Restoring Natural Law in Society by Establishing Conscience as the Foundation of All Law
July 13, 2012 in Activism
Amending your state constitution to incorporate natural law principles, and allowing trial and grand juries with powers to enforce them, will go a long way to restoring liberty to the state.
By Richard Walbaum
Every state constitution proclaims that the people are sovereign, and we have the right at all times to alter or reform the government. It is evident that the sovereignty of the people is too far removed from reality because government officials regularly sell out public interests for their own private gain, and impose and enforce arbitrary, unreasonable, unnecessary, and unjust laws, without any check. How do we hold our government accountable?
In a previous article I explained how we can use the power of initiative, for those states that have it, to restore the powers to the grand jury. There are other changes we should make. We need a mechanism capable of referring all issues back to the source upon which all laws must necessarily abide.
Where can we find the source of all laws? The Declaration of Independence provides a clue: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men … are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” It is the element of self that is missing from government. It is the element of the self that all laws must refer back to, for it is the self of the people in the form of their conscience that determines the righteousness of law, that determines what is self-evident, and provides a God-given inherent basis to judge the legitimacy of law. This is where sovereignty resides.
We have many God-given rights (which are by definition natural rights), but it is difficult to establish or prove a natural right under our present constitutions, and for that reason the U.S. Supreme Court has only enumerated a handful of rights under the 9th Amendment which has been called the “forgotten 9th Amendment.”
The problem of trying to enumerate our rights can be avoided by employing a presumption of liberty, which itself is a self-evident God-given right. It will also minimize the possibility of violating His will; who would argue that violation is acceptable? The presumption of liberty obeys the following three rules:
1) The law can go no further than necessary to remedy the perceived harm. Absent harm, there can be no law.
2) The law must be tailored for minimal intrusion on individual liberties.
3) Where possible, the law must harmonize diverse interests.
These rules would be the first part of a constitutional amendment. The legislature would be required to make all laws, old and new, conform to these principles. I would also require the legislature to write a Bill of Necessity to defend the perceived harm and the reason for this particular remedy, to insure the legitimacy of the law and ability to judge the continuing validity of the law in light of changing conditions.
The second part of a constitutional amendment would allow the trial jury to stand guard against the violation of these principles, by judging the appropriateness of the law as applied to the case at hand, and the law’s conformity to natural law. Their conscience is the link to natural law which must not be severed. The trial jury once had, and in fact still has this power, but the court will not allow the jury to be informed of that fact.
The third part would give the grand jury an additional power to impeach any government official, concurrent with the power of the legislature to impeach. The grand jury would write articles of impeachment; a second grand jury would try the official. I would not allow a government court to try a government official, as the good old boys might protect each other. Conviction would be limited to removal from office, though upon further indictment the official could be charged with a crime and tried in the usual manner.
The trial jury and grand jury would become bodies for comparing government action with natural law. The element lacking in governments’ today is the lack of any meaningful reference back to fundamental principles. Court decisions are based upon precedent, and bad precedent cannot be corrected except by reference back to the source, not to previous bad precedent. The juries, the representatives of the people, would be that reference to conscience, the link to right and wrong, the link to God’s will and God-given natural rights inherent in human nature, which would go a long way to restoring liberty.
Richard Walbaum, the author of The LAWFUL Remedy to Tyranny, and Designed for Plunder, promotes the restoration of righteousness through natural law. Find Richard at www.NaturalLawRemedy.com; follow him @legaltender9.
See my other articles here.
Join the Infowars group How to Disobey
 “ A frequent recurrence to fundamental principles is essential to the security of individual rights and the perpetuity of free government.” Constitution of Arizona. The State of Washington, Sec. 32, Fundamental Principles, is almost identical.
 The 9th Amendment reads “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”
 Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479 (1965) notes that the Supreme Court has only referred to the 9th Amendment in a total of about a half dozen cases.
 “We are aware of the number and variety of expressions at that time from respected sources — John Adams; Alexander Hamilton; prominent judges — that jurors had a duty to find a verdict according to their own conscience, though in opposition to the direction of the court; that their power signified a right; that they were judges both of law and of fact in a criminal case, and not bound by the opinion of the court.” U.S. v. Dougherty, 473 F.2d 1132 (D.C. Cir. 1972). The Court went on to decide that a jury “was not to be given instructions that articulated a right to do whatever it willed,” arguing against allowing a jury to act as a mini-legislature or judge. I would disagree; the jury is the master, the legislature the servant whose work is to be judged for its adequacy.
 There was a case “… where the grand jury made a presentment reflecting upon the judges of the Superior Court. The attorney general moved to expunge the presentment from the minutes which was accordingly done.” The Grand Jury, George J. Edwards Jr., p. 159-160. And the difficulty of getting a judge to rule on Obama’s eligibility for office is also a salient argument.
 Referring back to the constitution has been shown to be inadequate, when after 150 years of its founding the very foundation of government has changed. Theft has been judged to be constitutional (the General Welfare aka Spending Clause was a new power granted in 1935 in United States v. Butler, 297 U.S. 1; powers reserved to the people and states have been ruled to be delegated to the federal government (expansion of the Commerce Clause; Wickard v. Filburn, 317 U. S. 111 (1942)); rights retained by the people under the 9th Amendment are few instead of many; the monetary system has no semblance to the Constitution; numerous examples show the inability of a constitution to restrain government.