You know Judge Napolitano, and what he stands for and against. In this YouTube video of a recent speech at the Mises Institute, he eloquently affirms that Natural Laws are a restraint against Tyranny, and discusses the duty and obligations of our elected government UNDER THE CONSTITUTION to enforce the “Presumption of Liberty” held by the People.
Please click on this link to watch an important 22-minute video to reinforce your understanding of the fundamentals that we, as OathKeepers, are pledged to support:
He skipped over some important points, mostly because his audience was not sufficiently educated to grasp them or that they were not germane to the subject of the instant. The following are some of our comments to consider as you watch this video.
The Judge’s comments that a “typo” is present in the first 3 words of the Constitution of/for the United States of America/United States (multiple constitutions, as we will discuss in future posts), as “We the People” is inaccurate because said constitution was created to establish legal/trust relations between the several States (independent Republics) and the federal government. Not between the “People” and any other governmental entity.
I disagree. Under numerous high-court holdings, the “People” ARE the State. In addition, the so-called “Amendments” (actually, Articles) are specifically an integral part of the “Constitution” and obviously affect the Rights of the People, not the legal fictions (governments) created by them.
The Judge echoes the understanding that we presented a few days earlier on this blogsite regarding the Purpose of Government. You might want to review that article again, as a foundation to all the discussions we will have on this forum. He says that the ONLY legitimate activity of government in a free society is to protect the natural rights of the People, and ANYTHING that government does OTHER THAN PROTECT NATURAL RIGHTS has been wrong!
In other words, the People possess the PRESUMPTIONS OF LIBERTY, and the government has a profound OBLIGATION to PROVE that the individual is not worthy of his self-determination as a free man possessing natural rights, and that obligation requires that a jury of his peers be convinced of his crime, leading to the surrender of rights.
The theory of our Republic is that the surrender of some specific Rights to government is necessary to empower that government to protect inherent Rights not surrendered. Only in this way can our government function, as it “derives its just powers from the consent of the governed”.
The Judge contends that Rights cannot be taken through legislative acts, majority rule, executive orders/decisions, or administrative orders. Due Process is guaranteed, and MUST be practiced by a lawful government.
He contends that the “terrible reality” is that government itself is a fiction to which we have consented to the surrender of our Rights, allowing them to be stolen by a monopoly of police powers. Under the 9th and 10th Articles, the governments must STOP interfering with individual natural rights.
Sounds good, huh? But it is not entirely accurate. I contend that the federal and state governments are acting in the CAPACITY of “idem sonans” (sounds the same…almost…but with different legal relations) private, unincorporated, fictional associations operating in a venue and jurisdiction where their officers and employees are NOT UNDER A DUTY OR OBLIGATION TO RECOGNIZE OR PRESERVE YOUR NATURAL RIGHTS.
In this present fictional, make-believe territorial “jurisdiction”, they deceive you into joining them in their private territory (called “United States” and “STATE OF OREGON”) as fictions of law where constitutional duties to protect natural rights DO NOT EXIST!
You will wonder how you are deceived. The Judge mentioned only one of the ways that you can surrender your rights, that of contracting with them in their private venue. Other ways are 1) application for and acceptance of benefits WHICH ARE ONLY FOUND WITHIN THEIR PRIVATE TERRITORY, 2) accepting federal “citizenship” [again, only within their private territory], 3) waiver, 4) silent assent, and 5) agreement. These methods of appearing to surrender your inherent Rights will be discussed in detail in later posts, as well as methods to overcome those “legal disabilities”.
Natural Rights are UNALIENABLE. The Judge erroneously uses the term “inalienable”. There is a difference. An unalienable right cannot be given away, waived, abrogated, taken by judicial edict, or otherwise lost. No way! The presumption of government is that all of us–you and me–have voluntarily given our private rights to the collective in the form of CIVIL RIGHTS. These are mere privileges which can be controlled by the masters. NEVER ask for your “civil rights”, or you will get what you deserve in their own private venue where protected unalienable Rights do not exist
Otherwise, enjoy Judge Napolitano! He is one of us.