Widgetized Section

Go to Admin » Appearance » Widgets » and move Gabfire Widget: Social into that MastheadOverlay zone

Common law

Dear Editor:

The editorial in the July 25 SUN talked about law, apparently a mocking response to local groups being sick of the government corruption and violation of the Constitution, and resisting bogus “laws” which are a facade of law. This Republic was established on the Common Law, not statutory law. The Constitution is law, like the Bill of Rights. We certainly need laws, but it would be good to understand what “laws” were being referred to. To claim that our founding generation was “ego driven” because they resisted corrupt English laws is fabrication. Anyone fighting to stop tyranny in government is ego driven? Why is it that most liberal arguments point to more government, with zero evidence? “That we are a nation of law, bound together and made strong by laws” is absolute, but has nothing to do with 60 million statutory laws that are plain evil chains that suffocate freedom and finances. Such laws only weaken us. Modern government has abandoned “true law” for a facade of law, and, as the Supreme Court has repeatedly stated in the past, any law which is repugnant to the Constitution is void and no law at all, and can be ignored, so, again, which laws are being referred to here? It is government that is ignoring real law. Defending true law is always attacked by those who cannot rule themselves and need chains. Freedom is a huge responsibility, and it seems half of our American population are incapable of it, or else they wouldn’t be clamoring for more and more government control, and handouts. Attempting to defend Pharisaical laws by stating they can be “changed” through a “process” misses the target completely because these laws do not exist as real law, just chains for money and control. The editor should research the “founding documents” to realize they were in agreement with what the original documents meant, despite it not always being declared in the documents themselves. Ignoring the plethora of writings that establish, without doubt, the original intent of our Constitution and Bill of Rights allows those who want to twist and rewrite these documents the latitude they want. Thankfully, the record is clear, and the “individuals and groups” who the editor falsely accuses are “claiming they and they alone define what is constitutional and what our founders (who were not of uniform mind) intended.” No such claim has ever been made, nor any of the other false claims made. The evidence we use are the documents themselves and the writings of the founding generation. I would highly recommend at least two books to the editor, and then we could publicly debate the evidence we are using to resist bogus laws, with Judge Napolitano live-streamed in: 1. “The Original Constitution; What it Actually Said and Meant,” and 2. “The 5000 Year Leap; The Miracle That Changed the World.” That would be a good start, but just scratches the surface of the evidence for what the Constitution says and means today.

Jeff Maehr

Editor’s note: the claim that the founders were ego-driven was not made. The claim was made regarding a number of contemporary advocates of positions regarding the constitution and the nature and role of law.

This story was posted on August 2, 2013.