top of page

401. Natural Rights


Common law protects against microtechnicality, but its own feudal flaws are still seen in our courts today.  Many States give the people the right to "enjoy and defend life and liberty, acquire, possess, and protect property, and pursue and obtain safety, happiness, and privacy."  These fundamental rights are so important that they are sometimes the first enumerated provision in a State's constitution: the first law on the statute books whatsoever!  The broadness of our natural rights is then distributed into catch-all legal mechanisms like due process and reasonable search and seizure.  Stand-your-ground laws find an incontrovertible legal foundation in our inalienable rights to safety.  However, precedent throughout the union has overturned these fundamental rights on the books!  In California, a court ruled that our natural rights are not laws on the books, but are "nonstatutory gifts from god" (Browne v. Superior Court , 16 Cal.2d 593 (1940)).  Despite the ancient meaning of the term and tradition, can our courts rule that these critical rights that make up 90%+ of law are not on the books if they in fact are?  Natural rights have their foundation in ancient Greece as the natural, nongovernmental rights of human beings, which is how courts today manufacture a foundation to preserve government hardships just above baselessness.  Inalienable rights to happiness do raise serious questions along this line of thinking the same way nullification does, but postmodern so-called "originalists" go farther and say that government shouldn't be prohibited from threatening these exceptionally American rights enumerated into law.  Aren't natural rights on the books supposed to be a big part of why America is so often the pioneer of world discovery?  If experts professionally trick lay people into letting them turn off our most important, fundamental rights like a switch using historical facts, what else can they get away with?  The crippling, real-world results are everywhere.  Do we have the rule of law, or the rule of judges, lawyers, bureaucrats, politics, and the elite?  So many Americans do not want to hear about "politics and the government" whatsoever, though oversimplified, but still rightfully because of all of the increasing issues that are a result of unconstitutional judicial power, even if they do not know the details.  Just like the central importance of our natural rights themselves, proving that we do not have the rule of law anywhere on Earth using this fundamental example is the number one takeaway from "government and law." Independently disaffected Americans should not get involved in politics, but should pay attention to the law and how the global elite abuse it instead.  The Code of Alfred is explicitly indicative of dark-age courts that precisely, professionally manipulated the law through the mechanism of precedent like they have done with our most important rights today.  Therefore, case laws need a due-process like limitation mechanism so precedent directly correlates with and does not overstep relevant law in question.  Just like how our 18th century framers did not really conceptualize the enforcement of constitutional accountability, they did not update our courts as deeply as they updated principal legislative and executive powers, so maybe our courts should adjudicate instead of judge.

bottom of page