What is Law?
Law is a concept that we are exposed to all of our lives, and which affects our
lives and the things around us. Law is as essential to a well-ordered universe as it is
to a stable and just civil or jural society, or a properly kept family unit. That we might
better understand how law relates to us we need to define what it is or should be.
The following is a definition of law from Black’s Law Dictionary:
1. That which is laid down, ordained, or established.
2. A system of principles and rules of human conduct.
3. A rule of civil conduct.
4. A law is a general rule of human action.
5. A law is a command, which obliges a person or persons. 1
Law is basically a rule that guides, directs or limits the conduct or action of something
or someone, which is declared by some authority. The physical laws of nature guide,
direct and limit the action of matter and energy. There thus are laws of nature guide,
direct and limit the action of matter and energy. There thus are laws of
thermodynamics, electricity, pressure, light, magnetism, gravity, chemistry and other
physical laws. Our concern with law is its application to ourselves as a rule, which
guides and directs our action or conduct. A set of such laws establishes a jual
system or order.
A law that regulates human conduct has attributes similar to physical laws. But laws
regulating human conduct are distinguished from physical laws in that they are not
self-executing, as are physical laws. Such laws usually need an outside force to
assure they are executed. Also, a law which regulates human conduct is not always
of effect or enforceable, as it is limited or controlled by other laws and conditions.
Where a conflict of laws exists, the superior law prevails. Also, a law for human
conduct cannot be enforced where the right of a person to act differently exists.
When the proper law is enforced or upheld, it is regarded as justice or doing that
which is right and just.
Law then must have a binding legal force, and an appropriate means for its
enforcement or execution to be of any use or importance in human affairs. This is
because the concept of law implies a command, not an opinion or suggestion.
Certainly no law would exist, or need to exist, if there were not those who are
required to follow or obey it.
A law regulating human conduct can be of two types. It can be negative by
prohibiting an act or declaring that it shall not be done, or it can be affirmative by
commanding or requiring an action to be done. Most law is of a negative nature.
Law can also be written or positive, such as a statute or constitution, or it can be
unwritten, such as common law, natural law, or international law. We will find that
what we are subject today are not constitutions or legislative statutes directly, but a
type of unwritten law.
If one is obliged or required to obey a law, there must of necessity be an authority for
the law to exist.
Law in the sense in which courts speak of it today, does not exist without some
definite authority behind it. 2
The question we should be asking or looking into regarding all the oppressive and
what appears to be unconstitutional law is, what is the authority behind this law? The
answer to this primarily depends upon the source of the law and our relationship to
The Source of Law
We generally understand that all laws, which regulate human conduct, are either
human or divine according to whether they have man or God for their author or
source. Under Anglo-Saxon jurisprudence, the law of God has always stood in pre-
eminence in relation to human law.
Man’s, laws are strengthless before God’s laws, consequently a human law, directly
contrary to the law of God, would be an absolute nullity. 3
While this proposition is quite true and important, it also acknowledges that man is a
source of law. Actually, God has in many instances recognized that this ability or
power for human law does exist, as with kings, patriarchs or heads of a house.
For something to be regarded as a law, it must come from a source, which has
authority to enact the law. If a person is required to follow a law of another person or
entity, then that person must in some manner or degree be subject to the law making
entity. Thus the authority for a law depends on the source of the law, and the
relationship between that source and the one obligated to follow the law. Let us look
at some examples of this concept.
The prime example of a law making authority is God. We readily acknowledge that
God can enact laws, which we are obligated to follow. But what is His authority to do
so? Why are we required to follow laws of God? Is it because God is all-powerful, or
all knowing or because He is eternal? No it is not. God’s authority to place law over
us lies not in the fact that He is omnipotent or a Supreme Being, but rather in our
relationship to God. That relationship lays in the fact that God is our Creator and
provider. Sir William Blackstone expressed this relationship in his discussion on “the
nature of laws,” as follows:
Man, considered as a creature, must necessarily be subject to the laws of his
Creator, for he is entirely a dependent being. A being, independent of any other,
has no rule [law] to pursue, but such as he prescribes to himself; but a state of
dependence will inevitably oblige the inferior to take the will of him, on whom he
depends, as the rule of his conduct. . . . And consequently, as man depends
absolutely upon his Maker for everything, it is necessary that he should in all points
conform to his Maker’s will. 4
God has the authority to make law we are subject to because we are His
creatures and because of our dependence upon Him for necessities of life. These
things establish a relationship between God, making us legally obligated to Him and
us. Thus, because of these relationships God has authority to make laws we must
Similar to this is the authority of a parent to make laws, which a child must follow.
A parent is a law making authority over a child not because the parent is stronger or
bigger or even more intelligent than the child, but because of the relationship
between parent and child. The child was produced by the parent and is dependent
upon the parent, thus when laws come from that source, the child’s parent, the child
is bound to obey. The parent has authority over the child because of the
relationship that exists between them. But that same parent does not have authority
to prescribe rules of conduct for another child, as no legal relationship exists
between them. The superior strength and knowledge of that parent does not give
him the right to make law for any child he thinks needs correction but his own.
An employer and employee have a legal relationship between them that gives the
employer an authority to prescribe certain rules of conduct or laws that the employee
must follow. The employer has authority to make such rules not because it has more
wealth and assets than the employee, but because the employee has entered into a
legal agreement with that employer. The same is true with the legal relationship
between a master and servant. The servant is legally bond to follow the commands
of his master, but not those of another master.
A colonel in the military has the authority to make commands or laws that majors,
lieutenants, and privates must obey and follow. There is a legal relationship between
them since they each have placed themselves under a Military Code and the Articles
of War, which require them to obey all lawful orders of a superior officer. However, a
private in the American army is not required to obey the orders of a colonel from the
German army, as there is o legal relationship between them. There thus is no
authority for a German colonel to give him laws or orders to follow.
A King has the authority to give laws and commands, which his subjects must
follow because of their relationship to the king as subjects of his kingdom. The king
has control over the land and also provides protection for the people of his kingdom,
creating a legal relationship between him and the subject.
We thus see that there are many valid sources of a law, but the authority that is
needed for one to obey a law or be subject to a law from a particular source depends
upon one’s relationship to that source. If there is no legal relationship, there can be
no authority for a law. A king cannot make people of another land or kingdom
subject to his laws. A general from England cannot give commands to a buck private
in the American army because there is no common relationship between them. The
president of General Motors has no authority to make rules for an employee of Joe’s
auto body shop. In each case there is no legal relationship between the two parties.
Also, according to this principle of authority and law, is the fact that true lawful
authority is not derived from force or power or wealth, but from a legal relationship
between the two parties involved. When laws exist because of force or power, it is
despotism or tyranny, not authoritative law. Many despotic governments have
existed throughout history because they were based upon the concept of “might
makes right.” Force and power are not a substitute for a lawful relationship. God
could certainly play the despot and compel obedience by force, since He has the
power to do so. But that is not the way God works. His authority comes from legal
and spiritual relationships between Him and His people.
Today we have the situation of legislative bodies, such as the State Legislature
or Congress, existing as a source for making laws. The question we face is what is
the authority for these legislative bodies to make laws we are subject to? This can
only be answered by determining the relationship we have with the legislative body in
The fundamental concept of American government is that all political power,
which exists, resides in the people.
The Constitution of Virginia, 1776, Sec. 2. That all power is vested in, and
consequently derived from the people; that magistrates are their trustees and
servants, and at all times amenable to them.
Constitution of Massachusetts – 1780. All power residing originally in the people,
and being derived from them, the several magistrates and officers of government,
vested with authority, whether legislative, executive, or judicial, are their substitutes
and agents, and are at all times accountable to them 5
These declarations reveal the concept of delegation of powers. The people had
political power or authority and delegated some of it to the legislature by declaring in
their written Constitution—“The legislative authority shall be vested in a General
Assembly, which shall consist of a Senate, and House of Representatives.” This
entity thus became a source of legislative authority. The people in effect said that
this body of men can enact laws for specific purposes—i.e., the promotion of health,
safety, morals and good order of the people or society. The U.S. Constitution
enumerates specific topics that can be legislated upon—i.e., regulate foreign and
interstate commerce, enact certain taxes, establish standards, etc. Thus the
legislative bodies “derived” certain powers from the people.
The above declarations also reveal the nature of the legal relationship that exists
between the people and those in government. Government employees are the
“substitutes” or “agents” or “servants” of the people. Thus it is a contractual
relationship, which exists between the people and the Legislature. The people have
in effect hired or commissioned certain individuals to occupy and to perform certain
duties and functions within the offices and departments named in the Constitution. In
performing these duties and functions they are to conform to fundamental law, rights
and common law concepts, such as due process, and the things prescribed in the
We thus are bound to the valid laws of the legislative bodies named in a
constitution or city charter. We are not bound to the legislature by its terms, but by
our own terms, as Justice Wilson of the U.S. Supreme Court said:
The only reason, I believe, why a freeman is bound by human laws, is that he binds
Thus the legislative bodies are given certain powers to enact certain laws within the
confines of certain limitations, which the people have agreed to be bound by.
Whether we regard this as good or bad, wise or unwise, or that too much or too
broad of powers were granted, is rather academic at this point. The fact remains that
this is the way things are. The State Legislature or Congress can make laws that we
the people are subject to, as there is a legal relationship between them.
Yet the evidence is clear today that our country has been invaded by a hostile, alien
people who promote a law and region that is contrary to the fundamental law and
Christian foundations originally established in this land. They can be called
socialists, communists, globalists, anti-Christs, and subversives, but their objectives
are to enrich themselves by controlling your life, liberty and property. Their agenda
and objectives cannot be implemented within the established frame of constitutional
These subversive, anti-Christian people knew they could not gain control of the
country by force or revolution as they did in Russia and France. They had to find a
legal means to recreate or re-establish government, but done in such an indirect and
clandestine manner so that no one would detect the change. The result of their
actions is a government that is corrupt, arbitrary and oppressive but without being
“unconstitutional.” A necessary step in achieving this objective was their
restructuring of the entire economic system of the country by the Federal Reserve
Banking system, a system which they essentially own.
The established legislative bodies posed several obstacles and limitations on the
plans of these subversives, and thus could not be directly used by them as a
lawmaking source. This is because these legislative bodies were; 1) agents of the
people and “answerable” to them; 2) subject to the limitations set forth in the
constitution; 3) unable to violate the fundamental rights which the constitution was
formed to protect; 4) forced to conform to due process as it existed under the Anglo-
Saxton common law; 5) only able to enact laws in the manner and process prescribed
by the Constitution.
These legislative limitations posed some severe problems for the corrupt, power
elite who wished to control the life, liberty and property of the people of this country.
In order to get the oppressive, totalitarian type of laws enforced upon the people of
America they needed to get laws passed by another source other than the State
Legislature or Congress; but at the same time make it appear as though the laws
were actually laws of the State Legislature and Congress.
Since they could not directly use the current legislative bodies to do things their
way, they used them as an indirect means to create not only a new source of laws,
but to create new executive and judicial functions as well. This was done by getting
the current legislative bodies to create artificial legal entities—boards, commissions,
bureaus, agencies, and trusts, which exist by statute instead of by the constitution or
common law. The intent was to have these legal entities assume the role of
governmental functions, or financial ones as was done with the Federal Reserve
Board in 1912, or educational functions as was done with the NEA.
These subversive forces in our midst thus got the legislatures to recreate a new
judicial system. We thus have courts that have been established or reorganized by
legislative statute. They create new courts, and endow them with their judicial
“powers.” Sometimes these courts will be called by the same names as used in
constitutions to mislead people into thinking they are constitutional courts which the
people endowed with power. The court exists by “statute” or grant of the legislature
just as a corporation exists by statute.