There is an expression within the legal system that “Ignorance of the law is no excuse”. It is a simple paradigm when the law constitutes an understanding of what is right, and what is wrong. It becomes, at best, a burden of unimaginable proportions when the rules and regulations enacted by the state encompasses tens-of-thousands of pages of legalese, and when those regulations serve the purpose of government, or some other special interest.
In considering what needed to be said in this article I concluded that benefit only comes from the learning experience, and that we are sometimes blinded by our want to validate what perceived good we might have accomplished.
Some of us would be willing to admit our mistakes if for the public good, while others cannot make that leap to the conclusion that missteps of the past are just that; blunders from which we can derive a greater knowledge. For my own part, I am often reticent to admit mistakes openly, but I am constantly working to rectify whatever has gone before while noting that what was done cannot be undone no matter how many tears are shed.
We instituted a government from the ground up where all power is derived from the People. We the People are the Sovereigns. We do not elect, nor appoint sovereigns who are immune to the law, nor are they given the power to interpret what law we have given to them. The law, beginning and ending with a constitution, unalienable rights, and as Blackstone noted, a method where all injuries must have a remedy and relief. In the United States that relief can only come from a jury of peers in a common law court.
When you go to traffic court, is it a court of common law, or is it one where the state has a vested interest in taking your money? It can’t be common law because the state has absolutely no authority in common law other than what it is given by the jury for a particular suit; award the plaintiff, or exonerate the defendant.
Is it an Article III court? While it is a controversy, it is not a controversy of law, but rather a regulation of a right that cannot be infringed. Therefore, the case would not be whether the individual had broken some law, but did the state have the granted power to license and then restrict the freedom of movement.
I could go on to ask where the notion came from that we can have public prosecutors who work for the state to enforce whatever dictum the legislature proposes and passes as law, and then places into that neat index of code so we can easily find out what the government deems we have violated today.
As Timothy Baldwin, JD expressed in his column Be it known to you, O king, “Please understand: the most fundamental and basic natural rights expressed by our forefathers is the right to be governed only by our consent, by a government we have created for our interests; by agents who act in trust of our freedoms, rights and liberties, who are accountable directly to their principals (the people who authorized their power); and by those who have non-conflicting interests to those they represent.”
He goes on to quote from the Second Treatise of Government, “[U]sing force upon the people without authority, and contrary to the trust put in him that does so, is a state of war with the people…[and] the people have a right to remove [such a force] by force. The use of force without authority, always puts him that uses it into a state of war, as the aggressor, and renders him liable to be treated accordingly.”
No one is advocating the use of violence, except the state, but we must be reminded from time to time that this country was formed in revolution. Men, and women, shed their blood in order that posterity would share in the freedom our Founders sought, and won by shot and blade.
Should we give it all away by facilitating this, and compromising on that? Are we really of the mind that some pretend benefit comes by giving away, or licensing a natural right such as that of marriage, the right to bear arms, or the right to travel upon the highways at the discretion of some police authority enforcing an unconstitutional act?
Everyone has his or her opinions, and obviously mine are very strong otherwise I would not be writing here. When I refer to law, I attempt to stay within the parameters of what I know to be true; this is a Constitutional Federal Republic that operates by strict enumeration, giving way to common law, which was intended to severely limit the state’s ability to prosecute for matters not delegated such as robbery, assault, or driving down the public roads past a speed limit. The state operates as a clearing-house for the investigations of the Grand Jury, and an enforcer of the petit jury’s decision.
The court may not issue edicts, create law, or give way to acts unless it can reconcile it as a granted power. It cannot sit idly by while the state takes it upon itself to prosecute the citizens it is sworn to protect, while protecting the often thuggish acts of government agents claiming immunity.
I understand how difficult the concept is when you consider violent crime, but when you look into our founding and understand why our Forefathers made the Militia such an intricate part of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights you might come to a reasonable conclusion. The Militia is the people’s force of law, knowing full well that it would be ever present, unlike the police. It will be available when 911 has you on hold, and will not question your right of self-defense.
Too many supposed experts are given air time to express their views. Those views often follow the road that we’ve allowed the state to pave rather than strictly adhering to the fundamentals of a limited government.
The law is what we, as the sovereigns, say it is, as it can be no other way if we want to maintain freedom. James Madison wrote in Federalist 78, “There is no position which depends on clearer principles, than that every act of a delegated authority, contrary to the tenor of the commission under which it is exercised, is void. No legislative act, therefore, contrary to the Constitution, can be valid. To deny this, would be to affirm, that the deputy is greater than his principal; that the servant is above his master; that the representatives of the people are superior to the people themselves; that men acting by virtue of powers, may do not only what their powers do not authorize, but what they forbid.”
Recognizing all the pitfalls, twists, and turns brought about by the bloated court system has prompted me to ask if it is not the People, but rather the state that is ignorant of the law?
Take some time to read, or merely peruse some Supreme Court decisions. You will first find that almost all modern decisions are not unanimous, and almost none clearly define what segment of either the state or federal constitutions the court has recognized.
Controversies in law are elevated to the Supreme Court by questions of constitutionality, and often times by disagreement from the various district courts. So when a jurist says to me “Ignorance of the law is no excuse”, my first thought is; what the heck are you talking about?
I understand that if I’ve taken the property of another, or violated someone’s right to life, and liberty I’ve committed a crime. I’ve obviously perpetrated an offense that is cognizable before a jury of my peers. On the other hand I cannot recognize, nor understand an offense such as opening a business without the state’s consent. Where is the harm in that?
For those who claim that business needs to be regulated in order to protect the public good, I would respond that the public health is never relieved by the state that benefits from the fines it procures in its procedures. We have a system of common law wherein the injured party can bring suit, and hopefully be reimbursed for the harm caused by unscrupulous business.
More importantly, in cases arising from controversies with the state’s interpretations, or enforcements of regulations, the People’s ability to obtain remedy is often thrown aside for reasons of compelling interests, national security, or immunity.
Five to Four is an indication to me that an understanding of the law has bypassed the entire court system. Am I to understand that we are to be dependent on an organism where the black robbed autocracy can disagree on what the law is, or where the state procured its legitimate power, but we are none-the-less to be subject to the power that this farce enforces?
Five to Four is what so many of the Supreme Court decisions come down to, and most are along ideological lines rather than the citing of defined powers. Yet there is rejoicing on one side when the highest court in the land renders a favorable decision for some interested party.
If almost Forty-Five Percent of the court could not agree with the decision, how can anyone claim it to be legitimate? No, the court must show absolute agreement based on an enumerated power. The court must be in total agreement that the question has not in any way, shape, or form infringed upon a natural or unalienable right.
It is a simple thing to say that we find that the legislation in question comes under the defined power in Article 1, or that the regulation or rule does not promote the power to prosecute the Sovereign who in the particular quarrel happens to be the People.
It is also quite simple to reconcile whether or not the legislation of one of the state’s does not impose itself upon the rights that our forefathers made the Supreme Law of the Land, or negates its mandate to protect the unalienable rights of the People; “That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed”.
Logic is the means by which we maintain order. The Universe was formed in logic with certain principles that cannot be overridden by dictum. Just as the entire creation cannot function without logic, neither can a free society.
If my understanding of an act creates a controversy in my mind, and the courts, from one district to the next, and then the Supreme Court has questions, how can anyone hold me responsible for my suspicions, or acts of defiance?