A Memorandum/Article Explaining the Fundamental Principles of
Anglo/American Constitutional Law and Government,
and touching on the Divergences there-from.

There are numerous elements which must be studied in order to obtain a clear picture of how the Constitutionally-Mandated "Machinery of Government" in these "United States of America" is suppose to operate. This picture requires dedicated study, at least in large part because, the more modern and presently functioning "Machinery of Government" of these Unites States of America, has been Purposefully Engineered to Function in a "Constitutionally-Lawless" manner. This "Constitutionally Lawless Machinery of Government", has been purposefully set in place, all so-as-to serve the Private Agenda of a Powerful-Private Interest-Group, so-as-to better enable them to pillage and plunder the organic body-politic of our common American people.¹

The main point here is that is that there are powerful private interest groups who are attempting to purposefully obscure these very powerful ideas from reaching the minds and hearts of the American people; and that it will take significant mentally-energetic work to break through the obstacles of "group-think" which has habitually hindered the great progress which can be had from these areas of study.

And so, in attempting to gain an Accurate Picture of how True "American Constitutional Government" is Suppose to Look and Operate; it is critically important to start with a review the "Fundamental Principles" involved. It is further critically important for the serious student of these concepts, to not allow your-self to be deterred from remaining tenaciously focused what you personally know to be those "Fundamentals".² One profound quote is from Washington State's Constitution's "Bill of Rights" at "Article 1 Section 32"; which illustrates this priority well as follows:

"A frequent recurrence to fundamental principles is essential to the security of individual right and the perpetuity of free government."

In the search of these "Fundamentals", concerning the "Lawful Mode of Procedure" for administering the affairs of "Constitutional Government"; probably the single easiest summarizing statement which also can be used among honorable Americans in efforts to build a universal consensus around, is the "Preamble" to the written 1789 "US Constitution document, which reads as follows:

"Preamble: We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union,
establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

This citation is a token of recognition of some degree of profound wisdom in the 1789 alleged supreme written governing document of our nation, commonly known as the "United States Constitution". Generally speaking, on its surface; this is a good working statement of our nation's true "Fundamental Principles of American Constitutional Law and Government". But this "Preamble", and a few passages from its "Bill of Rights"³ are about all of the profound wisdom which can be found in that document. General studies of the History and the Philosophy up-on which our American Constitutional-Law are based, will yield the truly insightful results, which, if he seriously pursues this science of social-justice, the student will surely need, if he is to resist the onslaughts which will surely come to his front door, from the above-mentioned powerful private interest groups. The Philosophical aspects of our American System of Constitutional-Law and Government will be out-lined here-in next, as follows:

In order to fully comprehend the fundamental principles of our American system of constitutional law and government; it is good to open with a review of the general "Philosophy" of what our American Constitutional system is all about. If, for purposes of discussion, we at least temporarily set-aside the "Religious" element in all of this; then the more secularly discernible remaining body of philosophical thought may accurately be summarized as Sociological “Natural-Law”. Here-under; this text starts with a citation form “Principles of Business Law” (10th Edition, Corley and Robert, Prentice Hall Inc. 1975, Chapter 1, Law and its Sources, Pages 5 and 6) which reads as follows:

“Law is 'a rule of conduct arising out of the natural relations of human beings established by the Creator, existing prior to any positive precept, discovered by right, reason and the rational intelligence of man.' (Kent) ... This definition gives significance to the idea that man by nature seeks an ideal of absolute right and justice as a higher law by which to measure all other rules of conduct.

Law, when set against a background of divine principles, becomes a rule of reason, pronounced by reasonable men for the benefit of mankind and the establishment of the good community. Man as a reasonable being is able to distinguish between good and evil. Above him there exists law resting on reason and divine authority, which validates man-made law. Thus, when the state by legislation or by judicial process lays down rules of conduct that are unfair, unreasonable, or inimicable to the common good, they are in violation of natural or divine law.”

Such citations as this do shed sufficient light so as to make it self-evident that this general concept of “Natural Law” is the most Fundamental Body of Principles of Law known to mankind. From words such as the above; our American people may find Reason for “Hope”, and perhaps even for “Faith”, that by close adherence to such Sociological “Natural Laws”, our American people can obtain that "Justice", "Domestic Tranquility" (Peace), and "More Perfect Union"; as so eloquently framed in the "Preamble" to our 1789 written "U.S. Constitution" document. The men who framed that written "Constitution" document, affirmed at least token approval of the pre-existing idea that this Sociological “Natural Law” is Supreme over all other man made Rules and Regulations. For example; Mr Blackstone wrote before the generally recognized birth of these United States of America, as follows:

“The law of nature, being ... dictated by God Himself, is ... 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 their force, and all authority ... from this original.”

Others such as Grotius, Rosseau, Locke, and many others had written to great lengths about the necessity for conforming to those “Natural Laws” which seemingly Must govern human affairs, in order for human Happiness, Peace, and Safety to be Secured. Their voluminous collective writings were distilled at the penning of the "Declaration of Independence", by Thomas Jefferson; who wrote:

“When in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them to another, and to assume among the powers of the earth the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and Nature’s God entitles them, a decent respect for the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. ...

(W)hen a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their security. ”

These choice passages from America's "Declaration of Independence", really frame the entire issue sought to be addressed by this article very well; and this document will again be frequently cited here-in. But here-under may be recognized that, the “Primary Purpose” for the Existence of Constitutional Government with-in these United States of America, is to Secure “Justice”, “Safety”, “Peace”, and “Liberty”, for “We the People”. This is precisely what the above-quoted passages from our nations "Declaration" says. These Rights of our common American People are all parts of sociological "Natural-Law", as specifically declared in the "Declaration".⁴ That Declaration was specifically "Not Repudiated" by the 1789 written "U.S. Constitution" document; and in fact, the Ninth and Tenth Amendments were specifically adopted for the express purpose of retaining the under-lying body of each and every "Fundamental Principle of Lawful Government" which was so eloquently set-forth there-in.

Here-under; concepts should be clearly forming that “Natural-Law” is that Foundational Cornerstone of greatest importance, upon which American Constitutional Law, as we know i, was founded. Many State Constitutions have specific “Natural Rights” provisions, including Oregon. Indeed, the words specifically stated in the "Preamble" to the "U.S. Constitution" document, such as Peace, Justice, and a "More Perfect Union"; are all only coherently recognizable, if those words are viewed from with-in a frame-work of Sociological "Natural-Law". There will be more supportive citations and discussion set forth on support of this proposition further-on in this document.

But in the interests of first framing the full out-line of the entire discussion; this document must also address a more tangible, secular concern. That concern is that, because of the clear dysfunctionality of the manner in which our modern American system of government is obviously operating, these bold words of sociological "Natural-Law", are prominently out of place; to the point where they may seem naive, and perhaps even delusional, or little more than a bad joke. If modern Americans are to take seriously, this "Philosophical-Ideal" of a governmental structure based on sociological "Natural-Law"; then some elements of more tangible, secular, real-world applications of these ideals must be identified. In particular, some elements of these elements of "Natural-Law" should be found in in actual sociological practice in our early American History.

Regardless of their apparent adoption of a "Civil" form of American national form of government; the Framers of our nations 1789 written "U.S. Constitution" document, unanimously agreed that the smaller jurisdictions, of the States, Counties, Precincts, and Townships; were all basically to remain in place, all basically under then already pre-existing and well-settled modes of local responsible self-governing, and subject only to revision by the free-choices of the people residing there-in. And although it seems also that most of the States also adopted "Civil" forms of governing; it remains undeniable that the even smaller jurisdictions were firmly rooted in an entirely different model of self-governing, which is commonly recognized to be all based on a very ancient body of laws, derived from the laws of England, and traditionally known simply as the "Common-Law". There are many very insightful citations available which reveal precious insight concerning how these smaller jurisdictions were suppose to operate. One especially good citation, which takes us way back to a very different time in history, comes from "The Oregon Blue Book", as published in 1997 by Oregon's Secretary of State; and under its section on “County Government”, where it states the following:

“... the American county, defined by Webster as "the largest territorial division for local government within a state ...," is based on the Anglo-Saxon county of England dating back to about the time of the Norman Conquest. Counties were brought to America by the colonists and were later established in the central and western parts of this country by the pioneers as they moved westward.”

There are numerous other similarly reputable citation which affirm basically the same thing. This citation powerfully supports the proposition that Old English “Law” has been incorporated in large part into the larger body of our Modern American "Constitutional-Law". To argue otherwise, is to argue that “Counties” are not a part of our modern nation's over-all system of general Constitutional-Law and Government. It is unlikely that any modern reputable American constitutional-law scholars will attempt to argue in support of that proposition.

Here-under; it is of critical importance to note the significance of the whole above-referenced 1066-ad “Norman Conquest” event. That event was an immensely tragic event in the history of human freedom. Yet curiously; it seems to be purposefully obscured from our modern knowledge of history. A quick citation here from a reputable publishing company called “Lawyers Co-Op”, in 1947, published a work by George L. Clark; called "Common Law Pleading". It’s first chapter opens by stating :

"Before the Norman conquest of England in 1066, the people were the fountainhead of Justice. The Anglo-Saxon courts of those days were composed of large numbers of freemen, and the law which they administered, was that which had been handed down by oral tradition from generation to generation. In competition with these popular, non-professional courts, the Norman King, who insisted that he was the fountainhead of justice, set up his own tribunals. The judges who presided over these royal courts were the agents or representatives of the king, not of the people; but they were professional lawyers * * * and the courts over which they presided * * * gradually all but displaced the popular, non-professional courts."

"The Anglo-Saxon tribunals had been open to all; every freeman could appeal to them for justice. But there was no corresponding right to sue in the king's courts. That was a privilege which had to be purchased by any suitor who wished to avail himself of * * * royal justice. These privileges were issued to suitors by the king's secretary or chancellor, and the document which evidenced the privilege was called an original writ.”

Again, there are numerous other similar historical readings of the Anglo-Saxon methods of responsibly “Self-Governing”, under true and original "Common-Law"; and the vast majority of them are a true delight to read. As with this citation here; these texts illustrate an ancient system of localized, responsible self-governing communities and jurisdictions, which seemingly existed very much in harmony with what can fairly presumed to be a seemingly workable system of sociological "Natural-Law".

And so, a general outline of the entire subject of this article has now been framed, incorporating both Philosophical and Historical elements. In order to move on, it would now be good to attempt to merge these two perspectives, to bring therm together into a single "Focus", if at all possible, as it should be, if the general concepts out-lined thus-far are true. Here-under; a more precise focus on how this Philosophy of "Natural-Law" is theoretically suppose to operate in our American Constitutional System of Government would be helpful. And this precise focus is presented to the serious student, through a citation which may perhaps surprise many; by seeking a good solid definition of the term "Constitution", as follows:

“Constitution: The organic and fundamental law of a nation or state, which may be written or un-written, establishing the character and conception of it’s government, laying the basic principles to which its internal life is to be conformed, organizing the government, and regulating, distributing, and limiting the functions of the different departments, and prescribing the extent and manner of the exercise of sovereign powers.

A charter of government deriving its whole authority from the governed. The written instrument agreed upon by the people of the Union or of a particular state, as the absolute rule of action and decision for all departments and officers of the government in respect to points covered by it, which must control until it shall be changed by the authority which established it, and in opposition to which any act or ordinance of any such department or officer is null and void. In a more general sense, any fundamental or important law or edict ... .”

“Constitutional Law. (1) That branch of the public law of a nation or state which treats of the organization, powers and frame of government, the distribution of political and governmental authorities and functions, the fundamental principles which are to regulate the relations of government and citizen, and which prescribes generally the plan and method according to which the public affairs of the nation or state are to be administered.

(2) That department of the science of law which treats of constitutions, their establishment, construction, and interpretation, and of the validity of legal enactments as tested by the criterion of conformity to the fundamental law.”

This shows that the term "Constitution", is properly defined as "Organic Law". This was the proper definition of this term before the alleged adoption of the 1789 written "U.S. Constitution" document; and at least lip service continued on to be given to that definition for long periods after the alleged adoption of that document. That point will be illustrated later-on, here-in.

But please note that, this word "Organic" is a "Scientific" term, recognizable under the "Natural Sciences"; and it denotes a living-breathing entity, or an "Organism". It can be a single unit; or a Voluntary "Collective"; like a school of fish, a flock of birds, or an organic "Body-Politic" such as a Society or "Community of People". And, among societies of people, these Natural/Organic Communally-Accepted "Laws", which govern their Communities, would regulate such things as how they would collectively breath quality air, eat, drink, reproduce; provide for their clothing and shelter. Those sociologically natural/organic/constitutional "Laws" would resolve the former and more simple concerns without very much complexity. However; another much more complex and serious concern , firmly rooted in this same natural/organic/constitutional "Law"; would focus on developing specific sociological rules, or "norms of behavior", for Identifying and Defending their organic-community body-politic from Socially "Violent", "Parasitical" Invaders, or other-wise Dangerous people. This is "The Primary Concern" of scientifically-based human-sociological Natural/Organic "Law"; and there-fore it is the True and Proper Concern and Definition of our True American "Constitutional-Law".

This is a very far-reaching and "Fundamental" dynamic which is sought to be addressed here. And in further pursuit there-of; it is good to contemplate writings from those who have spoken with tones of authority on the subject, such as follows:

“The law which governs daily living in the United States is a single system of law; it speaks in relation to any particular situation with only one ultimately authoritative voice, however difficult it may be on occasion to discern in advance which of two or more conflicting voices really carries authority. In the long run and in the large, this must be so. People repeatedly subjected, like Pablov’s dogs, to two or more inconsistent sets of directions, without means of resolving the inconsistencies, could not fail in the end to react like the dogs did. The society, collectively, would suffer a nervous breakdown.” * * *

“In any system of government, responsibility for doing these things is divided among the governments various branches. In the federal system, it is further divided among the government and the governments of the states and their political subdivisions. * * *

“Nowhere is the theory and practice of American federalism more significantly revealed than in the constitutions of the states. These constitutions assume responsibility for dealing, and claim authority to deal, with the whole gamut of problems cast up out of the flux of everyday life in the state, save only in the particular respects in which the Federal Constitution or statutes deprive the states of any competence whatever or provide for an overriding or displacing federal law. They announce clearly, in Madison’s words, that whereas the powers of the federal government ‘consist of special grants taken from the general mass of power [we the state governments] possess the general mass with special exceptions only.”

This scholarly law article from “Professor Hart”, as he wrote for the “Columbia Law Review”; clearly Explains that there is a “Single System of Law” which “Governs Daily Living in the United States”. Multitudes of other similar sources all say basically the same thing, all from a myriad of interesting different angles and voices. These many sources truly “Speak ... with Only One Ultimately Authoritative Voice”; just as Professor Hart above so declares. Here-under; in American society, True "Law" is Universally Recognized, by all honorable Americans; just like the "Law of Gravity" is universally recognized by all honorable scholars who study the natural sciences.

To achieve this end, below is presented a number of quotations. Many of these will fit smoothly for Defining the “Constitutional State” Ideal, while others are designed to Define what a “Constitutionally-Lawless” State or Nation should look like. They read as follows:

Black’s Law Dictionary, West Pub. Co., St Paul Minn. (mostly from 5th edition)

Body Politic of Corporate: A social compact by which the whole people covenants with each citizen, and each citizen with the whole people, that all shall be governed by certain laws for the common good ... A term applied to a corporation ... Municipality ... School District ... State or nation or public associations ... (Black’s 4^th)

Common law. ... "Common law" consists of those principles, usage and rules of action applicable to government and security of persons and property which do not rest for their authority upon any express and positive declaration of the will of the legislature. ... In a broad sense, “common law" may designate all that part of the positive law, juristic theory, and ancient custom of any state or nation which is of general and universal application, thus marking off special or local rules or customs.”

Confederation: A league or compact for mutual support, particularly of nations, or states. Such was the colonial government during the revolution.

Federal Government: The system of government administered in a nation formed by the union or confederation of several independent states. ... a confederation ... denotes a league or permanent alliance between several states, each of which is fully sovereign and independent, and each of which retains full dignity, organization and sovereignty, though yielding to the central authority a controlling power for a few limited purposes, such as external and diplomatic relations. In this case, the controlling states are the units, with respect to the confederation, and the central government acts upon them, not upon the individual citizens. ...

General Law: A law that affects the community at large. A general law as contradistinguished from one that is special or local, is a law that embraces a class of subjects or places, and does not omit any subject or place naturally belonging to such class. A law, framed in general terms, restricted to no locality, and operating equally upon all of a group of objects, which, having regard to the purposes of the legislation, are distinguished by characteristics sufficiently marked and important to make them a class by themselves, is not a special or local law, but a general law. A law that relates to a subject of a general nature, or class, while one relating to particular persons or things of a class is a “special law:”

Malum in se: A wrong in itself; an act or case involving illegality from the very nature of the transaction, upon principles of natural, moral, and public law. An act is said to be malum in se when it is inherently and essentially evil, that is, immoral in its nature and injurious in its consequences, without any regard to the fact of its being noticed or punished by the law of the state. Such are most or all of the offenses cognizable at common law (without the denouncement of statute); as murder larceny, etc.

Organic Law: The fundamental law, or constitution, of a state or nation, written or unwritten. That law or system of laws or principles which defines and establishes the organization of its government.

Organic Act: ... A statute by which a municipal corporation is organized and created is its “organic act” and the limit of its power, so that all acts beyond the scope of the powers there granted are void.

Organize. To establish or furnish with organs; to systemize; to put into working order; to arrange in order for normal exercise of its appropriate functions.

Public Law: A general classification of law; consisting generally of constitutional, administrative, criminal, and international law, concerned with the organization of the state, the relation between the state and the people who compose it, the responsibilities of public officers to the state, to each other, and to private persons, and the relations of states to one another. An act which relates to the public as a whole. ... That branch or department of law which is concerned with the state in its political or sovereign capacity, including constitutional and administrative law; and with the definition, regulation, and enforcement of rights in cases where the state is regarded as the subject of the right or object of the duty, - including criminal law and criminal procedure, ...

Social contract or compact: In political philosophy, a term applied to the theory of the origin of society associated chiefly with the names of Hobbes, Locke, and Rousseau ... . ... Laws resulted from the combination of men, who agreed for mutual protection, to surrender individual freedom of action ... Government must therefore rest on the consent of the governed.

State: A people permanently occupying a fixed territory bound together by common-law habits and custom into one body politic, exercising, through the medium of an organized government, independent sovereignty and control over all persons and things within its boundaries, capable of making war and peace and of entering into international relations with other communities of the globe. ... The organization of social life which exercises sovereign power on behalf of the people. ... In its largest sense, “state” is a body politic or a society of men. A body of people occupying a definite territory and politically organized under one government. State ex rel. Maisano v. Mitchell, ... A territorial unit with a distinct general body of law. ... Term may refer to a body politic of a nation (e.g. United States) or to an individual governmental unit of such nation (e.g. California). ... The people of a state, in their collective capacity, considered as the party wronged by a criminal deed, the public, as in the title of a cause, “The State vs A.B.”

De facto: In fact, in deed, actually. This phrase is used to characterize an officer, a government, a past action, or a state of affairs which must be accepted for all practical purposes, but is illegal or illegitimate. Thus an office, position or status existing under a claim or color of right such as a de facto corporation. In this sense, it is the contrary of de jure, which means rightful, legitimate, just or constitutional. Thus an officer, king, or government de facto is one who is in actual possession of the office or supreme power, but by usurpation, or without lawful title; while an officer, king, or government de jure is one who has just claim and rightful title to the office or power; but has never had plenary possession of it, or is not in actual possession. ...

De facto government: One that maintains itself by a display of force against the will of the rightful legal government and is successful, at least temporarily, in overturning the institutions of the rightful legal government by setting up its own in lieu thereof.

Mala Prohibita: Prohibited wrongs or offences; acts which are made offences by positive law, and prohibited by such. Acts or omissions which are made criminal by statute: but which, of themselves, are not criminal. Generally, no criminal intent, or mens rea is required and the mere accomplishment of the act or omission is sufficient for criminal liability. Term is used in contrast to mala in se which are acts which are wrongs in themselves such as robbery.

To elaborate with special insight on one specific definition above, from another older and frequently precious source, i quote the following:

“State, government. ... This word ... (i)n its most enlarged sense, it signifies a self-sufficient body of persons united together in one community for the defence of their rights, and to do right and justice to foreigners. In this sense, the state means the whole people united into one body politic; (q. v.) and the state, and the people of the state, are equivalent expressions. ...”

There are multitudes of similar citations, many of which are more powerful than these. But these are convenient to reproduce here, and they seem to make the point adequately. The above citations are as much for this writers reference, as for that of the reader. Surely, even the readers of simplest of minds can see the profound and broad-based "Fundamental Principles of American Constitutional Law and Government" involved in these definitions.

From the above definitions, the student may more clearly define such terms as “Body-Politic” and “Organic-Law”. These two terms clearly relate to an “Organic Body” with Individual People forming its Many Sociological Component-Parts. This term “Body-Politic” is specifically meant to denote a Group of People moving together for their Mutual Protection and Benefit. This is all analogous to a “flock of birds” or “school of fish”; acting together, in concert, organically and harmoniously. These are tangible/real entities, with solidly-physical component-parts. Each of these entities are logically recognizable as Voluntarily-Forming Their Own separate physical, collective, Organic-Community. A Community of People such as this is a “Constitutional Body-Politic”, specifically and only because it is an “Organic Body-Politic”. The terms “Organic” and “Constitutional” being clearly “Equivalent”; just as the terms “State” and “People” are “Equivalent”; all as shown in the above quotations.

Also as above quoted; Each American Constitutional “Body-Politic” has been Organically Drawn-Together for the Singular Purpose of “the Defense of Their Rights, and to do right and justice to foreigners”. This is the Singular Purpose for the Formation of the Organic (both Un-Written and Written) Constitutional Social-Compacts. This is true at the Federal, State, and All Lower Levels of Government. This is Clear from the Prioritized Position of the term “Justice” in the very “Preambles” of Both the Federal and State Written “Constitution” Documents.

Under these “Social-Compacts”, the Constitutionally-Recognizable “Rights of the People” are the “Top Priority”. These “Rights of the People” are to be secured by the Lawful “State”. To further support these conclusions, it is good to look to the definition of the term “Right”, as follows:

“Right: As a Noun, and taken in the abstract sense, means justice, ethical correctness, or consonance with the rules of law or the principles of morals. In this signification it answers to one meaning of the Latin “jus”, and serves to indicate law in the abstract, considered as the foundation of all rights, or the complex of underlying moral principles which impart the character of justice to all positive law, or give it ethical content. ... And the primal rights pertaining to men ... existing prior to positive law. But leaving the abstract moral sphere and giving to the term a juristic content, a “right” is well defined as 'a capacity residing in one man of controlling, with the assent and assistance of the state, the actions of others'. As an adjective, the term 'right' means just, morally correct, constant with ethical principles or rules of positive law. It is the opposite of wrong, unjust, illegal. ... A legally enforceable claim of one person against another, that the other shall do a given act or not do a given act. That which one person ought to have or receive from another, it being with held from him, or not in his possession. In this sense, 'right' has the force of 'claim', and is properly expressed by the Latin 'jus'. ... Natural rights are those which grow out of the nature of man and depend upon personality, as distinguished from such as are created by law and depend upon civilized society; ... they are those which are plainly assured by natural law; ... those which, by fair deduction from the present physical, moral, social, and religious characteristics of man, he must be invested with, and which he ought to have realized for him in a jural society, in order to fulfill the ends to which his nature calls him. (Blacks Law Dictionary, 5^th Edition)

In all of these authoritative sources, we find that Anglo-American Jurisprudence considers the term “State” to invoke a Socially-Compacted Relationship where-under specific Individual Members who Solemnly Affirm that they have Suffered a Crime, are Guaranteed the Right to “Control ... Others” ... by way of their “Relationship” with the “State”, until that Accusation has been Fully Resolved. Here-under, Logic Dictates that they will not be able to “Control” those “Others”, Unless they can also Control the “Public-Servants” of the “State”.

When a Member of the “Social-Compact” is Directly and Physically Injured by a Criminal Act, it is an Injury To Every-Other Member of that Socially-Compacted Community. It is a “Breach of the Peace”, a “Trespass”, a “Common-Law Crime” of “Malum in Se”, aka: “a Wrong in It’s-Self”. All Members are Bound-Toghether under the Terms of this “Social-Compact” to Defend the Rights of Each-Other against all such Physical Crimes. It is like banging your thumb with a hammer. When one member of the body suffers pain, all other true members of that same body sympathetically feel that same pain. These are Natural/Organic “Laws”, and they are the Same for All Organic “Bodies-Politic”, and they are the Same for All “Constitutional States”. This is Why the above citations indicate that “Organic Law” is the same as “Constitutional-Law”.

The fact that our American System of Constitutional Government recognizes that this immense amount of power is inherent in the common American people, is set forth well in the following citation:

“And the Constitution itself is in every real sense a law - the 'Lawmakers being the People themselves', in whom under Our System All Political Power and Sovereignty primarily Resides, and through whom such Power and Sovereignty primarily Speaks. It is by that law, and not otherwise, that the legislative, executive, and judicial agencies which it created exercise such political authority as they have been permitted to possess.

The Constitution speaks for itself in terms so plain that to misunderstand their import is not rationally possible. 'We the people of the United States', it says, 'do ordain and establish this Constitution ...'. Ordain and Establish! These are definite words of enactment, and without more would stamp what follows with dignity and character of law. The framers of the Constitution, however, were not content to let the matter rest here, but provided explicitly - 'This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; ... shall be the supreme Law of the Land;...' The supremacy of the Constitution as law is thus declared without qualification.

That supremacy is absolute; the supremacy of a statute enacted by Congress is not absolute but conditioned upon its being made in pursuance to the Constitution. And a judicial tribunal, clothed by that instrument with complete judicial power, and, therefore, by the very nature of the power, required to ascertain and apply the law to the facts in every case or proceeding properly brought for adjudication, must apply the supreme law and reject the inferior statute whenever the two conflict.” Carpenter v. Carter, 298 US 296 (1935)

This citation emphasizes clearly the great power and authority which resides in the common American people. It also states that “a judicial tribunal * * * (is) required to ascertain and apply the law to the facts in every case or proceeding properly brought for adjudication, ...”. Here-under, the Judges before whom any accompanying complaint have been presented, are “Required” to “Ascertain and Apply the Law to the Facts” of this Complaint, directly against those Individuals named there-in”. Another citation in support of all of this, is the following:

"We [Judges] have no more right to decline the exercise of jurisdiction which is given, then to usurp that which is not given. The one or the other would be treason to the Constitution." U.S. v. Will, ... 1980; Cohens v. Virginia, ... 1821.

These are clearly very powerful citations. They clearly recognize that, under True American Constitutional-Law, immense amounts of power are inherent in each and every American.

To now build on this more broadly-based foundation of concepts and terminology; Professor Hart has declared above that the “Constitutions of the States” are where one must look in order to find “Revealed” the “Theory and Practice of American Federalism”. America’s “State Constitutions” are not obsolete/archaic documents, as some would infer. Numerous scholars such as U.S. Supreme Court Judge Thurgood Marshall, and even this author; at least begrudgingly admit that there are numerous flaws in our various written State and Federal Constitutions. Yet from the above citations, it is clear that even under fashionable interpretations of these documents being of little value; this does Not under-mine the “Fundamental Principles” of that “Natural/Organic Law” which these foundational documents unanimously profess to seek.

One of these Fundamental Principles of American Constitutional Law and Government; is that Power is to be "De-Centralized" down to the smaller jurisdictions as much as is reasonably possible. Here-under; unless there has been some out-side threat, and out-side help has been formally requested; then every law-enforcement related task is to be accomplished in the Counties, or in their smaller precinct and/or township jurisdictions. And in order for these Counties to exercise this powerful authority, they have to have Full Authority to form their Own “Courts of Justice”, and Try their own Crimes. Their only requirement is that they follow basic American Constitutional "Due Process of Law", which is also known under the "Seventh Amendment" as “the Rules of the Common-Law”. It is still modernly recognized that the “County Sheriff” is the “Highest Law Enforcement Officer” in his County. This Rule is the same all over America. Yet it is clearly dysfunctional for the Sheriff to be the “Highest Law-Enforcement Officer in the County": and yet him not be also Lawfully empowered to bring the Criminals he arrests into a “Court of Law” in which his decisions could be fully adjudicated by the local county people who placed him in that office. If this county sheriff is going to operate in accord with his “Higher Law” charges to “Keep the Peace” in that county, then it would be self-defeating to allow any out-siders to define whether or not he is properly "Keeping the Peace" there-in. The Sheriff is recognized in both Common-Law and most State Statutes as a “Peace Officer”. “Keeping the Peace”, is his Highest Duty. Civil “Statutory Laws” are Not Needed to regulate and define that. "Juries" following the “Rules of the Common-Law”, in the local counties and precincts, can do that just fine. There is No Constitutional Provision for any Civil “State Police” or "Federal Bureau of Investigation" to fulfill these "Peace Keeping" duties.

One very insightful citation in support of this general proposition that this Fundamental American Constitutional Principle of "De-Centralization of Power" applies even to the to the Federal Government, has been praise-worthily declared by Ex- President Clinton, on the 4th of August, 1999; in his “Executive Order 13132"; which reads as follows:

Sec. 2. Fundamental Federalism Principles. ... Federalism is rooted in the belief that issues that are not national in scope or significance are most appropriately addressed by the level of government closest to the people. The people of the States created the national government and delegated to it enumerated governmental powers. All other sovereign powers, save those expressly prohibited the States by the Constitution, are reserved to the States or to the people. ... The people of the States are free, subject only to restrictions in the Constitution itself or in constitutionally authorized Acts of Congress, to define the moral, political, and legal character of their lives. The Framers recognized that the States possess unique authorities, qualities, and abilities to meet the needs of the people and should function as laboratories of democracy. The nature of our constitutional system encourages a healthy diversity in the public policies adopted by the people of the several States according to their own conditions, needs, and desires. In the search for enlightened public policy, individual States and communities are free to experiment with a variety of approaches to public issues. One-size-fits-all approaches to public policy problems can inhibit the creation of effective solutions to those problems. Acts of the national government - whether legislative, executive, or judicial in nature - that exceed the enumerated powers of that government under the Constitution violate the principle of federalism established by the Framers. Policies of the national government should recognize the responsibility of - and should encourage opportunities for--individuals, families, neighborhoods, local governments, and private associations to achieve their personal, social, and economic objectives through cooperative effort. The national government should be deferential to the States when taking action that affects the policymaking discretion of the States and should act only with the greatest caution where State or local governments have identified uncertainties regarding the constitutional or statutory authority of the national government.

This is truly a very precious declaration from Ex-President Clinton. Most American State Constitutions repeat this General Fundamental Principle of Encouraging even Smaller Jurisdictional "Local Self-Government”, in a number of specific provisions. One of the most specific provisions is in the “Hands Off” Prohibition upon the Legislature’s Authority to Legislate upon “Special or Local Laws”; which is set forth in most State Constitutions, in the chapter there-in, regulating the Constitutional Authority of their State's Legislative Assembly. Here-under; it is clear that each State's Counties, Cities, Precincts, Townships, Churches, Trade-Unions, and other responsible organizations; were all Originally Constitutionally Intended to retain the “Liberty” to “Self-Govern”. Most state constitutions declare this fairly clearly, but the original version of Oregon’s Constitution, declares it especially well at Article 4 Section 23, as follows:

“Certain local and special laws prohibited. The Legislative Assembly shall not pass special or local laws in any of the following enumerated cases, that is to say: Regulating the jurisdiction, and duties of justices of the peace, and of constables; For the punishment of Crimes, and Misdemeanors; Regulating the practice in Courts of Justice; Providing for changing the venue in civil, and Criminal cases; Granting divorces; Changing the names of persons; For laying, opening, and working on highways, and for the election, or appointment of supervisors; Vacating roads, Town plats, Streets, Alleys, and Public squares; Summoning and empaneling grand, and petit jurors; For the assessment and collection of Taxes, for State, County, Township, or road purposes; Providing for supporting Common schools, and for the preservation of school funds; In relation to interest on money; Providing for opening, and conducting the elections of State, County, and Township officers, and designating the places of voting; Providing for the sale of real estate, belonging to minors, or other persons laboring under legal disabilities, by executors, administrators, guardians, or trustees."

Here-in is clearly shown a large number of very powerful governmental functions, which are originally constitutionally intended to be protected from meddling from the legislature of the State’s Civil Government. All reasonable people will immediately recognize that the obvious “Original Intent” of the Framers of this Constitutional Provision, is to De-Centralize the Power of the Government of this State as Much as is Reasonably Possible. This is all very similar to how the Ninth and Tenth Amendments are designed to work on the Federal Level, and that Ninth Amendment is of particular importance regarding any accompanying "Quo-Warranto Criminal-Complaints.

This citation clearly shows that these "Local and Special" Jurisdictions, such as the Counties, Precincts, Townships, Households, Churches, Trade-Unions; and other Smaller Voluntary Associations, are all Suppose To Be much more "Primary Sources" for Governing the Behavior of the individual members of our American communities, than are the State and Federal Governments. As is shown in the above citation; these smaller "Local and Special" Communities have the Constitutionally-Guaranteed Right (and Duty) to set-up their own "Courts of Justice"; to select their own Juries, who can try even Criminal Cases before them, all with reference to nothing more than "Common-Law". And these smaller communities can elect their own "Peace Officers" who have full power to Make "Arrests", and to use "What-Ever Force is Necessary", in order to "Keep the Peace" with-in their own special or local communities. Oregon and other state statutes make these powerful concepts even more clear,

This author believes that every state in the union has similar provisions as the one cited above; although most are not so explicitly detailed. With regard to this citation, please note that in our American and various State Civil Governments, that the “Legislators” are the Single Source of “Law” there-in. And so, under the above Constitutional “Prohibition”, these Legislators are Prohibited from Passing Legislation which does not concern the “General Welfare” of the Common People who form the Public Body-Politic of this State. In contemplating the above constitutional provision, it must be kept in mind that “General Law” is the Polar Opposite of the “Special Law” referred to there-in. Both of these terms have been clearly Defined in the “Blacks Law Dictionary” Citations further above. Here-under, these Legislators are Restricted in the forms of Legislation which they can Lawfully Pass, to enacting Only “General Laws” for the Governing of the “General Public”. And please remember, General-Law = Public-Law = Common-Law. These facts are shown from the same “Black’s Law Dictionary” Citations, above.

And because the Federal and State Civil "Judicial" and "Executive" Departments Can Not “Legislate”; here-under, All National and State "Civil-Officers” and "Agents", whether they derive their color of authority from the Executive, Judicial or Legislative departments; are Constitutionally “Prohibited" from Interfering with these “Local and Special” Powers and Authorities being Exercised Directly by any such of these Formally Organized and "Responsibly-Self-Governing" Smaller “Local and Special” Governmental Jurisdictions and Bodies-Politic.

Here-under; All Federal and State Civil Executive and Judicial Officers and/or Agents, have No Constitutionally-Lawful Authority to either Administer Force or to Direct the Administration of Force

with-in these smaller jurisdictions. And if through stupidity or corruption they trespass, or conspire to trespass there-in; then then they immediately loose all forms of "Immunity"; and the officers and members of that local self-governing local or special jurisdictions have the Constitutionally-Secured Right and Duty to Arrest all such Trespassing and/or Conspiring Public Servants with "What-Ever-Force is Necessary".

This is how this entire "Republican" and "Federal" system of American Constitutional Government is Suppose to Operate. At least so long as their separate responsibly self-governing jurisdictions are at all functional; then all of these above-mentioned concerns are “Constitutionally Required” to be handled at these “Local or Special” Levels of Government. And the officers of the State and Federal Governments have Duties to Assist in this "Responsible Self-Governing" process, by these various smaller "local and special" jurisdictions.

Such State Constitutional provisions as above quoted Limits the Jurisdiction of the State’s Legislative Assembly from Passing Statutory-Laws which Micro-Manage the Issues which can be Responsibly addressed at such Smaller Levels of Government as are known as “Local” or “Special”. And as above stated, the Ninth and Tenth Amendments invoke the same limitations and prohibitions over Federal Officers and Agents. The “Local" Governmental Jurisdictions mentioned there-in, would be such as Counties, Precincts, Townships, and perhaps even Households. On the other hand, “Special Government” Jurisdiction would be such entities as Religious Organizations; Fraternal Organizations such as the Masons, Elks, and Lions; and Trade Associations such as the Lawyers “American Bar Associations”, and the Doctors “American Medical Association”.

Each of these entities have the Constitutionally-Lawful Authority to “Responsibly Self-Govern”, at least so long as they do not engage in any Crime involving any Malum-In-Se/Common-Law/Trespass against any other Natural/Real Person. Please remember, from the above citations, that: “Common-Law” Is “General Law”; and that “Common-Law Crimes” are “General-Law Crimes”.

This raises another issue concerning the "Lawful" functioning of the National and State "Legislative Assemblies". Due to such Constitutional provisions as cited above; the “Legislative Assemblies” of this Nation and her “State”, can Only Lawfully Enact Legislation which seeks to Prohibit "Malum-In-Se" based “Common-Law Crimes”. This is not only a vital component-part of our Constitutionally-Required "Republican" form of Government; and it is also necessary in order to preserve an organically-healthy "Democracy". This is true because unless the common people are empowered to "Responsible Self-Govern", and there-by to become Liberated from authoritarian meddling in their lives; then their votes will systematically be coercively manipulated by the powers that be, and accountability in government will there-by be reduced to an elusive dream.

Many modern Americans will surely find it difficult to imagine how our the supposedly intelligent Framers of our American system of constitutional government could possibly have seriously intended to go through all of the effort to establish such elaborate systems of government, only to disable them so severely as claimed here-in. This glaring inconsistency relates directly a "Conflict of Law" between the "Civil-Law" and the "Common-Law"; which is more fully discussed in another document by this author, entitled "The DeFacto American Government" .

But to remain focused on the subject of this document; the only conceivable way in which these smaller and more Localized "Common-Law" Jurisdictions could Reasonably be considered to be Exempted from rule-making from these larger Civil Jurisdictions, would be if those smaller jurisdictions could some-how, some-way, be reasonably expected to secure harmony with sociological "Natural-Law" from with-in each of their own smaller jurisdictions.

Although most readers will probably think this goal is un-realistic and un-obtainable; there is a specific traditional American "Process" for causing this “Natural Law” to manifest it-self in clearly-recognizable manners in these smaller and more Localized Jurisdictions of our American society. Under the modernly very rare circumstances where-in this process is properly followed; these “Laws of Nature” may be “Divined” by way of our traditional Anglo/American the "Trial by Jury" process. This is accomplished when the Twelve Members of these Juries openly deliberate, with-out any meddling from any civil-judge; and when they there-by use their "Consciences" and "Reasoning" abilities, to voluntarily arrive at a “Unanimous Verdict. Here-by; these Jurors need to be "Fully Informed" of that traditional Anglo/American Course of step-by-step Procedures, which has anciently been referred to as "Due Process of Law", as recognizable under the "Fifth-Amendment" to the United States Constitution; and as the "Rules of the Common-Law", as also set forth in the "Seventh-Amendment" there-to. ,

This "Trial by Jury" process is fairly well explained with-in a law-school “Hornbook” called “Civil Procedure”, which is available through “West Publishing Company”; and as authored by Friedenthal, Kane and Miller, in 1985. On pages 476 and 477, it states as follows:

“In America ... (t)he right of juries to decide questions of law was widely accepted in the colonies, especially in criminal cases. Prior to 1850, the judge and jury were viewed as partners ... . The jury could decide questions of both law and fact, ... Legal theory and political philosophy emphasized the importance of the Jury in divining natural law, which was thought to be a better source for decision than the 'authority of black letter maxim.' Since natural law was accessible to lay people, it was held to be the duty of each juror to determine for himself whether a particular rule of law embodied the principles of the higher natural law. Indeed, it was argued that the United States Constitution embodied a codification of natural rights so that "the reliance by the jury on a higher law was usually viewed as a constitutional judgement * * *."

This is how “Natural Law” is “Divined” among mankind. It is not all that complex, once the fundamentals are comprehended. It is very difficult to get 12 people to unanimously agree on anything.

Once that difficult task is finally accomplished, at last among people of honorable reputation in their communities; then it is reasonable to conclude that Sociological "Natural-Law" has been discovered there-by. The results of such a process as this would harmonize well with the previously cited text from “Principles of Business Law”, where-in is stated that: Natural Law is “for the benefit of mankind and the establishment of the good community”, and that this is true because: “Man as a reasonable being is able to distinguish between good and evil.”

Under this enlightening perspective, a clear picture can be formed of that ancient world of Anglo-American Jurisprudence. And another very under-rated and obscured work in present legal literature summarizes these concepts very nicely, as follows:

“Administrative Justice and the Supremacy of Law in the United States”; John Dickenson, 1927; by the President and Fellows of Harvard College; 1955.⁵ On pages 84-88; he writes:

“To the Middle Ages and the men who were the heirs of the Middle Ages ... law was a transcendental force, “the breath of God, the harmony of the world,” clothed with an inherent and independent authority, and ruling the sovereign from above and without, as the sovereign in his own turn ruled from above and without the individuals and groups who were his subjects. This was the idea which had been used as a weapon against kings in the Middle Ages; one of the counts in the indictment against Richard II was that he had enforced enactments which were erroneous and repugnant to the law and to reason. And this was the idea for which Coke did battle against James.

What was the nature and content of this law, which was not the creature of government but was above government? The idea, as a practical force appears to have had a Teutonic and not Roman origin. The Romans made much, of course, of natural law; but at the time of the invasions they had come to recognize positive law as deriving its authority from the will of the emperor - that is, as we should say, from the government. The Germanic conception of positive law, on the other hand, was the product of less sophisticated institutions. The law that they knew was custom - the immemorial usages which had crystallized within the tribe and were pronounced from time to time in the solemn dooms of the elders. 'It was part of the national or tribal life; it had grown with the tribe, changing, no doubt, but the people or the tribe were hardly conscious of the changes.' 'To them the law was not something made or created at all ... legislative acts were not expressions of will, but records or promulgations of that which was recognized as already binding upon men.' Law was thus naturally conceived as a permanent thing, something always existing and to be found by the elders in council, announced by them but not made. In fact, the greatest possible violation of law was to change it. Hence the clamor against progressive kings raised throughout the Middle Ages by people, demanding back their “good old laws”; every reform had to be distinguished under the appearance of a restoration of long lost legal rights. Gradually from Roman courses filtered in the idea of a law of nature, in England spoken of as simply a law of reason ... Forescure, whom Coke follows in the main on this point, says ... statute does not make new law; it promulgates, and gives greater emphasis and clarity to, what had always been law before.

It is the peculiar relation which subsisted in England between “natural law” or the “law of reason,” on the one hand, and the customary law of the land on the other, that lends the English common law its distinctive flavor. Common law was essentially custom, but it was also something more: it consisted of customs which were regarded as reasonable ... . The common law thus conceived was fused of ... custom (and) ... the “perfection of reason”. So ... was the manner in which these two elements united to form it, that it was a science ... to be known only after hard ... study. On the other hand, such was the intrinsic and independent authority of the elements themselves, natural reason and immemorial tradition, that the common law, so intimately compounded of both, was well qualified from the standpoint of the times to occupy in mens minds a position more venerable than even the sovereign power of a monarch. ... (as) described by Father Figgs:

'The Common Law is pictured invested with a halo of dignity peculiar to the embodiment of deepest principles and to the highest expression of human reason and of the law of nature implanted by God in the heart of man.... there shall be in England as system, older than Kings and Parliament, of immemorial majesty and almost divine authority. ... The Common Law is the perfect ideal of law; for it is natural reason, developed and expounded by collective wisdom of many generations.” Divine Right of Kings, 1^st ed., pp.226-228.”

P. 96 97: “... Wilmont’s doctrine, vis., that common law was natural justice, was adopted by Alexander Hamilton in his argument in People v. Croswell, 3 Johns, Cas. App. 344: “The common law is natural law and natural reason applied to the state and condition of society.” (Works, ed. Lodge, viii, 421.) Footnotes:

23: Hooker, Ecclesiastical Polity, Book 1, ch. xvi; or Mr Justice Holmes has phrased it, a brooding in the sky,” Southern Pacific Co. v. Jensen, 244 U.S. 205 at p 222.

27: Discovery of the Theory of Law. This notion of law as something not made, but existing and to be found, was common to European peoples so long as their institutions remained fairly primitive. Thus it forms a part of the well-known definition of law attributed to Demosthens: 'Every law is a discovery, a gift from the Gods, a precept to wise men, a righting of intentional and unintentional wrongs, a compact between all the members of the state, in accordance with which all who are within the state should live', ... For a very early expression of the view that law is a “discovery,” coupled oddly with an anticipation of the doctrine of legislative sovereignty, see Herodotus, III, 31: (Latin) ... For a very late view, see Calvin Coolidge, Have Faith in Massachusetts, p.4 "Men do not make laws. They do but discover them. ... That state is most fortunate in its form of government which has the aptest instruments for the discovery of laws.” For an intermediate view, which dominated the thought of the middle ages, and which identified the “immutable law” with the “law of god,” see St Augistine, De Vera Religione, c. 31: (Latin) ...

This text clearly illustrates how our ancient "Common-Law" was viewed by the common people who lived under it; as a system for Discovering Sociological "Natural-Law". And the preceding quote from of the "Civil Procedure" text-book by Friedenthal, Kane, and Miller; clearly indicated that our early American forefathers believed that by their using their "Trial by Jury" Process, they were accomplishing the very same "Discovery of Natural-Law". That same cite further indicated that our early American forefathers also believed that our various written State and National Constitutions "Embodied a Codification of Natural-Rights, so that 'the Reliance by the Jury on a Higher-Law, was usually viewed as a "Constitutional-Judgement".

Here-under; it becomes quite competitively arguable that the Fundamental Principles of our American Constitutional System of Government are Specifically Designed to Harmonize with Sociological "Natural-Law". This author believes that this point has now been made fully clear. It is now appropriate to delve fully into the History of our American Constitutional System of Law and Government.

The history of our American constitutional system of government, reaches back 3400 years into our Christian/Israelite Heritage, to a passage recorded in the Biblical/Torah book of Exodus 18: 14-26; which reads as follows:

“And when Moses' father in law saw all that he did to the people, he said, What is this thing that thou doest to the people? Why sittest thou thyself alone, and all the people stand by thee from morning unto even? And Moses said unto his father in law, Because the people come unto me to enquire of God: When they have a matter, they come unto me; and I judge between one and another, and I do make them know the statutes of God, and His Laws.

And Moses' father in law said unto him, The thing that thou doest is not good. Thou wilt surely wear away, both thou, and this people that is with thee: for this thing is too heavy for thee; thou art not able to perform it thyself alone. Hearken now unto my voice, I will give thee counsel, and God shall be with thee: Be thou for the people to God-ward, that thou mayest bring the causes unto God: And thou shalt teach them ordinances and laws, and shalt shew them the way wherein they must walk, and the work that they must do.

Moreover thou shalt provide out of all the people able men, such as fear God, men of truth, hating covetousness; and place such over them, to be rulers of thousands, and rulers of hundreds, rulers of fifties, and rulers of tens: And let them judge the people at all seasons: and it shall be, that every great matter they shall bring unto thee, but every small matter they shall judge: so shall it be easier for thyself, and they shall bear the burden with thee. If thou shalt do this thing, and God command thee so, then thou shalt be able to endure, and all this people shall also go to their place in peace.

So Moses hearkened to the voice of his father in law, and did all that he had said. And Moses chose able men out of all Israel, and made them heads over the people, rulers of thousands, rulers of hundreds, rulers of fifties, and rulers of tens. And they judged the people at all seasons: the hard causes they brought unto Moses, but every small matter they judged themselves.”

This verse shows that the ancient Israelite nation was directed through its "Torah-Law" to adopt a system of government which was designed to permanently "De-Centralize" that nation's governmental power. This "Torah/Law" commanded the Israelite people to "Responsibly Self-Govern" by way of permanently sup-dividing their collective governmental power, down through a deep-hierarchy, into basic ten-household unit communities. This general description, with its deep-hierarchy, is repeated in the Torah/Biblical chapter of Deuteronomy, 1: 13-17.

This general body of law still survives under our generally recognized "American Constitutional-Law" through a more well-defined and traditionally-recognizable system of governing, which is known more simply and specifically as “Common-Law”.

The common-law unit of localized self-government known as the “Township” originally consisted of "Ten Families" or Households. The word “Town”, "Ten", "Tenant", "Tenure", and “Tithing”; are all related. The Economic Support for the entire ancient nation of England was Voluntarily Collected by the “Tithing-Man”, or "Deacon"; who was also the directly-elected Police-Officer; Peace-Officer, or “Constable” of that Township. In other words, their tax-collector was also their own directly-elected smaller-jurisdiction spiritual leader, and he also was their directly-elected cop.

The common-law self-governing unit known as the “Precinct” consisted of a “Hundred” Families or Households, which were sub-divided into the Ten Townships. Each "Precinct" had and has the right to Elect their Own Judges, who have traditionally been called the “Justice of the Peace”, or the "Precinct Capitan" ; and who exercised Judicial as well as Executive functions. Although documentation is thin, these chief officers of each of these jurisdictions was probably subjected to "Immediate Recall", from the leaders of the smaller communities below them; if they should ever dare to conspire to abuse the governmental power with which they were entrusted. This is a part of the genius of this deep-hierarchy arrangement; because there-by, each of these governmental jurisdictions only has enough sub-divisions of it's own general body so that each of the elected leaders of the smaller sub-divisions involved in any specific jurisdiction can call for a "Vote of Confidence" in the previously-elected leader of their immediately larger jurisdiction at any time.

The "Hundreds" of "Hundred Courts" of this ancient torah-law and common-law system of governing, are specifically mentioned in early American colonial writings. By way of the "Social Compact" which the approximately ten-townships of each precinct had entered into; whenever the well-armed people of any individual township faced any kind of organized attack from any group of hostile criminals which they could not safely handle by themselves, the terms of their social-compact obligated them to send "hue and cry" to the "Precinct Capitan" or "Justice of the Peace"; and through him to the remaining Town Constables; to mobilize all remaining members of the Precinct to come to the defence of the Township which was being attacked, and to lend armed-assistance to their fellow Precinct members in that conflict.

And our better known jurisdiction of the "Counties" consisted of approximately a Thousand Families or Households; and it was sub-divided into approximately Ten Precincts, or Hundred Courts. The chief officer of the County has gone by different names in the past, but American Constitutional-Law generally recognizes him as the "County Judge". And when all approximately Ten Precincts got together, they formed a small army, which is still known modernly as "Posse Comitatus", and which was quite capable of defending against very formidable foes.

This is how the "Counties", “Precincts”, and “Townships”, in England and early America were originally Constitutionally Designed to be Organized. The Courts which they ran Proceeded “According to the Rules of the Common-Law”, as those words have been specifically stated in the "7^th Amendment" to the US Constitution. Here-under, "We" the common American "People" have the Constitutional Right and Duty to form our own smaller communities, so-as-to Elect our Own Police-Officers, called “Constables”; and to elect our own Judges, called "Justices of th Peace".

Some my find the above assertion that this entire "Common-Law" system of government reaches back 3400 years to the times of Moses. Yet when one skips ahead in time 3100 years, to just before our American "Declaration of Independence"; at about the year of 1750 ad or so; here-under can be found the much more modern writings of a very famous scholar of Anglo/American Constitutional-Law, named William Blackstone. In his famous “Commentaries on the Laws of England” Mr Blackstone built upon the above cited “Law of Moses", as follows:

“SS 43: Early Judicial Systems. – The policy of our ancient constitution, as regulated sand established by the great Alfred, was to bring justice home to every man’s door, by constituting as many courts of judicature as there are manors and townships in the kingdom; wherein injuries were redressed in an easy and expeditious manner, by the suffrage of neighbors and friends. These little courts, however, communicated with others of a larger jurisdiction, and those with others of still greater power; ascending gradually from the lowest to the supreme courts, which were respectively constituted to correct the errors of the inferior ones, and to determine such causes as by reason of their weight and difficulty demanded a more solemn discussion. The course of justice flowing in large streams from the king as the fountain, to his superior courts of record, and being then subdivided into smaller channels, till the whole and every part of the kingdom were plentifully watered and refreshed. An institution that seems highly agreeable to natural reason, as well as of more enlightened policy; being equally similar to that which prevailed in Mexico and Peru before they were discovered by the Spaniards; and that which was established in the Jewish republic by Moses. . . .

In like manner we read of Moses, that finding the sole administration of justice too heavy for him, he “chose able men out of Israel, such as feared God, men of truth, hating covetousness; and made them heads over the people, rulers of thousands, rulers of hundreds, rulers of fifties, and rulers of tens : and they judged the people at all seasons ; and the hard causes they brought unto Moses, but every small matter they judged themselves.” These inferior courts, at least the name and form of them, still continue in our legal constitution : but ... these petty tribunals have fallen into decay, and almost into oblivion ...

Honest historical, legal, and political researchers, will surely recognize that the above very authoritative text has seemingly just shown how two seemingly entirely different bodies of "Law", spanning approximately 3100 years of human history, is all recognizably "Linked-Together". If Blackstone's testimony is accepted as accurate history; then surely it is obvious to all that the mere passage of the comparatively-short 300-years since the founding of our American nation, has Not significantly diminished the immense impact of this very ancient and enduring body of "Law" on our modern Anglo/American culture. To further support this last claim, and to place this all in some more current “Secular” perspective, it is good here to look for additional "Linkages" between the 3400 year old text in Exodus and Deuteronomy, to such fashionably respected "Law Dictionary" authorities as follows:

“Tithing Man: A constable. ... In New England, a parish officer annually elected to preserve order in the church ... and to make complaint of any dis-orderly conduct. ... In Saxon law, the head or chief of a tithing or decennary of ten families; he was to decide all lesser causes between neighbors. In modern English Law, he is the same as an under-constable or peace-officer.”

“Tithing: One of the civil divisions of England, being a portion of the greater division called a “hundred”. It was so called because ten freeholders with their families composed one. It is said that they were all knit together in one society, and bound ... for the peaceable behavior of each other. In each of these societies there was one chief or principle person, who, from his office, was called “teothing-man” now “tithing-man”.

“Constable: ... He is to preserve the public peace ... He was in general the leader of the royal armies, and had cognizance of all matters pertaining to war and arms, exercising both civil and military jurisdiction. He was also charged with the conservation of the peace of the nation.

“Constituent. He who gives authority to another to act for him. The term is used as correlative to "attorney", to denote one who constitutes another as his agent or invests the other with authority to act for him.

“Constiture. Lat(-in). To appoint, constitute, establish, ordain, or undertake. Used primarily in ancient powers of attorney, and now supplanted by the English word "constitute".

“Decanatus: A deaconry. A company of ten persons. Also a town or tithing consisting originally of ten families of freeholders. Ten tithings compose a hundred.

“Decanus: In Ecclesiastical and old European law, an officer having supervision over ten, a dean. A term applied not only to ecclesiastical, civil but to civil and military, officers. An officer among the Saxons who presided over a friborg, tithing, decannary, or association of ten inhabitants; otherwise called a “tithing man” or “borsholder”, his duties being those of an inferior judicial officer. Decanus militarius; a military officer having command of ten soldiers. In Roman law, an officer having the command of a company ... of ten soldiers.

Hundred: Under the Saxon organization of England, each county or shire was composed of an indefinite number of hundreds, each hundred containing ten tithings, or groups of ten families of freeholders or frank-pledges. The hundred was governed by a high constable, and had it’s own court; but its most remarkable feature was the corporate responsibility of the whole for the crimes or defaults of the individual members. The introduction of this plan of organization into England is commonly ascribed to Alfred, but the idea, as well of the collective liability as of the division, was probably known to the ancient German peoples, as we find the same thing established in the Frankish kingdom under Clothshire, and in Denmark.

Hundred Court: In English law, a larger court-baron, being held for all the inhabitants of a particular hundred, instead of a manor. The free suitors were the judges, and the steward the registrar, as in the case of a court-baron. It was not a court of record, and resembles a court-baron in all respects except that in point of territory it was of greater jurisdiction. ... 3 Bl.Comm. 34, 35.

Precinct: A constable’s or police district. A small geographical unit of government. An election district, created for convenient localization of polling places. A county or municipal subdivision for casting and counting votes in elections.

“Witenagemote: “The assembly of wise men.” This was the great national council or parliament of the Saxons in England, comprising noblemen, high ecclesiastics, and other great thanes of the kingdom, advising and aiding the king in the general administration of government.

It was the grand council of the kingdom, and was held generally in the open air, by public notice or particular summons, in or near some city or populace town. These notices or summonses were issued by the king’s select council, or the body met without notice, when the throne was vacant, to elect a new king. Subsequently to the Norman Conquest it was called “commune concilium regni, cura regis”, and finally “parliament”; but it’s character had become considerably changed. It was a court of last resort, more especially for determining disputes between the king and his thanes, and, ultimately, from all inferior tribunals. Great offenders, particularly those who were members of or might be summoned to the kings court, were tried. The casual loss of title-deeds was supplied and a very extensive equity jurisdiction exercised. 1 Bl.Comm. 147. It passed out of existence with the Norman Conquest, and the subsequent Parliament was a separate growth, and not a continuation of the Witenagemot.

These Citations are solidly brought within the spheres of the Constitutional Laws of America by way of the previously referenced citation from The Oregon Blue Book, 1997; as published by Oregon's Secretary of State, under its section on “County Government”; and there-in showing how the "American county ... is based on the Anglo-Saxon county of England dating back to about the time of the Norman Conquest". These citations provide powerful evidence that a truly "Natural-Law" based system of de-centralized "responsible self-governing" was in place, prior to the "Norman Conquest of 1066 ad", and that it is at the root of our modern American Constitutional concept of "Common-Law". These citations further show that this entire "Common-Law" system of government originated 3400 years ago in the times of Moses, and under the Torah-based Biblical Laws of the True Nation of Israel. These citations show also that this very ancient "Common-Law" system of governing survives today under our our nations modern Constitutional system of Localized "Responsible Self-Governing" with-in our American Constitutional concepts of "Counties", "Precincts", and "Townships" (as well as with in other "special" jurisdictional realms).

The "Fundamental Principles of American Constitutional Law and Government" are firmly derived from the principles and concepts of Sociological "Natural-Law", as articulated by Blackstone, Locke, and others; prior to the American War for Independence.

Examples of historical real-world applications of these concepts of "Natural Law" may be found in the history of the Anglo-Saxons of England, prior to the "Norman Conquest of 1066 ad".

In modern America, we still have the right to practice this Natural-Law, through our rights to form our own Juries, in our own smaller "Common-Law Jurisdictions" of our Counties, and even smaller precincts, townships, churches, trade-unions, and other similar voluntary associations.

1That discussion will not be seriously explored in this document, but is reserved for another document by this same author, and entitled: "The DeFacto American Government". That document, and perhaps a few others by this same author; will be referenced frequently here-in. Now it is not necessary for readers to accept this "Conspiracy" proposition as gospel, before assimilating this entire article. But, for the record, this author needed to state this "Conspiracy" proposition, out front; so that other elements of this entire article will fit together, piece by piece; in this already generally fully out-lined picture.

2: Do not allow loud platitudes from any fashion-conscious and/or immensely popular gurus in this field to dissuade you from what you personally know to be true. For those with a religious inclination; you will give an accounting before God for how you handle this sacred trust; which through this text, and by the grace of Him, may be now being bestowed up-on you.

4: Yet it is worthy to consider that prior to all of these in importance, is “Truth". For if "We the People" are not able to have access to “Truth”; then "Justice" and all other prioritized end-goals will be compromised, and there-by evil men will surly find opportunity to use deception to pillage and plunder our more trusting and vulnerable organic body-politic members. Here-under; please note that this document is designed to communicate with people who believe that "Truth" can be clearly identified; and that once it has been so identified, that it must be preserved and defended. Those who do not believe that objective "Truth" can be rationally identified by the human mind, such as possibly "Moral Relativists"; may as well put down this document now, because we have already lost you.

This thought is pursued in the spirit of avoiding any un-necessary discussion of the controversial "Religious" realm, but still taking this all at least to a lower-level and comparatively secular-humanist friendly "Spiritual Plane".

5: Russell and Russell, Inc; New York; By Arrangement with Harvard University Press; (Dedicated to Dean Roscoe Pound and Professor Felix Frankfurter; Studies from Princeton, Johns Hopkins, Columbia and Harvard Universities).