Natural Law Versus Civil Law
The founding fathers of our nation believed in Natural Law. Natural law has existed from the beginning of time. Natural Law is the law of our Creator and cannot be amended, altered or abolished.
Natural Law or Common Law, it is what the founding fathers referred to as the Laws of Nature and Nature's God. Natural Law is also referred to as the People's Law while Civil Law is referred to as the Ruler's Law.
The laws written by men are known as Civil Law they tend to deprive individuals of God given rights. Civil Law allows man to create laws that trump the Laws of Nature and Nature's God.
In my opinion free and sovereign individuals don't need the government to pass laws to tell them what to do. I believe that man was born with a conscience and is capable of governing himself.
Government was created to protect our Natural rights, not write new "Civil Laws" that abridge our freedom. Our Constitutional Republic has been converted into a Corporate Empire and our God given rights are not privileges granted to us by our government, no matter what they think.
Replies
Civil rights are given by government to people. Natural/human rights are part of nature and are used when 2 or more people interact. If you were the only person on Earth, then rights are useless.
Common law is actually based on human traditions and norms.
Bouvier’s Law Dictionary: "COMMON LAW. That which derives its force and authority from the universal consent and immemorial practice of the people.
common law
"n. the traditional unwritten law of England, based on custom and usage, which began to develop over a thousand years before the founding of the United States. The best of the pre-Saxon compendiums of the common law was reportedly written by a woman, Queen Martia, wife of a king of a small English kingdom. Together with a book on the "law of the monarchy" by a Duke of Cornwall, Queen Martia's work was translated into the emerging English language by King Alfred (849-899 A.D.). When William the Conqueror invaded England in 1066, he combined the best of this Anglo-Saxon law with Norman law, which resulted in the English common law, much of which was by custom and precedent rather than by written code. By the 14th century legal decisions and commentaries on the common law began providing precedents for the courts and lawyers to follow. It did not include the so-called law of equity (chancery), which came from the royal power to order or prohibit specific acts. The common law became the basic law of most states due to the Commentaries on the Laws of England, completed by Sir William Blackstone in 1769, which became every American lawyer's bible. Today almost all common law has been enacted into statutes with modern variations by all the states except Louisiana, which is still influenced by the Napoleonic Code. In some states the principles of Common Law are so basic they are applied without reference to statute."
you are incorrect. this is where the people get confused and is why the problems are what they are today, it's not the government, it's the people.
man, and those of mankind [collective the people], was created in the image of his creator, G0d; man then created government for his benefit, not to cause him harm; then in 1868, government created a 'legal person' under the 14th Amendment called 'U.S. citizen' and granted it 'civil rights;' separate and distinct from unalienable rights granted by our creator, G0d.
do bout confuse the two.
common law is law that's common to a people within a society.
I agree with your last line. The rest of what you said does not state what part you disagree with. You need to deal with Bouvier, not me because I quoted him.
Civil refers to government. Forget government. Our natural/human rights are what matters and these cannot lawfully be taken from us. Civil rights come from government, so they can take what they give any time.
U.S. citizens are granted 'civil rights' by its creator, the federal government and are subjects.
these two are separate and distinct from one another; one is the master, the other is the slave.
the problem the people don't know is that the government operate under the presumption that you are operating in the capacity of the 'legal person/ U.S. citizen' until proven otherwise.
that is why the people get treated the way they do by these public servants, judges, persecutors, police, etc. they have no clue.
Natural law, retained rights law, common law WAS the law of the free whites that were citizens of a state or territory. It did not apply to Asians nor white or negro slaves. Yes, England imported the Irish over here as slaves as well as homeless English children which typically worked in factories.
The Asians, like the American Indian were under municipal law, what we now call legislative or statutory law and had very few rights since they were, like the slaves, ineligible for citizenship until the 14th was adopted which gave Asians and negroes fed citizenship and the right to due process - a fact that is often ignored by the corrupt gov at this time since the gov now has a policy of ignoring due process mandates for everyone in many situations.
Only two types of law. Natural and positive.
The former descends from nature's God, the latter from the descendants of Adam, who was created by God from the dust of the earth.
The latter has been for years, and is even more today, being used by the loony left to trump the former. Time for that crap to be stopped!
Let's pray - Dear Lord, please provide every member of Congress and the president your list of laws by May 10, 2015. Amen
I'm holding my breath now. ; )
Unfortunately God did not create our constitutional system - men did and they did not incorporate natural or God's law for a lot of people. There has always been 2 systems of law in place in America. Common law; the law of limited gov for whites which were citizens of the states and territories and municipal law for everyone else. Municipal law sees gov't as the sovereign, not the people. The constitutions have never been amended in this regard.
What has changed is how the gov't treats whites - as 14th amendment subjects on par with everyone else. While many people think that non-whites were give the same rights as whites, this is not true, whites were demoted by the gov of non-whites, thus making everyone equal as federal subjects.
The perception of rights is just an illusion and the courts have repeatedly stated that the 14th Does Not incorporate any bill of rights.