A lot of time has been spent thinking about the law lately: especially the difference between the common and civil law, and the way that some members of the patriot community seem to idolize the common law. It is my fear that what we are now practicing is in large measure a kind of common law, based on the habits and customs of the existing *legal* community. The power of constitutional law is ignored. This is not hard to understand from the legislative court system that is using its position to form a tyranny of law. The judges vested by their appointments are surely fed up with the ineffective citizenry that they are working to control and manipulate. We the People are personally responsible. It hasn't always been the way it is, and many of our older citizens were raised differently. That it can be remembered and understood is obvious. I remember and understand, and did not learn the bulk of what my father knows, or what my grandparents knew. Yet here I am, reading the materials from my dad's youth and seeing the clear perspective that he has abandoned. Why? Just in writing the above, I see that this is not about law, but Law. It is the Law of habits and customs. Somewhere, somehow, the entire fire of existence for the free community of the United States has been supplanted by an oxen mentality. Where did it come from? Is it . . . what? The product of two world wars and the devastation of a decade of depression? Or did those things come from a change in the perceptions of the people? Could Dewey have had such power? Or is the change in education a reflection rather than a source of sickness? Common law can't operate without a common element. What now would ours be? Looking at the traditions of our people, and the customs for their limited moral judgments and virtually nonexistent independent thoughts, it is rather alarming to think of the products of common law that such a people would have, but it isn't tough to see what the effect would be: glance at DC, and Chicago; rural Pennsylvania and Nebraska; the first frontiers of Virginia and Massachusetts; and the final frontiers of Alaska and Hawaii. What, besides the muttonhood and manipulation, greedy self interest and ponderous ignorance of the culture and history, are common to these people. What, besides five or six centuries of feudal lordship, can be generated to cause a "common," as for common law? The very origin of civil law has clues, but what do we do with the clues? On the ancient seas, where no power had the greatest authority, certain concessions and allowances were made. It was common law. On its rise to world prominence, early Rome captured the concepts of the laws of the seas and put them tangibly in print. It was the beginning of civil law. It was necessary, too! The development of the seafaring world was growing fast, and there were cultures and nations whose participation on the high seas meant an introduction of new customs that would not readily fit in the patterns of the common law. Aren't we in the same position today? The birth of the United States was an outgrowth of Christian Protestantism, by culture if not entirely by faith. The governmental system of the colonies was based as much on Calvin, Luther and Knox, as it was on Cicero, Anglo-Saxony and ancient Israel. It established concepts from Rutherford, Edwards, Burke, Whitefield, and Blackstone, then fit those concepts to what was found consistent in Locke and Montesque, who received the same essential classical education that our founders did. The sum of the differences were still outgrowths of the same perceptions. What is happening now in the patriot community is that the push for common law is being supplanted by strides for anarchy. Why should that be surprising? There is a great contempt for civil law growing out of the horrors of judgment passing from the bench and bar, and there is little understanding of what our "common" history and law were. The principles of the "secular theocracy" (my own term, forgive me) are virtually unknown, and what is generally understood is maligned. Those who think they have an idea of the history of our legal system tend to equate common law with a combination of Pat Robertson and witch hunting. I am inclined to ask of these two abberrations: is there even a difference? Anarchy contains concepts of what our system was -- or would have been -- without a prevailing attitude to guide it, but never let that "prevailing attitude" be treated too lightly. It is safe to drive 65 miles per hour on our nation's highways in an automobile, but the effect would be considerably different if you try the same thing and step out of the automobile while you are speeding along. Also, the common law of our highways (which is not the same as the civil law of our highways) may be abandoned and abused, but it is another thing entirely to say, "OK, the law is coming apart, so I will drive south in the northbound lane." The condition of our system is poor, but abandoning it altogether would prove hazardous. Such an example from the highways is precisely the means of solution that can be envisioned: our highways operate by common law. People drive in customs and manners that work. Around that system has been developed a secondary system of civil laws, which are, for the most part, ignored, except as a means of generating revenue. In spite of prevailing habits and customs of the 65 mile per hour limit, we spent about 20 years under a civil system that called for 55, and we ignored it. We were ticketed. (I got three of my own over that period. In those cases I did not exceed the common law speed, but I also got two more, and in those cases I did indeed exceed the common law speed.) While in Germany in 1970, cruising along in a Mercedes sedan with my German host at 120 klicks, we were near the high end of the common range. The autobahn has no civil speed limit. When a Citroen blew past in excess of 200 klicks, my host exclaimed under his breath, "Er fahrt vie eine gesenkte sow!" (The spelling may be wrong.) It meant, literally translated, "He drives like a fat pig!" and carries the connotation of our saying, literally "He drives like the progeny of a female dog!" I asked him about it, and the tempered response was that such foolish behavior was not widely accepted, and that, in spite of the absence of a civil authority, it is dangerous and unpopular for drivers to race through congested sections at such break neck speed. In his heavy German accent, my friend said, "He is likely to get punched in the nose. If he would stop, I would do so." So what is the answer? The civil law? Common law? Anarchy? If you have read this far expecting answers, you may have wasted your time. I have none. The problem is that without a common reference point, that is what our nation also faces. Our former system of common law is no longer possible because there is no "common." Our civil laws were, with a benefit of the doubt, written to hold our existing customs in stasis while our perspectives changed. What happened? We had a coup d'etat. Silent, but effective. We no longer believe in much of anything. Dave Delany ------------------------------------------------------------- <>< Member: SPECLUSA For an on line subscription, send the message "subscribe" freedomh@spectra.net. Copyright: Dave Delany's Freedom House You may copy and repost this material for non-commercial use, if the articles remain intact and credit is given to Dave Delany's Freedom House PO Box 212 Conklin, NY 13748 ><>