Since, "The origin of a thing ought to be inquired into,"2 then it would follow that we should look into the origin of the word "law" to give us some idea of its meaning today.

Unlike many of the terms used in the legal system of the United States, the word "law" does not come from the Latin but from the Anglo-Saxon word laguand the Middle English lawe, laghe meaning just, right and fair. In Latin "law" would be translated jus (juris) from which we take the word justice. The Romans had another word, lex (legis), from which we get the word legal meaning "statute, bill, principle, rule; contract, condition..." What is legal (connected by contract) becomes lawful (just) by consent.

The legal system based upon freedom has no lawful power to "command" until by consent an individual binds himself to it "for lex (law) is derived from ligare (to bind), because it binds one to act."3

"All government without the consent of the governed is the very definition of slavery!"4

If the Romans, from whom we take much of the principles upon which the present legal system relies, saw fit and necessary to use two separate and distinct words, one lex and the other jus then why do we often use them interchangeably. It is in the distinction between these two words that much of our honest confusion lies.

"That which bars those who have contracted will bar their successors also."5

While, "The law (jus) is the rule of right; and whatever is contrary to the rule of right is an injury,"6 we find that "human laws (lex, leges) are born, live, and die."7 "That which bars those who have contracted will bar their successors also."8 Therefore, "The contract makes the law"9 for our children as well as for ourselves.

"We shall have world government whether or not we like it. The question is, whether world government will be achieved by conquest or consent."10

In the maxim "Consent makes the law," it is evident that it is our consent that makes a man made rule, such as a statute, law. It is not the arbitrary proclamation of a remote group of men, be it parliament or congress that involuntarily binds men to obedience and subjection. Could this mean that a person can simply disregard all legislation that he himself arbitrarily disagrees with for one reason or another? No, can only be the answer else all government would be anarchy.

A contract is law between the parties having received their consent.11

How does government receive consent? When does an act of consent truly become binding? "In every contract, whether nominate or innominate, there is implied an exchange, i.e. a consideration."12 Nodding the head, raising your right hand, or signing a piece of paper are all evidence that you have given consent but the taking of "sufficient consideration" is an act that adds force and authority to consent, for either you have consented to an exchange of consideration or you are a thief. So a contract is "an agreement, upon sufficient consideration, to do or not to do a particular thing."13

So, what is the consideration between government and its citizens?

"Nothing is so contrary to consent as force and fear."14

There are countless ways in which the state works its craft of expanding its power and presence in the world but the lawful way is by consent. It should be realized that even though coercion through force and fear are often used the only real binding and lawful consent is voluntary.

"What is mine cannot be taken away without consent."15

If it is consent that makes the legal system a lawful system then it is at the point of our consent that we become bound to obey a legal rule. It does not matter that those legal rules are changed regularly, as long as those rules are changed in accordance with the system that was set down at the origin of the legal system and the individuals consenting assent. All this, despite the fact that consent maybe acquired by appealing to the slothful greed and coveting selfishness of the individual.

The hand of the diligent shall bear rule: but the slothful shall be under tribute. (Pr 12:24)

"The laws of England are threefold: common law, customs, and decrees of parliament."16

There was law in England long before a parliament was convened. Then "new states of facts arising out of changed economic and social conditions" brought the desire for, if not a need for, a strong central government.

"Before the Norman conquest of England in 1066 the people were the fountainhead of justice. The Anglo-Saxon courts of those days were composed of large numbers of freemen and the law which they administered, was that which had been handed down by oral tradition from generation to generation. In competition with these non professional courts the Norman king, who insisted that he was the fountainhead of justice, set up his own tribunals. The judges who presided over these royal courts were agents or representatives of the king, not of the people; but they were professional lawyers who devoted most of their time and energy to the administration of justice, and the courts over which they presided were so efficient that they gradually all but displaced the popular, nonprofessional courts."17

But the thing displeased Samuel, when they said, Give us a king to judge us. And Samuel prayed unto the LORD. (1 Samuel 8:6)

William of Normandy came to England to collect a disputed debt owed to him by Harold. He did not conquer and seize all of England but only Harold and his properties, duties and obligations (and those herediments of the freemen who had fought along side him in his attempt to avoid payment to William). Also from his assumed position, William "insisted that he was the fountainhead of justice" and began to consolidate and expand his position and authority by waging war against all who opposed his claim to Harold's kingly dominion. Many changes were brought about as a result of Williams strong presence. He opened the door to customs and forms of law that had no foot hold in the land of the Anglos since the fall of the Roman Empire. He instituted a survey of all the land that fell under his sword by right of trial by conquest. This was done for the purpose of collecting an excise or tribute tax on the land of those who were forced in defeat to take an oath of fealty and bind their allegiance and lands to William. The people of England called the book that included these subject lands the "Doomsday Book" and it is still called that to this day.

Wherefore say unto them, Thus saith the Lord GOD; Ye eat with the blood, and lift up your eyes toward your idols, and shed blood: and shall ye possess the land? (Ezekiel 33:25)

With this growing loss of freehold titles in land, the "large numbers of freemen" who were so necessary for the administration of the Common Law of Land were no longer available.

Ye stand upon your sword, ye work abomination, and ye defile every one his neighbour's wife: and shall ye possess the land? (Ezekiel 33:26)

A legal title is not a freehold, lawful or a fee simple title. Were the remaining freehold titles in land lost by conquest or by other means?

"Towns and boroughs act as if persons."18

Many followed William, establishing the concepts of towns and cities, which had been traditionally shunned by the Anglos, along with other customs of business and a loyalty to their homeland that opened a freer avenue for the establishment of commerce.

And they said, Go to, let us build us a city and a tower, whose top [may reach] unto heaven; and let us make us a name, lest we be scattered abroad upon the face of the whole earth. (Ge. 11:4)

And as for the people, he removed them to cities from [one] end of the borders of Egypt even to the end thereof. (Ge. 47:21)

The law of the Anglo-Saxons still remained intact but not for those who fell subject to William and his successors. The two systems lived side by side in a manner similar to the two jurisdictional systems of law used in the Roman Empire following their own Roman civil war.

The "common law" is "distinguished from law created by the enactment of legislatures," and it "comprises the body of those principles and rules of action, relating to the government and security of persons and property, which derive their authority solely from usages and customs of immemorial antiquity..." And "as concerns its force and authority in the United States, the phrase designates that portion of the common law of England (including such acts of parliament as were applicable) which had been adopted and was in force here at the time of the Revolution"19

Liberi. In Saxon Law - Freeman; the possessors of lands.20

The common law is dependent upon "large numbers of freemen" who can decide both fact and law as distinguished from the jurors of the United States today which have lost their land through neglect and ignorance. Today's jurors, also, as U.S. citizens are subject to the administration of government. They are almost always sworn to abide by the decrees of the legislature before they take to their seat as jurors, which allows them to judge only the facts of a case, leaving the determination of law in the hands of the legislature and the administering professional judges.

Liber homo. A free man; a freeman lawfully competent to act as juror.21

An allodial proprietor, as distinguished from a vassal or feudatory.22

The original settlers and founders of this republic, called the Americas, had come here fleeing the king's justice saying, 'Farewell, Rome. Farewell, Babylon.' Here the individual had access to a free-dominion by the relinquishment, in charter, of the right of the king to make law without consent. In the case of the American colonies, which were republics and were guaranteed by contract with the king that no law could be made "except by the consent of the freeman," there was a clear consideration as there was with Harold the last Anglo-Saxon king in England. The king of England was to give the colonies the benefit of his protection from "foreign invasion" and in exchange he could impose only excise (use) taxes and tariffs (taxes on foreign trade) as well as regulate the equitable practice of business for which there were no remedies at the common law.

The extent of the legal authority of the king of Britain in the Americas was limited. It was his usurpations (seizing a use) of rights that were not his that led to the Declaration of Independence, where by the colonial governments became totally independent states because of the dissolution of the charter. A dissolution caused by the king's breaking the contract and violating the terms of the agreement. The limited authority and responsibility of the king was then assumed by the colonial governments who eventually bound themselves together by articles of confederation, and later by a constitution which created a legal society with certain limited obligations and privileges to the general populus of the republics.

"The real destroyers of the liberties of the people is he who spreads among them bounties, donations and benefits."23

The United States Federal government, that exists within the jurisdiction of the original republics, is a limited jurisdiction within itself. It grew not by decree but by government offers and individual acceptance. In other words the limited authority of government expanded by expanding the offer of benefits and obligations to the individual citizens in the republic including membership in the Government itself. The more desired, the more offered and the more that was accepted, all the more was required.

The desire of the slothful killeth him; for his hands refuse to labour. (Proverbs 21:25)

These benefits were not part of the original obligations of the state governments or the United States Federal government. The average citizen cannot in justice accept them without offering at least some seemingly equal consideration.

My son, if sinners entice thee, consent not. (Proverbs 1, 10)

Each time we accept or apply for new bounties, donations and benefits from government we are consenting by deed or word to the legal authority of that government or body politic.

Let him that stole steal no more: but rather let him labour, working with [his] hands the thing which is good, that he may have to give to him that needeth. (Ephesians 4:28)

To take what is not a gift and is not owed, with no intention of returning equal consideration, is the essence of stealing. To accept without consenting to pay the price is the essence of theft. Ignorance of this fundamental principle is the "ignorance of law" that the law does not excuse.

I went by the field of the slothful, and by the vineyard of the man void of understanding;... I looked upon [it, and] received instruction. Then I saw, [and] considered [it] well: I looked upon [it, and] received instruction. [Yet] a little sleep, a little slumber, a little folding of the hands to sleep: So shall thy poverty come [as] one that travelleth; and thy want as an armed man. (Proverbs 24:30, 34)

"In respect to the ground of the authority of law, it is divided as natural law, or the law of nature or of God, and positive law." Positive Law is, "Law actually ordained or established, under human sanctions, as distinguished from the law of nature or natural law, which comprises those considerations of justice, right, and universal expediency that are announced by the voice of reason or of revelation..."24

"Law governs men and reason the law."25

Natural Law or the law of nature is, "The divine will, or the dictate of right reason, showing the moral deformity or moral necessity that there is in any act, according to its suitableness or unsuitableness to a reasonable nature. Sometimes used of the law of human reason, in contradistinction to the revealed law, and sometimes of both, in contradistinction to positive law."

The Natural Law maybe the divine will or merely the will of men who by their own reason have determined that it is lawful. If the reason is not right reason then the law or rule is not truly Natural Law. Natural law as a term may have several uses and should be clarified when ever it is used.

"They [natural laws] are independent of any artificial connections, and differ from mere presumptions of law in this essential respect, that the latter depend on and are a branch of the peculiar system of jurisprudence to which they belong; but mere natural presumptions are derived wholly by means of the common experience of mankind, without the aid or control of any particular rule of law, but simply from the course of nature and the habits of society. These presumptions fall within the exclusive province of the jury, who are to pass upon the facts."26

The natural law being divine will and right reason are not connected to mere presumptions of law. Presumptions of law are dependent upon peculiar systems of jurisprudence.

Jurisprudence is but the philosophy of law or the science which treats of the principles of positive law and legal relationships. The term, jurisprudence, is wrongly applied to actual systems of law.27

To say that these presumption fall within the exclusive province of the jury, who are to pass upon the facts, does not mean that the jury is to pass upon the facts of the case and not the law. It means that a jury is to decide upon the presumption of law based on their own common experience and God given conscience.

"Nothing against reason is lawful."28

Is the subjection of mankind to a legal system Divine will?

The word legal itself is defined in Black's 3rd as:

1. Conforming to law; according to law; required or permitted by law...
2. Proper or sufficient to be recognized by law; cognizable in the courts...
3. Cognizable in courts of law, as distinguished from courts of equity; construed or governed by the rules and principles of law...
4. Posited [assumed] by courts as the inference or imputation of the law, as a matter of construction, rather than established by actual proof.
5. Created by law.

Legal systems may conform to law, they may be permitted by law, they may even be created by law but they are not law in themselves. They may become law by consent and constructions of law. What is legal is cognizable in courts of law; as distinguished from courts of equity which are not governed by rules of law.

It should be clear that any legal system is subject to the prior and essential principles of law. Law that is basic, fundamental and well established over thousands of years of recorded history. It must be understood that it is consent that makes what is only legally proclaimed, lawfully established. Also it should be apparent that to bind oneself to a legal system that is constantly under the process of change is at least dangerous if not inevitably disastrous.