Precedent Is Not Necessarily Principle

In Dred Scott v Sandford (1857), Chief Justice Roger B. Taney pointed to the commerce clause, along with the so-called Fugitive Slave Clause (Article IV, Section 2, Clasue 3), as evidence that slaves were not citizens but were to be considered property according to the Constitution.
The Heritage Guide to the Constitution, p. 151.

In Roe v Wade (1975) the Court extended the concept of privacy to cover the right to obtain an abortion…
The Heritage Guide to the Constitution, p.  397

The study of Court Precedent is nothing more than a glimpse into the pop culture mores of the day;  the fickle fads and personal whims that change according to the side of the bed one emerged from on a particular day. Precedent recognizes that which went before. According to the Founding Documents precedent refers to what existed before the Constitution–i.e. God and the understanding of Natural Law.

Today, Court Precedent is too often no longer connected to the originating principles in existence before the Constitution.

Instead, it has become the process by which originating principles have been negated and overruled. Our national  situation is dire because Court Precedent has successfully confused citizens as to the ability to practice those rights over which the Constitution declares government possesses no authority. Popular opinion in agreement with these absurd conclusions has come to the point that we find ourselves restricting our own liberty while absurdly referencing “good manners.”

Consider these examples:

  • “Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control.” (article 25(1))” [http://www.hrea.org/index.php?doc_id=411]

Each example is an indication of how unconstitutional court precedents have diluted the authority of our pre-existing Creator endowed rights. The barrier of protection in the phrase “Congress shall make no law…” has been undermined and Congress, the Executive, and the Courts are zealously making law in that fenced off area in which they have no authority. Further compounding this grave injustice and abuse of power is a pop culture  ignorant of philosophical truth. The result is that our  citizens are trained in the necessary abdication of self interest as a means to “the public good.”  Those in possession of philosophical truth (which is irrefutably linked back to God, Natural Law, and those pre-existing Creator endowed rights) are shouted down by the ignorant and those with malevolent motives in regards to seeking power and authority over others.

Precedent is the method to subjugate the justice of natural law in order to replace it with its mirror-image reversal—man-made law. What natural law declares evil, man-made law determines as good and what natural law has determined as good is now pronounced evil.

Principle is grounded in Natural Law

Principle, on the other hand, is founded in the pre-existing Natural Law of self-evident truth. Principles are statements of truth, therefore, when courts contradict Principle, they are unlawful and unconstitutional.  So, in referencing the two unconstitutional Court Decisions listed above, those in search of constitutional truths must appreciate that the idea that “privacy” legalizes the murder of an infant inside the womb when everyone appreciates such an act as murder when done outside the womb, is absurd. But yet this nonsense currently stands as Court Precedent. Likewise Court Precedent recognized a bill of sale as capable of legally reducing a  human being  to a material possession. The Dred Scott Case’s Court Precedent was accepted as constitutional opinion as if it negated the self-evident truth proclaimed in the Declaration of Independence.

Principles remain true regardless of our acknowledgement.

SCOTUS. Technically, the arbiter

Scale of JusticeObamaCare is not constitutional or unconstitutional because the Supreme Court rules it so. ObamaCare is unconstitutional because it is not in accordance with the pre-existing principles of this nation. The way to know this is to study the Founders’ writings and know the meanings of their words.

The method to stop such malicious abuse of power is application of Newtonian physics. A lawless object will remain in motion unless stopped by an object with the weight (large number of people) and grounded mass (knowledge and faith in self-evident truth) empowered with momentum of its own.

Join our classes and/or learn on your own

See our write-up here. There is a wonderful confidence we can all develop by learning our founding principles and being able to quote them every time we’re confronted with anti-constitutional thought. And this is often.

And remember

Human Nature is such that for every law, the people simply look for a way around it. The study of Court Precedent is merely the blueprint, the schematic, the map to follow in order to make what is illegal, unconstitutional, or against Natural Law declared legal and constitutional.

Such activities, while as futile as trying to mathematically disprove gravity, engender social chaos and injustice rather than the pre-existent purpose of government which is safety and the ability to pursue happiness. Those things constitutional are self-evident and clear while those things unconstitutional must be explained in nuanced and inferred language. When an explanation deteriorates into legal gibberish, strongly suspect a breach in the constitutional boundary. Principles need no explanation because they ring clear and true in self-evident clarity.

When discussion of “What’s constitutional?” deteriorates to a listing of court precedent to explain a particular opinion or position, you can be certain of an unconstitutional threat to your liberty.

We look forward to you joining with us in studying our Founding Documents.

Speak Your Mind

*