Property Must Be Secure

Poetic justice? It seems that after the Supreme Court Decision, Kelo vs.
City of New London, a private developer is seeking the home of Supreme
Court Justice David Souter, so that he can make a hotel on the site:

http://wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=45029

Whatever happened to property rights anyway? And why does government no
longer perform its proper function, part of which is to protect property?
Have we forgotten that the proper role of government is to protect freedom?
And that freedom, to our Founding Fathers, consisted of the power or
ability to enjoy one's life, liberty and property?

Property rights, for a short time at least, occupied a paramount status in
the law and customs of America. Indeed, property rights were the kingpin or
foundation stone upon which all other elements of freedom rest. The
importance of property rights are reflected in the words and writings of
the framers and other great men before, during, and after the founding era.
Consider the words of three such great men:

The great and chief end therefore, of men's unity into commonwealths,
and putting themselves under government, is the preservation of their
property (John Locke, The True End of Civil Government, 1690)

The moment the idea is admitted into society that property is not as
sacred as the laws of God, and that there is no force of law and public
justice to protect it, anarchy and tyranny commence. Property must be
secured or liberty cannot exist (John Adams, Works)

The three great rights are so bound together as to be essentially one
right. To give a man his life but deny him his liberty, is to take from him
all that makes his life living. To give him his liberty but take form him
the property which is the fruit and badge of his liberty, is to still leave
him a slave (Justice George Sutherland of the U.S. Supreme Court, in 1921)

Property and its importance in western culture as a positive force is also
reflected in our language, expressions, and in words and their meaning. For
instance, compare the following words pairs and their meaning, proper to
property, good to goods or weal to wealth. Or how about the English play on
words, "he is a good man who is a man of goods," or the saying that to be
born "of goodly parents" meant that the family was wealthy enough to hire
tutors for "learning."

Since it is governments primary responsibility to protect property, it
should not seem strange that our Founding Fathers would have planned and
designed certain checks and balances into the very form or structure of
government and the way it operates as a system.

One such device the founders utilized to protect property was restricting
the voting franchise so that only "freeholders" (those who owned land, free
and clear) could vote. For instance in the early years of our Republic
every one of the States had different property requirements, either in land
or some other monetary or private property equivalent--but they all
attempted, in one way or the other, to protect private property by property
restrictions on the vote.

Arguments the Founders used for restricting the voting franchise to
property owners included:

* Since voters were also property owners they would have a great
vested interest in how government was run and operated and in keeping
government fiscally restrained and responsible
* Potential voters had a built-in incentive to acquire property
* Property owners were generally seen as those who had worked hard and
industriously, had exercised self-control and thrift, and acquired other
virtuous character traits seen as necessary for the well-being of society.

Arguments against restricting the vote to property owners soon began to
appear however. Most of the arguments centered around the idea of fairness
and equality. On the surface, it does seems unfair to restrict the right to
vote to property owners--especially those affected by the legislation being
considered. For instance, one reader writes in:

. . . all classes of men must have their right to vote. . . Once you
set the property requirement, will it not be manipulated by those who have
the most property and the most influence? What about companies and
railroads and farmers and ranchers who bought up huge tracks of land and
leased it and rented it and so on? Shall all these be disenfranchised? Did
any of the workers own their own land, for example, in the silver mines,
coal mines, copper mines of Utah? It was bad enough, in some cases a real
slavery. Should we have added to it, and kept it eternal by
disenfranchising them? . . . How about when older folks, even prosperous
folks often scale down and move into apartments and nursing homes and
retirement rental communities in their old age? Are they no longer worthy
citizens?

However, fairness was and is a moot point, a non-issue, since all people
were equal before the law. The only thing separating a voter from a
non-voter was the necessary property ownership--something that could be
acquired and overcome. Moreover, it needs to be remembered that even today,
with our greatly broadened voting franchise, not all people affected by
legislation get the right to vote, for instance:

* Minors, or underage children don't have the vote
* Those under guardianship, whether old or young but mentally
incapable don't have the vote
* Non-citizens, such as Immigrants, whether legal or illegal, don't
have the vote
* Convicted felons don't have the vote

As we can see, voting is not as much a right as it is a privilege. A
careful analysis of the issue will clearly yield where voting is restricted
in other areas as well. Because we are a republic and not a pure democracy
not everyone votes on everything--it would be impractical and undesirable.
Inequality was actually built into the system. Our vote on issues, instead
of being a direct one on one vote is indirect. Our vote on candidates, in
many cases are also indirect. For instance, it is the electoral college who
elects the president not the direct vote. Which is why Presidents of the
United States can get elected without a majority of the popular vote.
Neither do we vote directly on treaties, ambassadorships or the like--these
are done for us indirectly through representatives.

Alexander Hamilton empathized with those wishing to broaden the voting
suffrage by allowing non-property owners the vote but realized the folly
inherent with allowing such. Further, in regards to fairness and equality,
he understood that voters who were also property owners would be on an
equal footing with all other such voters. As he wrote:

If it were probable that every man would give his vote freely, and
without influence of any kind, then, upon the true theory and genuine
principles of liberty, every member of the community, however poor, should
have a vote… But since that can hardly be expected, in persons of indigent
fortunes, or such as are under the immediate dominion of others, all
popular states have been obliged to establish certain qualifications,
whereby, some who are suspected to have no will of their own, are excluded
from voting; in order to set other individuals, whose wills may be supposed
independent, more thoroughly upon a level with each other. (Alexander
Hamilton, "The Farmer Refuted")

John Tyler summarized other dangers of giving non-property owners the vote:

A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can
only exist until the voters discover they can vote themselves largesse from
the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the
candidates promising them the most benefits from the public treasury, with
the result that a democracy always collapses over a loose fiscal
responsibility, always followed by a dictatorship. (Alexander Tyler, in his
1770 book, Cycle of Democracy)

Fast forward to the present--How far has our Constitutional Federated
Republic degenerated since we've disengaged property requirements from the
voting franchise? Certainly it cannot be argued that property rights are
more secure now than then. Some politically astute individuals even predict
that we are in danger of a economic, if not political crisis in the not too
far future. If we are to be wise stewards of property perhaps its time to
reestablish property restrictions on the vote. States certainly have the
constitutional ability to do so. The Founders wisely left this ability up
to the States. Do they have the will?

Juries: A Double Edged Sword

The Jury Trial of William Penn

A while back someone asked me if I couldn't "document the tradition in America of
juries deciding the law as well as the fact. This would help legislators
and show what traditions we have under a government set-up by God."
Some years ago I wrote a study which outlined this tradition. Going
strictly off memory and without notes (I have the original paper filed
somewhere in a stack of boxes ) I'll attempt to recreate my outline,
fragmented though it may be, of this tradition. If anyone can correct or add
"flesh" to this outline--go ahead.

It seems that in England there was quite a long struggle over Jury Trials
and their independence. Kings naturally favored Star Chambers or other
systems which hampered Jury trials, while the people preferred Jury trials
and the right to decide whether the law should apply to a particular case
(the right to decide upon matters of law). William Penn, for example,
probably owes his life to the courage (they were sequestered by the King
and ordered to bring back a verdict of guilty) of the Jury when they,
against orders of the Court, refused to render a guilty verdict.

Fast Foward to the John Peter Zenger case. In 1735 Zenger was arrested and
put on trial for Libel--publishing information critical of the Governor of
New York. Libel, at the time was interpreted to mean anything, whether true
or not, critical of the King. Andrew Hamilton took the case for the
defense. Hamilton argued that the Jury could decide upon the merits of the
law and it took them all of about 15 minutes to acquit. The Zenger case is
much ballyhooed by the media for establishing once and for all the Freedom
of the Press. What is forgotten and ignored by the media is the role of the
Jury in this case and their right to decide matters of law as well as
fact. Aside from Freedom of the Press, why doesn't the Media also trumpet
the right of Juries to decide matters of law as well as fact?--after all
they owe their freedom of the Press to it.

Legal Theory. Man's law which violated natural law or God's law was null
and void. According to the Founders, two twin pillars upon which Freedom
in a well-ordered, civilized society, rested was that of law inherent in
the nature of things or Natural Law and law as given by God, Divine or
Revealed law. The purpose of law (whether Natural or Divine) is, as so
aptly stated by John Locke, to "preserve and enlarge freedom" because
"where there is no law there is no freedom." To the Founders, it was pretty
easy to determine the source of Divine law-that of God as revealed to his
Prophets, but somewhat more difficult to determine the source of Natural
Law. However, God so structured the world, that in the absence of Divine
Law, man was not left alone to determine how law should apply to protect
freedom. God provided man the ability to reason intellectually, and feel
intuitively the proper course to guide one's actions and in the enacting of
laws. To the Founders, Man in a state of nature, would by Natural Law which
was "discovered" by both reason and conscience, be justified in using force
for "defense against physical harm, against theft of the fruits of his
labor, and against enslavement by another." Likewise man is perfectly free
to acquire the world's bounty of resources to preserve and enhance his life
and is perfectly free to roam about at his will and pleasure in exercising
his right of liberty.

This concept of Natural Law and its derivative, Natural Rights, was
transmitted to the Founders through several sources: Classical Greek and
Roman political thinkers, philosophers and statesmen; English law and
tradition; Enlightenment Rationalism; and the Christian or Biblical
tradition. In utilizing these sources the Founders were everywhere
referring to Natural Law, and Natural Rights in their pamphlets,
newspapers, sermons, speeches,etc.

Because of man's propensity to sin,error, or ignorance man's ability to
reason what is right and wrong intellectually, morally and intuitively
becomes clouded. To prevent such clouding or obfuscation God reveals to his
Prophets commandments or laws to govern conduct. Revealed law, just as
Natural law, was given to man by God to enhance, protect and promote
freedom. Two examples where Divine law clearly promotes freedom are the
commandments, "Thou shalt not kill" or "Thou shalt not steal" plainly in
protection of Life and Property respectfully. God expects man to govern his
conduct by using these two standards of law, the Divine and the Natural.
Under these standards it is easy to see why the Founders could express
their attitude toward government as such: "The sole object and only
legitimate end of government is to protect the citizen in the enjoyment of
life, liberty and property, and when government assumes other functions it
is usurpation and oppression."

It was only natural for the Colonists therefore to proclaim the power
through the independence of juries, to decide whether man's laws were
founded upon God's laws. If they were not they could be considered null and
void. If a man made law conflicted with God's laws then God's laws was
considered supreme. Furthermore they realized that many times extenuating
circumstances could create a situation where conflicting laws could both
apply. For instance, one often hears the argument that if one's life (or
the life of a spouse, family member or neighbor) is in the balance man-made
laws take a second seat to the higher law--that of preserving life. If my
wife's life is in danger I'm certainly not going to pull off a freeway exit
and stop at a red light--especially at three in the morning--when there is
no traffic anyway. Hopefully there will be a jury who understands their
power that will be able to acquit me .

Continue onward to struggles between the Colonists and England just before
the Revolution. Under the period of "benign neglect," the colonists
developed their own legal systems and were used to trading, unfettered and
untaxed, with many other countries. So they would naturally bristle against
the imposition by England of any tax, (impost, tariff or other?) which
would hinder their trade intercourse, independence or profits. England
passed several Acts which imposed taxes of one sort or the other upon this
"free trade." When England attempted to enforce the law by arresting ship
captains for "smuggling" many times the colonial courts, with their jury
trials, would acquit--the colonists knowing full well that they had the
power to determine whether the law should be applied in a particular case
or not. England was becoming embarrassed because colonial courts were
acquitting more often than not. As a reaction, England started passing what
became known as the Admiralty Acts, which among other things, outlawed
Trial by Jury (and of course, the juries right to decide matters of law).
It has to considered that one of the key factors propelling the Colonists
to confrontation with England revolved around Juries and their right to
decide upon matters of law as well as fact.

The literature of the time is replete with statements from founding fathers
and others upon the subject of trial by Jury and Jury Rights. For instance,
John Adams stated in 1771 that "It is not only...[the juror's] right, but
his duty... to find the verdict according to his own best understanding,
judgment, and conscience, though in direct opposition to the direction of
the court." Many Juries of the day exercised the power, as well they
ought, to question both parties or their witnesses upon matters of both law
and fact.

After 1787--Checks and Balances. That great Constitutionalist J. Reuben
Clark had great insight when he said of the "separation of powers" and
"checks and balances" system of the Constitution, that it was a both a
"miracle" and a product of "genius" and that it was here "that the divine
inspiration came." Referring to this checks and balances system of the
Constitution, Thomas Jefferson remarked that the independence power of the
trial by jury was one of the checks built into the Constitution. He
further remarked in a letter written in 1789 that the trial by Jury is an
"anchor. . . by which a government can be held to the principles of its
constitution." In fact he referred to it as the "peoples greatest
privilege" by which the common ordinary people could hold in check a
corrupt government.

The Early Supreme Court. In the Supreme Court case, Georgia vs. Brailsford,
in 1794 remarked that the Jury "has the right to judge both the law as well
as the fact in controversy". Many other Court cases reaffirmed this power.
Grand Juries exercised independence (the independent power to investigate
or indict anyone or anything) early on in America's history. However the
Powers that be today do not recognize this power. In the early 1980's a
Grand Jury here in Utah brought an indictment against the Federal Reserve
System--for illegally manipulating the monetary system. The U.S. Attorney
quashed the indictment (as well as several other shady manipulations). The
Grand Jury knowing of their independent power attempted to bypass the U.S.
Attorney--all to no avail. The Foreman of that Grand Jury was Hans
Anderson--son of H. Verlan Anderson and author of several books, including
_Many Are Called But Few Are Chosen_ and _The Great and Abominable Church
of the Devil_.

Double Edged Sword. The Independence the Jury has (or could be) been
used for both good and evil. Many left wing radical groups, libertarians,
and even marxist-leninist terrorist organizations lobby for the power of
juries to decide upon matters of law as well as fact. It is well known (at
least among certain conservatives ) that many of these groups
attempt to use civil disobedience and jury independence as a tool of
"change." The "Civil Disobedience" of the Sixties, for example had much
less to do with Civil Rights than with enlarging and empowering the Federal
Government over the power and laws of individual States. For these reasons
many are leery with empowering Juries with the independence to decide
matters of law as well as fact. What it really boils down to however is the
moral fiber of society. A society which is fundamentally good and upholds
God's laws will be one blessed with freedom, peace and security. A Society,
on the other hand which, in the words of Rousas J. Rushdooney, is one of
"Moral Anarchy" will eventually result in the loss of freedom, peace and
security. In other words, moral anarchy really is "the seedbed of tyranny." The trial by jury then can be used for either good or ill. How it is used really depends on the moral fabric of society.

Adams, Jefferson and Conspiracy Theory

I've been reading or re-reading several books (especially _Proofs of a Conspiracy_, _Memoirs Illustrating The History of Jacobinism_, _Fire in the Minds of Men_), articles (such as Yale University President, Timothy Dwight's excellent sermon entitled, "The Duty of Americans at the Present Crisis" and various historical articles or essays) and conducting research along related lines of thought (such as study Adam Weishaupt, the Illuminati, the Jacobin Clubs, of the "Citizen Genet" affair, the Whiskey Rebellion, the Alien and Sedition Acts, and of the similarity or differences of the stances taken by John Adams, Alexander Hamilton, George Washington and Thomas Jefferson). While I have yet to pull it all together in a intelligent and comprehensible manner, I have, in my research, concluded, among other things, that while Thomas Jefferson was not an "Illuminist" as charged by some, he may have been somewhat naive, indeed gullible, when it came to understanding the existence of and the threat posed by a conspiracy designed to "overthrow all civil and religious institutions" and its influence upon early America. This would, in large measure explain the difference between Jefferson and the so-called Federalists.

For instance Jefferson wrote to a friend regarding Barruel's work:

"Barruel's own parts of the book are perfectly the ravings of a Bedlamite" and "As Weishaupt lived under the tyranny of a despot and priests, he knew that caution was necessary even in spreading information, and the principles of pure morality. This has given an air of mystery to his views, was the foundation of his banishment.... If Weishaupt had written here, where no secrecy is necessary in our endeavors to render men wise and virtuous, he would not have thought of any secret machinery for that purpose."

While Washington wrote that the Jacobin clubs introduced by Citizen Genet would, "...would shake the government to its foundations."

John Quincy Adams also said, in referring to these "democratic" clubs that they were "so perfectly affiliated with the Parisian Jacobins that their origin from a common parent cannot possibly be mistaken."

John Adams wrote Jefferson years later and remarked, in a letter dated June 30, 1813, "You certainly never felt the terrorism excited by Genet, in 1793 ... when ten thousand people in the streets of Philadelphia, day after day threatened to drag Washington out of his house, and effect a revolution ... nothing but (a miracle) ... could have saved the United States from a fatal revolution of government."

Anyhow--if I can get it all together (distractions, so many distractions!) I'll post what I promise will be, in my opinion at least, a good article (or perhaps series of articles) on the subject.