Remember Our Forefathers

Archive for the ‘Philosophy’ Category

George Washington

Observe good faith and justice towards all Nations; cultivate peace and harmony with all.

…

The Nation, which indulges towards another an habitual hatred, or an habitual fondness, is in some degree a slave. It is a slave to its animosity or to its affection, either of which is sufficient to lead it astray from its duty and its interest.

…

The great rule of conduct for us, in regard to foreign nations, is, in extending our commercial relations, to have with them as little political connexion [sic] as possible. So far as we have already formed engagements, let them be fulfilled with perfect good faith. Here let us stop.

…

Harmony, liberal intercourse with all nations, are recommended by policy, humanity, and interest… There can be no greater error than to expect or calculate upon real favors from nation to nation. It is an illusion, which experience must cure, which a just pride ought to discard.

George Washington, Farewell Address, September 17, 1796

“Turkish PM furious over leaked US cable” – Washington Post
“Putin criticizes US over Wikileaks revelations” – Politics Daily

“Leaks spark concern in Beijing” – Radio Free Asia

“Uruguay demands clarification of Wikileaks reports” – Terra Peru (translated from Spanish)

“Tempers rise over Wikileaks revelations” – AFP

“Diplomatic furor grows over Wikileaks revelations” – NewsMax.com

“Wikileaks disclosures are leading to diplomatic cracks for US” – Chicago Tribune

Does anyone not see the contradiction above? Or rather, not so much a contradiction as much as an abject failure to heed the advice of the past; advice which was dictated by a wealth of knowledge gained through the experience of the ages. The old adage of ‘you reap what you sow’ has rung clearly. We have sown the seeds of dysfunction and enmity with our diplomacy, and our embassies are now so littered with the political entanglements bred by our failure to adhere to the sound political advice regarding foreign policy. What we see playing out now is the reaping of this bitter harvest.

But the most disturbing facet of our society brought to light by this situation is the response given by the general masses to the “leak” of all those classified documents. From calls of treason, to revisiting of the espionage act, to advocation of the assassination of Julian Assange, this pitiful display by the American people – obviously just repetition of the hysteria promulgated by big government media – simply highlights the complete misunderstanding of the true nature and function of government. As a result of over a century of state run education, the proper character of government has been so obfuscated that people truly believe that information should be classified and withheld from public knowledge. The purposeful withholding of anything from one person by another is nothing more than an act of totalitarianism, and completely inconsistent with perfect Liberty. Let us contemplate and then shatter the two common justifications for such despotic behavior: hysteria and national security.

The first, hysteria, is probably the one chosen most often as a supposedly obvious and logical reason for withholding specific information from public consumption. The line goes that if the general public suddenly was made aware of information which has been deemed beyond their scope, mass hysteria and pandemonium would surely ensue. Where to even begin. The proposition is so laughable, yet it is so tacitly accepted that it becomes scary. Realistically, what possible knowledge could exist within the inner circles of government that would cause people to behave in a frenzy? Aliens? Doomsday? The whereabouts of Jimmy Hoffa? Who killed JFK? Give me a break. The rationale is so ludicrous that it boggles my mind how readily people accept this premise without even so much as a second thought.

But let us for one minute assume that there is something being held behind closed doors which could potentially have an earth-shattering effect upon our reality. As unrealistic and preposterous a suggestion as it is, it is even more outlandish to assume that 1, a select group of people should be privy to that information thereby elevating those select few to a status over and above the rest of mankind, and 2, that we underlings are so irrational and unstable that we cannot and should not make decisions for ourselves. On 1, how can anyone find it acceptable that in a republic, where the decision makers are nothing more than representatives elected from among the general public, those same representatives can decide for themselves and anoint themselves to positions and statuses which make them one step below divine? The mere suggestion is not only insulting to the dignity of any free person, but also tyrannical and suggesting of a despotism which no human being should be subject to. And on 2, how can anyone so easily accept that they should not be able to judge a situation or event for themselves? That acceptance is what is irrational.

The second justification for withholding information from the general public is the specious straw man, national security; that line being if certain information were made public it could potentially compromise our national security and jeopardize the lives of innocent Americans. Blah, blah, blah. The same arguments against the hysteria justification are sufficient enough to debunk this one as well, however an even more serious argument exists. When we speak of the true nature and character of government, we must consider the notion that if our government or its representatives behave in a manner which could potentially incite violence against the people of the nation, then they are acting in contrast to good government and in actuality are committing treason against the people. Let me state that again: if the government as an entity, or a representative of government commits any act which has the potential to incite violence and/or possibly bring death upon even one citizen, let alone thousands or millions, then the government has committed an act of treason against its citizens. The question should not be one of whether or not the general public should have access to knowledge which could jeopardize “national security,” but whether or not government should act in such a manner as to jeopardize the security of its citizens.

So leave Julian Assange alone. You want to be enraged? Be enraged that your government has pressured Amazon to close its servers to Wikileaks. Be enraged that the government is pressuring students not to read the Wikileaks site. Be enraged that your government is violating the freedom of speech, the freedom of association, and the freedom of the press. Be enraged, but direct it where it should rightfully be directed toward, the government.

John Locke - Father of Classical Liberalism

In my previous article I made mention of our “corrupted system of positive law” and the necessity of its eradication. This would be a good time to expound upon this subject and maybe just talk a little legal theory in general.

The Intro

When you walk down the street and decide to cross the road outside of a crosswalk, you could be cited for an infraction and possibly fined. Who are you hurting by doing that? If you drive your vehicle, even 5 mph, without your seatbelt on, you can be pulled over, ticketed, and receive points on your license which cost untold dollars in mandatory insurance premiums. Who are you hurting by doing that? If while walking to the corner store for a loaf of bread you feel the desire to openly drink an alcoholic beverage, you could be heavily fined and possibly arrested. Who are you hurting by doing that? Suppose you suffer from tremendous pain, or perhaps you just want to relax and feel a little personal enjoyment, so you decide to purchase a bag of marijuana but you are tricked by an undercover police sting and are arrested to face fines and jail time. Who are you hurting by doing that?

When laws are made by people, they are certainly not fool proof, nor are they necessarily just. Therein lies the problem: that over time the human race has accepted the fact that the “law” is anything that a sovereign, whether one person or many, deems as such. As I have stated here, there is a long standing tradition of the nullification of unjust “laws” which exists in this country, but in this case I’d like to examine why we even accept the enactment of such “laws” in the first place. How have we become so complacent in our lives to allow such travesties of our Liberty and property to be perpetrated against us each and every day? Should not a “law” be something that is equitable to all and not just to some of society? Should “laws” even exist if they conflict with natural rights? Our problem begins when we consider and accept legal positivism, which lends credence to such “laws“, as a valid theory of law.

Legal positivism posits that all laws are the creation of people, that they have no necessity to be backed by morals or ethics, and that any rights enjoyed by a society are at the sole pleasure and disposition of the sovereign entity of that society. In fairness to the doctrine, it does not suggest that people accept or obey all laws. What it does, however, is to help define the “law” as any written or positive rule or collection of rules prescribed under the authority of the state. It is this definition which we accept as the true meaning of “law” and so it is this philosophy which leads us to ask each question I did so in the preceding paragraph. It is my position, though, that “laws” are not man-made, as the principles of Liberty and Justice exist without our saying so; that they absolutely must be backed by ethics (but not necessarily morals as morals are a matter of personal preference) or else they violate Liberty and Justice; that the only rights that exist are natural rights which do not need to be conferred upon anyone as they exist without proclamation; and finally that no sovereign entity has the power to confer or grant rights to anyone, as all people have been created equal without any one or group being divine.

The Errors

 To say that a law is anything which a monarch or dictator or even legislature decrees is the first fallacy of legal positivism. Again, mankind is not infallible, and has been evidenced throughout history, the error of our ways are in continuous prominent display as our so-called laws are repealed, disregarded, and nullified. The proper way to define law is as we do in science, invariable principles which govern the action of and interaction between human beings. What exists in the pages in the Federal Register are not laws, they are the edicts and commandments of people. If a person, or group of people issues decrees in contradiction to the natural rights of Life, Liberty, and the ownership of Property, then those decrees hold about as much water has a hole-filled barrel. The Federal Register is littered with such trash. Every “law” which violates the freedom to trade as we choose; every “law” which violates our freedom to contract ourselves in any manner we choose; every “law” which restricts our freedom to purchase or consume what we choose; every one of these “laws” is a violation of our just Liberty and therefore is not law at all. As a matter of fact, they are quite contradictory to what laws truly exist. That all men and women are equals under the heavens is law. That all men and women are free to pursue their own endeavors so long as they do not encroach upon those of another is law. That all men and women have the right to acquire and dispose of property in any manner which does not violate the Liberty or property of another is law. That all men and women have a right to defend themselves from the transgressions of others is law. These are laws, natural and immutable, existing before the first state ever issued its first decree, and anything to the contrary is an affront to humanity.

The second error of legal positivism is the idea that laws have no necessity to at least be based upon ethics (as morals are a matter of personal values and judgments and therefore have no place being held over an entire society). This fallacy goes hand in hand with the one in the prior paragraph. Just because a dictator or legislature issues a commandment does not make it just or right; and if a decree is not just, how can a person be expected to adhere to any ordinance which is ethically repugnant to the immutable and natural laws which exist between human beings? The Fugitive Slave Act was once considered “law”. The Black Codes were once considered “law”. Prohibition was once considered “law”. Ethics, properly defined, is that branch of philosophy dealing with values relating to human conduct, with respect to the rightness and wrongness of certain actions. Were those “laws” mentioned above based upon rightness? If any one individual can claim in good conscience and with whole heart that the rules that we should abide by have no need to be based upon their rightness, then that person’s character must be called into question. Furthermore, to ask any person to abide by an act which contradicts what is just and right is to ask that person to compromise their character and integrity.

The third and fourth errors of legal positivism are tightly intertwined within the third principle of the theory: that all rights enjoyed by the people are conferred upon them by the sovereign entity of the society. The first of the two corrections is that rights exist naturally without ever having to be spoken. The second is that no person or group of people has any power to grant rights upon anyone, as all human beings are created equal without any one or group being from the lineage of deities. The third error is very easily diagnosed and then corrected following the same logic as the refutation of the first error mentioned above. The natural rights of human existence appear even before natural laws do. The best way to sum up the idea of natural right is to say that only one natural right truly exists, and it is this one right from which all of our pleasures are derived: that people are free to act according to their own will without being infringed upon by any other. Free will is the supreme natural right. A person is free to act as they choose, but it is only at the moment they enter into society that they decide to cede a part of their whole freedom for the betterment and cooperation of the society. By this I do not mean that people give up their freedom in the understood sense, as in they allow others to rule over and above them, but that they give up their freedom to act in any manner in which they choose. They allow themselves to be governed by the natural laws of human society as mentioned above in refutation of the first error (i.e. property, consumption, contract, trade, etc.). As the right of free will does not ever have to be confirmed through the spoken word, neither do the natural laws, as they follow pure logic and reason behind human interaction. If a person is to be prosperous and comfortable in society, they need the other members of society to be the same. For a person cannot provide for each and every one of their needs and therefore requires that their neighbors be full and happy participants under the grand scheme of the division of labor within that society. It is this mutual respect which fuels the true progression and advancement of civilization, and it is under the natural laws which govern free will that this mutual respect is fostered.

The fourth error is clearly evident once the magnitude of the idea is fully realized. To say that one person’s rights are enjoyed only at the pleasure of another is truly the idea of a tyrant. Even legislatures cannot confer onto nor remove rights from the people over which they govern. As mentioned above, rights exist without anyone’s saying so. They also exist in the face of their own suppression by the decree of tyrannical dictators or legislatures. For example, though it is unjustly illegal to consume banned substances, the right to do so still exists. The right never disappears nor fades away, however it is the oppressive police state which suppresses a person’s right to do so by enforcement of the unjust edict at the barrel of a gun. To step away from a subject so controversial as banned substances, let us consider another example. Under the natural laws which govern humanity, a person has a right to obtain and possess property. The monetary medium of exchange, money, is nothing more than a form of property that one person receives in exchange for their labor or from the sale of their goods. Again, it is the person’s right to acquire, possess, and dispose of such property, money. The Federal Government extracts a healthy piece of this property from a significant portion of the population on a week to week basis in the form of an income tax. This does not mean that the people have lost their right to acquire, possess, and dispose of their property how they deem fit. It means that the tyrannical Federal Government is suppressing this right by way of fear and intimidation. To put it simply, rights cannot be conferred nor removed, they can only be suppressed. Suppression of rights is oppression, and oppression is the work of tyrants.

The Conclusion

Somewhere in the course of human history we have allowed ourselves to fall prey and consequently victim to the gross ambitions of power-starved megalomaniacs. The sad reality is that it is not the fault of such people that our world has become one of suppression and oppression, but the fault of the obsequious masses of the past and present so willing to allow their rights and Liberty to be bought and sold by the duplicitous masters of empty promises and false hope. The law must be recognized for what it truly is, not the simple proclamations of mere mortals. The law is the perpetual axiom of pacific human interaction. The law is the incontrovertible origination of what we call the “golden rule,” coming into existence long before the words ever needed to be spoken. The sooner this self-evident truth becomes fixated within the minds of not just Americans, but of people throughout the entire world, the sooner the world will be rid of such iniquities as institutionalized inequality and utter destitution. The sooner, the better.

“Corruptissima re publica plurimae leges.”

 (The more numerous the laws, the more currupt the State.)

Cornelius Tacitus, Ab excessu divi Augusti (Annals), c 117 AD

Amongst other things, and not all good, John Adams is remembered for his 1780 quote on creating a “government of laws and not of men.” When we think of this maxim we must consider how it was originally intended and why it was of such importance to not only colonial America, but dating all the way back to the Middle Ages and even to Ancient Greece. The men who espoused this principle did so to defend their liberty from overbearing sovereigns who believed that they were the law and not subject to it. Fast forward to modern times, and we suffer from this exact form of oppression.

First and foremost, criminal and civil laws are created by our proxies, elected representatives at all levels of government. This premise is of extreme importance and must be remembered at all times. The laws are written by men (and women) and because they are such they are subject to human error. Throughout history, when laws contrary to liberty have been written there have been two ways to correct such injustice: 1, by demanding repeal of such laws by the representatives who wrote them or by replacing such representatives with those who will, and/or 2, by civil disobedience and nullification (both state and jury). With nullification effectively erased from society’s memory by those seeking to further their own power, and until the day it is rightfully reclaimed by the populous, the only forum for correcting the law is through the election process – the pinnacle of power in a free republic. When those who we have chosen as our representatives choose to stray from the just reasons of their election, they can always be tossed out after their term, and in rare cases of egregious wrongdoing by a representative, there exists the option of impeachment. Thus we can exercise authority over and hold accountable our representatives for their deeds while acting as our proxies, from the local town council all the way up to the highest seats of government.

But who holds to account the police officer who operates his/her cruiser with a cell phone glued to his/her ear? What about the officer who endangers the lives of other drivers on the highway so that he/she may get to the left lane and fly down the road at speeds that would have our vehicles impounded? How about the myriad officers who violate the liberties of individuals with unwarranted searchs and seizures? Who holds the police who murder innocent civilians accountable for their deeds? Who punishes the police? Internal Affairs departments you say? That’s like saying that a group of politicians within the larger body should wield the power to be judge of their colleagues’ performance. If we have the means to hold politicians accountable for their actions in writing the law, why should we not have those same means to hold the enforcers of the law accountable for their actions in upholding the law? And if accountability for their actions is not enough of a reason to have the same veto power over law enforcement officials as we do over politicians, then perhaps the fact that their salaries are extracted from us without our consent gives us the right to demand governance over their performance.

That is right, I am asking why it is that we do not have the elective power to keep in check those in charge of upholding the laws. I could ascertain the prime criticism for such a suggestion as it being burdensome to the election process, making it entirely too long to elect an entire police force, especially in larger cities. To this I say the following: perhaps then that means that there are too many police officers and their ranks should be cut down, and if certain large cities require larger forces then perhaps those forces should be broken down into smaller precincts electible as smaller units by the smaller boroughs of the larger whole. There is no legitimate reason as to why law enforcement officials should be exempt from the same accountability that their fellow public servants operate under. The laws are meant to protect and serve the people of the community who reside under said laws, and seeing as how public officials are our servants rather than our masters, it makes perfect sense that the populace should have firm control over them. As a matter of fact, we already do have an elected head of law enforcement, the county sheriff. So let us begin from there.

It is high time that people realize, if they haven’t already, that the modern police force serves as nothing more than an extractor of wealth for the State with no compelling reason or obligation to protect the people who pay their salaries (see Town of Castle Rock v. Gonzales, 545 U.S. 748 (2005)). Worse even than being merely pickers of our pockets, the police state under which we live is becoming increasingly more violent, and it is not the citizenry fueling the violence. A 2007 article in USA Today citing Justice Department statistics showed a post 9/11 rise in “excessive force or other tactics to violate victims’ civil rights [by] 25%” between 2001 and 2007. What’s more, according to termlifeinsurance.org there were 2,541 reported incidences of police misconduct from January to June of this year alone! 23%, or approximately 592, have been the use of excessive force of which 13%, or roughly 77, have been fatal. Remember those in charge of checking our wonderful police, Internal Affairs? Well, according to that USA Today article, the number of all reported incidences referred for prosecution but were declined was an astonishing 98% in 2005 and 96% in 2006! Who, if not us, will hold these people accountable?

If we are to begin to exercise control over and hold accountable those who enforce our laws, we need to begin the cleansing at the local level. Municipal police departments must be abolished. Those unproductive members of society who have done nothing but serve themselves can then take up occupations within society which will actually benefit society rather than hinder and enslave it. (As a side point, in addition to taking ticket writers off the street, which will save the citizenry precious money, most municipal budgets would shrink tremendously once the subsidized extorters are removed from the books). Once that is accomplished, every locality can add a sheriff to their ballot, and determine whether additional positions are necessary. If deemed necessary, the local government can then decide whether these additional positions are to be elected or appointed. It must be noted that appointed officials are still accountable as they can be removed with the election of a new sheriff.

The problem arises when one begins to consider areas with high crime rates. The question at that point is, are the crime rates high because bad people are violating good laws, or are bad laws making good people bad? Without going into exhaustive detail over the damage it has done, the amount of liberty it has stolen, or the amount of money it has cost, the War on Drugs is a perfect example of how bad laws are making good people bad (and we can ignore person moral beliefs regarding drug use, as they are simply that, personal). That brings us to the second step in our quest to hold the enforcers of the law to account: ridding ourselves of what Tacitus so aptly put nearly two thousand years ago, the numerous laws of our corrupt State. By merely ending the War on Drugs (or through its nullification by state and local officials) and every other Nanny State law that serves no purpose and is truly quite contrary to the principles of individual liberty upon which this country was founded, nearly all need for additional law enforcement will eradicated like the plague that it has become. Once we rid ourselves of our corrupted system of positive law, we can transform law enforcement from the paramilitary force that it has become to the Conservator of the Peace that it once was. That means that your sheriff and his/her deputies and officials will exist only to: arrest people officially charged with a crime, serve people with subpoenas, operate local prison facilities, and maintain the peace from unlawful aggression.

The movement toward Liberty is just beginning. Given the results of the most recent election, it appears as though average Americans are beginning to wake up to the mess that is surrounding them, but we should not allow this progress to stop at minor reforms of the federal government. If we are to truly be free, we must take back our lives from every form of aggression and oppression leveled against us over the past 150 years. From self aggrandizing politicians at all levels to unruly and vicious police officers, the promises of Liberty and Justice are far from being lived to their fullest. It is only through education and action that we can truly live the real American Dream envisioned by those men who shed their blood to remove tyranny from the this continent over 240 years ago. Will we let them down? Or will we be the first generation in almost two centuries to see their dreams come to fruition?

Who gave you the right to tell citizens of other nations which political system they should have govern them?

Who gave you the right to tell citizens of other nations which of their resources they should and shouldn’t use?

Who gave you the right to tell citizens of other nations how they should or shouldn’t arm their militaries?

Who gave you the right to tell citizens of other nations who they can and cannot trade with?

Who gave you the right to punish citizens of other nations for the choices they have made for themselves?

Who gave you the right to tell people that they cannot exercise their freedom to contract how they choose?

Who gave you the right to tell people that they cannot work for any labor rate that they see fit?

Who gave you the right to tell people who they can or cannot hire for employment?

Who gave you the right to tell people who they must provide goods or service for?

Who gave you the right to tell people how much they can charge for a certain good or service?

Who gave you the right to force people to buy goods made from one person as opposed to another?

Who gave you the right to force people to buy any good or service without their consent?

Who gave you the right to force people to hand over portions of their earned income without their consent?

Who gave you the right to prevent people from buying a good simply because you do not approve of it?

Who gave you the right to dictate to people what they can or cannot do with their own property?

Who gave you the right to dictate what people can or cannot consume if they so choose?

Who gave you the right to determine how much money a person can donate to a cause they support?

Who gave you the right to determine how people voice their opinions and at which times they can do so?

Who gave you the right to mandate to parents how they should educate their children?

Who gave you the right to mandate to parents how they can discipline their children?

Who gave you the right to put the interests of one group of people over and above the interests of another?

Who gave you the right to use a person’s own money to fund something they disagree with?

Who gave you the right to use a person’s own money to fund anything that they did not choose to fund themselves?

Who gave you the right to become the judge of morals?

Who gave you the right to foist your beliefs upon someone else?

Who gave you the right?

As I drove into work yesterday morning, something happened to me that happens every single day on the NJ Turnpike: I was cut off by a MTA Bus. The moron driving the bus did not think twice about the lives he/she put in danger, and only because of the soot covered decal plastered to the rear of the bus: Yield to Bus, it’s the Law. That morning, after having driven this roadway for years and encountering this situation countless times every single work week, it finally aggravated me to no end. Why, in the name of all that is right, should I have to yield to a bus? Does not my job have the same importance as the jobs of the people on the bus? Is my commute not equally as relevant? Does my ability to provide for my family pale in importance simply because I elect to exercise my right to drive my own vehicle and sit in comfort rather than like a packed sardine? Ohhh, because they are carpooling they should receive special dispensation. Got ya. So, not only should public transportation users receive below market fares to entice them to use the system, fares which are below market because they are subsidized by my tax dollars, but they should also receive special preference in road usage at the potential expense of my life and the countless other motorists in their cars, trucks, and motorcycles sharing the same highway.

This Yield to Bus law is simply one amongst a million “laws” which serve no practical purpose, are completely unjust, and serve to benefit the interests of one certain group of people at the expense of others. Zoning laws, drug laws, education laws, professional licensing laws, motor vehicle laws, gun laws, commerce laws, speech laws, so on and so forth, all bog down our society and strip us of our Liberty day in and day out. But what of our obligation to follow such laws? To this I say that there is a long history, not only in this country but also throughout the Western world, of both educated thinking and law precedent (for all you stare decisis fans) which states that no such obligation exists.

The American and British traditions are ones which value highly the idea of Trial by Jury. One key privilege of the jury, one which is never used today due to a complete failure of knowledge by our society due to our dumbed down public education system, is the right of Jury Nullification. That is the right of a jury not only to decide the guilt or innocence of the accused in the matter of the law, but also to judge the law and whether or not it is just. It is enshrined in our legal system that the jury can declare the accused innocent not only by virtue of a lack of evidence to support the case brought against the person, but also because the jury believes that the law is invalid, unjust, and contrary to the Liberty which is supposed to be enjoyed by all Americans. It stands to reason then that any ordinary person has the same power to disobey or simply to avoid observance of unjust laws. Novel concept, or longstanding tradition? You be the judge…

“Any single man must judge for himself whether circumstances warrant obedience or resistance to the commands of the civil magistrate; we are all qualified, entitled, and morally obliged to evaluate the conduct of our rulers. This political judgment, moreover, is not simply or primarily a right, but like self-preservation, a duty to God. As such it is a judgment that men cannot part with according to the God of Nature. It is the first and foremost of our inalienable rights without which we can preserve no other.” John Locke, Second Treatise of Government, 1689

“To say that subjects in general are not proper judges when their governors oppress them, and play the tyrant; and when they defend their rights, administer justice impartially, and promote the public welfare, is as great treason as ever man uttered;–’tis treason,–not against one single man, but the state–against the whole body politic;–’tis treason against mankind;–’tis treason against common sense;–’tis treason against God. And this impious principle lays the foundation for justifying all the tyranny and oppression that ever any prince was guilty of.” Jonathan Mayhew, The Discourse, 1750

“If a juror accepts as the law that which the judge states then that juror has accepted the exercise of absolute authority of a government employee and has surrendered a power and right that once was the citizen’s safeguard of liberty, — For the saddest epitaph which can be carved in memory of a vanished liberty is that it was lost because its possessors failed to stretch forth a saving hand while yet there was time.” Theodophilus Parsons, Massachusetts Supreme Court Justice, 1788

“The jury has the right to judge both the law as well as the fact in controversy.” John Jay, 1st Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, 1790

“The jury has the right to determine both the law and the facts.” Samuel Chase, US Supreme Court Justice, 1796

“No duty, however, binds us to these so-called laws, whose corrupting influence menaces what is noblest in our being…” Benjamin Constant, Principles of Politics Applicable to All Governments, 1810

“Of liberty I would say that, in the whole plenitude of its extent, it is unobstructed action according to our will. But rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add ‘within the limits of the law,’ because law is often but the tyrant’s will, and always so when it violates the right of an individual.” Thomas Jefferson, Letter to Isaac H. Tiffany, 1819

“In dealing with the State, we ought to remember that its institutions are not aboriginal, though they existed before we were born: that they are not superior to the citizen: that every one of them was once the act of a single man: every law and usage was a man’s expedient to meet a particular case: that they all are imitable, all alterable; we may make as good; we may make better.” Ralph Waldo Emerson, Politics, 1844

“For more than six hundred years — that is, since the Magna Carta in 1215 — there has been no clearer principle of English or American constitutional law than that, in criminal cases, it is not only the right and duty of juries to judge what are the facts, what is the law, and what was the moral intent of the accused; but that it is also their right, and their primary and paramount duty, to judge the justice of the law, and to hold all laws invalid, that are, in their opinion, unjust, oppressive, and all persons guiltless in violating or resisting the execution of such laws.” Lysander Spooner, An Essay on the Trial By Jury, 1852

“The jury has the power to bring a verdict in the teeth of both law and fact.” Oliver Wendell Holmes, US Supreme Court Justice, 1902

“The law itself is on trial quite as much as the cause which is to be decided.” Harlan F Stone, Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, 1941

American tradition and the British common law upon which it was founded is rife with evidence which proves this dating all the way back to the 16th century, and maybe even earlier. It has only been the twisted workings of the State, in seeking its own aggrandizement, which has deprived Americans of knowledge of this right. In today’s courtroom, it is common practice for a judge to command the jury to follow his/her instructions as to what the “law” is. On the other hand, the Supreme Court in 1895 (Sparf v United States, 156 U.S. 51) found that a judge has no obligation or responsibility to make a jury aware of its power of nullification. I wonder why that double standard exists? Could it be that if the average American knew of his/her power of nullification that he/she might also become aware of his/her power to void any law which he/she deemed injurious to Liberty? Such a widespread stance in the name of Liberty would be the bane of, and a crushing blow to the authoritarians of the Nanny State.

Now, I know how the opposition to this idea would immediately respond to such a proposition: if the average citizen could avoid observance of any law, then a lawless society would exist. Typical statist argument, and absolutely a farce. People would still be punishable for their crimes. The “law” would still exist, and it would be up to a jury of peers to determine the innocence or guilt of the accused. The only difference would be that a fully informed and knowledgeable jury could indeed validate the nullification of the unjust law rather than simply accept the “law” as an inevitable fact of modern life.

Society and indeed the Government itself is nothing more than a voluntary social compact entered into freely by every citizen. Government exists only insofar as it is consented to by the governed themselves. If “whenever [Government] becomes destructive of [the unalienable rights to Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness], it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it…” then it logically stands to reason that the people are trusted with the capacity to “judge when their governors oppress them.” No human being can be bound by involuntary servitude, and that principle is even more true for future human beings not even born, so it therefore must be so that the people have a right to keep their legislators in check by nullifying unjust laws.