IntenseDebate - doojie23

13 years ago @ Tenth Amendment Center - A Tavern in 1791 · 1 reply · +1 points

By the US constitution, all rights to bear arms is connected to militia duty, but this is far more revolutionary than just the right to personally own a firearm. It goes to Article 1, Section 8, where all arms for 2nd amendment use must be provided by the federal government! That goes with training, and allowing officers to represent each milita group from its home state.

No standing army for more than two years, which would mean that after two years any state can simply choose to stop supporting any war! Blackstone gave us "no standing armies" from common law, which pre-exists the constitution.

13 years ago @ Tenth Amendment Center - A Tavern in 1791 · 0 replies · +1 points

With you all the way, Pepe. I noticed too, that the Constitution and "due process" becomes far more interesting if you simply read Blackstone. For example, common law says we don't have to pay taxes to "defend our country" if it violates our conscience, all such taxes or "aids" must be given by our selv4es or by our representatives. I notice the NC Constitutuion has this almost word for word.

13 years ago @ Tenth Amendment Center - A Tavern in 1791 · 0 replies · +1 points

I read some of Ralph's work. Good stuff. I would disagree on one point. UCC or Roman Civil law "Corpus juris civilis" cannot be applied once you walk into a courtroom, since both the 5th and 14th amendments state clearly that no person shall be deprived of life, etc, without due process, and due process is clearly defined as common law.

As both Brennan and Frankfurter have stated, ours is an accusatorial system, not inquisitorial. Since all states recognize the sovereignty of God, the presumption of innocence and the right to face an accuser must be maintained(Isaiah 54:17, Isaiah 50:8).

Any action outside of common law is unconstitutional. In North Carolina, under the seciton on 'courts", Magna Carta is quoted, giving clear authority to common law. Traffic copurt is administrative law, not comon law. Administrative law has no authority to deprive life, liberty, or property, according to the constitution.

13 years ago @ Tenth Amendment Center - A Tavern in 1791 · 0 replies · +1 points

I figured as much, wsince Justice Story points out that due process is due presentment or indictment. In th4e case of traffic court, it would be indictment by information, and the colonists were not keen on that or on admiralty courts, which denied trial by jury.

In common law, Blackstone writes of a "supplatory oath" provided by the accused when there is only one witness. I suspect this same principle is used in traffic court. Once you swear/affirm as the accused, you merely give permission to the judge to pas sentence.

But trafic court is administrative law, not due process or common law. Under the 14th amendment, deprivation of life, etc can only be considered under common law.

13 years ago @ Tenth Amendment Center - A Tavern in 1791 · 3 replies · +1 points

My question on this would be in regard to traffic court. Since no person can be deprived of life, etc, without due process (common law), then any time a person walked into a courtroom, it must, by constitutional mandate, be a common law courtroom.

However, once matters convene in regard to due process of common law, neither state nor federal govt has a right to abridge the privileges or immunities established under due process.

This means that the person accused of a traffic violation would ONLY be subject to common law proceedings. Common law, however, says a person can't even be detained on the street except that the detainment is imprisonment. Any detainment, according to Blackstone, must be done ONLY by a warrant, and the 4th amendment says for probable cause under oath or affirmation.

Any law that stops people for a general cause would be a general warrant, which is ptrohibited by the 4th amendment. This woud make the state itself the accuser, but the state can't abridge common law. IOW, all traffic courts must have ttrial by jury.

13 years ago @ Tenth Amendment Center - A Tavern in 1791 · 0 replies · +1 points

Sounds good to me, since Madison wrote in "Federalist 45" that all power concerning lives, liberties, and properties of the people was reserved to the states.

Before the 14th amendment, that would mean that no person could be deprived of life, liberty, or propertty, unless the state ruled on it according to due process.

IOW, the Supreme Court had no authority over due process, since life, liberty, and property was reserved to the states.

As St George Tucker also wrote, the federal govt had no authority over common law, and due process is defined as common law!

This would mean that any decision the Supremes make regarding due process is outside their authority!

The 14th doesn't change this. It merely keeps the states from doing what it already kept the feds from doing, which means that ALL matters of due process belong only to the people of each state!

13 years ago @ Tenth Amendment Center - A Bright Idea: Less Li... · 0 replies · +1 points

Yep. Or as Both Madison and Hamilton said in "The federalist", no man is allowed to judge in his own cause.

Or as Isaiah 29:16 says: "...shall the work say of him that made it, He made me not? Or shall the thing framed say of him that framed it, he hath no understanding?"

13 years ago @ Tenth Amendment Center - A Bright Idea: Less Li... · 2 replies · +1 points

Two things must be understood in regard to individuals and the constitution. 1.As Justice Joseph Story points out in his "commentaries", the colonists regarded common law as their birthright. IOW, it cannot be taken away by any law established by Comnstitutional authority.

2. The 5th Amendment tells us that no person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law. "Due Process" also defined by Justice Story, is COMMON LAW.

The Supreme Court, created by the Constitution, cannot lawfully decide substantive due process. It remains to the people.

13 years ago @ Tenth Amendment Center - What is the Constitution? · 0 replies · +1 points

Good points. Admiralty law deprived the colonists of trial by jury and was despised by John Adams. The right to trial by jury in both Article 3 and the 6th amendment was to guarantee common law rights against the federal government.

Regarding corporations, if due process is common law, and common law pre-existed the constitution, can corporations have common law rights as a "legal person" under due process?

13 years ago @ Tenth Amendment Center - What is the Constitution? · 1 reply · +1 points

BTW, John Marshall stated that the Bill of Rights applied against the feds, not the states, as in Madison's statement in "Federalist 45", life, liberty, and property was under the power of the states under common law, and "US vs Aaron Burr" stated that federal law did not have jurisdiction over common law, or due process. The reason was that each state adapted its own version of common law from England. Courtroom autority over life, etc lay completely within the power of the states until the 14th amendment, and now it actually lies only within the power of the people.

IntenseDebate Comment System

Connect with doojie23

People I'm following

doojie23