A Legal System for Sovereign RulersThis is a featured page

system for Sovereigns This is a free publication offered to those who seek the truth by goingtopeace.com

Authored by Byron Beers:

Copyrighted © 2007 by goingtopeace.com. All rights are reserved,
except the contents of this book may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval
system, and transcribed in any form or by any means without express
permission, but may not be sold.

TREATISE –
A Legal System for Sovereign Rulers
Converting the law of the natural order into a legal
system for a new or unnatural order of things

A – INTRODUCTION
This writing addresses the method used by certain organizations or
groups desirous of controlling a vast empire or even planet Earth.
That concept may sound unusual if you have not closely studied the
systematical patterns that are continuously employed to alter country
after country.

The method of operation generally follows a precise pattern.
First there is a conquest, whether it is termed a war, conflict, or military action. This may be avoided if the people or government of a target country surrenders beforehand. Either way, the conqueror or military force wants an agreement on its terms and conditions.

Secondly, among these terms and conditions is the need to establish a national government that operates with so-called sovereign powers.

The national government is to be the supreme institution of the nation, with all else inferior to it. This is an unnatural order of things.

Third, the conquerors want this new national government to establish a national military force. The first item of business for the national army is to destroy the original forms of defense existing prior to the conquest or submission to this new power, unless they were soundly defeated in battle to carryout the conquest.

You could study the Roman system for constructing the Roman Empire, or the era of William the Conqueror in England and the British Empire to see these methods of operation. This scenario is depicted in the movie The Last Samurai (2003). Inthe mid 1800’s the navy and army of the United States was used to force changes in the customary Japanese system, to establish a national government, create a national military force, and destroy the samurai who were for centuries the defense system for Japan.

In similar fashion, the several states of America each had their militias composed of the men of the area. They were not citizens or subjects of a national government. After the civil war, it was claimed that the national government was the conqueror, the states became political subdivisions of the United States Empire, and a national military force was established. The militias of the states, in the true sense, were disbanded and altered into various national units, like the national guard, operating under the supreme authority of a nationalgovernment. Originally, the government of the united States of America was a true federal government with limited authority expressly delegated in a Constitution.

More recently, in Iraq we see the United States once again using military force to change the system in place in Iraq and create a national system. It wants to establish a national government, set up a national military force, and eliminate the normal militias ordinarily serving as the means of security in the various parts of Iraq.

The same process has been used to conquer many other countries.
Perhaps you are familiar with some of those events that altered the prior system leading to a national sovereign system. The following remarks from the supreme court of the United States illustrates the point being made here.

In Europe, the executive is almost synonymous with the sovereign power of a State; and generally includes legislative and judicial authority... Such is the condition of power in that quarter of the world, where it is too commonly acquired by force or fraud, or both, and seldom by compact.

In America, however, the case is widely different. Our government is founded upon compact. Sovereignty was, and is, in the people.
Glass v. Sloop Betsy, 3 Dall. (U.S.) 6, at 13. (1794)

Law nor right come from force, and agreements or contracts entered under threat, duress, or coercion are unenforceable; therefore, the concept of conquest or submission to avoid injury is not an agreement
of compact done intentionally, voluntarily, and knowingly. Again, the idea is to have a national government exercising sovereign Authority for the purpose of doing acts outside the laws of Nature and of Nature’s God.

If certain commercial groups or associations can then control these sovereign national governments or nations around the globe, the world is under their domination to organize or alter as they see fit and with most or all the military force of the planet directly or indirectly within their control.

The point of this writing begins after a conquest or submission.
How does one go about changing the system of law to fit the new paradigm of nationalism and government acting as the supreme power? The following will give some information about empires or nationalism, and statements to demonstrate that the American system has been altered.

Mr. Madison dwelt with great force upon the fact that "a delegated is not a surrendered power." The States surrendered no powers to the Federal Government. They only delegated them. The powers of the States are original. Those of the Federal Government are only derived and secondary; and they were delegated, not for the purpose of aggrandizing the Federal Government, but for the sole purpose of protecting the rights and sovereignty of "the several States." The Federal Government was formed by the States for their own benefit.

The Federal Government is simply an agency, commissioned by the "several States" for their own convenience and safety. In the Convention of Virginia, Patrick Henry said: "Liberty, sir, is the primary object. Liberty, the greatest of all earthly blessings -- give us that precious jewel, and you may take away everything else." And, with an eloquence more powerful than that which shook the throne of Macedon, he demonstrated that the battles
of the Revolution were fought, not to make "a great and mighty empire," but "for liberty." It was for liberty -- for the liberty of the people of the "several States" that the Federal Government was established. Not for the kingly grandeur and power of government, but for the happiness, safety and liberty of "the people of the several States".

Historical Look at Government: Being a Review of Judge Story’s Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States, by Abel P. Upshur, with an introduction by C. Chauncey Burr

The purpose is manifest, to establish through the whole jurisdiction of the United States ONE PEOPLE, and that every member of the empire shall understand and appreciate the fact that his privileges and immunities cannot be abridged by State authority; that State laws must be so framed as to secure life, liberty, property from arbitrary violation and secure protection of law to all. In Re Slaughter-House Cases, 83 U.S. 36 (1872)

You might think those words sound good and noble and you are certainly welcome to your opinion. Nevertheless, we see the words above describing a national government of one people, and members
of the empire. The emphasis of this writing comes from a book by Sir Henry Sumner Maine called Ancient Law, first published in 1861.

My opinion is that this book helped relay the foundational elements of this unnatural order of things to attorneys or other public officers so they might understand the change in government and the new law that was being orchestrated for a national system with sovereign power.

The following comes from Ancient Law and represents the thinking of those in England who desired a national system of government with sovereign power after the American Revolution, rather than ordinary government based upon natural order.

It may be conveniently be called the imperative theory of law and sovereignty. It represented law as par excellence the irresistible command of a legally illimitable sovereign, or ‘political superior’, issued to a subject, or ‘political inferior’, who, being assumed to possess the habit of obedience, was absolutely bound by the obligation of submission. Sceptical, and justly sceptical, of the nebulous sanctions of natural or ideal law, it concentrated the whole of its attention upon the compulsion of positive law, and resolutely declined to consider
either its historical or its ethical elements.
Ancient Law, Introduction, p. xii

The foregoing gives us some understanding of the situation for which a legal system is to be developed to match those concepts of a political superior and subjects or a political inferior. This is outside the natural order of things, which will be reflected in the description of the elements below – fiction, equity, and legislation – used to bring “law” in harmony with the national system of sovereign power.

Continue Reading, Part Two: Fiction


FDU_Soule
FDU_Soule 		Latest page update: made by FDU_Soule , Aug 26 2008, 1:44 PM EDT (about this update About This Update FDU_Soule Moved from: What is Sovereignty? - FDU_Soule

No content added or deleted.
- complete history)
Keyword tags: None
More Info: links to this page

Threads for this page

Started By Thread Subject Replies Last Post
FDU_Soule What Governing System Would You Choose 0 Sep 4 2008, 12:43 PM EDT by FDU_Soule
Thread started: Sep 4 2008, 12:43 PM EDT  Watch
There are many choices for how society organizes itself into governing systems.
If you had the ability to choose any governing system under wish to live, what would it look like; not what it is called now (for that is leaving interpretation) - how would it function? Given the purpose of governing, to protect our asses and assets (police and military) has a inherent cost, what should we be willing to pay for it? and how.
The world needs to try some new things, experiments using cyberspace may be effective in discovering systems that decrease costs of responding to violence , both in our local communities and globally. Do you have any ideas to share on how we live together in peace as free beings, and not fall into anarchy?
Do you find this valuable?    
Keyword tags: None (edit keyword tags)

Anonymous  (Get credit for your thread)

Showing 1 of 1 threads for this page