Parental rights

From PreparingYou
Jump to: navigation, search
If Parents have a prior right that comes from the Natural Law and is inalienable can those rights be terminated or undermined by the parent's actions or failure to act? The ancient right of the parents was based on a natural parental contract that occurs through acceptance and performance but the right of the state comes when it takes on the responsibilities of the natural father to protect and provide for his children or depends on the covetous practices of the benefactors of the world and the fathers of the earth who use force to provide benefits.
Audio 1 Audio 2 from 2015
Audio 3 revisiting parental rights from 2020

Parents have a prior right

There was a story on the Network of a large-scale operation at the Twelve Tribes Community in Germany where the Police came in and took all the children!

German Children Services has not been limited by court oversight since the days of Hitler's youth movement.

Germany has been cited for human rights violations for years because of the abuses of their Children's Service. Can this happen in other countries?

Eric Holder, Attorney General of the United States, from 2009 to 2015, prosecuted a German family looking for asylum in America from being arrested for homeschooling in Germany.

The details of Attorney-General Holder’s arguments in the brief for Romeike v. Holder seem contradictory to Human rights as defined by Article 26. Section 3. of the UNIVERSAL DECLARATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS (UDHR).

According to Holder, parents have no fundamental right to home-educate their children.

“[Holder’s office] argued that there was no violation of anyone's protected rights in a law that entirely bans homeschooling. There would only be a problem if Germany banned homeschooling for some but permitted it for others."[1]


  • "There are two major portions of constitutional rights of citizens—fundamental liberties and equal protection. The U.S. Attorney General has said this about homeschooling. There is no fundamental liberty to homeschool. So long as a government bans homeschooling broadly and equally, there is no violation of your rights. This is a view which gives some acknowledgement to the principle of equal protection but which entirely jettisons the concept of fundamental liberties."[2]

“Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness” mentioned in the Declaration of Independence are considered to be unalienable right[3] or fundamental rights endowed on every human being by his or her Creator, and are often referred to as “natural rights.” If a right is endowed by God through nature then it would be a right subject to the Natural law and not the whims of Mr. Holder or the governments of men because it is a "prior right".

Article 26. of the UDHR


A prior right would certainly be a more fundamental right and likely would be classified as a natural right.

The UDHR list numerous rights that are called Human. Human rights are governed by Human Events and therefore are not fundamental but the result of what humans do. So a prior right to Human action would be fundamental.

If we read all of Article 26. we see:

Article 26.

  1. Everyone has the right to education. Education shall be free, at least in the elementary and fundamental stages. Elementary education shall be compulsory. Technical and professional education shall be made generally available and higher education shall be equally accessible to all on the basis of merit.
  2. Education shall be directed to the full development of the human personality and to the strengthening of respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms. It shall promote understanding, tolerance and friendship among all nations, racial or religious groups, and shall further the activities of the United Nations for the maintenance of peace.
  3. Parents have a prior right to choose the kind of education that shall be given to their children.


"fundamental liberties and equal protection"

Rights always have a correlative obligation or duty.

The UDHR makes mention that all... all nations ... shall strive ... by progressive measures... to secure their universal and effective ... observance.... among the peoples of territories under their jurisdiction.

That is to say, "Member States" will secure the obedience of all peoples and nations effectively submitted under their jurisdiction through progressive socialism.

Another way of saying the same thing is by offering people equal protection from want of education or "life, liberty and security of person"[4] or "right to social security"[5] etc..

  • “Protection draws to it subjection; subjection protection.” Coke, Litt.65.

Progressive socialists will promise people security, education and liberty but they will deliver all peoples and nations into the bondage of debt.

  • 2 Peter 2:19-22 While they promise them liberty, they themselves are the servants of corruption: for of whom a man is overcome, of the same is he brought in bondage. For if after they have escaped the pollutions of the world through the knowledge of the Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, they are again entangled therein, and overcome, the latter end is worse with them than the beginning. For it had been better for them not to have known the way of righteousness, than, after they have known it, to turn from the holy commandment delivered unto them. But it is happened unto them according to the true proverb, The dog is turned to his own vomit again; and the sow that was washed to her wallowing in the mire.

And they do all this through the covetous means of socialism.

  • 2 Peter 2:3 ¶ And through covetousness shall they with feigned words make merchandise of you: whose judgment now of a long time lingereth not, and their damnation slumbereth not.

If a Human Being has a right to free education someone has an obligation to provide that education. It would be assumed that the parents have the prior obligation of nurturing their progeny. That obligation is imposed by nature itself and right reason according to the law of nature. Since life was bestowed upon a child by their parents the right to life and a full life begins with the parent. If that life is not provided by the parents then the obligation may fall to another by nature or by Human Events.

If the parents have already obligated themselves to the state, asking the state to provide them with benefits to protect the parent and the child, a right to their children may be claimed by the state because of prior or present benefits to the parents and even the Child. If those benefits are provided by the creation of debt both the parents and the child may become a surety for debt.

If parents were independent of government benefits and even excluded from those benefits, then the state could not claim a fundamental or legal right to take their children or regulate their children's education.

“Reason is the soul of the law, and when the reason of any particular law ceases, so does the law itself.”[6]

Emperor Titus son of Emperor Vespasian like the Caesars before them were the Patronus of Rome and the Conscripted fathers were Men called father upon the earth. They and men like Saturninus would seal the Christian conflict.

While your right to educate your children may be prior in nature, do you still have that right?

Are your children still "Your Children"?

Or have you cursed your children through your Covetous Practices?

Do your children have another Father now?

Termination of parental rights

Federally funded termination of parental rights or TPR began decades ago where states receive tens of thousands of dollars every-time they terminate parental rights. Agencies could acquire millions of dollars in federal funds beyond their state budget just by terminating the rights of parents.

When did we begin to think that it was the government's role to take children and provide care for them?

“As long as we look to government to solve our problems we will always suffer tyranny." William Pitt

Child care was never the province of governments in early America. It was the province and responsibility of the people, who were the fourth branch of government in a Republic. They accomplished this through charitable institutions, free associations, and Churches.

“America is great because she is good. If America ceases to be good, America will cease to be great.” ― attributed to Alexis de Tocqueville.[7]

Even the idea that the care of widows should be within the province of government was hotly disputed by the people as expressed by congressman David Crockett back in the 1800s.

There were few orphanages in early America and they were almost all built and run by churches.

Children seldom stayed in an orphanage for even a year. They would be returned to friends or surviving families or adopted by people desiring children. Many people would be adopted in their community so children never saw an orphanage.

The care of widows and orphans had been an obligation placed upon Christians by Moses and Christ. In fact, their care is the very definition of Pure Religion.

There was almost no discussion of aid for widows and orphans coming from government taxes until 1909 which first White House Conference on Children convened by President Theodore Roosevelt.

They decided that "home life is the highest and finest product of civilization. Children should not be deprived of it except for urgent and compelling reasons...”

Nothing much was done until 1935 when the Federal government began to take on the care of not only orphans but also widows and disabled through taxation schemes like Social Security and other welfare programs. With little objection from the Churches, the State began to take over what had once been the province of the Churches and community until the people become accustomed to the morality of the welfare state.

The New Deal of FDR and War on Poverty of LBJ were where the destructive power of government was unleashed. Few saw that the covetous practices of socialism were oozing into the American soul. Ignorant of history[8] and little real knowledge of the Bible outside of the churches who had abandoned the province of Pure Religion they had no idea that what should have been for their welfare was a snare.[9]

"That the man who first ruined the Roman people twas he who first gave them treats and gratuities" Plutarch's Life of Coriolanus (c. 100 AD.)

If people want their rights back they must take back their responsibilities.

For more than three decades I have seen parents have their children taken without a just cause only to have them abused in foster care. The physical and sexual abuse of children in foster care is well documented despite efforts to often cover it up. Children are drugged at 13x the rate of in the general public.

Yes, "home life is the highest and finest product of civilization. Children should not be deprived of it except for urgent and compelling reasons..." but that is only true if the home life is provided by love and charity. Foster care has become a government-industry and while many will do a fair job a child is more likely to be abused in the government's care than the general population.

"An army of mercenary only fights for the love of money."

It is the sloth and avarice of the modern American that has allowed the child care industry to become a beast that goes around abusing, biting, and devouring families and children.

"Was the government to prescribe to us our medicine and diet, our bodies would be in such keeping as our souls are now." Jefferson's statement in Notes on the State of Virginia.

We could apply Jefferson's statement about the government's prescription or our health to the care of our children. Looking to men who call themselves benefactors but exercise authority one over the other to provide us with benefits and care is a recipe to make us merchandise and curse children.


Ancient PATERNAL POWER

After examining what has been shared in Parents have a prior right and Termination of parental rights we may review some of what has been stated in the past to seek to understand the fundamental principle repeated throughout the ages. Bouvier's Law Dictionary from 1856 Edition examines PATERNAL POWER which the Romans called "Patria potestas, The, authority lawfully exercised by parents, over their children."

Bouvier believed it was proper to consider,

1. Who is entitled to exercise this power?
2. Who is subject to it?
3. What is the extent of this power?

2. - 1. As a general rule the father is entitled to exert the paternal power over his children. But for certain reasons, when the father acts improperly, and against the interest of those over whom nature and the law have given him authority, he loses his power over them. It being a rule that whenever the good of the child requires it, the courts will deliver the custody of the children to others than the father. And numerous instances may be found where, for good reasons, the custody will be given to the mother.

3. The father of a bastard child has no control over him; the mother has the right to the custody and control of such child. 2 Mass. 109; 12 Mass. 887.

4. - 2. All persons are subject to this power until they arrive at the full age of twenty-one years. A father may, however, to, a certain extent, deprive himself of this unlimited paternal power, first, by delegating it to others, as when he binds his son an apprentice; and, secondly, when he abandons his children, and permits them to act for themselves. 2 Verm. Cas. 290; 2 Watts, 408 4 S. & R. 207; 4 Mass. 675.

5. - 3. The principle upon which the law is, founded as to the extent of paternal power is, that it be exerted for the benefit of the child. The child is subject to the lawful commands of the father to attend to his business, because by being so subjected he acquires that discipline and the practice of attending to business, which will be useful to him in after life. He is liable to proper correction for the same reason. 1 Bouv. Inst. n. 326-33. See Correction; Father; Mother; Parent.

Bouvier's Law Dictionary from 1856 Edition

Parents may have a prior right but they may lose access to those rights through the creation of binding obligations to the State through a variety of ways.

Even the United Nations' UNIVERSAL DECLARATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS Article 26 speaks of a "Parents have a prior right" concerning their children.

A child does not own itself for it did not create itself nor can it sustain itself at the moment of birth. A child is dependent upon others for the gift of life. Those gifts create natural obligations or duties. A child also does not own its parents but the parent has a natural right to the child. The parent in nature gives life to the child, rears and protects it compounding the obligation of the Child to the parent. The command by God to honor your parents was the command to "fatten" care for and provide for the parents who gave you life so that your own days would be long upon the land.

The state has often competed for this power or "potestas" of the natural Father to its own benefit and obtains that right by offering "tutor" or gifts, gratuities, and benefits to the parents as the custodial parent on behalf of the state.

We see that when the duties of the patria potestas is vested in a ruling class who is elected by the voice of the people, as we see the people of Israel who were warned in 1 Samuel 8, that a loss of parental right would result. The State could reverse that natural right which would become a legal privilege granted and regulated by the State.

The warning in 1 Samuel 8 was if the people established or created a government where there is a ruling authority that ruling power will take your sons and daughter and much much more. The process used by the State from Cain to Nimrod, the Pharaoh to Caesar to obtain the natural patria potestas was the offer of protection along with gifts gratuities and benefits. Once the State obtains that power it is said to be the father of the people.


Remember that "fundamental liberties and equal protection" always include a correlative obligation or duty.

We should also take heed that the UDHR makes it clear that all... all nations ... shall strive ... by progressive measures... to secure their universal and effective ... observance.... among the peoples of territories under their jurisdiction.

That is to say, "Member States" will secure the obedience of all peoples and nations effectively submitted under their jurisdiction through progressive socialism which is evidently why Christ was not a socialist.

Another way of saying the same thing is by offering people equal protection from want of education or "life, liberty, and security of person"[10] or "right to social security"[11] etc..


Progressive socialists have always offered the people social security, free bread, free education, and freedom from the responsibilities of providing these things through personal sacrifice and mutual charity which is the way America use to do things. While they offered the slothful and greedy liberty from the requirements of a free society their schemes public welfare like Corban would deliver all peoples and the nations into the bondage making them a surety for debt.

The prophecies of 2 Peter 2:19-22 about being promised them liberty would be fulfilled as the people were again entangled in the elements of the world and returned to the mire because they become "servants of corruption" through the modern welfare state.

And they do all this through the covetous practices of socialism.[12]

If people were independent of government benefits provided through men who "exercise authority" they might have a legitimate claim on prior rights and liberties granted by God but if they have sought to have the One purse of socialism and chosen to eat at the table of rulers they are likely snared.

Reason[13] should tell them that the table of the Lord which is not set by "fealty, force, and fear but by faith, hope, and charity. This is why Jesus commanded that His disciples "make the people" organize themselves in companies of Tens.

While your right to educate your children may be prior in nature, do you still have that right?

Are your children still "Your Children" or surety for debt?

Or have you cursed your children through your Covetous Practices?

Do your children have another Father now?

Whom do you pray to for your daily bread, your daily ministration?

Call no man Father
What was Christ trying to tell us about fathers on the earth?
http://www.hisholychurch.org/sermon/fatherabba.php


Parental contract

A child shares many relationships with its parents. One is called a "domestic relationship". This relationship is a said by some to be de facto contract because it is unspoken and yet understood by society and eventually both parties.

  • It is immaterial whether a man gives his assent by words or by acts and deeds.
Non refert an quis assensum suum praefert verbis, an rebus ipsis et factis. 10 Co. 52.

Life is a benefit[14] bestowed upon those to whom it is given. The bestowing and acceptance of the gift implies a natural obligation unless otherwise stated.

  • Compacts are accustomed to be clothed by thing itself, by words, by writing, by consent, by delivery.
Re, verbis, scripto, consensu, traditione, junctura vestes, sumere pacta solent. Plow. 161

It may also be called a constructive contract. The child's capacity to understand is limited but the acceptance of protection and provision offered by the parents establishes or constructs a relationship between them. The capacity for the child to understand subjects the child to the conditions of the offer of care made by the parents. Without understanding there is no right of choice by the child so by the lack of capacity the child is subject. The child has a right to life but not to the life of others. If it cannot provide for itself it is subject and in need of the protection of others.

  • Protection draws to it subjection, subjection, protection.
Protectio trahit subjectionem, subjectio projectionem. Co. Litt. 65.

If we are endowed with our rights by an unseen God then our parents who can be seen are the primary source of those right within the physical world.

  • Children born under a legitimate marriage follow the condition of the father.
Cum legitimae nuptiae factae sunt, patrem liberi sequuntur.

Rights consist of both corporeal and incorporeal hereditaments of our individual personality.

  • "An heir is another self, and a son is a part of the father."
Haeres est alter ispe, et filius est pars patris.

We inherit our rights naturally through our parents and our parents cannot pass rights to their children that they have already waived.

  • The offspring follow the condition of the mother. This is the law in the case of slaves and animals; but with regard to freemen, children follow the condition of the father.[15]

But these are Natural law maxims. Legal systems may also establish reltionships based on legal contracts.

  • "The father is he whom the marriage points out."
Pater is est quem nuptiae demonstrant. 1 Bl. Com. 446; 7 mart. N. S. 548, 553; Dig. 2, 4, 5; 1 Bouv. Inst. n. 273, 304, 322.

The legal marriage contract brings the whole family under the power of the State as Father of the family according to Pater Patriae‎ or or even Patronus.

Does a woman have the right to do injury to the child in her womb?
Someone presented the picture of a Woman who was pregnant, drinking and smoking which can harm the child in the womb. Should she be allowed to do that? Whose right would it be to intervene and what methods of intervention would be right?

It is said that our rights are the essence of ourselves. Rights consist of either natural or legal rights which include both corporeal and incorporeal hereditaments of our individual personality. Before there was a State there was the "state of Nature". All rights come from the individual man who may choose by word or deed to grant rights to the State.

He who takes the responsibility incurs the right.

Those rights held by the State are also considered hereditaments.[16] We are living souls and the seat of the soul is in the blood but man breathes life into the corporate State by applying or looking to the State for benefits - by striking hands and becoming a surety for debts of the State.

  • "Children are of the blood of their parents, but the father and mother are not the blood of their children."
Pueri sunt de sanguine parentum, sed pater et mater non sunt de sanguine puerorum. 3 Co. 40.

Rights are inherited from generation to generation.

The reason a woman does not have the right to terminate her pregnancy is that it is not her blood that flows in the veins of the child. Today, in the world, we see the State granting the right to the mother to terminate the life of the child in her womb even when there is no threat to her life. This is because the mother is a bond servant of the State. The State has taken on the rights of the Parents or Husband because the State has been given the responsibility of the Father of the woman and the child.

All legitimate government is based on the Natural Law of the Father assumed by the State.

Many people think the right of the mother to terminate her pregnancy means she is a free woman but in truth it is evidence that she is a slave. She is a part of the livestock of the State because, "The offspring follow the condition of the mother. This is the law in the case of slaves and animals; but with regard to freemen, children follow the condition of the father."[15]

These concepts and precepts of Natural Law existed before the organized corporate State. The Child is a natural byproduct of a Man and a Woman but is also the responsibility of all mankind. We have to care about the child of others as much as we care about our own children without violating the rights of the Father and Mother.

So how would society protect the right of the child in the womb of a mother, bond or free?

  • "He who is in the womb, is considered as born, whenever it is for his benefit."[17]

In the modern civil State the mother and child are the property of the State with civil rights. This is self-evident because through the Civil law the State has become the benefactor of the mother. In a state of nature society in general was the benefactor of the mother. Free societies did this through charitable institutions. In ancient script these institutions were called Altars. These Altars were said to be made of earth or Stones but in truth the stones were actually living men who provided a charitable service to society.

These men of charity were freely given the means to care for the needy of society by the members of society but if a woman conducted herself in ways that would not bear fruit for society she was cut off from the benefits of society that came across the living stones of societies. Remembering that these ancient Altars were charitable institutions, the idea of Stoning someone was not about hitting them with rocks but cutting them off from the benefits of society.

A free society thrives on Social Virtues which cannot be imposed upon people without losing liberty for all. But sloth and avarice cannot be rewarded in society without the degradation of society itself. Society is born in the family and anything that undermines the natural family undermines society. We must care about our neighbors' rights and the rights and hereditaments of their children as much as we care about our own.

Understanding what Religion, Pure Religion, and the Corban of the Pharisees and why it made the word of God to none effect may be just as important today as it was back in the time of Christ. Christ had devised a plan to attend to the Weightier matters of law and justice in a free society which the early Christians did because they obeyed the commands of Christ to gather in ranks of Tens and actually love one another rather than bite one another in welfare schemes of force.

Domestic Relationships

If we dig a little deeper into the origins of parental rights these ancient relationships, both legal and natural, we may get a chance to understand how te systems of the world can make the plan of God to none effect.

A "domestic relationship" may mean "a personal relationship between 2 adults in which one provides personal or financial commitment and support of a domestic nature for the material benefit of the other and includes a domestic partnership but does not include a legal marriage."

Yet, if you look in Clark's Summary of American Law you will find under Domestic Relationships and Persons Chapter 3 "Husband and Wife", which has been considered one of the great Domestic Relationships. Chapter one under Domestic Relationships and Persons is Marriage. Both list of the rights of the Husband and Wife including the rights to children. They are clearly different relationships.

There are subheadings under "Marriage" which includes "The contract to marry". The second subheading is "The marriage status and relationship". There are different kinds of marriage. First, marriage often is a contract "to marry" signed between the couple by permission of the natural parents. The marriage itself is generally what would be called a "frank marriage". A frank marriage is one where the couple are the only two parties in the final marriage contract.

Today, State licensed marriages are contracts between the couple and the State. In essence, they are three-party contracts where the state continues to holds an interest in the union and the products of that union - the children.

Instead of asking permission from their natural parents to marry or enter into this "State Contract", the couple asks permission of their parent the state. How did the state become the parent of the couple? This involves many other deeds and applications between the original parents and possibly their parents, and the persons seeking to marry.

  • Marriage is often referred to as a civil contract, but the emphasis in such a reference is not on the word ‘contract’ but upon the word ‘civil’ as distinguished from ecclesiastical; since there is religious freedom in this country a religious ceremony, and rules of ecclesiastical organizations with regard to marriage have no legal significance”.
  • “Though mutual assent is necessary to enter into a marriage the marriage itself is a status or relationship rather than a contract, the rights and obligations of the parties thereto being fixed by the law instead of by the parties themselves. Hence marriages are not within the provision of the United States Constitution forbidding a state to impair the obligation of contracts.” Clark’s Summary of American Law. Chapt I §2. The marriage status or relationship. pp. 140.

So, yes the relationship of Husband and Wife is a domestic relationship. Common Law marriage is valid if you openly move in together as Husband and Wife because the union is a domestic relationship which implies Natural Law. That domestic relationship "does not include a legal marriage" because the relationship as husband and wife with the State is a relationship that is not domestic but it is civil.

The beginning of subjugation begins with your first suck. Romulus and Remus were protected and cared for by the wolf-pack which was a symbol that the rulers of Rome, the State, were the Father and Mother of the people. This would bring a compromise of parental rights which would undermine the family, the foundation of the Republic, and would degenerate the people into perfect savages.

Your marriage contract with the State includes all the civil statutes at the time of your marriage and all the changes the legislature will make during that union.

The principle of Natural Law and the rights of the Father may shift to the State which is why Plutarch said, “The real destroyers of the liberties of the people is he who spreads among them bounties, donations, and benefits.”

The beginning of subjugation to others begins with your first suck.

Before a child began to suck of air and milk they were a fetus.

Law
Law | Natural Law | Legal title | Common Law | Fiction of law |
Stare decisis | Jury | Consent | Contract | Parental contract | Government |
Civil law | Civil Rights | Civil Government | Governments |
No Kings | Cities of refuge | Voir dire | Levites |
Citizen | Equity | The Ten Laws | Law of the Maat |
Bastiat's_The_Law_and_Two_Trees | Trees |
The Occupy Refuge Movement | Clive Bundy | Hammond |
Barcroft | Benefactors | gods | Jury | Sanhedrin |
Protection | Weightier_matters | Social_contract | Community Law |
Perfect law of liberty | Power to change | Covet | Rights |
Anarchist | agorism | Live as if the state does not exist |‏‎

Rights | Property rights | Law | Natural Law | Legal | Common Law | Fiction of law |
UNIVERSAL DECLARATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS | Parents have a prior right |
Human Rights | Human Events | Human resources | Universal Service | The Way |
Foolishly | Foolish virgins | The Right of Self-determination | Fraud |
Free Assemblies | CORE | Righteousness | Workers of Iniquity | Doers of the Word | Fruit |


Join The Living Network of The Companies of Ten
The Living Network | Join Local group | About | Purpose | Guidelines | Network Removal
Contact Minister | Fractal Network | Audacity of Hope | Network Links

Footnotes

  1. Atty General Holder Argues Parents Have No Right to Educate their Children February 18, 2013, by Daniel Greenfield
  2. Eric Holder: Banning Homeschooling Doesn’t Violate Fundamental Rights Shane Vander Hart February 12, 2013 - http://caffeinatedthoughts.com/2013/02/eric-holder-banning-homeschooling-doesnt-violate-fundamental-rights/
  3. The final version of the Declaration uses the word "unalienable." ... The unalienable rights that are mentioned in the Declaration of Independence could just as well have been inalienable, which means the same thing. Inalienable or unalienable refers to that which cannot be given away or taken away.
  4. Article 3. Everyone has the right to life, liberty, and security of person.
  5. Article 22. Everyone, as a member of society, has the right to social security and is entitled to realization, through national effort and international co-operation and in accordance with the organization and resources of each State, of the economic, social and cultural rights indispensable for his dignity and the free development of his personality.
  6. Cassante ratione legis cessat, et ipsa lex.4 Coke, 38; 7 id. 69; Coke, Litt. 70 b. 122 a; Broom, Max. 3d Lond. ed. 151, 152; 4 Rep. 38; 13 East, 348; 4 Bingh. n.c. 388.
  7. More likely a summary of his thoughts.
  8. “The real destroyers of the liberties of the people is he who spreads among them bounties, donations, and benefits.” Plutarch
    The Historian of Historians from Corinth. Polybius believed all democracies fail. He eventually placed his allegiance with the Roman Republic but warned that it to would fail if "The masses continue with an appetite for benefits Link titleand the habit of receiving them by way of a rule of force and violence. The people, having grown accustomed to feed at the expense of others and to depend for their livelihood on the property of others... institute the rule of violence; and now uniting their forces massacre, banish, and plunder, until they degenerate again into perfect savages and find once more a master and monarch." .
  9. Psalms 69:22 Let their table become a snare before them: and that which should have been for their welfare, let it become a trap.
    Romans 11:9 And David saith, Let their table be made a snare, and a trap, and a stumblingblock, and a recompence unto them:
  10. Article 3. Everyone has the right to life, liberty, and security of person.
  11. Article 22. Everyone, as a member of society, has the right to social security and is entitled to realization, through national effort and international co-operation and in accordance with the organization and resources of each State, of the economic, social and cultural rights indispensable for his dignity and the free development of his personality.
  12. [2 Peter 2]:3 "And through covetousness shall they with feigned words make merchandise of you: whose judgment now of a long time lingereth not, and their damnation slumbereth not."
  13. “Reason is the soul of the law, and when the reason of any particular law ceases, so does the law itself.” Cassante ratione legis cessat, et ipsa lex.4 Coke, 38; 7 id. 69; Coke, Litt. 70 b. 122 a; Broom, Max. 3d Lond. ed. 151, 152; 4 Rep. 38; 13 East, 348; 4 Bingh. n.c. 388.
  14. He who derives a benefit from a thing, ought to feel the disadvantages attending it.
    Que sentit commodum, sentire debet et onus. 2 Bouv. Inst. n. 1433.
  15. 15.0 15.1 :Partus sequitur ventrem. 1 Bouv. Inst. n. 167, 502;
  16. any item of property, either a corporeal hereditament (such as land or a building) or an incorporeal hereditament (such as a rent or a right of way)... an item of inheritance.
  17. Qui in utero est, pro jam nato habetur quoties de ejus commodo quaeritur.