Civil Law

Civil law, then and now:

Creative Commons © 2011 Sanity Clause RE [Rascal Emeritus]

“Justice” is an equitable term, a term in equity not law.  Lady Justice often weighs what is “legal” against what is “just” on her scales and the public’s collective sense of right and wrong, in our candid world, renders its verdict in time.  “Time makes more converts than reason.” – Thomas Paine.  “The Declaration of Independence is not a legal document.” – US Supreme Court.[1][1]  This process describes Common Law[2][2] in the “government of the people, by the people, and for the people” Abraham Lincoln praised[3][3]. 

Civil law is another matter.  Civil law deals with privileges, not rights.  Civil law started out as an alternative to civil war.  At the dawn of civil-ization in Italy only Romans had rights; in fact they claimed their right to rule was “divine” and given to them by the gods Apollo and Jupiter!  The Romans considered the rest of the world inferior, but it came to pass that the common people of the rest of Italy began to balk at their servitude; after all, it was their young men who were conscripted into the Roman Legions to build Rome’s infrastructure and fight its wars, so they felt they too had a right to a piece of the pie, and they had a lot more weapons of destruction than the Romans had...  To avoid a civil war they had no chance of winning the Romans placated the Italian people by establishing the Jus Civil,[4][4] granting the outlying city states privileges under municipium[5][5].  Rome kept its claim of divine right alive by calling its government republican, but in reality it was a feudal state with the Romans as aristocracy and the rest of Italy as serfs until the pretence was dropped altogether and it became an empire; only to fall from treason from within.

In 1066 William the Conqueror took England by force of arms under his claim of “the divine right of kings” and attached his version of the Roman Jus Civil, lamprey like, to the English Common Law.  Under William’s version of Civil Law he literally owned his kingdom and everyone in it, and even life itself was a privilege subject to his regal whim; not a right endowed by God as America’s Founding Fathers later claimed in Equity.  The Anglo-Saxon England, prior to William’s government, although feudal in form, had been at least somewhat egalitarian in that the Witanagemot[6][6] existed to remind the king he was a servant of God, and not God incarnate; but William had no humility so now Williams[7][7] is the third most common English surname.  In 1215 Magna Charta came reestablishing some God given rights, among which is the right to the judgment of one’s peers, and put a huge chink in the armor of the Divine Right of Kings and King William’s version of Civil Law; that is, until in 1534 Henry VIII broke away from the Roman Catholic Church and the “Supremacy of the Crown Act” was instituted.  Basically, for all intents and purposes, Henry VIII had declared himself god incarnate and his government was a theocracy; for failure to worship his way was heresy against his church.  Roman Catholic Papal Supremacy, itself lacking Liberty of conscience and belief among its adherents, was powerless against monarchy’s might; but Mohammed and Martin Luther, to name two, had minds of their own, then along came William Penn’s civil disobedience…

The Founding Fathers of the United States of America said they promoted civil-ization to “establish justice (and) insure domestic tranquility”[8][8] etc. but whether or not that was their actual agenda remained to be seen[9][9].  To idolize the Framers is idolatry, and to trust in them is stupid[10][10]; regardless of what honest well meaning school teachers have taught by rote for so long.  Remember, the Framers too claimed divine right as their justification, just like the ancient Romans and English kings.  No mistake: the phrase, “the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them”[11][11] is a claim of entitlement by divine right in no uncertain terms.  The fundamental difference between divine right the Romans claimed, the divine right of kings England’s monarchy claimed, and the divine right America’s Founding Fathers claimed was: here in the US peerage was to be universal with everyone equal and subject to the same laws[12][12]; however, ‘the proof of the pudding is in the eating’.

“EQUAL JUSTICE UNDER LAW” carved in stone atop the Supreme Court Building in Washington D.C. does not agree with either the ancient Roman Jus Civil wherein the Romans always remained “more equal” [Orwell] than the rest of Italy or William the Conqueror’s perverted Civil Law which eschewed the idea of equality altogether; but etymology shows the meaning of words drifts over time, and it has been a while...

In America, in my observation, being civil-ized is commonly understood as the antithesis of being warlike, and our Court System (both Civil and Criminal) exists, at least in theory, so that we can hash out our issues peaceably rather than claw at eachother like animals.  Trust in the system is the key to its credibility; indeed, the Government of the United States was founded at law as an administrative special trust[13][13] for the purposes set out in the Preamble to its Constitution, with powers granted/delegated/entrusted to it in special trust by its prescriptively sovereign people.  All public officers in the United States are, at least in theory, trustees licensed by the “consent of the governed[14][14]” to serve, not to rule.  Sovereigns do not employ others to rule them, neither do servants give their masters orders; but whether or not a trust reposed is upheld can only be seen after the fact...  Public Trustees who knowingly exceed their authority are outside the law; ergo, “outlaws,” not “public servants.”  Even Congress itself cannot lawfully delegate a power delegated to it without the express consent of the People via constitutional amendment[15][15].

“A nation can survive its fools-. But it cannot survive treason-.” – Marcus Tullius Cicero

English Common Law has the Laws of Moses at its root, but Civil Law worships other gods.  Common and Civil Law can work together; but when Civil Law supplants the Common Law it is always where there is an aristocracy afoot…  Think about it.