Category Archives: Natural Law

The People’s Palladium of Liberty is the Trial by Jury preserved for them by the Seventh Amendment to the Constitution for the united States

This post is a condensed version of “An Essay on the Trial by Jury” by Lysander Spooner.

This was write up was done by Chaplin Raymond of the Texas Jural Society.

The People’s Palladium of Liberty is the Trial by Jury preserved for them by the Seventh Amendment to the Constitution for the united States

It serves as a Barrier against the Tyranny and Oppression of the Government

Consider the Alternative
The Government’s Palladium of its Liberty is the Jury Trial
Which is merely a tool in its hands, for carrying into execution any injustice and oppression it may desire to have executed. The jury trial serves as a Barrier against the Prevention of Tyranny and Oppression of the Government

“The trial by jury,” then, is a “trial by the country” —that is by the people as distinguished from a trial by the government.

“For more than eight hundred years — that is, since the Magna Carta, in 1215 — there has been no clearer principle of English or American constitutional law, than that, in criminal cases, it is not only the right and duty of juries to judge what are the facts, what is the law, and what was the moral intent of the accused; but that it is also their right, and their primary and paramount duty, to judge of the justice of the law, and to hold all laws invalid that are, in their opinion, unjust or oppressive, and all persons guiltless in violating, or resisting the execution of, such laws.

“Unless such be the right and duty of jurors, it is plain that, instead of juries being a “palladium of liberty” — a barrier against the tyranny and oppression of the government — they are really mere tools in its hands, for carrying into execution any injustice and oppression it may desire to have executed.

“But for their right to judge of the law, and the justice of the law, juries would be no protection to an accused person, even as to matters of fact; for, if the government can dictate to a jury any law whatever, in a criminal case, it can certainly dictate to them the laws of evidence. That is, it can dictate what evidence is admissible, and what inadmissible, and also what force or weight is to be given to the evidence admitted. And if the government can thus dictate to a jury the laws of evidence, it can not only make it necessary for them to convict on a partial exhibition of the evidence rightfully pertaining to the case, but it can even require them [*6] to convict on any evidence whatever that it pleases to offer them.

“That the rights and duties of jurors must necessarily be such as are here claimed for them, will be evident when it is considered what the trial by jury is, and what is its object.

“The trial by jury,” then, is a “trial by the country” —that is, by the people as distinguished from a trial by the government.

“It was anciently called “trial per pais” that is, “trial by the country.” And now, in every criminal trial, the jury are told that the accused “has, for trial, put himself upon the country; which country you (the jury) are.”

“The object of this trial “by the country,” or by the people, in preference to a trial by the government, is to guard against every species of oppression by the government. In order to effect this end, it is indispensable that the people, or “the country,” judge of and determine their own liberties against the government;
“But all this trial by the country” would be no trial at all “by the country,” but only a trial by the government, if the government determines its own powers over the people or could either declare who may, and who may not, be jurors, or could dictate to the jury anything whatever, either of law or evidence, that is of the essence of the trial.

If the government may decide who may, and who may not, be jurors, it will of course select only its partisans, and those friendly to its measures. It may not only prescribe who may, and who may not, be eligible to be drawn as jurors; but it may also question each person drawn as a juror, as to his sentiments in regard to the particular law involved in each trial, before suffering him to be sworn on the panel; and exclude him if he be found unfavorable to the maintenance of such a law.

So, also, if the government may dictate to the jury what laws they are to enforce, it is no longer a trial by the country,” [*9] but a trial by the government; because the jury then try the accused, not by any standard of their own — by their own judgments of their rightful liberties — but by a standard dictated to them by the government. And the standard, thus dictated by the government, becomes the measure of the people’s liberties. If the government dictate the standard of trial, it of course dictates the results of the trial. And such a trial is no trial by the country, but only a trial by the government; and in it the government determines what are its own powers over the people, instead of the people’s determining what are their own liberties against the government. In short, if the jury have no right to judge of the justice of a law of the government, they plainly can do nothing to protect the people, against the oppressions of the government; for there are no oppressions which the government may not authorize by law.

How is it possible that juries can do anything to protect the liberties of the people against the government, if they are not allowed to determine what those liberties are?

Any government, that is its own judge of, and determines authoritatively for the people, what are its own powers over the people, is an absolute government of course. It has all the powers that it chooses to exercise. There is no other –or at least no more accurate– definition of despotism than this. [In this case the only rights are those defined by the government; i.e., civil rights – not indigenous constitutional rights.]

On the other hand, any people that judge of and determine authoritatively for the government, what are their own liberties against the government, of course retain all the liberties they wish to enjoy. And this is freedom. At least, it is freedom to them; because, although it may be theoretically imperfect, it, nevertheless, corresponds to their highest notions of freedom.

 To secure this right of the people to judge of their own liberties against the government, the jurors are taken, (or must be, to make them lawful jurors,) from the body of the people, by lot, or by some process that precludes any previous knowledge, choice, or selection of them, on the part of the government. [*7] This is done to prevent the government’s constituting a jury of its own partisans or friends; in other words, to prevent the government’s packing a jury, with a view to maintain its own laws, and accomplish its own purposes.

It is supposed that, if twelve men be taken, by lot, from the mass of the people, without the possibility of any previous knowledge, choice, or selection of them, on the part of the government, the jury will be a fair epitome of “the country” at large, and not merely of the party or faction that sustain the measures of the government; that substantially all classes, of opinions, prevailing among the people, will be represented in the jury; and especially that the opponents of the government, (if the government have any opponents,) will be represented there, as well as its friends; that the classes, who are oppressed by the laws of the government, (if any are thus oppressed,) will have their representatives in the jury, as well as those classes, who take sides with the oppressor — that is, with the government.

It is fairly presumable that such a tribunal will agree to no conviction except such as substantially the whole country would agree to, if they were present, taking part in the trial. A trial by such a tribunal is, therefore, in effect, “a trial by the country.” In its results it probably comes as near to a trial by the whole country, as any trial that it is practicable to have, without too great inconvenience and expense. And, as unanimity is required for a conviction, it follows that no one can be convicted, except for the violation of such laws as substantially the whole country wish to have maintained. The government can enforce none of its laws, (by punishing offenders, through the verdicts of juries,) except such as substantially the whole people wish to have enforced. The government, therefore, consistently with the trial by jury, can exercise no powers over the people, (or, what is the same thing, over the accused person, who represents the rights of the people,) except such as substantially the whole people of the country consent that it may exercise. In such a trial, therefore, “the country,” or the people, judge of and determine their own liberties against the government, instead of the [*8] government’s judging of and determining its own powers over the people.

The jury are also to judge whether the laws are rightly expounded to them by the court. Unless they judge on this point, they do nothing to protect their liberties against the oppressions that are cable of being practiced under cover of a corrupt exposition of the laws. If the judiciary can authoritatively dictate to a jury any exposition of the law, they can dictate to them the law itself, and such laws as they please; because laws are, in practice, one thing or another, according as they are expounded. [*10]

The jury must also judge whether there really be any such law, (be it good or bad,) as the accused is charged with having transgressed. Unless they judge on this point, the people are liable to have their liberties taken from them by brute force, without any law at all.

The jury must also judge of the laws of evidence. If the government can dictate to a jury the laws of evidence, it can not only shut out any evidence it pleases, tending to vindicate the accused, but it can require that any evidence whatever, that it pleases to offer, be held as conclusive proof of any offence whatever which the government chooses to allege.

It is manifest, therefore, that the jury must judge of and try the whole case, and every part and parcel of the case, free of any dictation or authority on the part of the government. They must judge of the existence of the law; of the true exposition of the law; of the justice of the law; and of the admissibility and weight of all the evidence offered. Otherwise the government will have everything its own way; the jury will be mere puppets in the hands of the government; and the trial will be, in reality, a trial by the government, and not a “trial by the country.” By such trials the government will determine its own powers over the people, instead of the people’s determining their own liberties against the government; and it will be an entire delusion to talk, as for centuries we have done, of the trial by jury, as a “palladium of liberty,” or as any protection to the people against the oppression and tyranny of the government.

The question, then, between trial by jury, as thus described, and ‘jury trial’ by the government, is simply a question between liberty and despotism. The authority to judge what are the powers of the government, and what the liberties of the people, must necessarily be vested in one or the other of the parties themselves the government, or the people; because there is no third party to whom it can be entrusted. If the authority be vested in the government, the government is absolute, and the people have no liberties except such as the government sees fit to indulge them with. If, on the other hand, that authority be vested in the people, then the people have all liberties, (as against the government,) except such as substantially the whole people (through a jury) choose to disclaim; and the government can exercise no to power except such as substantially the whole people (through a jury) consent that it may exercise.


The Oath: Would you stand with someone who has taken this oath?

This is the kind of Oath I would feel like taking as member in our assembly. I still may have a couple of things, but this is the first draft.

Any additions or corrections will be accepted for review by the whole.

I promise to give unconditional acceptance to all assembly members.

I promise to be gentle with all their hearts.

I promise to allow them to have access to my heart.

I promise to tell the full truth even when it’s sometimes scary to do so.

I promise to put effort into learning how everyone most likes to be listened to, and then listen to them in that way as often as I can.

I promise to love and support them when they need it, and lovingly encourage them when they need it. With due consideration to having developed that kind of relationship.

I promise that I will make myself as emotionally fulfilled as possible in my own life, in order that I can show up as my best self for the relationship I have with the Assembly & it’s members.

I promise to be aware of, and own, my own emotional triggers and to never hold anyone responsible for my emotional response to things.

I promise to not waste precious time or energy worrying about who to place blame on. It gets us nowhere and it distracts from our collective goal of coming back to a place of love and connection.

I promise to acknowledge that any assembly member is not their past… and I am not my past… and although we likely have some residual habits that have been brought with us from that past, we can choose a new way if that way doesn’t work for us.

I promise to assume that everyone has the best of intentions.

I promise to assume that everyone is always coming from a place of love.

I promise to love and accept every side of everyone and all of their emotions, moods, and insecurities.

I promise to support them in their chosen path, passions and anything else that makes them happy.

I promise to continually put effort into my relationships with Assembly members.

I promise to make distractions-free connection time a priority on a regular basis.

I promise to have a one-on-one contact with at least one Assembly member once every month, no matter how busy or stressful life becomes until finally located on the project site. And to find and approach to apply the skills I have and to develop new skills when ever possible/necessary  to promote the accepted Flower of Life Community Plan as part of my acceptance into the Assembly.

I promise to always be open to talking about anything in regard to our health & well being , no matter how challenging certain conversations might be to have.

I promise to always look for how others might be hurting in the moments when they fall upon trying times or have feelings of indifference & seem to not have time for me.

I promise to never hold any of assembly relationship hostage or  threaten our physical, mental, emotional & spiritual  partnership in any way.

I promise to always cherish my relationship with the Assembly and it’s Members. And to celebrate it as the safe container for growth that it is.

I promise to always want to learn to feel safe, comfortable and acknowledge the Eternal Divine Spirit as possible in each member of the Assembly. In so loving each other and we love the most high our focus to dedicate ourselves to the support & development of the conscious awakening of the Divine Spirit within all of us and all mankind.

promise to love the earth and sun and great spirit over all. And honor them and that my love for them will train my focus to bring every thought and action into submission to service to the source within and giving back to nature/earth that birthed us into being in such a way as to honor both our spirits

I promise to honour the royalty of my soul and lay claim to all it’s abundance it offers my life.

Regarding all of the aforementioned statements, I acknowledge that when I say “never” or “always”, I will inevitably make mistakes. I am human, and I am not perfect. But I promise to always do my best and to promptly acknowledge when I have erred .

I promise to be self reliant, self governing, self correcting and support others that want to be that way.

I promise to support those that after a year, have for whatever reason, decided to move on and have kept track of their time credits. Will have all unused time credits returned. Or when available, in a currency of their choosing.

And above all else, I promise to love & support each Assembly member as I would love myself. In such a way that will not be a determint to myself or my family beyond that which they can bare. I also promise not to judge the decisions of others and how they choose to carry that out.

With Much Love & Respect.

James ,  …

Proof our Country and the US Constitution is founded upon Natural Law

Natural Law
Natural Law

In this writer’s various personal discussions and articles written for, there are many references to “Natural Law” and “Consent of the Governed”. Though Natural Law may appear esoteric on first encounter, it is in fact that Foundational Premise of our Nation and Constitution.

“The end of law is not to abolish or restrain, but to preserve and enlarge freedom. For in all the states of created beings capable of law, where there is no law, there is no freedom.”

John Locke, Second Treatise of Civil Government, Chapter 6

This writer suggests to the reader that exposure to Natural Law and Consent of the Governed, will change your Perspective of Reality. (Perspective of Reality means how you see yourself, others, your environment, the world and the universe and your interactions others, your environment, the world and the universe) You will more clearly understand the vision the Founder’s had for this Country (and the writings of this writer.) But this writer must worn the reader that Natural Law wills stir up such old school sentiments and emotions as Individualism, Competition, Creativity and Free Markets.

“Freedom of men under government is to have a standing rule to live by, common to every one of that society, and made by the legislative power vested in it; a liberty to follow my own will in all things, when the rule prescribes not, and not to be subject to the inconstant, unknown, arbitrary will of another man.”

John Locke, Second Treatise of Civil Government 1690

This writer can think of no better way to entice the reader to immerse themselves in Natural Law than providing various proofs that our Country and US Constitution are in fact based on Natural Law. And in a few scant 10 sentences and paragraphs, the reader will find themselves in possession of irrefutable proof of that fact.

Evidence that this country was founded on Natural Law and the Governance Doctrine of Consent of the Governed can be found in the Declaration of Independence and quotes(thoughts) of some of the Founders:

  1. “Laws of Nature” (1st sentence, 1st Paragraph ,;
  2. “certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” (1st Sentence, 2nd Paragraph , & John Locke’s; Two Treatises of Government #119);
  3. “Consent of the Governed”(2nd Sentence,2nd Paragraph & John Locke’s; Two Treatises of Government #119);
  4. “Long Train of Abuses” (4th Sentence, 2nd Paragraph , and John Locke’s Second Treatise, §225;
  5. According to James Madison, the delegates read much of John Locke at the First Continental Congress Brant,
    op. cit.supra note 42, at 76.
  6. Some of the Founder’s of this Country believed a person’s Natural Rights under Natural Law were so plainly and clearly, self-evident truths, that there was no need to reduce them to writing in a “Bill of Rights”;
  7. A free people [claim] their rights as derived from the laws of nature (Natural Law) and not as the gift of their chief magistrate. Thomas Jefferson, One of the Founders, Third US President and Primary drafter of the US Declaration of Independence;
  8. The sacred rights of mankind are not to be rummaged for among old parchments or musty records. They are written, as with a sunbeam, in the whole volume of human nature, by the hand of the divinity itself; and can never be erased or obscured by mortal power. Alexander Hamilton; One of the Founders and First Secretary of Treasury;
  9. He [Locke] sais ‘neither Pagan nor Mahomedan [Muslim] nor Jew ought to be excluded from the civil rights of the Commonwealth because of his religion.’ Shall we suffer a Pagan to deal with us and not suffer him to pray to his god? Why have Xns. [Christians] been distinguished above all people who have ever lived, for persecutions? Is it because it is the genius of their religion? No, it’s genius is the reverse. It is the refusing toleration to those of a different opn [opinion] which has produced all the bustles and wars on account of religion.” Thomas Jefferson’s Notes of Religion (Oct. 1776);
  10. Thomas Jefferson, along with the other Founding Fathers, adhered to rather conventional 18th century political ideas, derived mainly from the works of Locke and Montesquieu. The Declaration of Independence, which is often cited in the media as a marvel of originality, is nothing but a trite paraphrase of the leading ideas in John Locke’s 1693 Concerning the True Original Extent and End of Civil Government. John Adams thought the DOI was hackneyed, and James Madison apologized for its plagiarism by saying that “The object was to assert, not to discover truths.”

The foregoing are mere dry facts evidencing the truth that our Country and Constitution were founded on Natural Law. Natural Law in and of itself is a source of empowerment. As predicted and warned by the Founders, our current crop of elected officials no longer see themselves our equals, and act as though they are our sovereigns not requiring consent of the Governed.

“And thus the community perpetually retains a supreme power of saving themselves from the attempts and designs of anybody, even of their legislators, whenever they shall be so foolish, or so wicked, as to lay and carry on designs against the liberties and properties of the subject”.

John Locke, Second Treatise of Civil Government, Chapter 13

Though our elected officials have tried to reduce WE THE PEOPLE to a state of being submissive Sheople through indoctrination in Public Schools, artificial, unlawful and unconstititutional punishment of those who assert their Natural Law to dissent and duplicity, WE THE PEOPLE have merely to unite and reassert our Natural Rights to cast off this tyranny that we have let ensnare. Pursuant to Natural Law and the Declaration of Independence:

“That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness”

Being so informed, this writer presents the following for your further critical thinking:


Those were my thoughts.

In Closing:

Thank you, my fellow citizens, for taking your valuable time to read and reflect upon what is written here.

If what is written here rings true to you, perhaps you should contact your local elected officials and let them know. If you are afraid of repercussions, snail mail it anonymously and ask them to respond in the local paper or their own monthly/quarterly internet newsletter. Even if this article refers to something outside you geographic area, it still likely applies to your location. Remember all those taxpayer training junkets we taxpayers send the bureaucrats on? They all learn the same “livestock management” techniques to use on WE THE PEOPLE.

And that leaves WE THE PEOPLE with this conundrum: While our #Government works full time with compensation and funded with our money for the cause of #Tyranny; WE THE PEOPLE are forced to work part time without compensation for the cause of #liberty with what is left over of our time, money and energy.

Finally, this article is written with the same intentions as Thomas Paine I seek no leadership role. I seek only to help the American People find their own way using their own “Common Sense”

Keep Fighting the Good Fight!

In Liberty, Don Mashak
The Cynical Patriot
Don Mashak Google Plus


End the Fed(eral Reserve Bank System) #ETF
National Minneapolis

Bring Home the Politicians #BHTP

Lawless America #LawlessAmerica

Term Limits #TermLimit

Justice in Minnesota #JIM

Critical Thinking Notice – This author advises you as no politician would dare. Exercise Critical Thinking ( in determining the truthfulness of anything you read or hear. Do not passively accept nor believe anything anyone tells you, including this author… unless and until you verify it yourself with sources you trust and could actively defend your perspective to anyone who might debate you to the contrary of your perspective