Audio Presentation Part 1:
America's republican form of government
Hello. My name is Kurt St. Angelo. I am a retired Indiana attorney and the author of two self-published law books: BUSTED – A Whistleblower's Guide to the War on Drugs and America's Republican Form of Government.
This is part 1 of a 6-part audio presentation that is is intended to accompany and help explain a document, called “Notice and Demand,” which I published in the Recorder's Office of Marion County, Indiana on March 15, 2018. You can also read it and a transcript of this presentation at my website: drugsarelegal.com. That Notice and Demand does two things:
It puts certain Indianapolis, Marion County, Indiana, and U.S. law enforcers and court officials on notice that they (and their associates and subordinates) have been falsely enforcing both Indiana and U.S. drug statutes within Indiana. It also demands that these persons read, understand and begin to properly enforce drug statutes within this and other states, which for the past fifty years, they and others have not.
Consequently I encourage all law enforcement officials, all judges and all defense attorneys – particularly those in Indiana – to read my Notice and Demand, and to thoroughly understand it. It succinctly explains and documents how drug laws are to operate within the United States.
All of these materials come with a Disclaimer: essentially that no one should rely on them until you either go to law school to verify my argument or engage a licensed attorney who will do it. Until you do, you are welcome to disagree, but you will be standing on the backs of crocodiles. Suffice here to say that there are no statutes and there is no case law that operates within Indiana which support the view (perhaps your view) that either drug possession or drug dealing is criminal.
My books and documents describe the standard by which civil rights attorneys and legal malpractice attorneys can hold government officials and drug defense attorneys professionally accountable for the roles they play in the unlawful war on drugs. Although I generally cite and discuss Indiana law, all of my arguments are applicable throughout the United States.
This is because the republican form of government, which is promised in the U.S. constitution and which I herein describe, is applicable in all fifty states. In contrast, the Uniform Controlled Substances Act, a version of which Indiana adopted in the 1970s, operates in about forty-five states.
The U.S. constitution guarantees everyone within the United States a republican form of government. I'm going to summarize the law of the republican form of government, as it is relevant to our discussion, in three sentences: 1) that individuals have a natural right to possess lawfully-acquired property where to lawfully-acquire anything is to consensually acquire it without force, theft or fraud from someone who already lawfully possesses it, 2) that all artificial persons (which include foreigners, adopted citizens, home owners, business people and government workers, for example) are subject to regulation, and 3) that all individuals who commit crimes are subject to criminal law. That in a nutshell is republican law.
This description manifests in three separations of power, 1) that individuals have authority over the property that they lawfully acquire, 2) that our governments have regulatory authority over all commerce, foreigners, real property owners, government employees and adopted citizens, for example, and 3) that governments have criminal authority to adjudicate and sanction crime. This simple description also reflects the two police powers of republican governments that we will discuss: regulation and criminal prohibition.
Now with regard to drugs, which is the topic of this talk, the republican form of government manifests in the same three ways, which I will specify for you: 1) that individuals have a natural right to lawfully-acquired drugs, where to lawfully acquire drugs is to consensually acquire them without force, theft or fraud from someone who already lawfully possesses them, 2) that all business people who make and / or sell drugs are subject to regulation by state and federal regulators, and 3) that individuals who commit crimes while consuming or selling drugs are subject to criminal law. Again, if you can understand and enforce these three sentences, then you can be a legitimate official in any branch of a republican form of government. To do so requires only that one discerns the natural differences between commerce and crime.
So, our drug laws are really simple. I just summed them up in three sentences, three ways. And I'm here to tell you: that if you know these simple concepts and these simple separations, embodied in these three distinctions, then you know not only republican law, but also how America's Controlled Substances Acts operate. In fact, if you know these three concepts, then you know drug law in America's fifty states better than likely most legal professionals, as of the date of my Notice and Demand. I say this because their behavior does not conform to the above three separations.
Indeed, what all of my materials demonstrate is that America's national war on drugs exists – not because of the U.S. and state Controlled Substances Acts and other drug laws – but in spite of them. For the most part, the CSAs and other drug statutes are constitutional, but police officers, prosecutors, judges or defense attorneys do not follow them. Because officials have been acting outside of their statutory and constitutional authority, then the purpose of my Notice and Demand and of this presentation is to inform them how drug laws are to operate so that they can no longer claim immunity for their statutory ignorance and uniformly false enforcement.
This presentation fulfills this goal 1) by explaining how drug laws work within every inch of the United States, 2) by showing how statutes properly define and divide power so as to guarantee the republican form of government, 3) by demonstrating that to wage a judicial war on drugs is to violate people's natural and legal rights under false color of law, 4) by showing how statute writers literally tricked government officials and attorneys into believing that the possession and commerce in certain drugs are crimes, 5) by explaining why I have taken this route to deliver this message to government officials, instead of a judicial one, and 6) by concluding with a statutory distinction that ties up all the lessons you will herein learn. Perhaps I am being too ambitious, but my goal is to quite immediately change our consensus about the practice of criminal and administrative law.
What my materials also uniquely demonstrate is that both Congress and state legislatures owe the republican form of government to all the People within all the states, but that Congress does not owe the republican form of government – with its checks and balances – to people within the federal areas. These federal areas include the District of Columbia, U.S. territories, U.S. enclaves within the states, all navigable waterways, including the coastline, and all commercial boats and airplanes.
Within these federal areas, Congress legislates with what is called plenary or absolute power, just like a king or dictator has. The Supreme Court told us: “In exercising this power, Congress is not subject to the same constitutional limitations, as when it is legislating for the United States.” Hooven & Allison Co. v. Evatt, 324 U.S. 652, 674 (1945). For instance, Congress may criminally prohibit drug possession and dealing within the federal areas, whereas it has no authority to criminalize either behavior within the republican states. As we shall see, the rights that people have in the federal areas are the rights that Congress as a king or dictator has granted them, whereas the rights that people have within the states are those that Nature has granted them.
This all means that a republican Congress legislates for the fifty states, that a non-republican Congress – one with plenary or absolute power – legislates over the federal areas, and that the United States has both a republic and a non-republic (or dictatorship) operating within it. This also means that when Congress legislates, its statutes a) are either republican and apply within the states or b) they are non-republican and apply solely within the federal areas, apart from and outside of the states.
A reader of federal statutes must know that Congress legislates in these two capacities in order to determine which statutory provisions of Congress apply where. Thus, we have to know which Congress is legislating – the republican one or the non-republican one – to determine the scope and effect of its statutes. Suffice here to say that the national judicially-waged war on drugs exists because officials and attorneys have not differentiated non-republican prohibitory legislation for the federal areas from republican regulatory legislation created for the states.
As we shall see further, as a non-republic, Congress can prohibit drug dealing within the federal areas, whereas within the states, where it legislates and operates as a republic, it must regulate drug commerce. We shall also see that the U.S. Justice Department falsely enforces criminal prohibitions, which are legislated by Congress for Article I courts in the federal areas, by prosecuting regulatory violations as crimes in Article III courts within the states.
There – within the states – Congress does not have the power to criminally prohibit drugs but only has the power to regulate their commerce. Gonzales v. Raich, 545 U.S. 1 (2005). Recall that the Commerce Clause at Article I, Section 8, Clause 3 of the U.S. constitution grants Congress power to regulate interstate commerce, but not the power to criminally prohibit it.
Recall also that it took the 18th Amendment for the U.S. government to criminally prohibit the interstate commerce in alcohol. Without a similar amendment, all interstate drug commerce is regulated by the executive branch – not prohibited in the judicial branch. Only deceit or a breakdown in logic – but certainly not written law – would allow one to argue otherwise.
Now, if these concepts are new to you, then what I say in the next minute or two may be downright shocking. As an ardent opponent of the war on drugs, which is a stupid-ass policy that helped cause sixty thousand narcotics deaths in the United States last year, you might think that I seek the repeal of the Controlled Substances Acts and other drug statutes, which I do not (except to clean them up). This is because, for the most part, the CSAs are not only arguably constitutional, but are also essentially good IF they are properly enforced within the fifty states. I say “for the most part” because there is at least one, but more likely several, unconstitutional provisions in Indiana's drug statutes that I will share with you in part 4, which should immediately be repealed.
So, our drug statutes are arguably constitutional and good solely 1) because they secure people's natural right to privately possess and use drugs, 2) because they secure all drug dealers' constitutional right to administrative due process, and 3) because the statutes properly separate power between the branches of government. Conversely, drug statutes and their enforcement would not be constitutional if they did not secure our individual and legal rights, and if they did not keep the powers of government separate.
More specifically, the CSAs are arguably constitutional with regard to drug dealers because they treat all drug dealers the same. That is, pursuant to the due process and equal protection clauses of the 14th Amendment, America's drug laws afford both favored drug dealers in the pharmaceutical industry and disfavored drug dealers in our neighborhoods with the very same equal legal treatment. The 14th Amendment requires that persons in the same commercial class – that is, all persons who manufacture, distribute or dispense drugs – be treated the same.
This equal proper treatment is called administrative due process. It is to administratively regulate all makers and dispensers of drugs by agencies in the executive branch, using governments' equitable powers. This administrative due process is defined in both the Indiana and U.S. CSAs which are to be read in conjunction with the respective state and U.S. administrative procedures acts, that are incorporated by reference.
This translates into one simple rule of law... that all drug dealers within America's fifty state republics – whether the good kind or the proverbial bad kind – are subject to administrative regulation in the executive branch. The Supreme Court in Ohio v. Helvering, 292 U.S. 360, 369 (1934) told us that the police power with regard to business is regulatory, not prohibitory.
Because all drug dealers are regulated by the executive branch, then due to the Separation of Powers doctrine, this means that no drug dealers are subject to criminal prohibition in the judicial branch. This also means, according to the 14th Amendment, that all drug dealers within America's fifty states are to be given equal administrative due process in the executive branch before facing a judicial court in its appellate or enforcement capacity.
The second reason that the CSAs are constitutional should embarrass every single person involved in the fraudulent judicially-waged war on drugs. All of you. Both the U.S. and states' CSAs are constitutional – drum roll, please – because the acts do not apply to individuals who merely possess or consume drugs within America's fifty states. Say what?
Restated: the CSAs are constitutional because they do not apply – at all – to individuals who merely acquire, possess and privately use drugs. The CSAs do not apply to people who privately shoot up heroin, or who grow their own marijuana, or who take aspirin, or who drink caffeine, or who use CBD-oil enemas. American law treats everyone who acquires, possesses and uses these foods or drugs the same.
This proper equal treatment is to leave these individuals alone in their private possession and use of property. And as we shall see, nothing in the CSAs applies to individuals as drug users except their provisions which say that that the CSAs do not apply to individuals as drug users. You didn't know that? We will discuss drug statutes in part 4.
The CSAs do not apply to individuals as drug users within the fifty states for three good reasons: a) because – like I just said – the acts say so, b) because individuals have a constitutionally-secured natural right to acquire, possess and defend property, including disfavored drugs (which provision is at Article I, Section 1 of the 1816 Indiana constitution), and c) because within America's republics, Congress and state legislatures have no authority to legislate over natural persons, to define their political rights (including their right to liberty), or to redefine the judicial branch's criminal jurisdiction over them, without amending the supreme law, which is America's constitutions (see Beebe v. State, 5 Ind. 501 (1855)).
Ultimately, neither drug users nor drug dealers are criminals within America's state republics, and neither are subject to criminal law and incarceration. They are only drug criminals if they commit real crimes that involve drugs, such as ripping people off, or contaminating drugs, or misrepresenting one drug for another. As well, all mere drug dealers – unless they commit these real drug crimes – are at worst regulation violators, subject to the governments' equitable remedies of forfeiture and injunction – and not subject to criminal incarceration.
This means that, for the past fifty years, officials have been putting individuals in jail using statutes a) that do not apply to individuals, unless they are real drug criminals, and b) that treat all disfavored drug dealers the same as pharmaceutical company presidents. These constitutional statutes, whose regulatory authority does not apply to individuals and which treat all drug businesses the same, are obviously being unconstitutionally enforced by government officials. This absurd false enforcement of the CSAs is for several reasons.
First, very few government officials and drug defense attorneys have ever read the CSAs or their state's and the U.S. constitutions. Their actions bespeak the obvious. Few of them know that the acts are predominantly administrative law, and that they operate in conjunction with U.S. and state administrative procedures acts. Even fewer know that the only drug crimes that these acts prescribe are – like I just mentioned – actual crimes that involve drugs, such as stealing them, or contaminating them, or committing violence over them.
The second reason for the false enforcement of the CSAs is because very few officials and attorneys are presently qualified and capable of understanding them. For example, these persons have heretofore been incapable of distinguishing the following three things: 1) the exercise of natural rights, such as drug possession, from 2) regulatory violations, such as unauthorized drug dealing, from 3) actual drug crimes that I just mentioned. In fact, few if any of them know the differences between the constitutional terms commerce and crime, and know that commerce and crime are to be dealt with in separate judicial jurisdictions and in separate branches of government.
My books, my Notice and Demand, as well as this presentation are each alone intended to correct this and other critical defects in the practice of criminal law within Indiana. So was a traffic infraction matter, about which I will later tell you, whose false enforcement I challenged all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court. So, one way or another, until government officials and defense attorneys learn how and where drug laws and traffic laws are to be enforced, and thus until they conform their practices to the written law, then every day presents a new opportunity for malpractice and civil rights attorneys, who I stand immediately ready to help.
As my books show, government officials and court officers must understand a priori the republican form of government – with all its various separations of power – which they self-evidently do not, in order to properly read and comprehend the CSAs, which for the aforementioned reason they have not. Statute writers – as a guild – know the republican form of government sufficiently to write constitutional statutes, but ordinary attorneys, judges and law enforcers do not know it well enough to read statutes. Consequently, they have falsely enforced drug and traffic laws for tens of years, and taken vacuous oaths to uphold the state and U.S. constitutions.
For listeners to understand this, I am going to briefly explain the elements of America's republican form of government, and then show you how statutes carry out this form with regard to drugs. From this description, it will be obvious that drug laws are falsely enforced. Then I will show how officials and attorneys have been defrauded into thinking 1) that republican legislatures can and actually do criminalize the exercise of either natural or legal rights, and 2) that such legislatures can and do legislate the meaning of case and crime so as to expand the criminal jurisdiction of judicial courts, both propositions of which are nonsense.
In particular, defense attorneys have been indoctrinated into this unprovable religion. Their unprovable belief is – under our republican form of government – that legislatures may define the political rights of individuals, such as our right of liberty. Certainly this is true in a monarchy or a dictatorship, but not under the republican form of government, to which all attorneys within the United States have taken oaths. In any event, unless the listener has read my law books, then this is likely the first time that you will have been introduced to most of this essential and uniquely American information.
America's republican form of government
To get our discussion started, please understand that – by definition – there are essentially two and only two forms of government in the universe: republican and non-republican. One, like me, is able to make such a statement only after one discovers or discerns the republican form of government. John Bouvier, who wrote America's best law dictionary, said that it is a inherent form. Without knowing that it is an inherent form to be naturally adopted, we have been unable to discern the opposite form of government, which is unnaturally imposed.
So, all governments are either republican (inherent) or non-republican (imposed). They spring naturally from the People and are codified by constitutional conventions, or they are unnaturally imposed by force and fraud. There are no exceptions to this. Thus there are no other forms of government and there are no other origins of government. As we shall see, republics exist to secure individuals' natural political rights, while non-republics exist to secure the unnatural power of some people over others. In several minutes, or at least by the end of this presentation, you should be able to realize why I say this.
This presentation is a general indictment of the non-republican form of government. Almost all governments on Earth – its monarchies, its dictatorships, its totalitarian regimes and even its benevolent social democracies, the latter in which I have lived and which many people think are advanced governments – are each and all varieties of non-republics.
Non-republics are primitive governments for primitive unactualized political thinkers. Before the creation of the United States, the non-republican form of government and its dysfunctional thinking had exclusively dominated western civilization for the prior two thousand years, if not also the rest of the world. For this reason alone, America's republican form of government was and still is very unique and special.
Non-republics are characterized by at least four attributes: 1) by political inequality (where one person or group of persons have greater political power than others), 2) by political subjugation (where everyone is born subject to one person or group of persons), 3) by subjective justice, based on belief and opinion (where one person or group of persons arbitrarily determine what is just), and 4) by a fusion of all legislative, executive and judicial power in support of the national political sovereign.
In contrast, the republican form of government is characterized by at least four opposite and opposed attributes: 1) by natural political equality (where no man or group of men determine the political rights of anyone else), 2) by natural political liberty (where no one is born subject to the will of anyone else, such as to a legislature), 3) by objective, scientific justice based on natural criteria, and 4) by the separation of governments' various powers (instead of powers' coalescence on behalf of a sole political sovereign).
American attorneys are most familiar with the separation of power between governments' three branches, to which the Separation of Powers Doctrine from American constitutions refers. However, this constitutional principle of separation applies to not only the three branches of government, but as well to various other powers that are referred to in our U.S. and state constitutions.
Law, eloquently wrote the U.S. Supreme Court in Yick Wo v. Hopkins 118 U.S. 356, 370 (1886), is the definition or division of power. To properly practice law is to be aware of the proper separations or divisions of power. I am bringing you this information because American attorneys, including judges, are largely unaware of these separate powers in America's justice systems. This unawareness – which is a nice way of describing ignorance – is the reason for the judicially-waged war on drugs.
Given this substantive background, I will now list (and will later briefly describe) at least seven separations of power that operate within the constitutions, statutes and case law of America's federated republican system. In one way or another, America's national war on drugs violates each and all of these separations of power. Because government officials and licensed attorneys are unaware of most of these separations, then 1) they both allow and justify the false enforcement of America's CSAs, and 2) they blindly deny the rest of us the republican form of government, which is our constitutional entitlement.
As best as I can tell, there are essentially seven separations of power in the U.S. republican system. They include:
- the aforementioned separation between the powers of the branches of government
- the separation between the powers of each state republic from the powers of the other state republics,
- the separation between the powers of the states and the powers of the U.S. government,
- the separation between the powers of the law jurisdiction and the equity jurisdictions within the country's republican justice systems,
- the separation between the two republican police powers of criminal prohibition and regulation, which operate in both state and U.S. governments,
- on the federal level, the separation between the statutes of Congress legislating as a republic with regard to the states and the statutes of Congress legislating essentially as a dictator or non-republic over the federal areas, and last, most important and most neglected,
- the separation between the powers of written positive law (whose sovereign is a legislature) from the powers of natural law (whose sovereign is Nature) in defining people's various natural and legal rights and duties.
To understand this distinction, consider that flesh-n-blood natural persons, like you and me, largely operate under natural law, whereas all artificial persons, such as forms of business and license holders, exist and operate exclusively under positive written law. The rules of our natural lives – for example, what time we get up, what we eat, who we are attracted to – are not written. But all the rules of artificial persons' lives are written.
We as individuals were created naturally, whereas all artificial persons are created by the unnatural recognition of a legislature. For example, we as unique individuals are created through natural reproduction, and without permission of government, whereas all businesses, all license holders and all foreigners, for instance, exist and operate within the United States solely by permission and operation of legislative positive law.
We know all artificial persons by the numbers assigned to them. When we use numbers assigned to us, such as our Social Security numbers or our drivers' license numbers or our real properties' parcel numbers, then this is in our artificial regulated capacity, and not in your natural capacity. We need numbers to drive and pay income taxes, but we do not need numbers to lawfully eat, sleep, go to the bathroom, make love, or exercise, for example.
As we shall see, under the republican form of government, individuals: 1) are born and naturally operate under natural law, 2) are not naturally subject to positive law, and 3) become subject to positive law only by their voluntary consent.
Positive law is never involuntarily imposed upon us in a republic. Only in non-republics is positive written law involuntary imposed upon people. Because of this, all non-republics by definition are immoral. They are immoral because they use force and fraud to impose unnatural political duties upon natural people. Republics don't.
Natural law is that law that naturally operates upon you and me as flesh-and-blood individuals which does not have to be written down. It tells us individuals when, for example, to eat, to drink, to sleep and to shop. Legislatures do not. Unless we are insane, we never look to any legislature – and its positive written law – to tell us how and when to do things naturally. Unless we are insane or evil, we would never deny Nature's role in our lives.
Natural law manifests in each of our lives in four manners: 1) as the physical laws of Nature (such as gravity and thermodynamics and hunger), 2) as the cognitive laws of Nature (such as logic and reason), 3) as the emotional laws of Nature (such as joy, empathy and revenge) and 4) as the political laws of Nature (for example, that we are born both free and politically equal).
As all natural sciences are based on natural law, so too is political science, which is the science of our political relationships. And so is jurisprudence, which is the science of law. Because both political science and jurisprudence are sciences, then we cannot practice either without recognition and adherence to the laws of Nature.
These laws exist in Nature independent of us and our awareness of them. Man cannot control or change these natural laws because Man is not sovereign over them. It is merely Man's role to discern these natural laws, such as gravity or political equality, and to design systems to secure (or use) them.
That is precisely what the Founding Fathers of the United States did. They designed a scientific political system to secure and use the political laws of Nature. Their constitutional design was of a natural pre-existing and innate form of government that is based on natural political law, and that had been tried before, called the republican form of government. This form of government is the opposite of the non-republican form, which denies the role of the political laws of Nature in its administration of justice.
What are the political laws of Nature? They are the natural rules that Man has discerned – by looking at human nature – which define our political morality – that is, how we treat one another in a polity (or organized society). Said our nation's Founding Fathers, these laws are naturally self-evident: 1) that all individuals are naturally politically equal, 2) that individuals are born with certain natural unalienable rights, such as the right to be free from the will of other people, 3) that citizens naturally inherit their political rights instead of having them bestowed by monarchs, popes or legislatures, and 4) that just governments gain their moral authority over individuals only by such individuals' voluntary consent.
(Parenthetically, all of these self-evident truths conflicted with the rule of the British monarchy: 1) that all individuals were born politically unequal to a king or queen, 2) that all individuals were born only with the rights this monarch granted them, 3) that only the child of a monarch could inherit the political right to be the leader of a society, and 4) that just governments are obtainable through the use of force and fraud, instead of consent.)
America's republican justice systems exist to discern and adjudicate shortcomings in political morality (how we treat others) – not our own personal morality (how we treat ourselves). They singularly achieve this objective by having a case or controversy requirement, which requires that one person's behavior must injure another before a judicial court has subject matter jurisdiction, which is its power to adjudicate wrongdoing. (Parenthetically, American judicial courts do not have power to adjudicate right-doing, only wrongdoing, which is naturally defined.)
So our main natural political rule is that individuals are not allowed to injure other people or their interests, and violations of this natural rule are adjudicated in the judicial branch. Unintentional harm is normally treated as a tort. Intentional harm is normally treated as a crime.
To not harm one another – either unintentioanally or intentionally – is a natural political law that our legislatures did not create, but merely discerned from looking at Nature and wrote down as civil and criminal code. What is civilly and criminally prohibited in a republic is naturally prohibited as malum in se, or wrong by its injurious nature. Without the element of an injury to a right, a judicial court does not have the power to adjudicate any matter.
In a republic, because we define wrong naturally, i.e., as malum in se, which is to violate someone else's natural rights, then we also define our rights naturally. Thus, in republics, we define both political rights and political wrongs naturally. Essentially we have a natural right to do anything but harm other people, which is a natural wrong.
And thus, individuals' political morality – that is, how we treat other people – is defined by natural law, which does not have to be written down to operate. For example, Indiana's courts adjudicated crimes such as murder and theft long before the Indiana legislature ever wrote these prohibitions down.
How is this possible? This occurred because criminal prohibitions exist naturally, and are not legislative creations, so they do not have to be legislated to be enforced. Torts and crimes are what is naturally wrong, i.e., to injure other people. As such, torts and crimes are self-evident facts of Nature which are defined by the harm that they produce, and are not creations of legislatures.
Legislatures may not define or redefine crimes because the political laws of Nature define them. That is, because Nature is sovereign over crime, state legislatures have no authority to prohibit or proscribe certain behavior as unlawful or criminal.
For natural persons, legislatures have the power only to prescribe or write down what Nature criminally proscribes or prohibits. These congresses may legislate over their own positive law creations, but have no authority to define right and wrong for individuals, who are Nature's creations. That is, America's state legislatures have no authority to prohibit or proscribe behavior to be criminal, but only have the power to prescribe crimes, which means to write them down.
Because what is criminal is what is naturally wrong, which is to intentionally harm others, therefore individuals in Indiana have never needed to read or observe any written, positive law to be lawful, or to be tried in a judicial court for being unlawful or criminal. We are to be held accountable for our natural wrongs, such as torts and crimes, whether we can read statutes or not. If our criminal duties were defined by positive written law, then the inability to read would be a defense to crime.
But political morality – that is, our rights and our wrongs in an organized society – as well as our civil and criminal liabilities – have always been defined within America's states – not by Man and his legislatures – but instead by the political laws of Nature. That is, we naturally know what is wrongdoing because it injures someone else. So, crime properly understood is naturally bad political behavior, which is behavior among individuals in a polity that is naturally wrong because it is injurious. Crime is wrongful political behavior because it violates our proper relationships with other people in a polity.
Because all of our political rights, wrongs and duties come from Nature, and not from some group predominantly made-up of men, then it is natural law – and not the positive law of these men – that defines our rights and duties to one another. As I just mentioned, legislatures may write down or codify what we naturally owe to others and what is naturally prohibited, such as torts and crimes, but legislatures may not make up duties, including criminal prohibitions, that apply to natural people. If legislatures, judicial courts and their positive written law could make up our natural duties, then they could just as well erase them.
So, we all naturally have unwritten duties to not murder one another or to not steal from one another. These criminal prohibitions did not come from either the Indiana legislature or from the state's constitutional conventions. Nor did they come from the U.S. constitution and its convention in Philadelphia. In fact, these duties predate all governments, all legislative bodies, all printing presses and all written languages. Because they are natural duties, they exist to be discerned and perhaps written down, just like Moses did.
Said Moses, the commandments not to murder and not to steal come from God. Three thousand years later and phrased more modernly, both John Locke and Thomas Jefferson said that our duties to not murder and to not steal come from the self-evident political laws of Nature, or Nature's God.
What Moses and Jesus of Nazareth called God's law is what we moderns call natural law. In particular, Jesus professed natural law. He was a natural law profess^or. We cannot remotely or fully understand his message without recognizing its connection to natural political law. He was not teaching religion, but was instead teaching self-evident secular law. Jesus' real message was that it is secular law – and not religious law and custom – that is the real divine law ordained by the Creator God. This ruffled the feathers in his day, particularly in the clergy
Republican law is secular, non-religious law. The 1st Amendment reminds us of this. Jesus' recognition of two political sovereigns – Nature and Man – and of God's law being a check upon the positive law of Caesar, was a profound political concept in the age of kings and emperors. That individuals gain their rights from God or Nature and not from a government, and that natural law defines political morality, which means that Man's positive law does not, are such significant political concepts that they have been suppressed by almost all governments and even most major religions since Jesus.
The idea that individuals get our rights and morality from Nature and not from Man is a scary thought for men like Caesars, who have misrepresented law, rights and duties as coming strictly from them. That natural law is a political check upon Man's positive law is dangerous concept to people – like kings and dictators – who wish to impose their will upon others, to which their will does not naturally apply.
Our individual rights and duties are natural 1) because they do not come from artificial creations, such as kingships, constitutions or legislatures, 2) because they are self-evident and do not need to be written down to operate, and 3) because they do not define our duties to an artificial government. Our natural political rights and duties define our relationships to one another – not to government.
As best as I can discern through observation and analysis, our natural political duties to one another are six-fold. They include 1) the aforementioned natural duty to not harm one another, which is to respect each others' natural rights, 2) our natural duty to keep our word, 3) the natural duty of parents to raise their own children, which duty they can relinquish or delegate, 4) the natural duty of males to defend the political borders that they have established, 5) the natural duty to be a witness – that is, to testify – to the wrongs of other people, and 6) the natural duty to sit in judgment of our peers in civil and criminal matters. I'm not saying that there are not other natural duties, but these are the only six that I have discerned.
British legal scholar Sir William Blackstone reduced these duties into three Justinian principles: “that we should live honestly, should hurt nobody, and should render to every one his due.” William Blackstone, Commentaries on the Laws of England, Volume I, Book 1 (1752). But as 16th century theologian Richard Hooker showed us, all of these natural political duties can be reduced even further – into one political law – into the natural political law called the Golden Rule, which is to treat others as we would wish to be treated.
What I'd like to impart here is that the Golden Rule is not religion, as many of us have been taught, but is instead political science. Again, political science is the science of our political relationships. This science says: that if we all followed natural law's Golden Rule, then we would have perfect natural justice and there would be no need for an artificial justice system. This natural truth is as self-evident as gravity. Conversely, in the absence of the Golden Rule, living with one another is less than perfect and thus, many would argue, requires an artificial justice system to approximate natural justice for us. Probably only anarchists would disagree.
Because there are only two kinds of government in this world (which kinds are irrelevant to anarchists), these man-made justice systems that we would create because of Man's political imperfections would take either the republican form or the non-republican form. Whether in civil or criminal matters, republican justice bases culpability upon natural objective criteria, such as injury, while non-republican justice is based upon criteria subjectively imposed by the artificial sovereign.
So the justice system we choose is one or the other. Logic (or natural cognitive law) tells us that we cannot have both scientific republican justice based on objective criteria and subjective non-republican justice based on belief and opinion operating in the same space simultaneously.
To conclude this portion of the presentation, I will will leave you with this point: that republican justice approximates natural justice by taking into account all the laws of Nature. For example, it takes into account the physical laws of Nature when assessing physical evidence; the cognitive laws of Nature when determining causation; the emotional laws of Nature when assessing a wrongdoer's intent or a victim's harm, and the political laws of Nature to define judicial jurisdiction. So again, we cannot divorce jurisprudence – which is the science of law – from the physical, cognitive, emotional and political Laws of Nature, upon which our republican form of government is based.
The next video will begin with a discussion of the essence of natural political law: the Golden Rule.