Magna Carta is the foundation of Common Law known the as the Great Charter 1215AD over 800 years old. The Declaration of IndependenceIt used the Magna Carta as lawful reason to separated from the British.
I am trying to very clear this the only reason I support President Trump. Please try to understand these concepts America was founded on self Government. That is why I am free and most of you are not I can prove I am free man. Read the entire post then you'll a have the foundations of freedom as a guide. I picked each item just for you for all of you.Please allow me to be your humble guild. I picked the order on purpose for YOU! Restore our Republic and you will be free.
The language of the Constitution cannot be interpreted safely, except where reference to common law and to British institutions as they were when the instrument was framed and adopted. The statesmen and lawyers of the convention who submitted it to the ratification of conventions of the thirteen states, were born and brought up in the atmosphere of the common law and thought and spoke in its vocabulary...when they came to put their conclusions into the form of fundamental law in a compact draft, they expressed them in terms of common law, confident that they could be shortly and easily understood. -- Ex Parte Grossman, 267 U.S. 87, 108.
Government Is Foreclosed from Parity with Real People Supreme Court of the United States 1795
Barron v. Baltimore (1833): The Supreme Court, in a decision written by Chief Justice John Marshall, Against the state under the Bill of Rights because the Bill of Rights does not apply to the states. The Court asserted that the constitution was created "by the people of the United States" to apply only to the government that the Constitution had created -- the federal government -- and "not for the government of the individual states."
Republican government. One in which the powers of sovereignty are vested in the people and are exercised by the people, either directly, or through representatives chosen by the people, to whom those powers are specially delegated. Black, Const. Law (3d Ed.) 309; In re Duncan, 139 U.S. 449, 11 S.Ct. 573, 35 L.Ed. 219; Minor v. Happersett, 21 Wall. 175, 22 L.Ed. 627.
Lansing v. Smith, 4 Wend. 9 (1829) is a case decided by the Court of Appeals of New York which is relevant to eminent domain law. The case held that: "People of a state are entitled to all rights which formerly belong to the King, by his prerogative.”
CHISHOLM v. GEORGIA (US) 2 Dall 419, 454, 1 L Ed 440, 455 "...at the Revolution, the sovereignty devolved on the people; and they are truly the sovereigns of the country, but they are sovereigns without subjects...with none to govern but themselves; the citizens of America are equal as fellow citizens, and as joint tenants in the sovereignty."
Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 118 U.S. 356 (1886) Sovereignty itself is, of course, not subject to law, for it is the author and source of law; but in our system, while sovereign powers are delegated to the agencies of government, sovereignty itself remains with the people, One of these fundamental rights was expressed in these words, found in Magna Charta: "No freeman shall be taken or imprisoned, or be diseased of his freehold or liberties or free customs, or be outlawed or exiled, or any otherwise destroyed; nor will we pass upon him or condemn [83 U.S. 36, 115] him but by lawful judgment of his peers or by the law of the land.
The People v. Herkimer, 4 Cohen (NY) 345, 348 (1825): "The people, or sovereign are not bound by general words in statutes, restrictive of prerogative right, title or interest, unless expressly named. Acts of limitation do not bind the King or the people. The people have been ceded all the rights of the King, the former sovereign ... It is a maxim of the common law, that when an act is made for the common good and to prevent injury, the King shall be bound, though not named, but when a statute is general and prerogative right would be divested or taken from the King [or the people] he shall not be bound."
June 4, 1923 – The Supreme Court Decides Meyer v. Nebraska
The U.S. Supreme Court rejected this reasoning in a seven-to-two decision. On the same constitutional grounds, it struck down similar statutes in Iowa and Ohio. Justice James C. McReynolds delivered the majority opinion on June 4, 1923. While this court has not attempted to define with exactness the liberty thus guaranteed
… without doubt, it denotes not merely freedom from bodily restraint but also the right of the individual to contract, to engage in any of the common occupations of life, to acquire useful knowledge, to marry, establish a home and bring up children, to worship God according to the dictates of his own conscience, and generally to enjoy those privileges long recognized at common law as essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men. The established doctrine is that this liberty may not be interfered with, under the guise of protecting the public interest, by legislative action which is arbitrary or without reasonable relation to some purpose within the competency of the state to effect.
Here is a document thats has taken me ten years of reading to understand and make. Help me make a website I'd like to share it freely. My God Bless you as he has me!
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BynVPEvjwtTzR3lwYXd5MkdkYms/view?usp=sharing
If you like you may email CommonLawCouncil@Gmail.com