Requirement for Consent

16 How. 429; Sedg. St. & Const. Law, 637 And the obligation of her contracts is as fully protected by that instrument against impairment by legislation as are contracts between individuals exclusively. State v. Wilson, 7 Cranch, 164; Providence Bank v. Billings, 4 Pet. 514; Green v. Biddle, 8 Wheat. 1; Woodruff v.

1

2

3

Trapnall, 10 How. 190; Wolff v. New Orleans, 103 U.S. 358 ."

4

[New Orleans Gas Company v. Louisiana Light Company, 115 U.S. 650 (1885)]

5

You can also electronically search, as we have, the entire 50+ volume legal encyclopedia called American Jurisprudence 2d 6 Legal Encyclopedia for a definition of “justice” and you will not find one. Think about just how absurd this is: The entire 7 purpose of law, government, and the legal profession is justice, as revealed by the founding fathers in Federalist Paper #51: 8

" Justice is the end of government. It is the end of civil society . It ever has been, and ever will be pursued, until

9

it be obtained, or until liberty be lost in the pursuit." [James Madison, The Federalist No. 51 (1788)]

10

11

. . .and yet the largest legal reference and encyclopedia on law in the country, American Jurisprudence 2d Legal 12 Encyclopedia , doesn’t even define exactly what “justice” is as revealed here! The foundation of justice is enforcing ONLY 13 positive law. The foundation of positive law is consent. Therefore, to ignore the requirement for positive law is to ignore 14 the requirement for “consent of the governed”, which is the very foundation of our system of government starting with the 15 Declaration of Independence and going down from there. Here, in fact, is how the U.S. Supreme Court describes the 16 relationship of the Declaration of Independence to our system of jurisprudence: 17

“No language is more worthy of frequent and thoughtful consideration than these words of Mr. Justice Matthews, speaking for this court, in Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 118 U.S. 356, 369 , 6 S.Sup.Ct. 1064, 1071: 'When we consider the nature and the theory of our institutions of government, the principles upon which they are supposed to rest, and review the history of their development, we are constrained to conclude that they do not mean to leave room for the play and action of purely personal and arbitrary power.' The first official action of this nation declared the foundation of government in these words: 'We hold these truths to be self-evident, [165 U.S. 150, 160] that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.' While such declaration of principles may not have the force of organic law, or be made the basis of judicial decision as to the limits of right and duty, and while in all cases referenced must be had to the organic law of the nation for such limits, yet the latter is but the body and the letter of which the former is the thought and the spirit, and it is always safe to read the letter of the constitution in the spirit of the Declaration of Independence. No duty rests more imperatively upon the courts than the enforcement of those constitutional provisions intended to secure that

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

equality of rights which is the foundation of free government. " [Gulf, C. & S. F. R. Co. v. Ellis, 165 U.S. 150 (1897)]

31

32

Ignoring the requirement for positive law in all interactions of the government with its citizens and subjects is therefore 33 INjustice, not justice. Now do you understand Jesus’ condemnation of the Pharisees/Lawyers, when he said: 34

"Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees [lawyers], hypocrites! For you pay tithe of mint and anise and cummin, and have neglected the weightier matters of the [God's] law: justice and mercy and faith. These you ought to have done [FIRST], without leaving the others undone ."

35

36

37

[ Matthew 23:23, Bible, NKJV]

38

This is very telling indeed. If lawyers and judges had to admit what REAL justice was and that it consisted of enforcing 39 ONLY “positive law” enacted with the full authority of “consent of the governed”, then they would have to admit that most 40 of what our present day government does amounts to INjustice, because they are implementing that which is not 41 specifically authorized by any public law, and which therefore only applies to those who individually consent to it. To give 42 you just a few examples of private law that is wrongfully enforced as though it were positive public law, consider the 43 following important private laws: 44 1. Title 42, which contains the Social Security, FICA, and Medicare codes, is not positive law. Therefore, these are 45 strictly voluntary programs that no one can be compelled to participate in, and certainly not those domiciled in a state 46 of the Union. The U.S. Supreme Court confirmed this, when it called Social Security “not coercive”, which means 47 unenforceable unless individual consent is provided: 48

"There remain for consideration the contentions that the state act is invalid because its enactment was coerced by the adoption of the Social Security Act, and that it involves an unconstitutional surrender of state power. Even though it be assumed that the exercise of a sovereign power by a state, in other respects valid, may be rendered invalid because of the coercive effect of a federal statute enacted in the exercise of a power granted to the national government, such coercion is lacking here. [301 U.S. 495, 526] It is unnecessary to repeat now those considerations which have L.Ed. to our decision in the Chas. C. Steward Machine Co. Case, that

49

50

51

52

53

54

Requirement for Consent

217 of 396

Copyright Sovereignty Education and Defense Ministry, http://sedm.org Form 05.003, Rev. 7-23-2013

EXHIBIT:________