The Sovereignty of Nature
I have seen it variously claimed recently that the old laws of hundreds of years ago have no place in our modern age and that we must embrace such change as necessary for our progress. And indeed change for the better has been the quest of society since time began. A scheme of Parliamentary statutes were introduced to (i) clarify known paradoxes in law, and (ii) promote a fairer society reflecting the right of Equality to balance the adverse claims in order to avoid conflicts and promote peace (and thereby profitable trade), and (iii) to maintain and regulate the absolute rights of individuals; those established since time immemorial. Those would seem to be the prime purpose for which a legislature was created by men in 1236. That was the earliest use of the term Parliament, and referring to the Great Council of England, and which was created to take a more detailed role in government following the legal establishment of lawful rights as recorded in the Magna Carta of 1215, and previously in various texts spanning eight-thousand years. These such laws were regarded as derived and created from the Laws of Nature, as supreme over the hand of man as interpreted as the Laws of God.
The following notes are taken from “Commentaries on the Laws of England”, by Sir William Blackstone on the absolute rights of individuals published by the Clarendon Press at Oxford, 1765–1770. Sir William Blackstone was an English jurist, judge and Tory politician most noted for writing the Commentaries on the Laws of England. Born into a middle-class family in London, Blackstone was educated at Charterhouse School before matriculating at Pembroke College, Oxford, in 1738. Born July 10, 1723, London, England. Died February 14, 1780, Wallingford, Berkshire, England.
Persons also are divided by law into either natural persons, or artificial. Natural persons are such as the God of nature formed us; artificial are such as are created and devised by human laws for the purposes of society and government, which are called corporations or bodies politic.
The rights of persons considered in their natural capacities are also of two sorts, absolute, and relative. Absolute, which are such as appertain and belong to particular men, merely as individuals or single persons : relative, which are incident to them as members of society, and standing in various relations to each other. The first, that is, absolute rights, will be the subject of the present chapter.
By the absolute rights of individuals we mean those which are so in their primary and strictest sense; such as would belong to their persons merely in a state of nature, and which every man is entitled to enjoy, whether out of society or in it. But with regard to the absolute duties, which man is bound to perform, considered as a mere individual, it is not to be expected that any human municipal law should at all explain or enforce them. For the end and intent of such laws being only to regulate the behaviour of mankind, as they are members of society, and stand in various relations to each other, they have consequentially no concern with any other but social or relative duties. Let a man therefore be ever so abandoned in his principles, or vicious in his practice, provided he keeps his wickedness to himself, and does not offend against the rules of public decency, he is out of the reach of human laws. But if he makes his vices public, though they be such as seem principally to affect himself, (as drunkenness, or the like,) then they become, by the bad example they set, of pernicious effects to society ; and therefore it is then the business of human laws to correct them. Here the circumstance of publication is what alters the nature of the case.
Public sobriety is a relative duty, and therefore enjoined by our laws; private sobriety is an obsolete duty, which, whether it be performed or not, human tribunals can never know; and therefore they can never enforce it by any civil sanction. But with respect to rights, the case is different. Human laws define and enforce as well those rights which belong to a man considered as an individual, as those which belong to him considered as related to others.
For the principal aim of society is to protect individuals in the enjoyment of those absolute rights, which were vested in them by immutable laws of nature ; but which could not be preserved in peace without that mutual assistance and intercourse, which is gained by the institution of friendly and social communities. Hence it follows, that the first and primary end of human laws is to maintain and regulate these absolute rights of individuals. Such rights as are social and relative result from, and are posterior to, the formation of states and societies : so that to maintain and regulate these, is clearly a subsequent consideration. And therefore the principal view of human laws is, or ought always to be, to explain, protect, and enforce such rights as are absolute, which in themselves are few and simple; and then such rights as are relative, which, arising from a variety of connexions, will be far more numerous and more complicated.
And this clear description of those who seek to rule over us from JOSEPH K. ANGELL & SAMUAL AMES, TREATISE ON THE LAW OF PRIVATE CORPORATIONS AGGREGATE 10-11 (Boston, Little, Brown & Co., 5th ed. 1855
“Nations or states are classed as corporations and are said to have their affairs and interests and to deliberate and resolve in common. They thus become as moral persons having an understanding and will peculiar to themselves, and are susceptible of obligations and laws. The Queen of England is a corporation; and so is parliament.”
A government, comprised of its officers (executives), is an embodiment of a corporation and as a corporation has no more powers than any other person individually or other corporation.