"A man is answerable for all the consequences of his acts, or in other words, that he acts at his peril always and is wholly responsible for those acts insofar as the evil can be foreseen and is avoided by an average prudent man".
Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr.
"The Common Law" 1881
That simple statement of the inescapable duty of freemen to preserve the rights of their neighbors is the single most hated attribute of the common law regarding individuals. The common law expresses and defends the unalienable rights of man descended from God. These however, comprise only a small part of the law. The greater portion of the law reaches to defending the rights and property of men living together in a society. In other words if you commit a trespass, tort or crime against another or his property, you pay. If it is a serious offense you go to prison without parole or are executed shortly after sentencing if this was a capital crime. There is no 'plea bargaining'. Each act has it's prescribed punishment. No pick and choose. Rule of Law.
"This law of nature, being co-eval with mankind and dictated by God Himself, is of course superior in obligation to any other. It is binding over all the globe, in all countries, and at all times : no human laws are of any validity, if contrary to this; and such of them as are valid derive all their force, and all their authority, mediately or immediately, from this original".
William Blackstone
"Commentaries on the Laws of England" 1765
Governments dislike the common law because they can not enslave the people if God's laws are the model for legislation. Hence the requirement that tyrants be atheist and one of the first steps they must take to implement their personal agenda is to negate religiously inspired morals and values so that the tyrant's actions are not seen for what they really are. Rule of Law prohibits by default arbitrary rulings by despots. The principle or doctrine that makes Rule of Law work is 'stare decis'. Translated from Latin, 'To abide by, or adhere to, decided cases'. This has been upheld in the courts time and again. For example from State v. Mellemberger 96 P.2d 709, "Under doctrine a deliberate or solemn decision of court made after argument on question of law fairly arising in the case, and necessary to its determination, is an authority, or binding precedent in the same court, or in other courts of equal or lower rank in subsequent cases where the very point is again in controversy. " Without stare decis, a judge could rule any way he wants or instruct the jury to do his bidding. Sound familiar? As with all things in the law, stare decis provides for abuses by allowing unjust decisions to be reversed, otherwise the first corrupt judge to come along could take us all prisoner. Stare decis DOES NOT apply to wrongs to make them right by repetition. Politicians and judges of course love to build upon the treasons of their predecessors. However, this saving provision notwithstanding will we see how such corrupt judges have usurped unalienable rights from us in many areas of our lives over the course of many decades.
In all cases the common law protects the individuals rights to life, liberty and property whether from attack by another individual or government. Hereinafter, references to 'the laws of the land' presume that such laws are indeed constitutional and valid. Consider this :
"Life is the immediate gift of God, a right inherent by nature in every individual; and begins in contemplation of law as soon as an infant is able to stir in the mother's womb. For if a woman is quick with child, and by potion or otherwise, killeth it in her womb; or if anyone beat her; whereby the child dieth in her body, and she is delivered of a dead child; this, though not murder, was by ancient law homicide or manslaughter. An infant in the mother's womb, is supposed in law to be born for many purposes. It is capable of having a legacy, or a surrender of a copyhold estate made to it. It may have a guardian assigned to it; and is enabled to have an estate limited to it's use, and to take afterwards by such limitation, as if it were actually born".
Blackstone
These are some amazing unalienable rights for an amount of 'protoplasm'. Now let us consider self defense, that very politically incorrect unalienable right :
"Both the life and limbs of a man are of such high value, in the estimation of the law of England, that it pardons even homicide if committed in self defence. These rights of life and member can only be determined (terminated) by the death of the person; which is either a civil or natural death".
Blackstone
What does that say to you about how valuable you are in the eyes of left wing people control nuts? We will cover this unalienable right in great depth on 'The Right to Keep and Bear Arms' and the 'Militia' pages. For now we will discuss liberty :
"Next to personal security, the law of England regards, asserts, and preserves the personal liberty of individuals. This personal liberty consists in the power of loco-motion, of changing situation, or removing one's person to whatsoever place one's own inclination may direct; without imprisonment or restraint, unless by due course of law. "
Blackstone
Does this sound like being required to carry federally mandated ID's and producing them upon demand at seat belt 'checkpoints'? Does this sound like 'driving is a privilege'? Of course not. Consider unlawful imprisonment :
"Here again the language of the great charter is, that no freeman shall be taken or imprisoned, but by the lawful judgment of his equals, or by the law of the land. If any person be restrained of his liberty by order or decree of any illegal court or by command of the king's majesty in person, or by warrant of the council board, or of any of the privy council; he shall, upon demand of his counsel, have a writ of habeas corpus, to bring his body before the court of the king's bench or common pleas; who shall determine whether the cause of his commitment be just, and thereupon do as justice shall appertain."
Blackstone
This part of the prevents the executive (king) from using his prerogative and Force of Arms under his command to carry out personal agendas of tyranny against individuals. The writ of habeas corpus is the holy grail of the common law. It can only be set aside by the legislature for a specified time during a very great emergency. Contrast this with FEMA which claims it has the magical power to set aside the entire U.S. Constitution at the whim of the executive branch. Or the U.S. military being placed in charge of the 'homeland' also at the whim of the president who would then become 'commander-in-chief' of the continental United States, despite the Posse Comitatus Act which specifically prevents such a thing. The Constitution has no provision for removal for any reason. This is an obviously needed attribute. And indeed the courts have held that in time of emergency the Constitution should be even more rigorously applied. No Constitution, no law, no liberty. More on this on the 'Constitutional Republic' page. For now consider your safety on your own property :
"The poorest man may, in his cottage, bid defiance to all the forces of the Crown. It may be frail; its roof may shake; the wind may blow through it; the storms may enter; the rain may enter; but the King of England cannot enter; all his forces dare not cross the threshold of the ruined tenement".
William Pitt England
This does not leave much room for 'no-knock' SWAT/DEA/IRS break-ins and shoot outs based on less then truly justified circumstances and with all or some due process (constitutional/lawful, not agency) being neglected. Let us continue further with the retention of property by individuals :
"Another absolute right, inherent in every Englishman, is that of property : which constitutes the free use, enjoyment, and disposal of all his acquisitions, without control or dimunition, save only by the laws of the land. The laws of England are therefore, in point of honor and justice, extremely watchful in ascertaining and protecting this right. Upon this principle the great charter has declared that no freeman shall be disseised, or divested, of his freehold, or of his liberties, or free customs, but by the judgment of his peers, or by the law of the land. And by a variety of ancient statutes it is enacted, that no man's land or goods shall be seized into the king's hands, against the great charter, and the law of the land; and that no man shall be disinherited, nor put out of his franchises or freehold, unless he be duly brought to answer, and be forejudged courts of law; and if anything be done to the contrary, it shall be redressed and holden to none."
Blackstone
This prevents home/farm foreclosure schemes operated by banks aided by kangaroo courts that utilize dissiezure by Force of Arms to obtain the entire property for the debt rather than give notice to the owner of a sale and time for redemption, eventhough such sale and redemption processes have been the law for centuries. It also stops seizure of property or money by the Individuals Representing Satan, DEA, sheriffs and the similar ilk of thugs without genuine writs of execution against you. In other words you actually went to a real legitimate trial and lost. The reason these thugs take your things first before charges are even made, let alone trial and conviction, is so that you can not defend yourself because they know they are in the wrong and will and do lose every time an honest citizen confronts them squarely.
"A trial by jury hath been used time out of mind in this nation; and seems to be co-eval with the first civil government thereof."
Blackstone
Trial by jury, by 12 (no less) of your peers, is the greatest tool for keeping the Rule of Law intact. The first chief justice of the U.S. Supreme Court, John Jay, said, "The jury has the right to judge both the law as well as the fact in controversy." This means just what it says. The judge can not 'instruct' the jury in the law or command them to adhere to some convenient statute that he wishes to be used in this case. In more recent times in U.S. vs Daugherty, 473 F 2nd 113, 1139 (1972), it states clearly, "The Jury has an unreviewable and unreversible power ... to acquit in disregard of the instructions on the law given by trial judge. ..." Any and every judge at any level who instructs any jury to the contrary is to that extent usurping the rights of the defendant and ultimately you. These judges act with malice aforethought and not out of ignorance. The next time you are selected for jury duty, try asserting the rights of you the juror and see if you do not get released from jury duty in a flash. Then of course these same scoundrels will claim stare decis for their unlawful rulings and incorrect jury decisions based upon their 'instructions'. This is also the reason, contrary to the Constitution at Article IV section 2, that criminals are wisked away to another jurisdiction so that the government judge may decide his fate. This deprives the damaged community from having its day in court, and it also serves to effectively reduce the absolute power of the jury.
Summary
You have seen that the origin of our common law is the Bible, and indeed the principles can be traced to the Law of Moses. The law and its principles of course grew and matured with time as society enlarged. It protects the God given rights of life, liberty and property in a society. The very first colonists claimed the common law as their birth right as Englishmen, obviously preferring the law to the pathetic forms of government in Europe and elsewhere. After the War for Independence the common law was formally adopted by the 13 colonies and the new federal government. During the using of the common law by America both prior to and after the War for Independence, precedents and principles that were suitable for the English monarchy were weeded out to form our American common law, that was more suited for a republic. Each state subsequently admitted into the Union also adopted the common law. You have also learned that the type of person who detests the law is just a common villain. Be he an individual wanting to harm another or a tyrant seeking to harm all around him. You have seen by inference that if you follow the rules no matter if you are atheist and or as black hearted as Hitler or Stalin you may move around freely and enjoy all the benefits of the society, just as a righteous person may do. The Bible says that God sends His rain upon the just and the unjust alike. You have also seen why government media labels people who speak of justice, liberty and constitutionality as 'right wing Christian radicals'. Understanding of the law is best accomplished by those who understand God. And if you are judged as a 'right wing Christian radical' what does that say of the hurler of the epithet? For a man is measured by his enemies. What other system of jurisprudence on this planet can be so uniform it its application of justice yet allow such great individual liberty even in modern society? Next on the 'Constitutional Republic' page we will see that rights the founders secured for us are indeed our unalienable common law rights.
Home