A comprehensive outreach educating the People on the Powers belonging to the People in the Administration of Our Government and Due Process of Law.
The process that is due depending on the situations involving the Law and the enforcement thereof. A comprehensive outreach educating folks on what they can do in various situations involving Due Process of Law. The process that is due to you in all situations involving the Law and the enforcement thereof.
Operating as usual
Monday Night Law 03-01-2021
Former Secretary of State Mike Pompeo speaks about the conservative fight at CPAC. #FoxNews #CPACSubscribe to Fox News! https://bit.ly/2vBUvASWatch more Fox ...
twitter.com “On February 23, 1861, President-Elect Abraham Lincoln quietly slipped into Washington, D.C. to prepare for his inauguration on March 4. Accompanying him was U.S. Marshal Ward Hill Lamon (D/DC), a friend and former law partner.”
Friday Night Fun Night 02-26-2021
Supreme Court of Idaho, Boise, February 2014 Term.
Peterson v. Peterson
320 P.3d 1244 (Idaho 2014)
Decided Mar 18, 2014
The Idaho Code is a compilation of laws enacted by the legislature; it is not a codification in the sense that the legislature has enacted the contents of the current version of the Idaho Code as the laws of Idaho. “The present Idaho Code is a compilation of laws, Evidentiary, but not a codification thereof.” Golconda Lead Mines
v. Neill, 82 Idaho 96, 102, 350 P.2d 221, 224 (1960).
Thus, the compilation of statutes in the Idaho Code is merely evidence of the laws enacted by the legislature as set forth in the session laws. The Idaho Code is not the law. The code commission has no legislative authority.
16 Am. Jur. 2d Constitutional Law § 1
American Jurisprudence, Second Edition | August 2017 Update
§ 1. Definition and nature of “constitution” and “constitutional law”
As used herein, the word “constitution” means a declaration of fundamental laws or principles for the government of a nation or state.1 A constitution represents the supreme written will of the people regarding the framework for their government.2 Where a constitution asserts a certain right, or lays down a certain principle of law or procedure, it speaks for the entire people as their supreme law, and it is the paramount authority for all that is done in pursuance of its provisions.3 A constitution thus embodies fundamental values and articulates the citizens’ common aspirations for constitutional governance and the rule of law.4 A state constitution is likewise the supreme written will of the people of a state regarding the framework for their government and is subject only to the limitations found in the Federal Constitution.5 Although a constitution may be either written (as in the case of the United States) or unwritten (as in the case of Great Britain), the word “constitution,” as applied to the organization of our federal and state governments, always implies a written document which is understood to have been enacted by the direct action of the people,6 providing for the form of their government and defining the powers of the several departments within it, thus creating a fundamental law which is absolute7 and unalterable except through amendment by the people from which it emanated.8
Constitutional law, which deals with the interpretation and construction of constitutions and the application of this fundamental law to statutes and other public acts because of the American governmental system, occupies an extremely important position in the jurisprudence of this country, because constitutions in this country, rather than stating inflexible specific rules of conduct, contain broad principles capable of accommodating societal changes.9 Thus, constitutional provisions gather meaning from the experience of the people, and courts should expect that modern society will mold and shape constitutional principles into new and useful forms.10
NOW PAY ATTENTION HERE STATUTES ARE FOR GOVERNMENT CIVIL CONDUCT, IT IS NOT THE LAW!!! THEY ARE FOR PUBLIC SERVANTS TO CONTROL THEIR CONDUCT BASED ON SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION FROM THE CONSTITUTION ITSELF. THE LAW OF CREATION.
16 Am. Jur. 2d Constitutional Law § 2
American Jurisprudence, Second Edition | August 2017 Update
§ 2. Distinction between constitutions and statutes
A constitution differs from a statute in that a statute ordinarily provides some details of the subject of which it treats, whereas a constitution usually states broad general principles and builds the substantial foundation and general framework of the law and the government.1 The constitution is the framework of the government containing the general principles upon which the government must function,2 intended not merely to remedy existing conditions, but to govern future contingencies.3 ***It is a compilation of fundamental laws of the jurisdiction, and embodies principles upon which the jurisdiction’s government was founded.4 A constitution is made for the people and by the people,5 and is, above all, an embodiment of the will of the people,6 deriving its force directly from the people themselves.7 Statutes, by contrast, are enactments and rules for the government of civil conduct,*** promulgated by the legislative authority of a state.8 Instead of general principles, a statute provides details of the subject of the statute.9
Because constitutions constitute the supreme law, they preempt contrary statutes or rules,10 and stand above legislative law.11 Thus, where a constitution speaks plainly on a particular matter, it must be given force and effect as the paramount law,12 and where a statute or other rule and a constitutional provision are in conflict, the constitutional provision must prevail.13
It has been said that a constitution is but a higher form of statutory law, so that, for example, the state constitution is looked to where a court is searching for statutory law on a subject, and there is no relevant “statute” per se.14 In any event, both constitutional and statutory principles should be liberally construed to further the goal of allowing the people to express their will.15
LAW OF NATIONS BOOK I CHAPTER III SECTIONS 30 & 34
§30. Of the
support of the
to the laws.
The constitution and laws of a state are the basis of the public tranquillity, the firmest support of political authority, and a security for the liberty of the citizens. But this constitution is a vain phantom, and the best laws are useless, if they be not religiously observed: the nation ought then to watch very attentively, in order to render them equally respected by those who govern, and by the people destined to obey. To attack the constitution of the state, and to violate its laws, is a capital crime against society; and if those guilty of it are invested with authority, they add to this crime a perfidious abuse of the power with which they are intrusted. The nation ought constantly to repress them with its utmost vigour and vigilance, as the importance of the case requires. It is very uncommon to see the laws and constitution of a state openly and boldly opposed: it is against silent and gradual attacks that a nation ought to be particularly on its guard. Sudden revolutions strike the imaginations of men: they are detailed in history; their secret springs are developed. But we overlook the changes that insensibly happen by a long train of steps that are but slightly marked. It would be rendering nations an important service, to shew from history, how many states have thus entirely changed their nature, and lost their original constitution. This would awaken the attention of man-kind:—impressed thenceforward with this excellent maxim (no less essential in politics than in morals), principiis obsta, 9—they would no longer shut their eyes against innovations, which, though inconsiderable in themselves, may serve as steps to mount to higher and more pernicious enterprises.
§34. Of the
whether it can
Here again a very important question presents itself. It essentially belongs to the society to make laws both in relation to the manner in which it desires to be governed, and to the conduct of the citizens:—this is called the legislative power. The nation may intrust the exercise of it to the prince, or to an assembly; or to that assembly and the prince jointly; who have then a right to make new laws and to repeal old ones. ***It is asked whether their power extends to the fundamental laws,—whether they may change the constitution of the state? The principles we have laid down lead us to decide with certainty, that the authority of these legislators does not extend so far, and that they ought to consider the
fundamental laws as sacred, if the nation has not, in very express terms, given them power to change them. For the constitution of the state ought to possess stability: and since that was first established by the nation, which afterwards intrusted certain persons with the legislative power, the fundamental laws are excepted from their commission. It is visible that the society only intended to make provision for having the state constantly furnished with laws suited to particular conjunctures, and, for that purpose, gave the legislature the power of abrogating the ancient civil and political laws that were not fundamental, and of making new ones: but nothing leads us to think that it meant to submit the
constitution itself to their will. In short, it is from the constitution that those legislators derive their power: how then can they change it, without destroying the foundation of their own authority?*** By the fundamental laws of England, the two houses of parliament, in concert with the king, exercise the legislative power: but if the two houses should resolve to suppress themselves, and to invest the king with full and absolute authority, certainly the nation would not suffer it. And who would dare to assert that they would not have a right to oppose it? But if the parliament entered into a debate on making so considerable a change, and the whole nation was voluntarily silent upon it, this would be considered as an approbation of the act of its representatives.
PAY ATTENTION AGAIN!!! NATURAL & CIVIL HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH THE ESTABLISHMENT, SUPPORT OR MANAGEMENT OF GOVERNMENT. NO SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION, NO LEGISLATIVE AUTHORITY!!! NONE!!!
15 Am. Jur. 2d Civil Rights § 2
American Jurisprudence, Second Edition
September 2016 Update
Natural rights have been described as those rights which appertain originally and essentially to each person as a human being and are inherent in his or her nature, 1 as contrasted to civil rights, which are given, defined, and circumscribed by such positive laws, enacted by civilized communities, as are necessary to the maintenance of organized government. 2 It has been said that political rights are included within the more comprehensive term "civil rights," 3 but that they are differentiated in that a political right is a right exercisable in the administration of government, 4 or a right to participate, directly or indirectly, in the establishment or management of government, 5
while civil rights have no relation to the establishment or management of government. 6
Political rights have also been distinguished on the ground that a civil right is a right accorded to every member of a distinct community or nation, which is not necessarily true with regard to political rights. 7 Civil rights have also been distinguished from social rights or privileges, and it has been pointed out in this connection that the purely social in*******se and relations of individuals cannot be enforced by law and are not guaranteed by any constitutional provision. 8
1 Sowers v. Ohio Civil Rights Commission, 20 Ohio Misc. 115, 49 Ohio Op. 2d 203, 252 N.E.2d 463 (C.P. 1969).
2 Emmons v. Smitt, 58 F. Supp. 869 (E.D. Mich. 1944), order aff'd, 149 F.2d 869 (C.C.A. 6th Cir. 1945).
3 Byers v. Sun Sav. Bank, 1914 OK 78, 41 Okla. 728, 139 P. 948 (1914).
4 State ex rel. McGovren v. Gilkison, 208 Ind. 416, 196 N.E. 231 (1935).
5 Blackshire v. N.A.A.C.P., Inc., 285 Ill. App. 3d 561, 220 Ill. Dec. 638, 673 N.E.2d 1059 (1st Dist. 1996).
6 Board of Ed. of Community Consol. School Dist. 606, Tazewell County v. Board of Ed. of Community Unit Dist. 124 of
Mason and Tazewell Counties, 11 Ill. App. 2d 408, 137 N.E.2d 721 (3d Dist. 1956).
7 State ex rel. McGovren v. Gilkison, 208 Ind. 416, 196 N.E. 231 (1935).
8 Evans v. Newton, 382 U.S. 296, 86 S. Ct. 486, 15 L. Ed. 2d 373 (1966).
FROM THE REPORT OF THE COMMISSION ON UNALIENABLE RIGHTS
To say that a right, as the founders understood it, is unalienable is to signify that it is inseparable from our humanity, and thereby to distinguish it from other sorts
of rights. The most fundamental distinction is between unalienable rights — sometimes referred to as natural rights in the founding era and today commonly called human rights — and positive rights.
Unalienable rights are universal and nontransferable. They are pre-political in the sense that they are not created by persons or society but rather set standards for politics. They owe their existence not to the determinations of authorities or to the practices of different traditions but to the fundamental features of our humanity. They are not founded merely on custom, law, or preference. Human beings never lose their unalienable rights — though they can be violated — because such rights are essential to the dignity and capacity for freedom that are woven into human nature.
In contrast, positive rights are created by, and can only exist in, civil society. Positive rights owe their existence to custom, tradition, and to positive law, which is the law created by human beings. Because custom, tradition, and positive law vary from country to country, so too do positive rights. In the same country, positive rights may evolve over centuries, may be legislated at a distinct moment, and may be revised or repealed in accordance with the ruling authority’s decisions.
To say that positive rights are not universal, however, is not to deny their importance, and to say that they are distinct from unalienable rights is not to deny that the two can be closely connected in political affairs. Unalienable rights provide a standard by which positive rights and positive law can be judged, while positive rights and positive law make the promise of unalienable rights concrete by giving expression to and instantiating unalienable rights. This can be seen in the American political tradition: the unalienable rights proclaimed in the Declaration are secured by the Constitution, which is the work of a particular people.
Rights, whether unalienable or positive, do not exist in a vacuum. They imply responsibilities, beginning with the responsibility to respect the rights of others. Rights, moreover, incline us to community, since they govern our relations with fellow human beings and are best protected and most effectively exercised in civil society. In addition, from the point of view of the founders, securing unalienable rights is the leading feature of the public interest. And the effective exercise of rights depends on the virtues, or certain qualities of mind and character including self-control, practical judgment, and courage that enable people to benefit from freedom; respect the rights of others; take responsibility for themselves, their families, and their communities; and engage in self-government.
According to the Declaration of Independence, the requirements of politics set limits within civil society on man’s natural freedom to act on conclusions about the justice of laws and of government. In a free society, the laws will leave a vast range of human activity to the conscience of each. At the same time, individuals are expected to obey duly enacted laws that issue from the agreed upon political framework, including those laws they find foolish or even contrary to the public interest. But citizens cannot relinquish entirely their natural freedom to evaluate the justice of laws. Indeed, the Declaration holds it to be another self-evident truth that if “any Form of Government becomes destructive of” unalienable rights, “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.”
In the American constitutional tradition, this right of the people to alter or abolish government is both essential and highly restricted. If, as Jefferson writes, “a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism,” then it is the people’s “right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.” Only, however, in the extreme and dire circumstance in which a government has lost its legitimacy by systematic conduct that denies the very idea of unalienable rights are citizens released from the limitations to which they agreed to be bound as members of a free society and justified in establishing a new form of government to secure their rights.
The aim must always be to restore political society. The civil liberty that political society makes possible — the rights to travel; to enter contracts and agreements; to possess, use, purchase, and dispose of property; to the protection of person and property; to the equal application of criminal laws; and to fair and equal treatment in court — enables individuals to live safely in their families and
communities and to enjoy their unalienable rights.
NOW REALLY PAY ATTENTION PROPERTY IS AN AGGREGATE OF GUARANTEED RIGHTS, THE COMMON LAW IS OUR PROPERTY. THAT'S WHY ITS CALLED A COMMON LAW TRESPASS. IT IS IN FACT A TRESPASS OF THE LAW, OUR RIGHTS!!!
Prominent among the unalienable rights that government is established to secure, from the founders’ point of view, are property rights and religious liberty. A political society that destroys the possibility of either loses its legitimacy.
For the founders, property refers not only to physical goods and the fruit of one’s labor but also encompasses life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. They assumed, following philosopher John Locke, that the protection of property rights benefits all by increasing the incentive for producing goods and delivering services desired by others.
The benefits of property rights, though, are not only pecuniary. Protection of property rights is also central to the effective exercise of positive rights and to the pursuit of happiness in family, community, and worship. Without the ability to maintain control over one’s labor, goods, land, home, and other material possessions, neither can one enjoy individual rights nor can society build
a common life. Moreover, the choices we make about what and how to produce, exchange, distribute, and consume can be tightly bound up with the kinds of human beings we wish to become. Not least, the right of private property sustains a sphere generally off limits to government, a sphere in which individuals, their families, and the communities they form can pursue happiness in peace and prosperity.
The importance that the founders attached to private property only compounds the affront to unalienable rights involved at America’s founding in treating fellow
human beings as property. It also explains why many abolitionists thought that owning property was a necessary element of emancipation: only by becoming property owning citizens could former slaves exercise economic independence and so fully enjoy their unalienable rights.
Religious liberty enjoys similar primacy in the American political tradition — as an unalienable right, an enduring limit on state power, and a protector of seedbeds of civic virtues. In 1785, James Madison gave classic expression to its centrality in founding-era thinking in his “Memorial and Remonstrance Against Religious Assessments.” Quoting the Virginia Declaration of Rights’ definition of religion, Madison wrote, “we hold it for a fundamental and undeniable truth, ‘that Religion or the duty which we owe to our Creator and the manner of discharging it, can be directed only by reason and conviction, not by force or violence.’” Freedom of conscience in matters of religion is unalienable “because the opinions of men, depending only on the evidence contemplated by their own minds cannot follow the dictates of other men.” While government may practice intolerance and enforce orthodoxy, it can never, in Madison’s view, coerce true religious belief or compel genuine religious worship. That is because faith and worship performed under the threat of violence, lacking conviction and holy intent, cannot qualify as the discharge of religious duty.
Madison maintains that religious liberty is also unalienable “because what is here a right towards men, is a duty towards the Creator.” The duty to exercise reason in determining the content and scope of one’s religious obligations is akin to the duty to exercise reason in determining the content and scope of justice and the obligations that it imposes. Governments that respect unalienable rights preserve the ability of those who live under them to determine and pursue, consistent with the like right of others, what is fitting, proper, and good.
A comprehensive outreach educating the People on what they can do in various situations involving Due Process of Law. The process that We the People have as a Right to limit “government” and keep it in the tiny boxes that our Founders put it in per the Constitutions, which is due to you in all situations involving the Law and the enforcement thereof.
ICTE is the official council for teachers of English in Southern Idaho.
The Nanoscale Materials and Device Group at Boise State University is a interdisciplinary collaboration combining expertise in photonics & plasmonics, biomolecular self-assembly, and electrical characterization of nanoscale materials and devices.
Mindfulness Center Idaho: offering individual and group classes in mindfulness meditation, mindful movement, and mindful living.
Women Heart Boise provides education and peer-to-peer support for women living with heart disease. To learn more, go to: www.womenheart.org
Near Space Educational and Research mission is to deliver the most integrated STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering, and Math) education to schools.
Idaho Education Association Region 8 News and Information
A collaborative art installation to raise awareness and funds to help eliminate genocide and violent crimes still happening all over the world.
Want to transform your life and get healthy through conscious intention and deliberate action? Join us and learn how!
Law for Conscious Leadership is a boutique firm supporting social enterprise, cooperative culture, and the sharing economy.
Promoting family consciousness and wellness at home, in the workplace, and in the community.
Idaho SESTA is a collaboration of the University of Idaho and Boise State University funded by the Idaho State Department of Education.
Project ECHO is a learning and guided practice model that revolutionizes medical education.