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^[1] 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.^[2]

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.^[3] 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."^[2]

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."^[4]

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.

If you need help:

Or want to help others:

Footnotes

↑ 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.
↑ ^2.0 ^2.1 :Partus sequitur ventrem. 1 Bouv. Inst. n. 167, 502;
↑ 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.
↑ Qui in utero est, pro jam nato habetur quoties de ejus commodo quaeritur.

[1] 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.

[partus-2] 2.0 ^2.1 :Partus sequitur ventrem. 1 Bouv. Inst. n. 167, 502;

[3] y 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.

[utero-4] Qui in utero est, pro jam nato habetur quoties de ejus commodo quaeritur.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

Parental contract