The nature of slavery.

I think sometimes people have forgotten what slavery is, in modern definition, and in the ancient. In many cases, the modern definition agrees with the ancient, as it does with the founding fathers.

There is more to the definition of slavery, by International Law. These laws were pioneered by the United States, as was the Declaration of Human Rights.

The Anti-Slavery Society's copy of the 1926 act.

(1) Slavery is the status or condition of a person over whom any or all of the powers attaching to the right of ownership are exercised.
(2) The slave trade includes all acts involved in the capture, acquisition or disposal of a person with intent to reduce him to slavery; all acts involved in the acquisition of a slave with a view to selling or exchanging him; all acts of disposal by sale or exchange of a slave acquired with a view to being sold or exchanged, and, in general, every act of trade or transport in slaves.

This was expanded in 1930, and again in 1956.
1930 forced labor convention
The 1930 Abolition of Forced Labour Convention included the use of forced labor for racial, social, national or religious discrimination.

Each Member of the International Labour Organisation which ratifies this Convention undertakes to suppress and not to make use of any form of forced or compulsory labour:

(a) As a means of political coercion or education or as a punishment for holding or expressing political views or views ideologically opposed to the established political, social or economic system;
(b) As a method of mobilising and using labour for purposes of economic development;
(c) As a means of labour discipline;
(d) As a punishment for having participated in strikes;
(e) As a means of racial, social, national or religious discrimination.

1956 SUPPLEMENTARY CONVENTION ON THE ABOLITION OF SLAVERY, THE SLAVE TRADE, AND INSTITUTIONS AND PRACTICES SIMILAR TO SLAVERY

Each of the States Parties to this Convention shall take all practicable and necessary legislative and other measures to bring about progressively and as soon as possible the complete abolition or abandonment of the following institutions and practices, where they still exist and whether or not they are covered by the definition of slavery contained in article 1 of the Slavery Convention signed at Geneva on 25 September 1926:

(a) Debt bondage, that is to say, the status or condition arising from a pledge by a debtor of his personal services or of those of a person under his control as security for a debt, if the value of those services as reasonably assessed is not applied towards the liquidation of the debt or the length and nature of those services are not respectively limited and defined;

(b) Serfdom, that is to say, the condition or status of a tenant who is by law, custom or agreement bound to live and labour on land belonging to another person and to render some determinate service to such other person, whether for reward or not, and is not free to change his status;

(c) Any institution or practice whereby:

(i) A woman, without the right to refuse, is promised or given in marriage on payment of a consideration in money or in kind to her parents, guardian, family or any other person or group; or

(ii) The husband of a woman, his family, or his clan, has the right to transfer her to another person for value received or otherwise; or

(iii) A woman on the death of her husband is liable to be inherited by another person;

(d) Any institution or practice whereby a child or young person under the age of 18 years, is delivered by either or both of his natural parents or by his guardian to another person, whether for reward or not, with a view to the exploitation of the child or young person or of his labour.

The 1956 definition was finally ratified by the U.S. in 1957, thus giving it the force of law, and adding its definition (and all prior definitions) to the definition within the 13th amendment.

The laws of firearm control have long been used to attempt to maintain slavery, as has the manipulation of the vote.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerrymander
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electoral_fraud
http://www.umich.edu/~lawrace/disenfranchise1.htm
as per

http://www.carnellknowledge.com/interesting-facts-about-democrats-and-republicans/ :

After The Civil Rights Act was passed Democrat President Lyndon Johnson praised Republicans for their overwhelming support.

The Republican Party was formed by anti-slavery activists to combat the pro-slavery Democrats

The Ku Klux Klan was formed by radical Democrats who opposed equality for blacks.

In 1935 Democrats defeated an Anti-Lynching Bill supported and put forward by Republicans.

The 1924 Democrat National Convention in New York was host to one of the largest Klan gatherings in American history. Dubbed the “Klanbake convention”, a minority of delegates attempted to condemn the presence of the Klan but was rebuked by the Klan supporting Democrat Majority.

On April 20, 1871 the Republican Congress enacted the Ku Klux Klan Act, outlawing Democratic Party-Affiliated terrorist groups.

Ronald Reagan, a Republican, made history on November 2, 1983 by signing into law Martin Luther King Jr.’s birthday as a National Holiday. This is the first and only Federal Holiday that recognizes a Black American.

These are verifiable, however, I don't know what all they left out on the other side of the equation, or what was taken out of context.

http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=58295

Three years after Appomattox, the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, granting blacks citizenship in the United States, came before Congress: 94 percent of Republicans endorsed it.

"The records of Congress reveal that not one Democrat – either in the House or the Senate – voted for the 14th Amendment," Barton wrote. "Three years after the Civil War, and the Democrats from the North as well as the South were still refusing to recognize any rights of citizenship for black Americans."

He also noted that South Carolina Gov. Wade Hampton at the 1868 Democratic National Convention inserted a clause in the party platform declaring the Congress' civil rights laws were "unconstitutional, revolutionary, and void."

It was the same convention when Gen. Nathan Bedford Forrest, the first grand wizard of the KKK, was honored for his leadership.

Barton's book notes that in 1868, Congress heard testimony from election worker Robert Flournoy, who confessed while he was canvassing the state of Mississippi in support of the 13th and 14th Amendments, he could find only one black, in a population of 444,000 in the state, who admitted being a Democrat.

Nor is Barton the only person to raise such questions. In 2005, National Review published an article raising similar points. The publication said in 1957 President Dwight Eisenhower, a Republican, deployed the 82nd Airborne Division to desegregate the Little Rock, Ark., schools over the resistance of Democrat Gov. Orval Faubus.

Further, three years later, Eisenhower signed the GOP's 1960 Civil Rights Act after it survived a five-day, five-hour filibuster by 18 Senate Democrats, and in 1964, Democrat President Lyndon Johnson signed the 1964 Civil Rights Act after former Klansman Robert Byrd's 14-hour filibuster, and the votes of 22 other Senate Democrats, including Tennessee's Al Gore Sr., failed to scuttle the plan.

Until 1935, every black federal legislator was Republican, and it was Republicans who appointed the first black Air Force and Army four-star generals, established Martin Luther King Jr.'s birthday as a national holiday, and named the first black national-security adviser, secretary of state, the research reveals.

Current Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice has said: "The first Republican I knew was my father, and he is still the Republican I most admire. He joined our party because the Democrats in Jim Crow Alabama of 1952 would not register him to vote. The Republicans did. My father has never forgotten that day, and neither have I."

And yet... somehow the parties both have drifted. The original term 'republican' was those that believed a constitutional republic (designed to safeguard the rights of the people, against each other and the government) and 'conservative', i.e. the conservators of rights were the people.

The term 'democrat' was for those that believed the power of the people should be less fettered, and the term 'liberal' was akin to 'libertarian', i.e. the government had no business in people's lives.

How far we've drifted. With the work of tireless minorities, tireless activists in both parties, the parties have grown so utterly polarized that they are moving together on the far end. Extreme social programs arise, as do extreme punishments and responses. The 'left' and 'ultra-liberals' have no bearing on liberty, and the 'ultra-right' and the 'ultra-conservatives' have no bearing on rights.

Frankly, in either direction, they have lost the entire point of their power, the rights and liberties of the people, the powers of the state, and the limitations upon those powers were all needed for rights and liberties to exist.

Slavery? If they'd followed the original constitution, it would have ended in 1808 with the ban on the importation of new slaves, and the requirement that at that date they would have to make some tough decisions on the practice. Those provisions on slavery (the 3/4 a person clauses) were included at the insistence of slaveowners, to give the south a larger vote with its lower population.

Ultimately, a great many of the founding fathers believed slavery to be wrong, even as they practiced it. All men have their own blind spots, as I have my own. I believe any person enslaved, abused, or controlled is wrong. They can be stopped if they are in commission of a crime, held for the punishment of crime, after a full and fair trial, or even executed for that crime, but once the judgment is ended, it is ended.

To do otherwise is its own form of slavery.

"What, then, is life to me? it is aimless and worthless, and worse than worthless. Those birds, perched on yon swinging boughs, in friendly conclave, sounding forth their merry notes in seeming worship of the rising sun, though liable to the sportsman's fowling-piece, are still my superiors. They live free, though they may die slaves. They fly where they list by day, and retire in freedom at night. But what is freedom to me, or I to it? I am a slave, -- born a slave, an abject slave, -- even before I made part of this breathing world, the scourge was platted for my back; the fetters were forged for my limbs. How mean a thing am I. That accursed and crawling snake, that miserable reptile, that has just glided into its slimy home, is freer and better off than I. He escaped my blow, and is safe. But here am I, a man, -- yes, a man! -- with thoughts and wishes, with powers and faculties as far as angel's flight above that hated reptile, -- yet he is my superior, and scorns to own me as his master, or to stop to take my blows. When he saw my uplifted arm, he darted beyond my reach, and turned to give me battle. I dare not do as much as that. I neither run nor fight, but do meanly stand, answering each heavy blow of a cruel master with doleful wails and piteous cries. I am galled with irons; but even these are more tolerable than the consciousness, the galling consciousness of cowardice and indecision. Can it be that I dare not run away? Perish the thought, I dare do any thing which may be done by another. When that young man struggled with the waves for life, and others stood back appalled in helpless horror, did I not plunge in, forgetful of life, to save his? The raging bull from whom all others fled, pale with fright, did I not keep at bay with a single pitchfork? Could a coward do that? No, -- no, -- I wrong myself, -- I am no coward. Liberty I will have, or die in the attempt to gain it. This working that others may in idleness! This cringing submission to insolence and curses! This living under the constant dread and apprehension of being sold and transferred, like a mere brute, is too much for me. I will stand it no longer. What others have done, I will do. These trusty legs, or these sinewy arms shall place me among the free. Tom escaped; so can I. The North Star will not be less kind to me than to him. I will follow it. I will at least make the trial. I have nothing to lose. If I am caught, I shall only be a slave. If I am shot, I shall only lose a life which is a burden and a curse. If I get clear, (as something tells me I shall,) liberty, the inalienable birth-right of every man, precious and priceless, will be mine. My resolution is fixed. I shall be free."

-- James Madison, The_Heroic_Slave: Part_1

False is the idea of utility that sacrifices a thousand real advantages for one imaginary or trifling inconvenience; that would take fire from men because it burns, and water because one may drown in it; that has no remedy for evils except destruction. The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes. Can it be supposed that those who have the courage to violate the most sacred laws of humanity, the most important of the code, will respect the less important and arbitrary ones, which can be violated with ease and impunity, and which, if strictly obeyed, would put an end to personal liberty ——so dear to men, so dear to the enlightened legislator—— and subject innocent persons to all the vexations that the guilty alone ought to suffer? Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man. They ought to be designated as laws not preventive but fearful of crimes, produced by the tumultuous impression of a few isolated facts, and not by thoughtful consideration of the inconveniences and advantages of a universal decree.

BECCARIA, CESARE, On Crimes and Punishment, 1764

Whereas civil rulers, not having their duty to the people duly before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as military forces, which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow citizens, the people are confirmed by the article [the Second Amendment] in their right to keep and bear their private arms.

COXE, TENCH, under pseudonym "A Pennsylvanian," Philadelphia Federal Gazette, June 18, 1789

[B]ut if circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude, that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people, while there is a large body of citizens, little if at all inferior to them in discipline and use of arms, who stand ready to defend their rights.

HAMILTON, ALEXANDER, The Federalist Papers, No. 29

To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them.

MASON, GEORGE,, during Virginia’'s Convention to Ratify the Constitution, 3 Elliot, Debates at 380

Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom of Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any body of regular troops that can be, on any pretense, raised in the United States.

WEBSTER, NOAH, An Examination into the Leading Principals of the Federal Constitution Defects, and Abuses, 1774

A gun in the hands of a free man frightens and angers the autocrat, not because he fears the power of the gun, but, rather, the spirit of the man who holds it.

ANONYMOUS

... to prohibit a citizen from wearing or carrying a war arm ... is an unwarranted restriction upon the constitutional right to keep and bear arms. If cowardly and dishonorable men sometimes shoot unarmed men with army pistols or guns, the evil must be prevented by the penitentiary and gallows, and not by a general deprivation of a constitutional privilege.

WILSON V. STATE, 33 Ark. 557 (1878)

That the said Constitution shall never be construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press or the rights of conscience; or to prevent the people of the United states who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms.

ADAMS, SAMUEL, in Philadelphia Independent Gazetteer, August 20, 1789


I have but one question for the 'Honorable' gentlemen of the house of representatives, the Senate, the Federal Government and president. If the purpose of punishment was not to make restitution for crimes that could not be ended, then what is its purpose? If it is not to deal with the pain of society, and make the individual peaceable with them, is it not attainder? Cannot any punishment thus be levied upon a citizen, if that purpose is not true? Is it not the purpose of society to heal itself, even from those who have wronged it? If those individuals are not made peaceable by the judgment, if that onus is not ended with the end of the judgment, then what is its purpose and measure, except as a measure of slavery? If retribution can be meted outside of that framework, and rights can be destroyed, is it not true that those that make the law can make anything a criminal act? If attainder is allowed upon one segment of the population, is it not suddenly available to be used for all?

Can any man be free, so long as any man is a slave? Or is the truth really that we merely are marking the time until they decide to enslave... us?


Remember how we were talking about how registries expand?
H.R. 45

SEC. 304. FAILURE TO PROVIDE NOTICE OF CHANGE OF ADDRESS.
Section 922 of title 18, United States Code, as amended by sections 101, 201, 301, 302, and 303 of this Act, is amended by adding at the end the following:

`(ff) Failure To Provide Notice of Change of Address- It shall be unlawful for any individual to whom a firearm license has been issued under title I of Blair Holt's Firearm Licensing and Record of Sale Act of 2009 to fail to report to the Attorney General a change in the address of that individual within 60 days of that change of address.'.

Also, the federal government cannot exempt itself from its own laws.

SEC. 801. INAPPLICABILITY TO GOVERNMENTAL AUTHORITIES.
This Act and the amendments made by this Act shall not apply to any department or agency of the United States, of a State, or of a political subdivision of a State, or to any official conduct of any officer or employee of such a department or agency.

(c) Elimination of Prohibition on Establishment of System of Registration- Section 926(a) of title 18, United States Code, is amended by striking the second sentence.

SEC. 701. SUBORDINATION TO ARMS EXPORT CONTROL ACT.

In the event of any conflict between any provision of this Act or an amendment made by this Act, and any provision of the Arms Export Control Act (22 U.S.C. 2751), the provision of the Arms Export Control Act shall control.

Arms Control Export Act

One thing to remember is the Weimar government attempted to disarm the nazis early on... and then when the Nazis took control, the laws were broad enough to be used for other purposes. They didn't need to pass gun control laws at that point.

Wikipedia on history of German Firearm Control

In 1928, the German government enacted the Law on Firearms and Ammunition. This law relaxed gun restrictions and put into effect a strict firearm licensing scheme. Under this scheme, Germans could possess firearms, but they were required to have separate permits to do the following: own or sell firearms, carry firearms (including handguns), manufacture firearms, and professionally deal in firearms and ammunition. This law explicitly revoked the 1919 Regulations on Weapons Ownership, which had banned all firearms possession.

The 1938 German Weapons Act, the precursor of the current weapons law, superseded the 1928 law. As under the 1928 law, citizens were required to have a permit to carry a firearm and a separate permit to acquire a firearm. Furthermore, the law restricted ownership of firearms to "...persons whose trustworthiness is not in question and who can show a need for a (gun) permit." Under the new law:

* Gun restriction laws applied only to handguns, not to long guns or ammunition. Writes Prof. Bernard Harcourt of the University of Chicago, "The 1938 revisions completely deregulated the acquisition and transfer of rifles and shotguns, as well as ammunition."[4]
* The groups of people who were exempt from the acquisition permit requirement expanded. Holders of annual hunting permits, government workers, and Nazi party members were no longer subject to gun ownership restrictions. Prior to the 1938 law, only officials of the central government, the states, and employees of the German Reichsbahn Railways were exempted.[5]
* The age at which persons could own guns was lowered from 20 to 18.[5]
* The firearms carry permit was valid for three years instead of one year.[5]
* Jews were forbidden from the manufacturing of firearms and ammunition.[6]

On November 11, 1938, the Minister of the Interior, Wilhelm Frick, passed Regulations Against Jews' Possession of Weapons. This regulation effectively deprived all Jews of the right to possess firearms or other weapons.

Germany was a constitutional government, even under the Weimar republic and Hindenberg. They had their congress. (the Reichstag), for all the good it did them.

Look back at history, and ask yourselves if anyone seeking further power for emergency reasons has ever, even once, corresponded in their use to the reasons they were claimed?

The Alien and Sedition acts:
The U.S. Government's internment of Japanese and German Americans.
The U.S. Patriot Act.
The U.S. Military Commissions Act.
The 'Enabling Act' of the German government, after the Reichstag fire.

In the German Weimar Republic, an Enabling Act (Ermächtigungsgesetz in German) was a law passed by the Reichstag with a two-thirds majority, by which the government was authorized to legislate without the consent of the Reichstag. These special powers would remain in effect for the specified time. This is to be distinguished from the provisions of Article 48 of the Weimar Constitution, which allowed the President to legislate by decree in times of emergency, subject to the veto of the Reichstag. An Enabling Act was supposed to be used only in times of extreme emergency. Only two Enabling Acts were ever passed:

* the first Enabling Act was in force in 1923-24, when the government used an Enabling Act to combat hyperinflation.
* the second Enabling Act, passed on March 23, 1933, was the second stepping-stone after the Reichstag Fire Decree through which Adolf Hitler obtained dictatorial powers using largely legal means. The formal name of the Enabling Act was Gesetz zur Behebung der Not von Volk und Reich ("Law to Remedy the Distress of the People and the State"). It carried a four-year sunset clause (and would also have lost force should another government have been appointed) but was renewed in 1937, 1941 and 1944. In contrast to the Enabling Act of 1923, this Act covered changes to the constitution, excepting only the existence of the Reichstag, the Reichsrat and the office of President.

the Sedition act of 1918, and the Espionage Act.


History is replete with these actions.

Make your own decisions on what these things mean... from slavery and bigotry to firearms control, and those that are proposing it. Are they really doing what they are saying that they intend to do?
Read more!

There are monsters...

The government loves its fear, and yes, there are monsters out there. Monsters waiting to take you, break you, and use you for their own will. When we look out into the darkness, what do we see? What do we hear? Is it that bump in the night? It gives us a thrill, the sound of metal clanking on metal. The old ghost stories of the past come forward in our mind, and we find ourselves with an atavistic dread rising from our hindbrain, cold hands, and sweaty fingers.

Fear is one of the more powerful emotions, perhaps the most powerful. Fear moves us, binds us, breaks us down and leaves us seeking for the protection of someone larger, and stronger. Oh yes, there are monsters in the night... but like some teenager's 'snipe hunting parties', often the monsters are created for a purpose.

We hear all the stories, all the grim details, of how this person was murdered, and talk about the growing crime waves, the massive sensationalism sweeping across our conscience, and designed to bring back that atavistic dread. We hear about the sex offenders in the neighborhood, the drug problems, the problems with children murdering their own parents. We're inundated constantly with fear, and hate. If it's not the Koreans, it's the Russians, the terrorists, the Iraquis, the Iranians. Maybe it's the Christians, the Moslems, oh, wait, look, it's those polygamists. Umm, we were wrong, it's obviously Wall Street. Your retirement is gone! Oh no, I'm sorry! No, I didn't break that, it was the high-flying wall street execs.

We look around and see the increasing numbers of crimes and problems rolling through our country, but don't see that we're actually suffering less crime per capita. We hear the constant inundation of stupidity, coupled with horrific cases, but ignore that we're far more numerous.

We've gone in the last thirty years from a fairly private, freedom-oriented nation, with communities knit with common interest, into a 'security-driven' bunch of people with their heads in the sand, fearful of the next bullet. Is it any wonder our children feel alienated, when we won't let them go out and play? Is it any surprise that gangs find that disaffection from society, and draw the people in, then won't let the children go on pain of death?

We look at our bulging prison systems and scream for more protection, more blocking of the prisoners, even while more and more people are taken from the streets, and not given any kind of trial, nor any kind of defense. We look out the window and say "at least it's not me!". Oh yes, there are monsters in the world...

But what is their face? What is their shape? The fears that drive the country are not from the actions of any individual, but actions taken in a pattern, designed to drive the country into a frenzy of fear. Rumours, stories, misdirection and nonsense crowd our channels of information, and more, and more, that fear grows. We fear our government, we fear our neighbor, we fear our police force, we fear our national guard. Fear drives us. It directs us. But what direction does it direct us?

When we look at the sources of those fears, from 'true crime' shows to 'reality shows' which bear little resemblance to truth, or to reality, the evening news which claims a rising tide of crime and a greater social burden, and then look at the statistics gathered by the the Federal, state, and by the Canadian databases, is it really rising all that much? Some varieties of crime are rising... financial fraud, identity theft, bad checks, theft, both petty and grand, drug trades.. but what is the truth?

Where does all the inundation of fear rise from?

When you get to the core of it, people are afraid... but not always afraid of what they think they fear. Not all can admit the fears. We look at a world which seems to have gone mad... our promises of a safe retirement, gone, our investments into the future, gone. The college money we saved for our children, gone. Many of the people responsible, however, go on to retire very well. We feel anger... and hopelessness.

We look out into the shadows of the night and start attributing every bump, every clang, every crash to the monsters which we can see, and think we can do something about. The more fearful the people grow, the greater the backlash against those monsters.

But are they truly the monsters one needs to fear? Does the Department of Justice, and Canada's Royal Canadian Mounted Police, have reasons to lie about the reoffense rates of sex offenders to make them seem low? They get paid no more, nor less, for their studies, they have no vested interest in promulgating lies, nor do they have any vested interest in making the facts fit theories. Should we, however, take a look at congress, and the rhetoric, at the media, and their reporting, one would think that every offender is ready to pounce strangers at the drop of a hat.

But do they have a vested interest? Well, if one considers that the government is a stronger 'being' than the people, and the people look to the government for protection now, rather than grasping the responsibility in their own hands.. yes. People will cling to the government, adding scrap after scrap of armor, until the being they look to for protection is nigh invulnerable.

But what happens when the government is unassailable? Too often what was protecting turns to destruction. In Germany, in the 30s, there was an economic emergency. The Bolshevik Communists were in the country, and were perceived as a threat. To combat this danger, after the Reichstag fire, the enabling act was passed, passing further power from the hands of the Reichstag into the hands of the ruler. One of these powers was control of the finances of the government. Before too long, the emergency powers removed the Reichstag, after the death of Hindenburg. Attacks on 'antisocials, homosexuals, and sex offenders' became common after the civil rights of the people were removed under those emergency powers. The age of consent was raised to 21, and the church was promoted as the only measure of morality.

Then came a shining hope for the people of Germany... the racial segregation, distributing the Jews into the Warsaw Ghetto, among other places, where they could live their lives without interference, and the German people could live free of their taint. Meanwhile, the government was painting them more and more as demons, claiming that they were robbing from the people.

The 'resettlement in the east' was begun, and armed resistance only really began after the escape of people from Buchenwald, and Auschwitz. So the Warsaw ghetto was burned, blown up block by block, and 'cleansed'.

Meanwhile the people of Germany lived mostly unaware of the deaths of millions, living in fear of being taken away themselves, while they labored under the National Socialists and tried to eke out a living... the slaughter of 'defectives' and those felt to be 'detrimental to the whole' was sanctioned by 'reason' and brought in by religion and fear. Nobody wanted to believe what was going on. Even today, some still disbelieve... and some have blocked it from their memory, for being too troubling.

Fear is powerful, and there are monsters in the night... be wary of building a bigger monster to fight them. They often turn on you.
Read more!

Freedom, security, and sex offenders and the law

I've been doing a great deal of studing on the registry, and what, in the United States, constitutes civil and criminal law, as well as common law. This document discusses this, in detail.

Our law system is Common Law. It is a system of debates, of finding precedent and law, in all of its imperfections. The cases and precedents date back nearly to the 11th century that we know of, and possibly before. The system evolved, several times going to various swings of conservatism and liberalism, sometimes even going so far as to become oppresive, then brought back to heel by the populace.

During the reign of King John, a number of the lords of the land banded together, and forced him to sign the Magna Carta, a great charter that was designed to limit the powers of the King over people nominally his vassals. it established rules and laws, the ability of freemen to keep arms, and bear them in defense of the king and their land, and lords. It further created a nullification of the 'kings right', the right to enter any property and seize any person and property that they wished.

The trial by jury was tested in 1544, by the trial of Throckmorton for treason and Sedition. The jury was severely punished for freeing him against the legal counsel of the Judge. In 1649, the Lilburne trial was held, under the Cromwell Regeime, for a similar issue, and was the first to argue for juristic nullification of the law.

Later, in Bushnell's Case, the right to jury nullification was upheld again, creating a legal precedent in 1670, that lasted until 1990 in the US.

Currently, the statement of a juror regarding nullification is grounds for removal from the jury, as it is in voir dire, and instruction by the defense, or judge, is considered to be grounds for a mistrial.

Our nation is one of common law. It is, and has thus been, since its inception. Cases were judged, not by the law, but by precedent. Those who were on the prosecution, and those on the defense searched the books of precedent, in order to find the most applicable defenses and crimes, respectively. Common law was based in the rights of the people, the right of the accused to be innocent until proven guilty, and the right of the person to the best possible defense, as well as to appeal.

The reason I raise these points of history is to contrast several things. Civil law has two current definitions which are inextricably linked within the U.S. system. Civil law is the codified laws, the regulations, and structures that provide recourse for parties in a contract, including marriage, incorporation, lawsuits, and other 'private' proceedings. It is a system of agreements between persons, or entities declared as persons for the purpose of the law.

Specifically, civil law is considered 'adversarial' law. It is considered to be law that is inquisitorial, mostly because the rights of the people were ignored, one could testify against oneself, and be compelled to do so, as well as being forced into testimony that could be harmful to one's own case. Further, once the initial claim was passed with merit, the defending party had to prove their own innocence.

There were a few limitations, however. According to tradition and law, civil trials, and civil laws, could not provide punishment in the form of jail time. Civil laws could not even provide for a minute in restraint.

This is where civil and criminal laws differ. Criminal laws deal in punishment. They deal in terms of restraint and imprisonment, and this is the very definition of a criminal law. Criminal laws further are dealt with, at least in theory, from the standpoint of innocence until proven guilty. The burden of proof is on the state or local enforcement agencies, rather than on the person, save in cases of defense by insanity.

In short, any law with a criminal punishment, a punishment for detention, attached, cannot be a civil law or a civil regulation.

The problem before the courts in Smith Vs Doe, 538 US 84 (2003) was a question, not on the legality of the law itself, but on the legality of the release of information. The release of information, by itself, was not a criminal code, as the release itself provided no punishment per se. However, if the law had been applied to the registry, rather than the release of information, I believe it could not have been found as a civil matter. The focus of the case, however, was on the release of information, rather than the registry itself.

In the Connecticut Dept of Public Safety vs Doe, 538 US 1 2003, the procedural due process grounds were nullified. This leaves the substantiative due process grounds, and a test of the Ex Post Facto, rather than on the release, on the inclusion onto the registry. This, I believe, is due to faulty wording on the nature of the substance of the Ex Post Facto claim.

Further, given the following information, historically, I would argue the point that the founding fathers did not intend Ex Post Facto to be attributed to civil laws.

At the time of the founding of the Constitution, civil laws were not in place in the United States. It was not until 1804 that any civil codes were passed. Civil law was designed under common law as a way to mediate the agreements between two private parties. Hence, the judges drew upon their common law knowledge (and common sense) to adjudicate a case where the agreement was in question, or the nature of the penalty of the agreement was. (financial penalties or torts, divorce cases, etc).

The reason the founding fathers did not discuss ex post facto in civil matters during the constitutional arguments was that it could not occur. Who would agree to the creation of a contract where they could be fined for things that occurred before the contract was created? And if they did, was it not their own fault for not reading it more closely?

Ironically, our nation since 1808 has suffered a major shift; we utilize civil law synonymously with Roman Law. Roman law was codified law, adversarial and inquisitorial, and did not include self-protection. Roman law also merged both the civil and the criminal codes.

Roman law is also known as Napoleonic law. Napoleonic law was an outgrowth of the Roman Law, as was a great deal of the law in Europe. The purpose of roman law was threefold; maintaining order, managing the people, and keeping the power in the hands of the Emperor and Senate.

Since 1808, we have had many laws placed on the books. Thousands upon thousands of them in fact, to the point where no man can know all of them, and even the computers have difficulty searching through them to find a meaningful result. Our laws grow more and more powerful, and become more and more punitive, even under the veil of 'civil' law.

But it cannot be 'civil' law, if it provides a punishment, can it?

Only if you mutate 'roman law' into 'Civil law'.

In our nation today, we become more and more interested in keeping control. How better to do this, though, than to legislate everything? We legislate eating, legislate drinking, legislate health and sickness, legislate how we can pay one another, legislate our taxes, legislate our lives.

And the more legislation there is, the more outlawry there is, not because people's behavior changes at first, but there is more to get into trouble for. The more laws we pass, the higher the crime, and eventually, people's behavior changes.

People are strange animals. We apply reason until we are hurt. We often, when hurt, cannot apply reason to prevent another hurt. We live in fear, in injustice, afraid to reach out and change it, but cannot get past the fear enough to realize that we can change it.

Emotions betray reason. They both bring us together, and break us apart. Wisdom falls before lust, falls before anger, falls before fear... but how can we control what we are? Because of reason...

There is no reason, however, to laws designed under the Roman statute. They are black and white, all or nothing, and the punishments as well are all or nothing. mandatory minima, no exceptions. They are systems of punishments designed to keep people in fear and under control, after all, if there is enough law, one can be tried for things that are ephimeral. With ex post facto, one can be tried for crimes that occurred before the law was passed.

Imagine an intersection. You cross it every day.. then someone places a stop sign there, and makes the stop sign retroactive for the past ten years. All the sudden you're guilty of fines for all the time the stop sign 'was there' legally. It is a civl law. it is ex post facto. is it right? No... no it is not. And this is why ex post facto is just as inapplicable under civil law as criminal.

One must agree to civil law, or it is not civil. Are we agreeing to the registry? Aye, we are.. but it is not civil law. It is enforced upon us by extortion, held against us by force, if we do not comply, we go to prison, often for longer than our original sentences. If we do not comply again... in some states we can go away for life.

is this reason? Is a man convicted fourty years ago still a danger? Perhaps... but only in the sense we are all a danger. We are all 'potential predators'. Every man, every woman, every child in the US is a 'potential predator'. Do you still insist on registering the potential problems?

That's the problem with potentials, with perceptions. The problem with definitions is that they change, and understanding them later can be difficult. This is why the constitution and common law worked the way it did. It applied concrete laws in ways that were flexible according to the case.

Mandatory minimum sentences subvert this process. They create a rule by writ of law, that cannot be considered beyond by the judge or jury on the prospective case. They have no oversight, they are a law unto themselves. In any situation where they say 'that is the law, I have no choice', you can bet that the Roman Law, the Napoleonic law, is behind it.

Is this really who we are? The Code Napoleon was used in Russia.. in fascist germany, in France, in Spain. It was embraced with joy by the Bolsheviks, carried by the Fascists in Italy.

It is a tool of subjugation, and war against the very people who give the power to the government.

Yes... People give the power to the government. The citizens cede those powers to the government. The government does not give rights, it can only take them. The people are, in truth, the ultimate arbiters of their rights and privileges. If a right has been given up, it is only by the acquiescence of the people.

We forget who we are, why we are here. It does not matter how few people there are in a group, or if it is even an individual. If it can be done to anyone, it can be done to all. The attack on a single person against their rights is an attack on all rights, converting them into privileges, which will be removed.

This is why we are not a democracy... we are a democratic republic. In a democracy, the only rights one has are those that others vote to give you. They can also, in a true democracy, vote someone out of a vote, and ultimately, only a few control the democracy, until one or more of them die and one takes full control.

Equal protection under the law is not just for those you like... when it fails in any case, and you allow it to fail.. you have slain your own rights on the altar of security. I keep repeating this point.. hoping it will sink in to those who read it.

Benjamin Franklin: Those who trade freedom for security deserve neither and will lose both.


Thomas Paine said it eloquently. in his 'Common Sense' of 1776.

"Some writers have so confounded society with government, as to leave little or no distinction between them; whereas they are not only different, but have different origins. Society is produced by our wants, and government by our wickedness; the former promotes our happiness positively by uniting our affections, the latter negatively by restraining our vices. The one encourages intercourse, the other creates distinctions. The first is a patron, the last a punisher."
Read more!