rule of construction that a constitution must be construed as to give effect to the intention of the people who adopted it, and ... it will be construed with reference to the doctrines of the common law ... . ... The application of the doctrine is further subject to the qualification that the common-law rule, if and when invoked, shall be one not rejected by our ancestors as unsuited to their civil or political condition. Not all English practices prior to the American Revolution should be thought to be part of American constitutional law, for if that were so, the procedure of the first half of the 17th century would be fastened upon the American jurisprudence like a straitjacket, only to be unloosened by constitutional amendment. Further-more, many English common-law practices were exceedingly primitive, especially in the area of First Amendment freedoms ... Eighteenth century English or colonial law should never stand in the way of the Supreme Court fashioning a new rule to better reflect the more humane values of a maturing society."

16 Am Jur, 2nd; SS: 114: Constitutional Law.

This text, from this more universally-recognized reputable source, clearly indicates a very powerful place in our American System of Constitutional Government for "Common-Law". There are no such reputable sources affirming similar praise for the Roman based "Civil-Law". Another citation driving this point home, reads as follows:

"Public Law - Finally, the common law was the basis of public law. ... royal attempts to assert arbitrary powers were challenged and checked in the common-law courts. ... When in the Tudor and Stuart periods claims were made to a mysterious "prerogative" of the crown, it was the common lawyers who resisted. When Parliament itself made exaggerated claims, usually under the cloak of "privilege" it was the common-law courts who protected the subject, and down to the time of Blackstone, they still favored Coke's doctrine that the common law would "control" even the acts of parliament. These ideas were familiar in America, and made it easy to accept the system of fundamental constitutional law."	Encyclopedia Americana, 1963.17

This citation clearly indicates that the "Public Law" of our Constitutional American Nation is firmly based on this "Common-Law". Taken together with the other above citations, these all should be sufficient to cause the most skeptical reader to pause, and to consider the merits of the fundamental proposition of this document, and of this author, to the effect that: the "Common-Law" of England forms the Central and Most Prominent Element in our American System of Constitutional Law and Government. This is a point of primary importance which this author needs to convey clearly to the reader. This point is probably the single most important point in this entire document.

To explain the point from a slightly different angle, the previously mentioned "Natural-Law" is a concept that most people can easily comprehend. Almost everyone will affirm that they support "Natural-Law", because of its very general and non-specific nature. People who routinely pillage and plunder the common people can easily affirm support of "Natural-Law", because it does not invoke any specific process for bringing them to an accountability.

However; it has been this authors experience that: when some-one advances the proposition that: the "Natural-Law" Rights of the common people are most effectively Secured through those court-room procedures traditionally known as "Common-Law", including especially the Right to Proceedings which follow traditional/constitutional "Due Process of Law" and "Trial by Jury"; there-under, suddenly a large number of professed "Natural-Law" Supporters suddenly not only break from the general consensus of the group, but they also markedly loose interest in even continuing on with the general discussion concerning practical ways for implementing "Natural-Law" in our communities. To phrase this proposition differently; so long as the discussion of securing the natural-rights of the common people remains confused, and without any constructive focus; these people make all sorts of noise about how sincerely they are seeking natural rights of the common people. But in the very moment that these traditional American Constitutional Tools for Securing those Natural-Rights are placed on the table, these very same people take all of their resources off of the table, place them in their private ditty-bag, and head for home.

Take note please; there is only one singe general body of social-behavior regulating-rules which this author has ever seen which professes to have any form of solidly workable "Process" available to the common people, where-by they may secure their Natural-Law based Rights. That process is descended mostly from the Nation of England, and it is known simply as "Common-Law". I sincerely believe that there is no other body of social-behavior regulating-rules available on this planet which makes anything close to such a bold claim as this, for being able to secure the Natural-Rights of the common people.

Because the phrases "Common-Law" and "Due Process of Law" have already been shown to mean basically the same thing; 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 enable the smaller communities of "We the People" to "Responsibly Self-Govern"; it is good here to explain how this specific traditional American "Process" causes "Natural Law" to clearly manifest it-self 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, such an effort may seem totally un-obtainable.

As previously discussed in this document; 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 concept of "Due Process of Law". Under this "Due Process of Law"; the Twelve Members who are to compose the Jury 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, who knows them all by their reputation. Keep in mind, please, that he is locally "Elected", and that he can be removed from office and replaced at any time for "cause shown". This means that his decisions about who is qualified to sit as a local Juror should be presumed to reflect the general consensus of the local community regarding who is so locally qualified to sit as Jurors.

These Jurors should 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".

Here-under; 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. As previously cited; 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.

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; 1955.18 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". That is Why they called this body of Law "Common-Law"; because Every Man of Honorable Character "Commonly" and Voluntary Consented to be Governed by it. Note please also how Mr Dickenson summarized this "Common-Law" to be a "Science ... to be known only after hard ... study". Note how this "Science" harmonizes so well with the numerous references to "Natural Reason" above made, including that of "Alexander Hamilton" him-self, who said there-in: "The common law is natural law & natural reason applied to the state & condition of society."

Further; 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".

These citations are merely note-worthy summaries of multitudes of other very fundamental and powerful citations, and much more could be written here-in based only on those citations and texts. But this author is plagued by time constraints, and so this part of this text will conclude here.

It should now be clear that it has been a common notion that "Common-Law" is a system of social-behavior regulating capable of securing Harmony with community-based "Natural-Law". This being the recognizable claim of the Supporters of Common-Law ; the remaining task at hand does not require dis-proval of the other systems which contend that they are also Harmonious with Natural-Law, because there seems to be none. The only task remaining to complete, seems to be to closely examine the logic and reasoning upon which the advocates of this system of so-called "Common-Law" base such bold claims. To be clear, especially; the Advocates of Roman-based Civil-Law &/or Municipal-Law do Not Claim that their system of Jurisprudence is capable of securing Harmony with Sociological Natural-Law. To be even more clear; as shown in a citation below from one "Mr Tyler"; the argument that Romanistic "Civil-Law" is competent to secure the Natural-Rights of the people, has already been historically Exhausted; and the proponents of that Roman system have went down in flames, crashed and burned. After those later citations have been reviewed, the only debate left on the table, in the minds of any who have studied the subject at all, is whether or not the Common-Law is truly a competent system for securing the Natural-Law based Rights of the People.