What is Law?
Law is a concept that we are exposed to all of our lives, and which affects our lives and the things around us. Law is as essential to a well ordered universe as it is to a stable and just civil or jural society, or a properly kept family unit. That we might better understand how law relates to us we need to define what it is or should be. The following is a definition of law from Black's Law Dictionary:
1. That which is laid down, ordained, or established.
2. A system of principles and rules of human conduct.
3. A rule of civil conduct.
4. law
is a general rule of human action.
5. A law is a command which obliges a person or persons.
Law is basically a
rule that guides, directs or limits the conduct or action of something or someone, which is declared by some authority. The physical laws of nature guides, direct and limit the action of matter and energy. There thus are laws of thermodynamics, electricity, pressure, light, magnetism, gravity, chemistry and other physical laws. Our concern with law is its application to ourselves as a rule which guides and directs our action or conduct. A set of such laws establishes a jural system or
order. A law that regulates human conduct has attributes similar to physical laws. But laws regulating human conduct are distinguished from physical laws in that they are not self-executing, as are physical laws. Such laws executed. Also, a law which regulates human conduct is not always of effect or enforceable, as it is limited or controlled by other laws and conditions. Where a conflict of laws exists, the
superior law prevails. Also, a law for human conduct cannot be enforced where the right of a person to act differently exists. When the proper law is enforced or upheld, it is regarded as justice or doing that which is right and just.
Law then must have a binding legal force, and an appropriate means for its enforcement or execution to be of any use or importance in human affairs. This is because the concept of law
implies a command, not an opinion or suggestion. Certainly no law would exist, or need to exist, if there were not those who are required to follow or obey it.
A law regulating human conduct can be of two types. It can be negative by prohibiting an act or declaring that it shall not be done, or it can be affirmative by commanding or requiring an action to be done. Most law is of a negative nature. Law
can also be written or positive, such as a statute or constitution, or it can be unwritten, such as common law, natural law, or international law. We will find that what we are subject today are not constitutions or even legislative statutes directly, but a type of unwritten law.
If one is obliged or required to obey a law, there must of necessity be an authority for the law to exist.
Law in the sense in which, courts speak of it today, does not exist without some definite authority behind it.
The question we should be asking or looking into regarding all the oppressive and what appears to be unconstitutional law is, what is the authority behind this law? The answer to this primarily depends upon the source of the law and our relationship to that
source.
The Source of a Law
We generally understand that all laws which regulate human conduct are either human or divine according to whether they have man or God for their author or source. Under Anglo-Saxon jurisprudence, the law of God has always stood in
pre-eminence in relation to human law.
Man's laws are strength-less before God's laws, consequently a human law, directly contrary to the law of God, would be an absolute nullity.
While this proposition is quite true and important, it also acknowledges that man is a source of law. Actually, God has in many instances recognized that this ability
or power for human law does exist, as with kings, patriarchs or heads of a house.
For something to be regarded as a law, it must come from a source which has authority to enact the law. If a person is required to follow a law of another person or entity, then that person must in some manner or degree be subject to the law making entity. Thus the authority for a law depends on the source of the law, and the relationship
between that source and the one obligated to follow the law. Let us look at some examples of this concept.
The prime example of a law making authority is God. We readily acknowledge that God can enact laws which we are obligated to follow. But what is His authority to do so? Why are we required to follow laws of God? Is it because God is all powerful, or all knowing or because He is eternal? No it is not. God's authority
to place law over us lies not in the fact that He is omnipotent or a Supreme Being, but rather in our relationship to God. That relationship lies in the fact that God is our Creator and provider. Sir William Blackstone expressed this relationship in his discussion on "the nature of laws," as follows:
Man, considered as a creature, must necessarily be subject to the laws of his Creator, for he is entirely a dependent
being. A being, independent of any other, has no rule [law] to pursue, but such as he prescribes to himself; but a state of dependence will inevitably oblige the inferior to take the will of him, on whom he depends, as the rule of his conduct. . . . And consequently, as man depends absolutely upon his Maker for everything, it is necessary that he should in all points conform to his Maker's will.
God has the authority to make law we are subject to because we are His creatures and because of our dependence upon Him for necessities of life. These things establish a relationship between us and God, making us legally obligated to Him. Thus, because of these relationships God has authority to make laws we must follow.
Similar to this is the authority of a
parent to make laws which a child must follow. A parent is a law making authority over a child not because the parent is stronger or bigger or even more intelligent than the child, but because of the relationship between parent and child. The child was produced by the parent and is dependent upon the parent, thus when laws come from that source, the child's parent, the child is bound to obey. The parent has authority over the child because of the relationship that exists between them. But that
same parent does not have authority to prescribe rules of conduct for another child as no legal relationship exists between them. The superior strength and knowledge of that parent does not give him the right to make law for any child he thinks needs correction but his own An employer and employee have a legal relationship between them that gives the employer an authority to prescribe certain rules of conduct or laws that the employee must follow. The employer has authority to make such rules
not because it has more wealth and assets than the employee, but because the employee has entered into a legal agreement with that employer. The same is true with the legal relationship between a master and servant. The servant is legally bond to follow the commands of his master, but not those of another master.
A colonel in the military has the authority to make commands or laws that majors, lieutenants, and privates
must obey and follow. There is a legal relationship between them since they each have placed themselves under a Military Code and the Articles of War which require them to obey all lawful orders of a superior officer. However, a private in the American army is not required to obey the orders of a colonel from the German army as there is no legal relationship between them. There thus is no authority for a German colonel to give him laws or orders to follow.
A King has the authority to give laws and commands which his subjects must follow because of their relationship to the king as subjects of his kingdom. The king has control over the land and also provides protection for the people of his kingdom, creating a legal relationship between him and the subject.
We thus see that there are many valid sources of a law, but the authority that
is needed for one to obey a law or be subject to a law from a particular source depends upon one's relationship to that source. If there is no legal relationship, there can be no authority for a law. A king cannot make people of another land or kingdom subject to his laws. A general from England cannot give commands to a buck private in the American army because there is no common relationship between them. The to make rules for an employee of Joe's auto body shop. In each case
there is no legal relationship between the two parties.
Also, according to this principle of authority and law, is the fact that true lawful authority is not derived from force or power or wealth, but from a legal relationship between the two parties involved. When laws exist because of force or power, it is despotism or tyranny, not authoritative law. Many despotic governments have existed throughout history because
they were based upon the concept of "might makes right. " Force and power are not a substitute for a lawful relationship. God could certainly play the despot and compel obedience by force, since He has the power to do so. But that is not the way God works. His authority comes from legal and spiritual relationships between Him and His people.
Legislative Authority
Today we have the situation of legislative bodies, such as the State Legislature or Congress, existing as a source for making laws. The question we face is what is the authority for these legislative bodies to make laws we are subject to? This can only be answered by determining the relationship we have with the legislative body in question.
The fundamental concept of American government is that all political power which exists resides in the people.
The Constitution of Virginia, 1776, Sec. 2. That all power is vested in, and consequently derived from the people; that magistrates are their trustees and servants, and at all times amenable to them.
Constitution of Massachusetts --1780. All power residing originally in the people, and being derived from them, the several magistrates and officers of government, vested with authority, whether legislative, executive, or judicial, are their substitutes and agents, and are at all times accountable to them.
These declarations reveal the concept of delegation of
powers. The people had political power or authority and delegated some of it to the legislature by declaring in their written Constitution--"The legislative authority shall be vested in a General Assembly, which shall consist of a Senate, and House of Representatives. "This entity thus became a source of legislative authority. The people in effect said that this body of men can enact laws for specific purposes--i.e., the promotion of health, safety, morals and good order of the people
or society. The U.S. Constitution enumerates specific topics that can be legislated upon--i.e. , regulate foreign and interstate commerce, enact certain taxes, establish standards, etc. Thus the legislative bodies "derived" certain powers from the people.
The above declarations also reveal the nature of the legal relationship that exists between the people and those in
government. Government employees are the "substitutes" or "agents" or "servants" of the people. Thus it is a contractual relationship which exists between the people and the Legislature. The people have in effect hired or commissioned certain individuals to occupy and to perform certain duties and functions within the offices and departments named in the Constitution. In performing these duties and functions they are to conform to fundamental law, rights and common law concepts, such as due
process, and the things prescribed in the written Constitution.
We thus are bound to the valid laws of the legislative bodies named in a constitution or city charter. We are not bound to the legislature by its terms, but by our own terms, as Justice Wilson of the U.S. Supreme Court said:
The
only reason, I believe, why a freeman is bound by human laws, is that he binds himself.
Thus the legislative bodies are given certain powers to enact certain laws within the confines of certain limitations which the people have agreed to be bound by. Whether we regard this as good or bad, wise or unwise, or that too much or too broad of
powers were granted, is rather academic at this point. The fact remains that this is the way things are. The State Legislature or Congress can make laws that we the people are subject to, as there is a legal relationship between them.
Yet the evidence is clear today that our country has been invaded by a hostile, alien people who promote a
law and religion that is contrary to the fundamental law and Christian foundations originally established in this land. They can be called socialists, communists,globalists, anti-Christs, and subversives, but their objectives are to enrich themselves by controlling your life, liberty and property. Their agenda and objectives cannot be implemented within the established frame of constitutional government. Thus they have laws enacted which are oppressive, contrary to individual rights, and which
build up a socialistic type of government.
These subversive, anti-Christian people knew they could not gain control of the country by force or revolution as they did in Russia and France. They had to find a legal means to recreate or re-establish government, but done in such an indirect and clandestine manner so that no one would detect the change. The result of their actions is a government that is corrupt, arbitrary
and oppressive but without being "unconstitutional." A necessary step in achieving this objective was their restructuring of the entire economic system of the country by the Federal Reserve Banking system, a system which they essentially own.
The established legislative bodies posed of these subversives, and thus could not be directly used by them as a lawmaking source. This is because these legislative bodies were; 1)
agents of the people and "answerable" to them; 2) subject to the limitations set forth in the constitution; 3) unable to violate the fundamental rights which the constitution was formed to protect; 4) forced to conform to due process as it existed under the Anglo-Saxon common law; and 5) only able to enact laws in the manner and process prescribed by the Constitution.
These legislative limitations posed some severe problems for the corrupt, power elite who wished to control the life, liberty and property of the people of this country. In order to get the oppressive, totalitarian type of laws enforced upon the people of America they needed to get laws passed by another source other that the State Legislature or Congress; but at the same time make it appear as though the laws were actually laws of the State Legislature
and Congress.
Since they could not directly use the current legislative bodies to do things their way, they used them as an indirect means to create not only a new source of laws, but to create new executive and judicial functions as well. This was done by getting the current legislative bodies to create artificial legal entities --boards, commissions, bureaus, agencies, and trusts, which exist by statute instead of by
the constitution or common law. The intent was to have these legal entities assume the role of governmental functions, or financial ones as was done with the Federal Reserve Board in 1913, or educational functions as was done with the NEA.
These subversive forces in our midst thus got the legislatures to recreate a new judicial system. We
thus have courts that have been established or reorganized by legislative statute. They create new courts, and endow them with their judicial "powers." Sometimes as used in constitutions to mislead people into thinking they are constitutional courts which the people endowed with power. The court exists by "statute" or grant of the legislature just as a corporation exists by statute.
The legislatures have also created an executive body to enforce the corrupt and oppressive laws. We thus have police, highway patrol, Federal marshals, ATF agents, etc., which exist by a commission or agency and whose powers come from "statutes" not the constitution or common law. To make matters worse, somehow the subversive elements in our land have established a new source of law other than the State Legislature and
Congress.
The cause or reason for how this all came about is actually a theological issue and not a legal issue. God certainly does allow or cause oppression to come upon a people for the purpose of testing them, or as just punishment.In doing so it becomes necessary that the people turn to God and rely on Him for deliverance from such oppression. The complexity and intricacies of the legal, political and economic
problems we face today could not have been the sole work of human design and effort. The subverters could not possibly be behind every unlawful act and control all the things that have made up the current corrupt legal system. Such a feat could only come about by the providence of God.
A legal explanation can help to clarify the nature of
things, and what has or has not happened to make things unlawful, but the cause is a spiritual question which is not withinthe scope of this material. This material shows the debauched and illegal nature of the laws used in criminal proceedings today. This was legally done by creating commissions to "revise," "codify" and rewrite the laws of the legislature, and pass them off as being laws of the State or Congress. We thus need to look into these "codes" and "revisions" of statutes to see their
true nature in light of fundamental law and the Constitution.
