GOD's Law is Higher than Legislative Law

By Thurston Paul Bell

The Law of GOD (Fundamental law and Rights) are higher than the Laws of Men (Legislatures)

I. Evidence:  the governments of the U.S. exist only to ends of GOD given Rights of man

"As in our intercourse with our fellow-men certain principles of morality are assumed to exist, without which society would be impossible, so certain inherent rights lie at the foundation of all action, and upon a recognition of them alone can free institutions be maintained. These inherent rights have never been more happily expressed than in the Declaration of Independence, that new evangel of liberty to the people: 'We hold these truths to be self-evident' — that is so plain that their truth is recognized upon their mere statement — 'that all men are endowed' — not by edicts of Emperors, or decrees of Parliament, or acts of Congress, but 'by their Creator with certain inalienable rights' — that is, rights which cannot be bartered away, or given away, or taken away except in punishment of crime — 'and that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, and to secure these' — not grant them but secure them — 'governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.' (emphasis added)

Butchers' Union Co. v. Crescent City Co.

, 111 U.S. 746, 756 4 S.Ct. 652 (1884)

http://laws.findlaw.com/us/111/746.html

II. Evidence:  the Governments of the Constitutions, which includes the Courts, is restricted from touching and redefining Natural/Unalieanable Rights from GOD, , and thus the Bible proving the intent and purpose of GOD for Man is the Supreme Law and Authority above the Court for it to enforce absolutely:

Bill of Rights (1789)

PREAMBLE

“The conventions of a number of States having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the government, will best insure the beneficent ends of its institution.”

“RESOLVED by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, two thirds of both Houses concurring, that the following Articles be proposed to the Legislatures of the several States, as Amendments to the Constitution of the United States, all or any of which Articles, when ratified by three fourths of the said Legislatures, to be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of the said Constitution; viz.:

“ARTICLES in addition to, and Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America, proposed by Congress, and ratified by the Legislatures of the several States, pursuant to the fifth Article of the original Constitution.” (emphasis added)

http://billofrights.org/

III. Evidence:  The Official of the governments of the U.S. and majorities of votes of ballot and jury, can never move the boundary stone against the Natural Rights of Man as given by GOD:

"The very purpose of a Bill of Rights was to withdraw certain subjects from the vicissitudes of political controversy, to place them beyond the reach of majorities and officials and to establish them as legal principles to be applied by the courts. One's right to life, liberty, and property, to free speech, a free press, freedom of worship and assembly, and other fundamental rights may not be submitted to vote; they depend on the outcome of no elections. " (emphasis added)

West Virginia Board of Education v. Barnette,

319 U.S. 624, 638 (1943)(Opinion, J. Jackson)

http://laws.findlaw.com/us/319/624.html

IV. Evidence:  the Statutes of the Legislatures can neither lawfully trespass nor molest the Natural, Fundamental Law of the Land which are the GOD given Rights of Man:

“It does not at all follow that every statute enacted ostensibly for the promotion of these ends is to be accepted as a legitimate exertion of the police powers of the state. There are, of necessity, limits beyond which legislation cannot rightfully go. While every possible presumption is to be indulged in favor of the validity of a statute, (Sinking Fund Cases, 99 U.S. 718 ,) the courts must obey the constitution rather than the law-making department of government, and must, upon their own responsibility, determine whether, in any particular case, these limits have been passed. 'To what purpose,' it was said in Marbury v. Madison, 1 Cranch, 137, 167, 'are powers limited, and to what purpose is that limitation committed to writing, if these limits may, at any time, be passed by those intended to be restrained? The distinction between a government with limited and unlimited powers is abolished, if those limits do not confine the persons on whom they are imposed, …' The courts are not bound by mere forms, nor are they to be misled by mere pretenses. They are at liberty, indeed, are under a solemn duty, to look at the substance of things, whenever they enter upon the inquiry whether the legislature has transcended the limits of its authority. If, therefore, a statute purporting to have been enacted to protect the public health, the public morals, or the public safety, has no real or substantial relation to those objects, or is a palpable invasion of rights secured by the fundamental law, it is the duty of the courts to so adjudge, and thereby give effect to the constitution.”

Mugler v. Kansas, 123 US 623, 661 (1887)

http://laws.findlaw.com/us/123/623.html

V. Evidence:  The Courts are required to look out for offenses against the GOD given Rights of Man, even beyond the cognizance of the individuals before the Courts:

"[T]he court must be vigilant to scrutinize the attendant facts with an eye to detect and a hand to prevent violations of the Constitution by circuitous and indirect methods. Constitutional provisions for the security of person and property are to be liberally construed, and ‘it is the duty of courts to be watchful for the constitutional rights of the citizen, and against any stealthy encroachments thereon.' Boyd v. United States, 116 U.S. 616, 635 , 6 S. Ct. 524, 535 (29 L. Ed. 746); Gouled v. United States, 255 U. S. 304, 41 S. Ct. 261, supra." (emphasis added)

Byars v. U.S., 273 US 28, 32 (1927)

http://laws.findlaw.com/us/273/28.html

VI. Evidence:  the failure of the Courts to do what it is that they were designed to do, and took and Oath of Office to perform, which is to protect the Rights of Man (See; Declaration fo Independence) is Treason:

"It is most true that this court …must take jurisdiction if it should. The judiciary cannot, as the legislature may, avoid a measure because it approaches the confines of the Constitution. We cannot pass it by because it is doubtful. With whatever doubts, with whatever difficulties, a case may be attended, we must decide it if it be brought before us. We have no more right to decline the exercise of jurisdiction which is given than to usurp that which is not given. The one or the other would be treason to the Constitution. (Citing Cohen v. Virginia, 6 Wheat. 264-404)” (emphasis added)

Ex parte Young, 209 U.S. 123, 142 (1908)

http://laws.findlaw.com/us/209/123.html

VII. Evidence:   that the Treason has caused slavery:

But the fundamental rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, considered as individual possessions, are secured by those maxims of constitutional law which are the monuments showing the victorious progress of the race in securing to men the blessings of civilization under the reign of just and equal laws, so that, in the famous language of the Massachusetts bill of rights, the government of the commonwealth 'may be a government of laws and not of men.' For the very idea that one man may be compelled to hold his life, or the means of living, or any material right essential to the enjoyment of life, at the mere will of another, seems to be intolerable in any country where freedom prevails, as being the essence of slavery itself.”

Yick Wo vs. Hopkins, 118 US 356, 370 (1886)

http://laws.findlaw.com/us/118/356.html