Tuesday, November 3, 2009

The Ultimate Despised Petition

Previously, I left off a prior article with this:

"Here is a law which is above the King and Parliament, and which even He and They must not and may not legally break. And in the event they or anyone else were to try to abrogate it, such attempt at abrogation shall have no force nor effect [1297] and can be safely ignored with no legal ill effect. In addition, in the event of successful attempts at abrogation of such liberties, customs, or rights, the King has commanded and do hereby compel any and all subjects to swear oath to join the barons to assail the properties and persons and families of those (saving the King, Queen and the royal children) who had successfully completed such abrogation, including but not limited to that of the individual Members of Parliament who had voted in favor of any such successful attempts at abrogation [1215]. This reaffirmation of a supreme law and its expression in a general charter is the great work of Magna Carta; and this alone justifies the respect in which men have held it."

--Quote by Sir Winston Churchill, 1956

This comment about section 61 of the Magna Carta leaves the reader with an uncomfortable vision of public unrest and convulsion.

This was in the original Magna Carta, and removed in the subsequent re-issues by the Crown.

Since America exists today by the Declaration of Independence, it is clear that the Founders of America had resurrected Article 61, having had enough of the game being played by “British Rules.” (constantly changing as you go along)

The state of New Hampshire seems to have understood that this provision of law is alive and well:

"10. Government being instituted for the common benefit, protection, and security, of the whole community, and not for the private interest or emolument of any one man, family, or class of men; therefore, whenever the ends of government are perverted, and public liberty manifestly endangered, and all other means of redress are ineffectual, the people may, and of right ought to reform the old, or establish a new government. The doctrine of nonresistance against arbitrary power, and oppression, is absurd, slavish, and destructive of the good and happiness of mankind."

Also Maryland:

"IV. That all persons invested with the legislative or executive powers of government are the trustees of the public, and, as such, accountable for their conduct; wherefore, whenever the ends of government are perverted, and public liberty manifestly endangered, and all other means of redress are ineffectual, the people may, and of right ought, to reform the old or establish a new government. The doctrine of non-resistance, against arbitrary power and oppression, is absurd, slavish, and destructive of the good and happiness of mankind."

Pennsylvania said:

"VI. That those who are employed in the legislative and executive business of the State, may be restrained from oppression, the people have a right, at such periods as they may think proper, to reduce their public officers to a private station,"

Tennessee as well:

"II. That government being instituted for the common benefit, the doctrine of non-resistance against arbitrary power and oppression, is absurd, slavish and destructive to the good and happiness of mankind."


2. God has ordained that men shall live under government; but as the forms and administration of civil government are in human, and therefore, fallible hands, they may be altered, or modified whenever the safety or happiness of the governed requires it. No government should be changed for light or transient causes; nor unless upon reasonable assurance that a better will be established.

New Jersey:

"2. a. All political power is inherent in the people. Government is instituted for the protection, security, and benefit of the people, and they have the right at all times to alter or reform the same, whenever the public good may require it."


"SEC. 3. That government is, or ought to be, instituted for the common benefit, protection, and security of the people, nation, or community; of all the various modes and forms of government, that is best which is capable of producing the greatest degree of happiness and safety, and is most effectually secured against the danger of maladministration; and that, when any government shall be found inadequate or contrary to these purposes, a majority of the community hath an indubitable, inalienable, and indefeasible right to reform, alter, or abolish it, in such manner as shall be judged most conducive to the public weal."

The reasoning supporting this idea of government FOR THE PEOPLE, BY THE PEOPLE, against the notion of eternal struggle against the Right of Kings was also addressed in the Founding of the States:

New Jersey:

“…allegiance and protection are, in the nature of things, reciprocal ties, each equally depending upon the other, and liable to be dissolved by the others being refused or withdrawn.”


“3. Protection to person and property is the duty of Government; and a Government which knowingly and persistently denies, or withholds from the governed such protection, when within its power, releases from the obligation of obedience.”

North Carolina:

“Whereas, allegiance and protection are in their nature reciprocal, and the one should of right be refused when the other is withdrawn;"

New Hampshire:

“3. When men enter into a state of society, they surrender up some of their natural rights to that society, in order to ensure the protection of others; and, without such an equivalent, the surrender is void.”

Here is a little comment from Virginia that reveals not only the breadth of UNALIENABLE, but also the limitations of societal contracts on UNALIENABLE Rights:

"SECTION 1. That all men are by nature equally free and independent, and have certain inherent rights, of which, when they enter into a state of society, they cannot, by any compact, deprive or divest their posterity, namely, the enjoyment of life and liberty, with the means of acquiring and possessing property, and pursuing and obtaining happiness and safety."

Thus, just as West Virginia Board of Education v. Barnette explained (where the Nazi-like salute to the Flag was struck by the high Court), Civil War or no Civil War, the form of the government being about UNALIENABLE RIGHTS, never has gone away.

It is then significant that Magna Carta as represented above by Sir Winston Churchill well reveals the first of despised petitions is non compliance:

“...at abrogation shall have no force nor effect [1297] and can be safely ignored with no legal ill effect”

such a course of action is a nice idea if the Jury was not usurped as the Courts have cultivated and allowed. (That is addressed in the Causes of the Petitions.)

This leaves the act of War against the Legislators, Courts, and Executives as the final course of action against the usurpers of OUR GOVERNMENT; WE THE PEOPLE and OUR UNALIENABLE RIGHTS.

Who is ready to risk all against the usurpers in their kangaroo Courts? None.

Who is ready to be violent? Hopefully none.

For over 30 years the Patriots who have chosen those courses are buried or waste in prison as this Author may soon be doing, and THE PEOPLE do nothing still.

But we are still not at that final place yet.

Such is why I have created the Petitions for Recall.

The author senses that because so many have awakened these Petitions for Recall have a chance of changing the circumstances. That they are the final option as a political reality, as well as an educational toolof reforming our minds. Not just educational when the usurping government slaps THE PEOPLE yet again in the face, but educational in providing conviction in the hearts of those who hurt enough in these circumstances that they are drawn to demand action and can identify real action that will reform the government.

The Continental Congress will meet in just over a week 2009 to try and devise a course of action. Well folks, successful action is going to require inclusion and motivation of the largest numbers of people, now that so many are awakened to the immediacy of Reform.

The causes of the Patriots in the past seemed too light for the forcing of change by the majority enjoying their materialism. With the States now on the verge of collapse, the weight of current events have drawn more of the PEOPLE out into the streets clamoring for actual change of direction, not just the change of the individuals who are beating the life out of THE PEOPLE. (This past election, THE PEOPLE vote to have the guy on the left beat on them for a while, and in 7 short months they tired of that.)

Perhaps these Petitions will provide America with the foundational education that is needed to avoid the Magna Carta Article 61 option.

If the groups clamoring for reform do not pick up on the idea of these Petitions, we will just see THE PEOPLE ask the guy on the Right to take over for a while yet again. (No difference in that, just look at his deficit spending.)

Conditions as deteriorated as they are, and government persists, I will then expect convulsive violence, as so many do not trust the government or either of the two gangs any more, and they as individuals will be out of money to have time to buy the next false promise.

If the dollar collapse presses the no confidence vote in a collapsed government, THE PEOPLE will have no choice but to ignore all of the laws and government intrusion that is between them and survival. Without an education of fundamental Law of UNALIENABLE, what America will be will not be Anarchy, but will be lawless chaos.

The only difference between these two futures is a national cohesive group taking action in proper lawful light.

No comments:

Post a Comment