Audio Presentation Part 2:
The political laws of Nature
Hello, this is Kurt St. Angelo. We concluded the prior presentation with a brief discussion of how natural law manifests under the republican form of government. It manifests by defining our natural political rights and duties to other people, which are not susceptible to legislative determination. It manifests as well by naturally defining right and wrong, as well as the criminal jurisdiction of republican judicial courts, as a tangible violation of the Golden Rule.
So the Golden Rule is not religious, but is instead political because it defines our duties to each other in a polity (or organized society), not because it defines our duties to government, to religious authorities or to ourselves. So to be conscious of the Golden Rule is to be aware of our natural political duties to other people – not our artificial duties to government or religion.
This Christ consciousness is to recognize that we are all God's creations who are endowed by our creator with certain unalienable rights, and that others have these rights just as much as we do. So to treat each other as political equals, with mutual respect, really has nothing to do with government. It is what God or Nature wills us to do.
It is this golden consciousness that allows us to practice the rule of law, instead of the law of the jungle, the latter which is based on force and fraud. The law of the jungle is the law between a predator and its prey. It is the law of animals who are without this natural political awareness about the rights of others.
So metaphorically speaking, we exit the animal world and become conscious, mature and aware political beings when we discern and follow the political laws of Nature – instead of the laws of the jungle – by recognizing and respecting the equal natural rights of others.
On the other hand, we remain politically primitive when we violate these natural rights of others, which such violations are called torts or crimes, or when we deny natural reality, such as humanity's natural political equality. We are primitive to think that certain people have superior moral authority over others so as to define their political rights.
Thus the governments of kings and queens and other dictators, which by definition deny political equality and other natural rights, and which by definition unnaturally impose someone's moral authority upon others, are by definition primitive governments. Such imposed, unnatural governments are unrighteous and tenacious political holdovers from the past thousands of years, from which we naturally deserve better. Reasoned Jesus of Nazareth: it is natural, secular, non-religious government that is ordained by God.
Because these non-republican governments were created and are maintained by force and fraud – the fraud being that some man or group of men are politically superior to others – then they operate under the law of the jungle instead of the rule of law, which requires mutual respect, individual liberty and political equality. Because Nature defines right and wrong, and not Man, then governments derived from Man's force and fraud are naturally wrong, or criminal.
These governments may claim to have God's support and blessings, but it is not a natural god that defines political morality naturally. Instead, it is an unnatural God that certain men claim has bestowed them with unnatural power over others, including the authority to determine what is criminal. In a non-republican government, no one has delegated their natural authority to government because the sovereign has usurped this power unnaturally.
In contrast, the republican rule of law is based on our awareness and mutual respect for each other's natural authority, as well as our awareness of the authority that we have delegated to government. One of these delegations is for our governments to deal with people who lack this mutual respect... that is, for government to deal with people who do not follow the Golden Rule and the political laws of Nature, who do not know natural right from wrong, and who harm or prey upon other people.
The rule of law is established to secure justice against these wrongdoers. Conversely, it is not created to secure our rights from right-doers, who lawfully exercise their natural and legal rights.
Because, as the Supreme Court told us, law is the definition and division of power, then the rule of republican law is to properly understand, respect and maintain the proper divisions of power as expressed in our constitutions. Not ironically, the alpha and omega of these divisions was best described by Jesus of Nazareth.
He said to keep the power of Caesar (which refers to written positive law) separate from the power of God (which refers to natural political law). This separation manifests in the separate subject matter over which Caesar and Nature legislate and adjudicate.
As we've seen, the proper role of Caesar is too legislate over its own creations and to adjudicate their legal rights and wrongs. In contrast, the proper role of Nature is to legislate over its creations, and to define their natural rights and wrongs. When judicial authorities fail to keep the jurisdictions of natural and positive law separate, or when positive law invades the role of natural political law, as it has with the war on drugs, then these authorities deprive us of the rule of law under the republican form of government.
So this rule of law is dependent on keeping the power of individuals separate from the power of positive law, or government. One of these separations is that legislatures do not legislate over what belongs to Nature, such as how we are to treat other people.
So when legislatures write God's or Nature's natural prohibitions against murder or theft or fraud down in statute form, then they are not legislating positive law – which by definition applies only to the artificial persons that legislatures have created. Instead, they are merely writing down or codifying natural political law, as Moses did, 1) which applies to natural persons, 2) which defines both our political morality and our civil and criminal liabilities, and 3) which within a republic, with a law jurisdiction, operates irrespective and outside of a legislature's will.
So, republican legislatures do not invent but merely write down crimes, which are proscribed, prohibited and defined by natural political law. In Indiana, the legislature has taken the natural standards of liability and punishment from the state's common law courts and transcribed these standards into code.
Neither republican legislatures nor the state's courts have or have ever had authority to make up crimes, to define criminal right and wrong, or to redefine the criminal jurisdiction of judicial courts, which instead are defined by the political laws of Nature and have been secured by our constitutions and common law jurisprudence to include injury.
Says Article I, Section 12 of the Indiana constitution, our state's judicial courts are open to injury to one's person, property or reputation. Consequently, Indiana's judicial courts are not open to non-injury. One would have to violate the cognitive laws of Nature, for example logic and reason, to justify a judicial court's jurisdiction over non-injury. The Indiana constitution does not delegate such authority to judicial courts. And as we'll see, neither do statutes. Not ironically, these courts require an injury to properly place a matter in jury.
As legislatures have no authority over gravity, logic or emotion, they also have no authority over the political laws of Nature, for example over people's individual liberty, their natural political equality and their natural political duties. As Nature defines such natural things as yellow and blue, hot and cold, big and small, it is Nature and her natural political laws – and NOT republican legislatures – that define the following two things.
First, as we just discussed, it is natural political law that defines our political morality, i.e., what is right and wrong among individuals. It is wrong to injure other people either negligently or intentionally. To do so tangibly violates the Golden Rule.
Second, and this is very important, natural political law also defines all our constitutions' terms and concepts. Not only does natural political law define such concepts as life, liberty, property and the pursuit of happiness, but it also defines such constitutional concepts as person, injury, case, controversy, commerce, crime, offense, felony, misdemeanor, sex or gender, age, marriage, religion, race, slavery, regulate, prohibit, the term republican form of government and the term natural born citizen.
Nature and not legislatures define all these words or terms. That these words or terms were pre-defined by Nature – or by the nature of the words themselves – is why our constitutions do not need to define them. Each of these words or terms are not only terms of constitutional art, but they are also facts of Nature. Our constitutions secure these terms' natural, objective and pre-existing meanings so that these words are not susceptible to Man's legislative will, as by definition they would be in a non-republic, where these words would be defined by Man instead of Nature's immutable law.
For example, when the U.S. constitution says that the U.S. President must be a natural born citizen and at least thirty-five years of age, then the self-evident political laws of Nature define what is a natural born citizen and the self-evident physical laws of Nature define what is a year. These terms are fixed by Nature and are not subject to definition by Man, whether in legislatures or in courts. Man's role is merely to discern the natural meanings of year and of natural born citizen so as to carry out the will of – not the Founding Fathers – but of natural political law.
Natural law logically and self-evidently defines a natural born citizen from any country as the offspring of a citizen father... the child of a patriot. Under the Laws of Nations, wrote law scholar Emmerich de Vattel, one's natural political rights follow those of one's father. Emmerich de Vattel, The Law of Nations, or The Principles of the Law of Nature Applied to Nations and Sovereigns, Book 1, Chapter IXX, Section 212. That is, in a republic, it is the citizen father -- and not the legislature -- who bestows natural political rights, and who has exclusive jurisdiction over the natural law citizenship of his offspring.
This is evident in statute at 8 USC 1409(a) where the U.S. government looks to unwed citizen fathers in foreign countries to claim or legitimate their children into his natural political society. To define a natural born citizen in any other manner is both unlawyerly, unscholarly and illogical, the latter which is not allowed in a republic because it violates natural cognitive law.
One qualifies for law school by demonstrating one's logic. Logic is required because one cannot practice republican law and yet be illogical. Only non-republican governments are subject to, allow and indeed depend upon illogic. This is because, by definition, non-republics are not subject to immutable laws of Nature, but instead to the whims of Man.
As my latest book America's Republican Form of Government shows: there are two kinds of citizenship in a republic. Natural and adopted. Natural citizenship is defined by natural law. It is naturally inherited. In contrast, adopted citizens gain their rights from positive law. In the U.S., these rights are bestowed by Congress.
Natural law citizenship is a natural right, just like our rights to life, liberty and property. So too is our right to a republican form of government. This is because only such a government respects the natural law jurisdiction of individuals, such as the jurisdiction of citizen fathers over natural citizenship, and only such a government maintains a separate judicial jurisdiction, i.e., the law jurisdiction, to secure these individual natural political rights from imposition of positive law. So we cannot have a natural right to liberty, for example, without an equal natural right to a government – if we choose to have a government – that secures this liberty.
This also means that, in America, our inherent political rights, including our right to run for President, are not bestowed rights from kings or oligarchs or Congress, but are natural political rights conveyed through natural reproduction. And thus, defining citizenship and our other political rights naturally – instead of artificially – is essential to understanding and guaranteeing our republican form of government.
And the same can be said about using the natural law definition of crime to include injury. Our republican form of government can only be maintained if our state and federal justice systems use the same constitutional definition of crime and share the same criminal subject matter jurisdiction over injury. Said differently, our republican form of government may be maintained only if such objective natural law terms as crime, offense, felony, and misdemeanor exist independently of a court's or legislature's subjective positive law authority and opinion.
Because Nature defines these concepts, such as who may be incarcerated and who is eligible to be President, then Man, his legislatures and courts may not define these terms. With regard to the unlawful drug war, as we shall see, republican legislatures have no authority to redefine the meaning of crime, offense, felony and misdemeanor, as such words are given natural meaning by their use in the U.S. and state constitutions.
Given that the political laws of Nature define these terms and our natural duties in our republics, and that the positive law of legislatures define the rights and duties of artificial persons, then America's republics have two sovereigns – Nature and Man – and America's republics operate using two kinds of law – natural law and Man's positive law. Again, natural law creates rights and duties in individuals or natural persons, like you and me, which rights and duties may be written down, while positive law creates legal rights (which are privileges) and legal duties in Man's artificial creations, which rights and duties exist only because they are written down.
As we will see further, our justice systems have separate judicial authorities – law and equity – to respectively adjudicate our natural and our artificial (that is, legal) rights and duties. As we shall also see, these powers are exclusive, and all human behavior in republics falls into either the law or the equity jurisdiction.
This is because there are no other judicial jurisdictions within America's republican form of government. There is a artificial judicial jurisdiction (called equity) to enforce Man's law and a natural jurisdiction (called law) to enforce Nature's political laws. So republics have a natural jurisdiction called law and an artificial jurisdiction called equity.
Because positive political law is not allowed to violate natural political law in a republic, or said differently, because Man is not allowed to legislate over that which Nature is sovereign, such as what is right and wrong among individuals, then – in a republic – Nature, her natural political laws and the natural law jurisdiction of individuals are checks or limiters upon the authority of Man's positive law under equity. Positive law may not rule (or legislate) over anything that is natural, such as how individuals get their personal needs met or over the meaning of their natural political rights.
So, it is only the recognition of natural law – and the natural law authority of individuals, as secured in the law jurisdiction of judicial courts – that makes governments republican, thereby limiting the authority of one man over another. This natural limitation upon positive law authority is possible only by keeping republican governments' various powers separate.
The separation between the sovereignty of Nature and the sovereignty of Man is reflected in the two judicial jurisdictions that we just mentioned: law and equity. The law jurisdiction is the judicial jurisdiction where natural law and violations to natural rights of natural persons are adjudicated, while equity is where positive law and its artificial legal rights are adjudicated. Almost all listeners, including the vast majority of graduates from American law schools, have not known this important republican distinction.
Equally reflective of the dual sovereignty of Nature and Man – and of the roles of natural law and positive law – is that, as I just mentioned, America's republics have two kinds of citizens. As we have just seen, the U.S. has natural born citizens who are natural law citizens. And it has adopted positive law citizens called citizens of the United States. Thus for any American to deny the role of natural law in American law is to not have a clue about their own citizenship. Sorry to say, but at this time, that would include almost all Americans and all listeners.
As we just learned, natural born citizens gain their natural political rights from their fathers under the political laws of Nature, while citizens of the United States gain their political rights from the positive law authority of Congress. Most Americans falsely think of themselves as citizens of the United States, which status most adopt (or consent to) only when they leave America's fifty state republics.
So again, Nature and her natural political laws define certain concepts within our society – such as the meaning of crime and the rights of natural citizenship – and legislatures and courts do not. Our constitutions secure these natural definitions so that Man and his positive law may not define, for example, who belongs in jail and who may be elected as a natural representative of the People.
If Congress or judicial courts could define the meaning of a year, or the meaning of a natural born citizen, as both such terms are referred to in Article II of the U.S. constitution, then Congress and the courts could anoint the next child Dalai Lama as our President. Likewise, if republican legislatures could define what is and is not a crime, then 1) they could declare non-crimes (such as growing plants) to be crimes, 2) they could declare certain crimes (such as theft and murder) to be non-crimes, and 3) they could grant themselves power to commit crimes with impunity. In other words, if a legislature could define what is and is not criminal, then it would be acting like a king, which is not allowed in a republic.
In republics, legislatures do not have the power to make up crimes or cases or one's eligibility for President or the meaning of a year. This is because the laws of Nature objectively define these law terms, which are natural law terms. Most listeners know the objective definition of a year (which is the time it takes for the sun to duplicate its position in the sky), but most listeners (and apparently almost all American judges) have not realized or discerned that the terms case, crime, regulation, prohibition, the republican form of government, and natural born citizen, for example, are also objectively and naturally defined, and are not terms that are subject to a legislature or a court.
With regard to criminal law, which is the subject of my Notice and Demand, what Nature naturally prohibits for its natural creations – which is you and me – is called malum in se, which is behavior that is wrong per se by its injurious nature. In a republic, natural law says that we individuals are not allowed to injure or harm other people, either negligently or intentionally. Our actionable injuries are called torts, crimes and breaches of contract, and are adjudicated in the judicial branch.
In contrast, legislatures define what is proscribed or prohibited for their artificial creations, such as all foreigners, all adopted citizens, all government workers, all license holders, all business people and all forms of business. Legislative prohibitions that apply to these artificial persons are called malum prohibita.
Some examples of malum prohibita include being prohibited from driving too fast, from practicing medicine without a license, or from building something without a permit. Instead of being enforced as crimes against natural persons in the judicial branch, these legislative prohibitions apply only to legislatures' artificial creations and are to be enforced administratively, using regulation in the executive branch.
Because individuals such as you and me are not creations of any legislature, and owe each other only pre-existing natural law duties, and because at least natural born citizens – like me – are born owing American governments absolutely no political duties whatsoever, and owing political duties only to Nature and her creations, such as you, then most of us in America are not subject to legislative malum prohibita or other legal duties imposed by legislatures' positive law upon their artificial creations.
For instance, the rules that legislatures make for corporations do not apply to you and me, unless you and I become corporations. Likewise, for example, the rules that legislatures make for motor vehicle drivers and for alcohol makers do not apply to us when we are just walking to the store to buy a six-pack. We walk to the store and shop in our natural capacity without need of government's permission or direction. We manufacture alcohol and drive to the store in our artificial capacities, only with the government's permission.
So, unless we natural born citizens are operating in our artificial capacities, for instance as licensed automobile drivers or as licensed alcohol makers, whose licenses signify that we operate by government privilege and permission, then we naturally owe government no duties.
This is to say that our legislatures' drug prohibitions, which apply to their artificial creations, categorically do not apply to natural persons – that is, to individuals like you and me, who only owe each other natural duties. As I mentioned in the previous presentation, the CSAs explicitly do not apply to individual drug users, whose natural status as consumers and as personal property holders the state may neither criminally prohibit nor regulate. Because property possession is defined by our constitutions as a natural right, then it is not subject to either police power: regulation or prohibition.
Ultimately, within America's republics, all legislative prohibitions, all other imposed legal duties and, in fact, all positive legislative law applies only to the artificial creations of legislatures – and not to individuals like you and me who legislatures did not create. Thus, at least natural born citizens are – by definition – born entirely free of positive law, and must always consent to positive law in order to be governed by it. As we shall see, in contrast, adopted citizens of the United States owe the U.S. government at least one duty that natural law citizens do not.
As the Declaration of Independence states, individuals are naturally free and politically equal, and the “just Powers” of government come from the “Consent of the governed.” That is, in a republic, citizens are not born subject to a king or a legislature, are born naturally free and equal to kings, and must always consent to be governed by the proverbial king. As we shall momentarily see, individuals are naturally free under natural law in the law jurisdiction, where they are held to natural standards of right and wrong, and they must always consent to be governed as artificial persons by positive law under equity. I'll give you three examples.
Let's say you get up to go to work. You might first go to the bathroom, then fix some coffee, let the dogs out, have a bite to eat, take a shower, brush your teeth, and dress appropriately. If you have children, then you care for their personal needs as well. And you do all of that without even thinking about your government and without fulfilling any duties to your government. And you also refrained from harming anyone. Everything you just did was to fulfill your duties to Nature.
In fact, in this example, you really have no duties to government until you leave the house, enter your car and start it. It is then that you enter by consent the jurisdiction of the Commissioner of Motor Vehicles who licenses your driving and the use of the car. So, in this example, you are free of duties to government until you enter and consent to its jurisdiction over motor vehicles.
And so, here's the second example. Let's say you have a car pool. As the driver for the day, you are exercising the privilege of driving and have consented to government's positive law jurisdiction over the roads. But legislatures may not impose duties upon your passengers who are unlicensed, who have not consented to the Traffic Code and other legislative authority, who are not exercising any government-granted privileges, and who are only exercising their natural rights to sit, to travel and to enjoy the scenery. So the driver has consented to and is regulated by the Commissioner of Motor Vehicles, but the passengers are not. The passengers are still free of government because, unlike the driver, they have not yet consented to government's rightful, delegated jurisdiction.
This dynamic is due to the separation of the natural law jurisdiction of passengers, where passengers exercise their natural rights and answer only to their natural and contractual duties, from the positive law jurisdiction of the driver, who answers to the rules of the legislature because – to be a legal driver – he consented to the legislature's commercial jurisdiction. In order to drive, the driver has promised government to observe speed limits, prohibitions against texting, and rules about seat belt use which are imposed by Title 9 of the Indiana Code, but his passengers have not agreed to these legal duties. They obviously have no natural duties to wear seat belts because seat belts are not natural. They are creations of Man, not Nature.
As passengers, they still owe duties to Nature, such as the political duty to not harm fellow passengers, the duty to fall asleep when tired or the duty to ask for a bathroom stop, but as passengers, they owe no direct duties to government. Instead, they may owe contractual duties to the driver, who may insist that they wear seat belts and not smoke in the car as a condition of his driving.
So, the driver owes positive law (that is, legal) duties to the state legislature, but the passengers – who have not consented to the legislature's regulatory jurisdiction – do not. They owe 1) physical and political duties only to Nature and her creations, that is, to each other, and 2) a contractual duty or two to the driver.
The passengers are considered free, or free of accountability to anything but Nature, because they are totally free of duty to government, with its police powers of regulation and prohibition. Nothing they are doing is regulated or naturally prohibited. By definition, they are free because 1) they have not yet consented to governments' rightful artificial authority under equity, and 2) they have not invoked Nature's mandatory criminal jurisdiction over wrongdoing under law.
A third example is a baby harnessed to a safety seat. In a republic, this child owes absolutely no duties to government and it owes all of its duties to Nature. Eventually it will come to understand its political duties to Nature. The child sits in a safety seat because of the natural duties that adults owe it, i.e., to keep the child safe. The child also sits in a safety seat because of the legal duties that the driver owes to the government. So, we have two jurisdictions – civil law and regulatory equity – operating on behalf of the child.
As the Declaration of Independence tells us: to secure our natural rights, such as a child's right to life, then government is instituted among men. Republics both impose legal duties upon their licensees under equity, such as legal duties imposed upon the driver for everyone's safety, and they serve to secure the natural law duties that, for instance, adults owe to children in the law jurisdiction.
So, our duties to each other and particularly to children come from Nature, and these duties are innate, while our duties to republican governments always come from our consenting to their delegated authority, such as do licensed drivers. In contrast, in non-republics such as monarchies, babies are born subject to a monarch, all their political rights and duties are defined by the monarch, and all this is done without children's consent authority. This imposition, or lack of individual consent authority, which is a violation of the Golden Rule, is what makes all monarchies immoral.
Similar to drivers who consent to the jurisdiction of the state legislature in order to legally drive, all people who make and / or sell drugs must consent to the authority of government in order to legally make and sell drugs. In Indiana, just as all automobile drivers need the Commissioner's permission to operate motor vehicles, statutes say that all people who manufacture, distribute or dispense drugs need the permission of the Indiana Board of Pharmacy and the Drug Enforcement Administration to operate.
This is because all governments – both republican and non-republican alike – are sovereign over commerce. So both drug merchants and automobile drivers, who are both metaphorically in the stream of commerce, exist and operate solely by permission of legislated positive law. And both drug dealers and motor vehicle drivers consent to governments' regulatory jurisdiction, and both are regulated by state and / or federal agencies, in order to legally drive or sell drugs.
And likewise, similar to passengers in automobiles who are exercising their natural right of travel and who are not subject to the Traffic Code, people who merely purchase or possess drugs for their own use are exercising their natural rights of consumption and of property possession, and are not subject to the Indiana Controlled Substances Act. Both car passengers and drug possessors are operating in their natural law jurisdiction, respectively exercising their natural rights to travel and to possess property, and are under no obligation to consent to the state's regulatory jurisdiction over driving and drug commerce.
As I mentioned in the previous presentation, both the U.S. and Indiana CSAs explicitly do not directly apply to drug consumers, drug possessors and private drug users, who are not required to register with the pharmacy board or the D.E.A., and who the statutes say may “lawfully possess” drugs for their own use and the use of their households. Instead, the CSAs apply only a) to all people who engage in drug commerce and who have thus consented to be regulated by state and U.S. agencies, as we just discussed, and b) to real criminals who commit real crimes involving drugs, such as stealing them or contaminating them or causing violence over them.
That's what the CSAs do. They exercise governments' two police powers over different subject matter. They regulate drug commerce and they penalize drug crime. This underscores the need for government officials and defense attorneys to know the self-evident distinction between commerce and crime, which are separate constitutional terms.
Drug dealing is drug commerce. It is not drug crime. All drug commerce is regulated in the executive branch under equity. All drug crime is naturally prohibited in the judicial branch under law. And nare the concepts of commerce and crime, and the jurisdictions of equity and law shall meet.
So, our CSAs have both a regulatory jurisdiction over drug commerce which operates under non-criminal equity upon all commercial drug dealers, and they have a criminal authority that operates in the law jurisdiction over real drug crimes, such as the use of violence or fraud, which are harmful by their nature. With this background in mind, the next presentation, Part 3, begins to define the various separations of power that are secured by our constitutions and that play out in our republican drug statutes.