 |
PM |  | |
Quote | | |
Reply | | |
Full Topic | |
| Joined: | Mon Nov 21st, 2005 |
| Location: | California USA |
| Posts: | 6399 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: |    |
Examples
Note Side A:
Quote:
Moreover, the statue was merely declaratory of, although somewhat in mitigation of, the common law. Such libels were punishable under the common law and therefore, by reason of Article III, Section 2, Clause 1, were punishable under the judicial power of the United States, which included the power to declare common law.
Compare side A to side B:
Quote:
In arguing against the constitutionality of the Sedition Act, Madison first attacked the basis for Otis’s justification of the statute in the Fifth Congress: that it was supplementary to the common-law power of crimes, which the federal government possessed under Articles III of the Constitution. Madison’s contention was that since the colonies had all modified the substantive rules of English common law to suit their own circumstances, there was no uniform substantive common-law rules from which the federal courts could, without exercising a discretionary, quasi-legislative power, effectively posit a federal common law.
The False Federal Take over of voluntary law (common law) by the false Federalists (including Washington, Hamilton, and Adams) whereby voluntary law (common law) was turned into involuntary law (legal slavery) is expressed with those specific words offered in that link.
Side A (false federalists) dictates what is or is not crime, punishes who is dictated as being punishable, and the victims punished in this manner have no power of defense whatsoever, the victims of this type of LEGALIZED CRIME are not even allowed to speak out against this type of LEGALIZED CRIME.
More Examples
The supporters of constitutionality of those acts claimed that the common law had been introduced and become a part of the Constitution of the United States, and therefore the powers usually exercisable under the common law could be exercised by the Congress of the United States in the respects involved in those acts. Mr. Madison’s letter discussing this contention was answered so far as it asserted the right of a State to nullify an act Congress, but was never answered so far as it denied the existence of the common law as a part of the Constitution of the United States. His objections to that contention, succinctly stated, were that if the common law was part of the Constitution, then there were no constitutional limitations.
So common law was the law of the land made the law of the land by the people, for the people, of the people, as government existing in a form that is by their consent, they are, in effect, their own government, and the words used to identify the people being their own government is common law which included trial by jury.
The problem has been, is, and always will be a problem of finding people to recognize the fact that common people govern themselves well enough without the help of authorities who claim to be above common law.
Example:
Trial by Jury
Quote:
It was anciently called "trial per pais" - that is, "trial by the country." And now, in every criminal trial, the jury are told that the accused "has, for trial, put himself upon the country; which country you (the jury) are." The object of this trial "by the country," or by the people, in preference to a trial by the government, is to guard against every species of oppression by the government. In order to effect this end, it is indispensable that the people, or "the country," judge of and determine their own liberties against the government; instead of the government's judging of and determining its own powers over the people. How is it possible that juries can do anything to protect the liberties of the people against the government, if they are not allowed to determine what those liberties are?
King John was reluctant to officially recognize common law as being the law of the land, but that is the same story told by every dictator.