1

2014.03.22

Unified Grand Jury - ZA

Southern Africa giftoftruth@hushmail.com

REPORT: Sovereign Considerations in the current paradigm As we are all aware by now that the world has been hi-jacked by a global elite operating from behind the Federal Reserve central banking system: Banking "This [Federal Reserve Act] establishes the most gigantic trust on earth. When the President [Wilson} signs this bill, the invisible government of the monetary power will be legalized....the worst legislative crime of the ages is perpetrated by this banking and currency bill." - Charles A. Lindbergh, Sr. 1913 It was Meyer Amschel Rothschild who said: “Give me control of a nation's money and I care not who makes the laws.” "All the perplexities, confusion and distress in America arise, not from defects in the Constitution or confederation, not from want of honour or virtue, so much as from downright ignorance of the nature of coin, credit and circulation." - President John Adams "Neither paper currency nor deposits have value as commodities, intrinsically; a 'dollar' bill is just a piece of paper. Deposits are merely book entries." - Modern Money Mechanics Workbook, Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago, 1975 "We are completely dependent on the commercial banks. Someone has to borrow every dollar we have in circulation, cash or credit. If the banks create ample synthetic money we are prosperous; if not, we starve. We are absolutely without a permanent money system.... It is the most important subject intelligent persons can investigate and reflect upon. It is so important that our present civilization may collapse unless it becomes widely understood and the defects remedied very soon." - Robert H. Hamphill, Atlanta Federal Reserve Bank Countries “The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace in a continual state of alarm (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing them with an endless

2

series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.” - H L Mencken “This truth is well known among our principal men now engaged in forming an imperialism of Capital to govern the world. By dividing the voters through the political party system, we can get them to expend their energies in fighting over questions of no importance. Thus by discreet action we can secure for ourselves what has been so well planned and so successfully accomplished.” - Sir Denison Miller Courts “The corporate Congress; the corporate Military Government and their corporate Military Courts of Justice however discovered that they could not gain access to those Public Trusts deposited into the Federal Reserve System, which they had created using our birth registration forms; social security registration forms, licenses, personal property, deeds, promissory notes, equity and credit, without including our individual persons into the bankruptcy of the United States Treasury of 1933. So they cleverly denied our personal Sovereignty and converted our persons into an appellation, which is [a corporate fiction or strawman] and identified us by writing our birth names all in capital letters. All of our Licenses and documents now reflect this appellation. NOTE: Of course they cannot lawfully do this because we are a Sovereign people and they are a Corporation and under the Confiscation Act, they have violated their own, ‘Rules of Engagement and Military Protocol’ but do they care? Not any more! The all-caps name can be researched in every State Code under ‘corporations:’ [e.g.] see the Texas Administrative Code for example under ‘corporations’, Chapter 79.31, subtitled: entities; [also] the all-caps name is specified in the United States Government- Style Manual under the section titled [identifying corporations]. These Public Trusts are not a new concept. The concept and strategy was copied from the Ancient Roman Empire and their use of Roman Trusts. The Ancient Roman Trusts declared that everyone had died after Rome was burned [which was a staged event] and until those Roman Citizens served notice upon the Roman Senate that they were in fact alive and capable of managing their own Estates, all were presumed dead and the Roman Senate became the Trustee over every Estate and used them as they deemed appropriate! NOTE: You can buy your freedom for a price of $600,000 dollars through the Department of State, which is the cost of procuring American diplomatic immunity pursuant to International Law. In all other countries this same immunity can be purchased for $95,000.00, which is honored in 90 of the 267 world countries with the exception of: The United States, Canada and the United Kingdom. [Isn’t that curious?] My point here is that everything is a game and for enough money, anyone can play and secure their freedom from criminal law, civil lawsuits, taxes and passports because everything in this world is about commerce. In 1933, this corporate government enticed Americans to voluntarily register for [birth certificates,

3

social security, driver’s licenses, voter registration, etc.] and enticed us with government benefits to do so. Years later they obligated American’s to register for all of these documents except for voter registration. These so-called government benefits were no bargain because they belonged to all of us to begin with and over time the largest benefits have been watered down! What most American’s don’t realize is that: No Corporation can operate or fund itself. Corporations require human beings; their credit and sweat equity to finance and operate them! Therefore, everything that the government claims to own actually belongs to “We the Public” and not them! Everything.“ - Judge Dale – The Great American Adventure Police Officers & Military “The local police and prosecutors are not in place to, “serve and protect” the American public but to the contrary, they are structured to protect the Slave Drivers and the private United States Corporation, by enforcing its corporate statutes against the corporate enemy, “The American citizen.” Most of these police officers haven’t a clue about how they have been indoctrinated and manipulated! They are so naïve and well-meaning that they actually believe they are preserving and protecting the public! The politicians, prosecutors, judges, priests and clerks know the truth and many of them increase their personal spoils with every conviction! Yes, the Vatican, judges, prosecutors and clerks make money off of every conviction and lawsuit and their clearing house for all of these private spoils is located in the Texas Federal Reserve, under an account titled: “THE CHRIS FUND!” If our police officers would simply invest a little energy and time, to research and read something other than PLAYBOY or POPULAR MECHANICS or to hoist a few at the local police pub, they would discover that the amended version of the “Trading with the Enemy Act of 1933,” by President Franklin D. Roosevelt, specifically identifies the American citizen as the enemy of the Federal Government! The fraud and deception perpetrated by these Slave Drivers works well, as long as they can maintain their deception and manipulation over the masses! In fact and in reality, the historic civilian government promised by: “The Constitution of the United States of America,” never existed nor did it ever have a chance of succeeding, courtesy of President George Washington and the Continental Congress! President George Washington, “the reputed father of our country,” cleverly overthrew the organic Constitution of the United States of America, using the Articles of Confederation and then reinstated the privately owned colonial corporation of: “The Virginia Colony.” He then installed a military government, which is concealed in plain sight. e.g. COMMANDER in CHIEF; Attorney GENERAL; Secretary GENERAL; Auditor GENERAL; Surgeon GENERAL; Postmaster GENERAL, etc. The Constitution was a

4

well written document, which was copied from the Iroquois Federation Government! Many of the safeguards found in the organic Constitution were added by the Founding Fathers to bind the hands of the other Delegates because none of them trusted each other, which proves the old Proverb that: “There is no honor among thieves!” – Judge Dale – The Great American Adventure SO WHAT DO WE DO NOW? The first thing to do is take a step back and look at what the older authorities say: The 1215 Magna Carta: §52 Title. DUTY OF THE GRAND JURY; “If anyone’s unalienable rights have been violated, or removed, without a legal sentence of their (“We the People” Supreme Rulers), named Peers, from their lands, home, liberties or lawful right, “We the People” Supreme Rulers [the twenty-five] shall straightway restore them. And if a dispute shall arise concerning this matter it shall be settled according to the judgment of “We the People” Supreme Rulers, [the twenty-five] Grand Jurors, the sureties of the peace.” 06/15/1215 Constitution of a Common Law Grand Jury “We The People Supreme Rulers” having discord, which has arisen between (”One People” Supreme Ruler) Us, and our civil servants, (judges, justices, attorneys, clerks, elected civil and military officers, members of SAPS, members of Parliament, state representatives) wishing to establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, and secure the blessings of liberty to enjoy forever in its entirety. “We The People Supreme Rulers” may select at Our pleasure [twenty-five] “People” Supreme Rulers from the Sovereignty, (not elected public officials civil servants) who ought, with all their strength, to observe, maintain; and cause to be observed, the peace and un-alienable rights. If any of our civil servants shall have transgressed against any of the “One People” Supreme Ruler in any respect and they shall ask (“We The People Supreme Rulers”) Us, to cause that error to be amended without delay, or shall have broken some one of the articles of peace or security, and their transgression shall have been shown to [four Jurors] of the aforesaid twenty-five “People” Supreme Rulers from the Sovereignty, and if those [four Jurors] are unable to settle the transgression they shall come to the [twenty-five], “People” Supreme Rulers from the Sovereignty, showing to the Grand Jury the error which shall be enforced by the law of the land.” 06/15/1215 “The power under the Constitution will always be in the people. It is entrusted for certain defined purposes, and for a certain limited period, to representatives of their own choosing; and whenever it is executed contrary to their interest, or not agreeable to their wishes, their servants can, and undoubtedly will, be recalled.” – George Washington.

5

Thomas Hobbes - Sovereign authority When people mutually covenant each to the others to obey a common authority, they have established what Hobbes calls “sovereignty by institution”. When, threatened by a conqueror, they covenant for protection by promising obedience, they have established “sovereignty by acquisition”. These are equally legitimate ways of establishing sovereignty, according to Hobbes, and their underlying motivation is the same—namely fear—whether of one's fellows or of a conqueror. The social covenant involves both the renunciation or transfer of right and the authorization of the sovereign power. Political legitimacy depends not on how a government came to power, but only on whether it can effectively protects those who have consented to obey it; political obligation ends when protection ceases. Justice Thomas Stanley Matthews expressed this in his Opinion in Yick Wo v. Hopkins: "When we consider the nature and the theory of our institutions of government, the principles upon which they are supposed to rest, and review the history of their development, we are constrained to conclude that they do not mean to leave room for the play and action of purely personal and arbitrary power. Sovereignty itself is, of course, not subject to law, for it is the author and source of law; but, in our system, while sovereign powers are delegated to the agencies of government, sovereignty itself remains with the people, by whom and for whom all government exists and acts. And the law is the definition and limitation of power. It is, indeed, quite true that there must always be lodged somewhere, and in some person or body, the authority of final decision, and in many cases of mere administration, the responsibility is purely political, no appeal lying except to the ultimate tribunal of the public judgment, exercised either in the pressure of opinion or by means of the suffrage. But the fundamental rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, considered as individual possessions, are secured by those maxims of constitutional law which are the monuments showing the victorious progress of the race in securing to men the blessings of civilization under the reign of just and equal laws, so that, in the famous language of the Massachusetts Bill of Rights, the government of the commonwealth "may be a government of laws, and not of men." For the very idea that one man may be compelled to hold his life, or the means of living, or any material right essential to the enjoyment of life at the mere will of another seems to be intolerable in any country where freedom prevails, as being the essence of slavery itself." As noted by legal historian Christian G. Fritz in American Sovereigns: The People and America's Constitutional Tradition Before the Civil War, both before and after the Revolution, Americans believed "that the people in a republic, like a king in a monarchy, exercised plenary authority as the sovereign. This interpretation persisted from the revolutionary period up to the Civil War." However, as wide spread as this belief in the power of the people was, the early Americans infrequently used the term

6

"popular sovereignty" to describe the idea. Rather, in expressing this founding concept of rule by the people, they would described the ideal of how "the people" would exercise sovereignty in America and that the state officers and employees function as "public servants." The actual use of the term, "popular sovereignty," didn't begin to gain popularity until around the 1840s. - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia 1628 Petition of Right Historical Document Petition of Right (1628) - A statement of parliamentary grievances addressed to Charles I of England. “The Petition exhibited to his Majesty by the Lords Spiritual and Temporal, and Commons, in this present Parliament assembled, concerning divers Rights and Liberties of the Subjects, with the King’s Majesty’s royal answer thereunto in full Parliament. To the King’s Most Excellent Majesty, Humbly show unto our Sovereign Lord the King, the Lords Spiritual and Temporal, and Commons in Parliament assembles, that whereas it is declared and enacted by a statute made in the time of the reign of King Edward I, commonly called Stratutum de Tellagio non Concedendo, that no tallage or aid shall be laid or levied by the king or his heirs in this realm, without the good will and assent of the archbishops, bishops, earls, barons, knights, burgesses, and other the freemen of the commonalty of this realm; and by authority of parliament holden in the five-and-twentieth year of the reign of King Edward III, it is declared and enacted, that from thenceforth no person should be compelled to make any loans to the king against his will, because such loans were against reason and the franchise of the land; and by other laws of this realm it is provided, that none should be charged by any charge or imposition called a benevolence, nor by such like charge; by which statutes before mentioned, and other the good laws and statutes of this realm, your subjects have inherited this freedom, that they should not be compelled to contribute to any tax, tallage, aid, or other like charge not set by common consent, in parliament.” Habeas Corpus Act 1679 Overview: Habeus corpus refers to a person's right not to be imprisoned unless charged with a crime and given a trial. A writ of habeus corpus is a court order that requires the government to either charge an imprisoned person with a crime or let the person go free. If a government ignores or refuses to grant a writ of habeus corpus served upon it, the person held could be imprisoned indefinitely without trial. In order to make writs of habeus corpus more effective, the Habeus Corpus Act was passed. The following is the introduction: “. WHEREAS great delays have been used by sheriffs, gaolers and other officers, to whose custody, any of the King's subjects have been committed for criminal or supposed criminal matters, in making returns of writs of habeas corpus to them directed, by standing out an alias and pluries habeas corpus, and sometimes more, and by other shifts to avoid their yielding obedience to such writs, contrary to their

7

duty and the known laws of the land, whereby many of the King's subjects have been and hereafter may be long detained in prison, in such cases where by law they are bailable, to their great charges and vexation. II. For the prevention whereof, and the more speedy relief of all persons imprisoned for any such criminal or supposed criminal matters; (2) be it enacted by the King's most excellent majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the lords spiritual and temporal, and commons, in this present parliament assembled, and by the authority thereof. That whensoever any person or persons shall bring any habeas corpus directed unto any sheriff or sheriffs, gaoler, minister or other person whatsoever, for any person in his or their custody, and the said writ shall be served upon the said officer, or left at the gaol or prison with any of the under-officers, under-keepers or deputy of the said officers or keepers, that the said officer or officers, his or their underofficers, under-keepers or deputies, shall within three days after the service thereof as aforesaid (unless the commitment aforesaid were for treason or felony, plainly and specially expressed in the warrant of commitment) upon Parliament payment or tender of the charges of bringing the said prisoner, to be ascertained by the judge or court that awarded the same, and endorsed upon the said writ, not exceeding twelve pence per mile, and upon security given by his own bond to pay the charges of carrying back the prisoner, if he shall be remanded by the court or judge to which he shall be brought according to the true intent of this present act, and that he will not make any escape by the way, make return of such writ; (3) and bring or cause to be brought the body of the party so committed or restrained, unto or before the lord chancellor, or lord keeper of the great seal of England for the time being, or the judges or barons of the said court from which the said writ shall issue, or unto and before such other person or persons before whom the said writ is made returnable, according to the command thereof; (4) and shall then likewise certify the true causes of his detainer or imprisonment, unless the commitment of the said party be in any place beyond the distance of twenty miles from the place or places where such court or person is or shall be residing; and if beyond the distance of twenty miles, and not above one hundred miles, then within the space of ten days, and if beyond the distance of one hundred miles, then within the space of twenty days, after such delivery aforesaid, and not longer.” The Rights of the British Colonies Asserted and Proved - James Otis - 1764 “Let no Man think I am about to commence advocate for despotism, because I affirm that government is founded on the necessity of our natures; and that an original supreme Sovereign, absolute, and uncontroulable, earthly power must exist in and preside over every society; from whose final decisions there can be no appeal but directly to Heaven. It is therefore originally and ultimately in the people. I say supreme absolute power is originally and ultimately in the people; and they never did in fact freely, nor can they rightfully make an absolute, unlimited renunciation of this divine right.1 It is ever in the nature of the thing given in trust, and on a condition, the performance of which no mortal can dispence with; namely, that the person or persons on whom the sovereignty is confer’d by the people, shall incessantly consult

8

their good. Tyranny of all kinds is to be abhor’d, whether it be in the hands of one, or of the few, or of the many.—And tho’ "in the last age a generation of men sprung up that would flatter Princes with an opinion that they have a divine right to absolute power"; yet "slavery is so vile and miserable an estate of man, and so directly opposite to the generous temper and courage of our nation, that ’tis hard to be conceived that an englishman, much less a gentleman, should plead for it."2 Especially at a time when the finest writers of the most polite nations on the continent of Europe, are enraptured with the beauties of the civil constitution of Great-Britain; and envy her, no less for the freedom of her sons, than for her immense wealth and military glory. But let the origin of government be placed where it may, the end of it is manifestly the good of the whole. Salus populi supreme lex esto, is of the law of nature, and part of that grand charter given the human race, (tho’ too many of them are afraid to assert it,) by the only monarch in the universe, who has a clear and indisputable right to absolute power; because he is the only One who is omniscient as well as omnipotent. It is evidently contrary to the first principles of reason that supreme unlimited power should be in the hands of one man. It is the greatest "idolatry, begotten by flattery, on the body of pride” that could induce one to think that a single mortal should be able to hold so great a power, if ever so well inclined. Hence the origin of deifying princes: It was from the trick of gulling the vulgar into a belief that their tryants were omniscient, and that it was therefore right, that they should be considered as omnipotent. Hence the Dii majorum et minorum gentium; the great, the monarchical, the little Provincial subordinate and subaltern gods, demigods, and semidemi-gods, ancient and modern. Thus deities of all kinds were multiplied and increased in abundance; for every devil incarnate, who could enslave a people, acquired a title to divinity; and thus the "rabble of the skies" was made up of locusts and caterpillars; lions, tygers and harpies; and other devourers translated from plaguing the earth!3 The end of government being the good of mankind, points out its great duties: It is above all things to provide for the security, the quiet, and happy enjoyment of life, liberty, and property. There is no one act which a government can have a right to make, that does not tend to the advancement of the security, tranquility and prosperity of the people. If life, liberty and property could be enjoyed in as great perfection in solitude, as in society, there would be no need of government. But the experience of ages has proved that such is the nature of man, a weak, imperfect being; that the valuable ends of live cannot be obtained without the union and assistance of many. Hence ’tis clear that men cannot live apart or independent of each other: In solitude men would perish; and yet they cannot live together without contests. These contests require some arbitrator to determine them. The necessity of a common, indifferent and impartial judge, makes all men seek one; tho’ few find

9

him in the sovereign power, of their respective states or any where else in subordination to it. Government is founded immediately on the necessities of human nature, and ultimately on the will of God, the author of nature; who has not left it to men in general to choose, whether they will be members of society or not, but at the hazard of their senses if not of their lives. Yet it is left to every man as he comes of age to chuse what society he will continue to belong to. Nay if one has a mind to turn Hermit, and after he has been born, nursed, and brought up in the arms of society, and acquired the habits and passions of social life, is willing to run the risque of starving alone, which is generally most unavoidable in a state of hermitage, who shall hinder him? I know of no human law, founded on the law of nature, to restrain him from separating himself from the species, if he can find it in his heart to leave them; unless it should be said, it is against the great law of self-preservation: But of this every man will think himself his own judge. The few Hermits and Misanthropes that have ever existed, show that those states are unnatural. If we were to take out from them, those who have made great worldly gain of their godly hermitage, and those who have been under the madness of enthusiasm, or disappointed hopes in their ambitious projects, for the detriment of mankind; perhaps there might not be left ten from Adam to this day. The form of government is by nature and by right so far left to the individuals of each society, that they may alter it from a simple democracy or government of all over all, to any other form they please. Such alteration may and ought to be made by express compact: But how seldom this right has been asserted, history will abundantly show. For once that it has been fairly settled by compact; fraud force or accident have determined it an hundred times. As the people have gained upon tyrants, these have been obliged to relax, only till a fairer opportunity has put it in their power to encroach again. But if every prince since Nimrod had been a tyrant, it would not prove a right to tyranize. There can be no prescription old enough to supersede the law of nature, and the grant of God almighty; who has given to all men a natural right to be free, and they have it ordinarily in their power to make themselves so, if they please. Government having been proved to be necessary by the law of nature, it makes no difference in the thing to call it from a certain period, civil. This term can only relate to form, to additions to, or deviations from, the substance of government: This being founded in nature, the super-structures and the whole administration should be conformed to the law of universal reason. A supreme legislative and supreme executive power, must be placed somewhere in every common-wealth: Where there is no other positive provision or compact to the contract, those powers remain in the whole body of the people. It is also evident there can be but one best way of

10

depositing those powers; but what that way is, mankind have been disputing in peace and in war more than five thousand years. If we could suppose the individuals of a community met to deliberate, whether it were best to keep those powers in their own hands, or dispose of them in trust, the following questions would occur—Whether those two great powers of Legislation and Execution should remain united? If so, whether in the hands of the many, or jointly or severally in the hands of a few, or jointly in some one individual? If both those powers are retained in the hands of the many, where nature seems to have placed them originally, the government is a simple democracy, or a government of all overall. This can be administered, only by establishing it as a first principle that the votes of the majority shall be taken as the voice of the whole. If those powers are lodged in the hands of a few, the government is an Aristocracy or Oligarchy. Here too the first principles of a practicable administration are that the majority rules the whole. If those great powers are both lodged in the hands of one man, the government is a simple Monarchy, commonly, though falsly called absolute, if by that term is meant a right to do as one pleases. —Sic volo, sic jubeo, stet pro ratione voluntas, belongs not of right to any mortal man. The same law of nature and of reason is equally obligatory on a democracy, an aristocracy, and a monarchy: Whenever the administrators, in any of those forms, deviate from truth, justice and equity, they verge towards tyranny, and are to be opposed; and if they prove incorrigible, they will be deposed by the people, if the people are not rendered too abject. Deposing the administrators of a simple democracy may sound oddly, but it is done every day, and in almost every vote. A.B. & C. for example, make a democracy. Today A & B are for so vile a measure as a standing army. Tomorrow B & C vote it out. This is as really deposing the former administrators, as setting up and making a new king is deposing the old one. Democracy in the one case and monarchy in the other, still remains; all that is done is to change the administration. The first principle and great end of government being to provide for the best good of all the people, this can be done only by a supreme legislative and executive ultimately in the people, or whole community, where God has placed it; but the inconveniencies, not to say impossibility, attending the consultations and operations of a large body of people have made it necessary to transfer the power of the whole to a few: This necessity gave rise to deputation, proxy or a right of representation.” Declaration of the Rights of Man - 1789 Approved by the National Assembly of France, August 26, 1789 The representatives of the French people, organized as a National Assembly, believing that the ignorance, neglect, or contempt of the rights of man are the sole cause of public calamities and of the corruption of governments, have determined to set forth in a solemn declaration the natural, unalienable, and sacred rights of man, in order that this declaration, being constantly before all the members of the Social

11

body, shall remind them continually of their rights and duties; in order that the acts of the legislative power, as well as those of the executive power, may be compared at any moment with the objects and purposes of all political institutions and may thus be more respected, and, lastly, in order that the grievances of the citizens, based hereafter upon simple and incontestable principles, shall tend to the maintenance of the constitution and redound to the happiness of all. Therefore the National Assembly recognizes and proclaims, in the presence and under the auspices of the Supreme Being, the following rights of man and of the citizen: Common Law The principles and rules of action, embodied in case law or old authorities rather than legislative enactments, applicable to the government and protection of persons and property that derive their authority from the community customs and traditions that evolved over the centuries as interpreted by judicial tribunals. A designation used to denote the opposite of statutory, equitable, or civil, for example, a common-law action. Constitution A Constitution is the body of doctrines and practices that form the fundamental organizing principle of a political state. In some cases, such as the United States, the constitution is a specific written document; in others, such as the United Kingdom, it is a collection of documents, statutes, and traditional practices that are generally accepted as governing political matters. States that have a written constitution may also have a body of traditional or customary practices that may or may not be considered to be of constitutional standing. Virtually every state claims to have a constitution, but not every government conducts itself in a consistently constitutional manner. – Encyclopedia Britannica Constitutionalism First published Wed Jan 10, 2001; substantive revision Tue Sep 11, 2012 Constitutionalism is the idea, often associated with the political theories of John Locke and the founders of the American republic, that government can and should be legally limited in its powers, and that its authority or legitimacy depends on its observing these limitations. This idea brings with it a host of vexing questions of interest not only to legal scholars, but to anyone keen to explore the legal and philosophical foundations of the state. How can a government be legally limited if law is the creation of government? Does this mean that a government can be ‘self-limiting’? Is this even possible? If not, then is there some way of avoiding this implication? If meaningful limitation is indeed to be possible, perhaps constitutional constraints must somehow be ‘entrenched’, that is, resistant to change or removal by those whose powers are constrained? Perhaps they must not only be entrenched, but enshrined in written rules. If so, how are these rules to be interpreted? In terms of their original, public meaning or the intentions of their authors, or in terms of the, possibly ever-changing, values and principles they express? How, in the end, one

12

answers these questions depends crucially on how one conceives the nature, identity and authority of constitutions. Does a constitution establish a stable framework for the exercise of public power which is in some way fixed by factors like original public meaning or authorial intentions? Or is it a living entity which grows and develops in tandem with changing political values and principles? – Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy Sovereign versus Government Though there are serious difficulties inherent in Austin's attempt to make sense of the people's sovereignty, his account does reveal the need to distinguish between two different concepts: sovereignty and government. Roughly speaking, we might define sovereignty as the possession of supreme (and possibly unlimited) normative power and authority over some domain, and government as those persons or institutions through whom that sovereignty is exercised. Once some such distinction is drawn, we see immediately that sovereignty might lie somewhere other than with the government. And once this implication is accepted, we can coherently go on to speak of limited government coupled with unlimited sovereignty. Arguably this is what one should say about constitutional democracies where the people's sovereign authority is thought to be ultimate and unlimited but the government bodies—e.g., legislatures and courts—through whom that sovereignty is exercised on the people's behalf is constitutionally limited and subordinate. As Locke might have said, unlimited sovereignty remains with the people who have the normative power to void the authority of their government (or some part thereof) if it exceeds its constitutional limitations. – Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy Entrenchment According to most theorists, another important feature of constitutionalism is that the norms imposing limits upon government power must be in some way be entrenched, either by law or by way of constitutional convention. In other words, those whose powers are constitutionally limited—i.e., the institutions of government—must not be legally entitled to change or expunge those limits at their pleasure. Most written constitutions contain amending formulae which can be triggered by, and require the participation of, the government bodies whose powers they limit. But these formulae invariably require something more than a simple decision on the part of the present government to invoke a change. Sometimes constitutional assemblies are required, or super-majority votes, referendums, or the agreement of not only the central government in a federal system but also some number or percentage of the governments or regional units within the federal system. Entrenchment not only facilitates a degree of stability over time (a characteristic aspiration of constitutional regimes), it is arguably a requirement of the very possibility of constitutionally limited government. Were a government institution entitled, at its pleasure, to change the very terms of its constitutional limitations, we might begin to question whether there would, in reality, be any such limitations. The constitutional meta-rule—and hence the constitutional regime of which it is an integral part—both exist at the pleasure of

13

the general population. Entrenchment may be an essential element of constitutional regimes, but it is far from clear that constitutions can be entrenched against the actions of a sovereign people. – Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy Writtenness Some scholars believe that constitutional norms do not exist unless they are in some way enshrined in a written document (e.g., Rubenfeld 1998). But most accept that constitutions (or elements of them) can be unwritten, and cite, as an obvious example of this possibility, the constitution of the United Kingdom. One must be careful here, however. Though the UK has nothing resembling the American Constitution and its Bill of Rights, it nevertheless contains a number of written instruments which have, for many centuries, formed central elements of its constitution. Magna Carta (1215 C.E.) is perhaps the earliest document of the British constitution, while others include The Petition of Right (1628) and the Bill of Rights (1689). Furthermore, constitutional limits are also said to be found in certain principles of the common law, explicitly cited in landmark cases concerning the limits of government power. The fact remains, however, that historically the constitution of the UK has largely taken unwritten form, suggesting strongly that writtenness is not a defining feature of constitutionalism. – Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy Constitutional Law versus Constitutional Convention The idea of constitutionalism requires limitation on government power and authority established by constitutional law. But according to most constitutional scholars, there is more to a constitution than constitutional law. Many people will find this suggestion puzzling, believing their constitution to be nothing more (and nothing less) than (usually) a formal, written document, possibly adopted at a special constitutional assembly, which contains the nation's supreme, fundamental law. But there is a long-standing tradition of conceiving of constitutions as containing much more than constitutional law. Dicey is famous for proposing that, in addition to constitutional law, the British constitutional system contains a number of constitutional conventions which effectively limit government in the absence of legal limitation. These are, in effect, social rules arising within the practices of the political community and which impose important, but non-legal, limits on government powers. Dicey's distinction, we must not identify the constitution with constitutional law. It includes constitutional conventions as well. We must further recognize the possibility that a government, though legally within its power to embark upon a particular course of action, might nevertheless be constitutionally prohibited from doing so. It is possible that, as a matter of law, Regina might enjoy unlimited legislative, executive and judicial powers which are nonetheless limited by constitutional conventions specifying how those powers are to be exercised. Should she violate one of these conventions, she would be acting legally, but unconstitutionally, and her subjects might well feel warranted in condemning her actions, perhaps even removing her from office—a puzzling result only if one thinks that all there is to a constitution is constitutional law. – Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy

14

Originalism Originalism comes in a wide variety of forms (Bork 1990; Scalia 1997; Whittington 1999b; Barnett 2004; Solum 2008). An originalist might claim that her view follows necessarily from a more general theory of interpretation: to interpret is necessarily to retrieve something that existed at the time of authorship—an original object. Another might be happy to acknowledge that interpretation could, theoretically, take the form of an innovative or creative interpretation that evaluates or in some way changes an original, as might be the case with a revolutionary interpretation of a play or work of art. But such a theorist might go on to add that, for reasons of political morality having to do with, e.g., the principles of democracy, the rule of law, and values underlying the separation of powers, such innovative interpretations ought never be pursued by constitutional interpreters. The object of constitutional interpretation should, to the greatest extent possible, remain fixed by factors like original public understandings or authorial intentions. – Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy Living Constitutionalism Whatever else might be said of law, this much is undeniably true: where law exists, our conduct is subject to various forms of restriction. But in many instances, the relevant restrictions can be removed or changed, as when a common-law precedent is overturned, or a statute repealed or amended because it no longer serves useful purposes. Not so with constitutions. As noted above, they tend to be heavily entrenched. They are also meant to be long lasting, so as to serve the values of securing continuity and stability in the basic framework within which the contentious affairs of law and politics are conducted. And, finally, modern constitutions tend to include very abstract, moral provisions limiting the powers of government bodies in significant ways. These special features of constitutions combine to give rise to a fundamental question, one that causes the originalist so much difficulty and to which living constitutionalism purports to provide a better answer: How can one group of people justifiably place entrenched constitutional impediments of a decidedly moral nature in the way of a second group of people who might live in radically different circumstances and perhaps with radically different moral views? How, in short, can one generation legitimately bind the moral choices of another? A satisfactory answer to this intergenerational problem, living constitutionalists contend, requires that we recognize that constitutions can grow and adapt to ever-changing circumstances without losing their identity or their legitimacy. – Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy Critical Theories Although constitutionalism has been widely embraced round the world, it is by no means without its detractors. This is especially true when we turn to those constitutions that not only create and regulate the offices of government but also purport to protect abstract rights of political morality. Some critics—we'll call these the hard critics—assert that such apparently rights-protective constitutions cannot effectively and legitimately serve to protect individuals against the oppressive forces

15

of governments. On the contrary, they only serve to mask legal and political practice in a false cloak of legitimacy. Other critics—we'll call these the democratic critics—are not so utterly dismissive of rights-protecting constitutions. Rather, their main concern is to challenge the role that democratically unaccountable judges typically play in the interpretation and application of such constitutions. According to hard critics, factors like original understandings and the supposed discipline of common law reasoning seldom, if ever, succeed in fixing meaningful limits upon government power. As a result, reliance on such factors in constitutional adjudication only serves: (a) to rationalize the purely political decisions of judges pursuing, consciously or not, their own political ideologies. Further consequences include: (b) a serious affront to democracy. Small groups of unelected, elitist judges end up substituting their own, highly contentious views about the proper limits of government power for the considered judgments of the people's representatives, e.g., those members of Congress or Parliament duly elected to exercise, on behalf of the people, the latter's sovereign right to participate in political decisions affecting their basic rights. And possibly (c): suppression of those—women, minority racial groups, the poor, and so on—whose interests are not adequately recognized and protected by the dominant, mainstream ideologies to which these elite judges have an affinity. Instead of the curbing of rights-threatening government power for which the idea of constitutionalism is supposed to stand, we have political suppression disguised in a cloak of false constitutional legitimacy. So, hard critics are highly skeptical of constitutional practice and of those theories that applaud constitutionalism as a bulwark against oppression. As noted at the outset, a key element in the idea of constitutionalism is that government can/should be limited in its powers and that its authority depends on observance of those limits. We further noted that the authority of constitutions in liberal democracies is generally thought to rest with ‘the people’. One further implication of hard critical theories is: (d) that the concept of ‘the people’ is very much a fabrication. Instead of being composed of a group of individuals united in their concern for basic rights, western societies are comprised of various groups competing either for domination (e.g., white males and the wealthy) or for recognition and the elimination of oppression (e.g., the poor, women, and racial minorities). The law, including constitutional law, is a powerful tool which has, historically, been utilized by dominant groups to secure and maintain their superior status. As such, a constitution is anything but the protection from unwarranted government power that its champions have heralded over the centuries. What is taken to be the obvious meaning of a key term like ‘equal before the law’ is what the dominant group understands or claims it to be. What is taken to be the obvious original understandings or historical intentions of the constitution's authors are whatever understandings or intentions fit the ideologies of the dominant groups. What is taken to be the best articulation of the right to equality emerging from a fair and disciplined common-law analysis of that right is nothing but

16

a rationalization of current social structures, all of which systematically oppress the interests of women, minorities and the poor. As noted above, democratic critics tend not to be as utterly dismissive of constitutions and constitutional rights protections as their more hard-line cousins. Their principal objections revolve around a practice with which these aspects of modern constitutional regimes are typically associated: judicial review. This is the general practice whereby courts are sometimes called upon to review a law or some other official act of government (e.g., the decision of an administrative agency like the US Food and Drug Administration or the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission) to determine its compatibility with the constitution. Particular instances of this practice vary considerably. Among the most influential of contemporary democratic critics is Jeremy Waldron. Waldron is, to put it mildly, no fan of judicial review. Nor is he enamored of the grandiose constitutional charters and bills of rights which serve as the most contentious ground in terms of which that power is often exercised by courts. According to Waldron and his fellow democratic critics, judicial review under a constitutional charter is fraught with both theoretical and practical difficulty. It threatens democracy and is both fundamentally unfair and politically dangerous. It also relies on outmoded views about the nature of moral rights—that there are objective, universal rights of political morality to which charters make reference, upon which there is widespread agreement within democratic communities, and to which judges can sensibly and justifiably be asked to appeal in protecting citizens against recalcitrant exercises of government power. While it is true that judicial review need not be based on an appeal to abstract rights of political morality—it could, for example, be restricted to questions such as whether an administrative agency has followed proper procedure—and true that it need not include the ability actually to strike down legislation, the main focus of democratic critics has been on forms of judicial review which exemplify these two features. According to democratic critics it is difficult to underestimate the considerable power which judicial review under a constitutional charter of rights places in the hands of judges who are, in modern constitutional democracies, typically unelected and hence not directly accountable to the democratic community. Despite their lack of accountability, these judges are assigned the task of providing authoritative answers to the deeply controversial questions of political morality that arise under judicial review and with respect to which there is so much deep disagreement. On the basis of these highly controversial answers they end up determining what shall be deemed lawful in the community. This is far too much political power for a small group of unelected people to wield over an entire democratic community, no matter how learned and wise they might happen to be. But perhaps more importantly, the granting of such power is fundamentally undemocratic in principle: individual citizens have, in effect, been disenfranchised by this arrangement. Each citizen of voting age

17

should have an equal right, in a democratic society, to contribute to the creation of the laws by which she is governed. This she exercises directly via the ballot box and by whatever contributions to public discourse and debate about controversial issues she chooses to make. She also does so indirectly via the legislative votes of her elected representatives, whose task is to represent her interests and opinions. Yet with judicial review all this has been replaced by subjection to the pronouncements of judges. The duly considered views of citizens and their representatives about the laws by which they are to be governed, arrived at (it is hoped) through fair processes of democratic decision-making, have, in effect, been set aside in favour of the contentious moral pronouncements of a handful of democratically unaccountable, elite judges. This unhappy situation is further exacerbated by the undeniable fact that judges on appeal courts often disagree vehemently among themselves about rights of political morality and must often, in the end, rely on majority voting to settle their own disagreements. It is not at all uncommon to see split votes when a court deals with a contentious issue of moral principle like affirmative action, abortion or pornography. And often these split votes follow patterns which are closely correlated with the all too discernible political leanings of judges. Add to this the fact that judges render decisions which all too often appear to conflict not only with views widely shared in the community at large, but also with their own previous decisions in earlier cases, and what might seem like a marvelous idea in the abstract—constitutionally guaranteeing moral rights and fundamental interests against the abuse of government power—is transformed into a living nightmare. A nightmare in which democracy, fairness and the rule of law have, in effect, been abandoned and replaced by the rule of a few men and women, by a kind of ‘judicial oligarchy’. And no matter the high esteem in which we tend to hold our judges in modern constitutional democracies, this is not a form of government to be eagerly embraced. Critical theories, both hard and democratic, represent a serious challenge not only to conventional theories and established practices of constitutional interpretation, but to the very idea of constitutionalism itself—the idea that government can and should be limited in ways that serve to protect us from unwarranted state power. According to originalism, the constitution protects us from judges and other officials by restricting them (largely) to politically and morally uncontroversial, neutral decisions about historical intentions and understandings. According to one strand of living constitutionalism, our evolving constitution can do the same while at the same time allowing the constitution to grow and adapt to changing circumstances and (it is hoped) better moral understandings. It can effect this balancing act so long as the judges, in whom the power of constitutional interpretation and enforcement has largely been placed, are willing to subject their deliberations to the discipline of common law reasoning. Critics, however, remain highly skeptical. Ordinary judges are not, critical theorists will insist, Platonic kings and queens, dispensing justice in the light of objective moral truth. We must always remember, critics insist, that our judges are ordinary, flawed human beings with all the intellectual and moral shortcomings, weaknesses and biases of their fellow human beings. They are also,

18

more often than not, members of a dominant group (e.g., wealthy, white males) who share the social background, education, perspective, and values of that group. But if constitutions are all at the mercy of dominant ideologies and the whims and convictions of elite judges, then the kind of protections heralded by the idea of constitutionalism may be a myth, and a harmful one at that. So what is the solution according to critical theorists? The proffered solutions can vary considerably, depending on how hard-line the theorist tends to be. A revolutionary communist might advocate the complete overthrow of constitutional, democratic government, while a liberal feminist critic might be content to work within existing constitutional systems to eradicate the vestiges of patriarchy which have survived recent feminist movements (Strossen 1995). Waldron and his fellow democratic critics argue that we should abandon the practice of judicial review of legislation under constitutional bills of rights and leave political decisions where they belong: the people and their elected and accountable representatives. But whatever the preferred solution, all critics of constitutionalism seem to agree that progress can be made only if the myths surrounding constitutional protection—the constraining force of original understanding, intention, history, the discipline of common law, and so on— are all exposed, and that the true political forces at work in constitutional practice are acknowledged and dealt with openly. Whether the idea of constitutionalism can survive the lessons of such critical scrutiny is a very good question. – Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy The Limits of Political obligations While Hobbes insists that we should regard our governments as having absolute authority, he reserves to subjects the liberty of disobeying some of their government's commands. He argues that subjects retain a right of self-defense against the sovereign power, giving them the right to disobey or resist when their lives are in danger. He also gives them seemingly broad resistance rights in cases in which their families or even their honor are at stake. These exceptions have understandably intrigued those who study Hobbes. His ascription of apparently inalienable rights—what he calls the “true liberties of subjects”—seems incompatible with his defense of absolute sovereignty. Moreover, if the sovereign's failure to provide adequate protection to subjects extinguishes their obligation to obey, and if it is left to each subject to judge for herself the adequacy of that protection, it seems that people have never really exited the fearsome state of nature. – Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy Rule according to higher law The rule according to a higher law means that no law may be enforced by the government unless it conforms with certain universal principles (written or unwritten) of fairness, morality, and justice. Thus, the rule according to a higher law may serve as a practical legal criterion to qualify the instances of political or economic decision-making, when a government, even though acting in conformity with clearly defined

19

and properly enacted legal rules, still produces results which many observers find unfair or unjust. "Higher law" can be interpreted in this context as the divine or natural law or basic legal values, established in the international law, – the choice depending on the viewpoint. But this is definitely a Law above the law. And it is in this capacity that it possesses the equal legal value for both the common and civil law jurisdictions, as opposed to natural law which is largely associated with common law. "To recognize the necessary connection between the rule of law as an ideal and well-constructed constitutional government does not and should not be taken to imply that all states can or should maintain the same constitutional structures in practice". The rule according to higher law is a practical approach to the implementation of the higher law theory which creates a bridge of mutual understanding (with regard to universal legal values) between the English language doctrine of the rule of law, traditional for the countries of common law, and the originally German doctrine of Rechtsstaat, translated into other languages of continental Europe as État de droit (Fr.), Estado de derecho (Sp.), Stato di diritto (It.), and Правовое государство (Ru.). The latter doctrine is the product of continental European legal thought which had adopted it from German legal philosophy. Its name can be translated into English as “legal state” or "state of law" or "state of rights" or "constitutional state" – consistently meaning the state in which the exercise of governmental power is kept in check by the higher law rather than by the changeable law established by this state. Amartya Sen mentioned that the legal theorists in ancient India used term of classical Sanscrit "nyaya" in the sense of not just a matter of judging institutions and rules, but of judging the societies themselves. - From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Natural Law Theory vs Positive Law Theory Natural law, or the law of nature (Latin: lex naturalis), is a system of law that is purportedly determined by nature, and thus universal. Classically, natural law refers to the “use of reason to analyze human nature—both social and personal”—and deduce binding rules of moral behavior from it. Natural law is classically contrasted with the positive law of a given political community, society, or state, and thus serves as a standard by which to criticize said positive law. In legal theory, on the other hand, the interpretation of positive law requires some reference to natural law. On this understanding of natural law, natural law can be invoked to criticize judicial decisions about what the law says but not to criticize the best interpretation of the law itself. Some scholars use natural law synonymously with natural justice or natural right (Latin ius naturale),while others distinguish between natural law and natural right. Although natural law is often conflated with common law, the two are distinct in that natural law is a view that “certain rights or values” are inherent in or universally cognizable by virtue of human reason or human nature, while common law is the

20

legal tradition whereby certain rights or values are legally cognizable by virtue of judicial recognition or articulation. Natural law theories have, however, exercised a profound influence on the development of English common law. It has been cited as a component in the United States Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United States, as well as in the Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen. Declarationism states that the founding of the United States is based on Natural law. Positive law (lat. ius positum) is the term generally used to describe man-made laws which oblige or specify an action. It also describes the establishment of specific rights for an individual or group. Etymologically, the name derives from the verb to posit. The concept of positive law is distinct from “natural law“, which comprises “inherent rights,” conferred not by act of legislation but by “God, nature or reason.” Positive law is also described as the law that applies at a certain time (present or past) at a certain place, consisting of statutory law, and case law as far as it is binding. More specifically, positive law may be characterized as “law actually and specifically enacted or adopted by proper authority for the government of an organized jural society.” Legitimate laws must come from legitimate sources. Legal Positivists argue that for the source of law to be legitimate, it must come from a source of power. For Austin, the source of law must be the only person who the subjects are in the habit of obeying. They must also be willing to back their sanctions and laws with credible force. Natural Law theorists posit that the “source of law is divine” or can be discovered and formed according to what is just and will promote the common good. Aquinas takes the stance that the source of divine law is God. Human laws are derived from these divine laws and practical reason. Aristotle and Plato agree that concepts of law and justice are derived from nature and reason, which govern actions to move toward the higher good. Aquinas makes the distinction that the person or persons who makes the law must be in care of the community. This is similar to Hobbes in that he believes the duty of those who make law to be to care for and protect the society that they govern. Hobbes finds a middle path on the topic of the source o law. He contends that the individual subordinates himself to the sovereign who can create and enforce laws according to a social contract with the people. Hart differs from Austin in that he believes that the sovereign cannot simply make laws as he or she pleases. The source of law is the sovereign who produces laws through following primary and secondary rules. Natural Law theorist St. Thomas Aquinas argues that human law is legitimate only if it is in line with divine law and promotes universal happiness. All law is fashioned to the common welfare of men.

21

He posits that neglecting God’s law or the universal happiness in the formation of a law makes it unjust. Accordingly, Aquinas advances that an unjust law is not a legitimate law at all and does not have to be obeyed. In stark contrast, Legal Positivist John Austin contends that legitimate law is nothing more than commands from a sovereign to the people who must obey him backed by credible threats and sanctions. The law’s legitimacy is completely independent of the morality of its content and must always be obeyed. It draws its validity from the power of the sovereign who is the only ruler that subjects are in the habit of obeying. He argues that the law as it exists is separate from what it ought to be. Natural Law Theorists heckle this notion because it shows no concern for morality or protection of the people. Austin maintains the division between morality and the law and concludes that the content of the law is legitimate through the power that created it. On the more moderate end of the Legal Positivist tradition is a philosopher who was influenced by both Natural and Positivist jurisprudence. Thomas Hobbes argues that the law receives its legitimacy from a social contract between the people who are governed and their sovereign. He likens government to a biblical sea monster. Like an anatomical head, the sovereign rules over the body of subjects whose power is beneath it. Like the monster, the government is all-powerful. Yet unlike Austin, he believes there to be limits to political obligation. He argues that when a citizen’s life is in danger, they have the right to disobey the government or a law. Challenging Austin’s idea that the law is legitimate because of the credible force of the sovereign is H.L.A. Hart. He agrees with Hobbes’ idea that laws are social contracts between the government and the people. He contends that legitimate law is not just commands backed by real force and sanctions, but because it has been enacted through primary and secondary rules. If a law has been dually enacted where primary rules regulate conduct and secondary rules allow primary rules to be created or altered then it is legitimate and must be obeyed. Additionally, Hart sees that Austin’s Command Theory presents a problem in the varying types of laws that he believes need to be in place, “notably those conferring legal powers to adjudicate or legislate (public powers) or to create or vary legal relations (private powers) which cannot, without absurdity, be construed as orders backed by threats.” Similar to the concept of legitimate law is the concept of what is just. Natural Law theorists Plato and Aristotle advance the idea justice is a virtue. It is an inseparable

22

part of oneself and is a driving force toward the common good. Those who subscribe to the Natural Law tradition claim that what is good and just is based on an objective standard of what is right and wrong. Plato argues that there is an order to the universe which He posits that the just man can do nothing to harm anyone else and does his part as an individual in society to help it function. Aristotle posits that each man should get what is due to him and that every action has a motive and it is to move toward the higher good. He also posits that justice is more than just being honest and following the obligations provided by the law. This implies that the law is open to interpretation and criticism if the content obligates one to go against the goal of a peaceful coexistence. Aristotle agrees with Plato in giving each man his right is just as long as it promotes the good, or “distributive justice”. Once legitimate sources have created legitimate and just laws, there must be a reason as to why people are compelled to follow or obey them. Natural Law subscribers believe that the ultimate end is the greater good and law is ordered to serve the well-being of man. Good laws should be followed because they follow reason and are inherently valuable and are a means to the ultimate human end or telos. Additionally, they argue that man was given reason, which distinguishes him from beasts. It is this reason, which allows him to control his actions and impulses to act justly. Acting justly and virtuously leads to the good life and the ultimate happiness. Opposite these thinkers is Austin. He believes that people are obedient to the letter of the law because if they do not then they will be “punished with force.” – Lisa Elkins, Investigative Journalist Natural Law Natural law, body of law supposed to be innate, discoverable by natural human reason, and common to all people. Under this philosophy, human or positive law, though changeable and culturally dependent, must—if truly just—be derived from the principles of natural law. The concept was rooted in Greek philosophy and Roman law. Particularly in the Christian philosophy of Thomas Aquinas, natural law—the sense of right and wrong implanted in humans by God—is contrasted with revealed law. It lay behind Hugo Grotius's ideas on international law (17th century). It was used as a basis for ethics, morality, and even for protests against tyranny by Spinoza, Leibniz, Locke, Rousseau, and many others, but with the development of scientific philosophies in the 19th century, natural law largely lost its influence. St. Thomas Aquinas on the Natural Law Aquinas bases his doctrine on the natural law, as one would expect, on his understanding of God and His relation to His creation. He grounds his theory of natural law in the notion of an eternal law (in God). In asking whether there is an eternal law, he begins by stating a general definition of all law: Law is a dictate of

23

reason from the ruler for the community he rules. This dictate of reason is first and foremost within the reason or intellect of the ruler. It is the idea of what should be done to insure the well-ordered functioning of whatever community the ruler has care for. (It is a fundamental tenet of Aquinas' political theory that rulers rule for the sake of the governed, i.e. for the good and well-being of those subject to the ruler.) Since he has elsewhere shown that God rules the world with his reason (since he is the cause of its being (cf. ST Ia 22, 1-2), Aquinas concludes that God has in His intellect an idea by which He governs the world. This Idea, in God, for the governance of things is the eternal law. (Summa TheologiaeI-IIae, 91, 1) Next, Aquinas asks whether there is in us a natural law. First, he makes a distinction: A law is not only in the reason of a ruler, but may also be in the thing that is ruled. In the case of the Eternal Law, the things of creation that are ruled by that Law have it imprinted on them through their nature or essence. Since things act according to their nature, they derive their proper acts and ends (final cause) according to the law that is written into their nature. Everything in nature, insofar as they reflect the order by which God directs them through their nature for their own benefit, reflects the Eternal Law in their own natures. (S.T. I-IIae, 91, 2) The Natural Law, as applied to the case of human beings, requires greater precision because of the fact that we have reason and free will. It is our nature as humans to act freely (i.e. to be provident for ourselves and others) by being inclined toward our proper acts and end. That is, we human beings must exercise our natural reason to discover what is best for us in order to achieve the end to which their nature inclines. Furthermore, we must exercise our freedom; by choosing what reason determines to naturally suit us, i.e. what is best for our nature. The natural inclination of humans to achieve their proper end through reason and free will is the natural law. Formally defined, the Natural Law is humans' participation in the Eternal Law, through reason and will. Humans actively participate in the eternal law of God (the governance of the world) by using reason in conformity with the Natural Law to discern what is good and evil. In applying this universal notion of Natural Law to the human person, one first must decide what it is that God has ordained human nature to be inclined toward. Since each thing has a nature given it by God, and each thing has a natural end, so there is a fulfillment to human activity of living. When a person discovers by reason what the purpose of living is, he or she discovers his or her natural end is. Accepting the medieval dictum "happiness is what all desire", People are happy when they achieve this natural end. Aquinas distinguishes different levels of precepts or commands that the Natural Law entails. The most universal is the command "Good is to be done and pursued and evil avoided." This applies to everything and everyone, so much so that some consider it to be more of a description or definition of what we mean by "good." For

24

these philosophers, a thing is "good" just in case it is pursued or done by someone. Aquinas would agree with this to a certain extent; but he would say that that is a definition of an apparent good. Thus, this position of Aquinas has a certain phenomenological appeal: a person does anything and everything he or she does only because that thing at least "appears" to be good. Even when I choose something that I know is bad for me, I nevertheless choose it under some aspect of good, i.e. as some kind of good. I know the cake is fattening, for example, and I don't choose to eat it as fattening. I do, however, choose to eat it as tasty (which is an apparent, though not a true, good). On the level that we share with all substances, the Natural Law commands that we preserve ourselves in being. Therefore, one of the most basic precepts of the Natural Law is to not commit suicide. (Nevertheless, suicide can, sadly, be chosen as an apparent good, e.g. as the cessation of pain.) On the level we share with all living things, the Natural Law commands that we take care of our life, and transmit that life to the next generation. Thus, almost as basic as the preservation of our lives, the Natural Law commands us to rear and care for offspring. On the level that is most specific to humans, the fulfilment of the Natural Law consists in the exercise those activities that are unique of humans, i.e. knowledge and love, and in a state that is also natural to human persons, i.e. society. The Natural Law, thus, commands us to develop our rational and moral capacities by growing in the virtues of intellect (prudence, art, and science) and will (justice, courage, temperance). Natural law also commands those things that make for the harmonious functioning of society ("Thou shalt not kill," "Thou shalt not steal.") Human nature also shows that each of us have a destiny beyond this world, too. Man's infinite capacity to know and love shows that he is destined to know and love an infinite being, God. All of these levels of precepts so far outlined are only the most basic. "The good is to be done and pursued and evil is to be avoided" is not very helpful for making actual choices. Therefore, Aquinas believes that one needs one's reason to be perfected by the virtues, especially prudence, in order to discover precepts of the Natural Law that are more proximate to the choices that one has to make on a day to day basis. The Thomistic notion of Natural Law has its roots, then, in a quite basic understanding of the universe as caused and cared for by God, and the basic notion of what a law is. It is a fairly sophisticated notion by which to ground the legitimacy of human law in something more universal than the mere agreement and decree of legislators. Yet, it allows that what the Natural Law commands or allows is not perfectly obvious when one gets to the proximate level of commanding or forbidding specific acts. It grounds the notion that there are some things that are wrong, always and everywhere, i.e. "crimes against humanity," while avoiding the obvious difficulties of claiming that this is determined by any sort of human consensus. Nevertheless, it still sees the interplay of people in social and rational discourse as necessary to determine what in particular the Natural Law requires.

25

Fear becomes a motivator Each philosopher sought to answer what makes law or justice legitimate. For some such as the Natural Law theorists, it comes a drive toward the greater good, reason and the divine through discovery or someone in the care of the community; and is maintained through the same means, which discovered and created it. For others such as Legal positivists it comes from power or a social contract, which binds subjects with fear, force, or reason. The two groups intersect and diverge at varying points, but all ultimately seek to understand a part of what is so central to the human condition, the law. UZA - Conclusions Education It is clear that although everyone is aware of some or other form of corruption, 99% are still unaware of the underlying deception which governs and controls every aspect of their lives and as a result currently no true meeting of the minds occurs on any judicial, legislative or administrative level between the People and their public servants. The Judges, Police Officers and Military are under the impression that the banks are paying them and not the people; in the meantime public servants are being used to enforce contracts on the people. In addition to this there are other factors to consider: 1. Most People will and do disagree on almost everything based on religious, political

and social beliefs. People are so diverse in their thinking that only communities could possibly come to any form of agreement as to how they wish to be governed;The Canton system of Europe is socially very stable and works within seeming chaos such as in Belgium.

2. In the current state of global distrust amidst all sorts of conspiracies, People do no longer wish to be governed by others for fear of domination;

3. The growing consensus is that People now wish to participate in positive transformation processes and provide remedies for their communities, the earth and for future generations;

How to we educate the masses? DVD: Videos can be successfully distributed as audio and video as most people have access to a playing device. These can be distributed to schools, churches, societies and the public in general. Private organizations are currently distributing CDs for as little as $0.50. Television: Stations can be re-purposed to air educational material at certain times. SMS: 87% of the population have mobile phones. Important information can be sent via sms.

26

Referendum Only once the people are properly educated and informed will any form of referendum be lawful and procedurally fair. Truth and Reconciliation Commissions Albie Sachs stated in his Pulitzer prize winning book: “Justice is about seeking reconciliation and not retribution.” As we have experienced this in South Africa in the 1994 transition, Commissions of Inquiry are important for People to air their grievances and to feel that justice has been served. Judicial System We cannot use the same system to bring about the change which caused the problem in the first place. We need move from Admiralty law to natural and common law trial by jury courts where all People are equal and equally accountable at the one universal law of “Do no harm, cause n loss, do not impede the freedom of others.” A jury of 12 for community courts or provincial matters and 25 for national matters will ensure new precedents are set in common case law while we rely on old authorities to guide us. Constitutions Even though all countries have been legally foreclosed by the One People’s Public Trust by December 25th 2012, this fact has not been publicized or recognized. Every country in the world will need to go through a formal foreclosure process to balance accounts and settle the books on their corporate governments to start afresh. The People will need to hold Referendum to decide whether their Constitutions would need to be re-written or re-venued back to the law of the land once the society has been properly educated. Banking The banking system which currently controls global commerce is broken pozi scheme, designed to bankrupt countries and accrue all wealth to the 1 %. Any currency invested disappears into a growing black hole. No bail outs or ins can solve the woes of fractional reserve banking. It does not work. It would need to be avoided at all costs. Current rural mobile to mobile electronic systems exist which will bypass control of banks. These payment systems are easy to implement and the central bank can be based anywhere globally. Only ethical social and environmental community based projects can possibly be accepted into a CVAC type exchange. (www.i-uv.com). Any further commerce done with any commercial corporation that has not been re-purposed by the people will result in continued greed and tyrannical control over the people and an only end in the final destruction of us, our planet and it’s resources.

27

Ethics The moral fabric has been purposefully eroded through a diabolical process of divide, conquer and rule of the people, using weaknesses such as greed and power to maintain conflict, fear, shortages and media mind-control to name a few. All of this deception is compounded by the refusal of ordinary People to realize, know or understand that it is this secrecy and duplicity of privately owned corporations, being surreptitiously portrayed as lawful agencies and government, coupled with the deceit and endless greed of Israel; European Bankers and the Royal and Elite families of the World, that have come together to fleece the world’s people like sheep and unfortunately, People’s public apathy and ignorance only serves to reinforce the lie. In the celebrated words of Justice Brandeis in Olmstead vs United States: “If the Government becomes a lawbreaker, it breeds contempt for the law, it invites every man to become a law unto himself; it invites anarchy.” Unless we return to the one universal law of “Do, no harm, cause no loss, do not impede the freedoms of others.” And the 5 ethics of: “Truth, Integrity, responsibility, accountability and transparency”, we are surely lost and all will come to a bitter end. Role of Common Law Administrators The role of the jury administrator team is to ensure: 1. Communication between the People and the courts during the transition. 2. Courts are educated, informed and updated as to changes in procedure or

administrative function. 3. The establishment and training of community courts in rural areas. 4. The establishment of community Tribunals of retired Judges or community Elders

in cases of appeal or review. 5. The overseeing of educational material to schools, communities, churches etc. 6. The involvement of agencies of positive change. The team of 9 will be comprised of: 1. Attorney in fact – not registered with the BAR, versed in common law; 2. Commercial administrator – versed in Bills of Exchange and UCC; 3. Correspondent – reports and team email correspondence; 4. Education administrator – educational background preferable; 5. IT/Technical problem solver; 6. Liaison and team speaker; 7. Public administrator – versed in public law and public policy; 8. Secretarial administrator – for general admin and issuance of warrants; 9. Trust administrator – versed in community co-operatives, common law trusts; Ethics Committees A need for the establishment of Ethics Committees in similar fashion to ensure the truth, integrity, responsibility, accountability and transparency of all involved. In Peace - UZA