25. Constitutional Compass

Free Societies rely upon authoring a country’s Constitution to uphold the people’s freedom and ensure their rights and freedoms are protected. That automatically denies any government legislation overruling the people's free choice.  Logically, no (free society) governing body can make any rules. It cannot govern at all. It can only protect the people’s rights and freedoms.  Immediately, it appears that its Constitution document will be much smaller because the particular country no longer meddles in people’s financial, business, or social affairs. It simply arrests and deals with crime; thus, its Constitution document will seem minuscule compared to an authoritarian government constitution.

Wrong! The exact reverse is true. Why? How can that be?  President George Washington gave us the clues in 1778 by writing–

Individuals entering into society must give up a share of liberty to preserve the rest. The magnitude of the sacrifice must depend as well on situation and circumstance, as on the object to be obtained. It is at all times difficult to draw with precision the line between those rights which must be surrendered and those which may be reserved, and on the present occasion, this difficulty was increased by a difference among the several states as to their situation, extent, habits and particular interests.

That perfectly explains that the share of liberty to be surrendered can never be defined in advance. Importantly, a legislative Constitution should only describe the sacrificial principle and little else; hence, the document is tiny and concise. All subsequent judgements are eventually recorded publicly in countless law books and libraries dotted throughout the land. 

Contrast that with a free society that protects the people’s rights and freedoms but has no authoritarian government because the people govern themselves. Its Constitution must specify the protective structure, as before, but it must also specify exactly what rights people have according to what we are by nature. It must establish ethics, morality, and justice in principle, not by the facts of multitudinous (later committed) crimes. Such knowledge encourages self-mastery and personal sovereignty by which people can live as their Creator intended. This knowledge permits constitutional authors to specify what rights cannot be usurped, overruled, denied, or violated long before any such crime is committed. The standard of virtue and respectful freedom is innate, not opinionated, even by a majority, or ruled by Justices in a courtroom. 

This is where the fun starts. 

The (Free) Constitution never specifies what must be done. It spells out in principle our rights and that they cannot be taken, denied or trespassed because they are intrinsically innate within our nature.

That is priceless because a free society Constitution is not built on the people’s consent, differing opinions or a majority vote, but instead, our Creator’s consent to live abundantly, particularly His gifted means for so doing. Neither is it one or more constitution authors dictatorially proclaiming this is how it must be written regardless of other people’s ideas or opinions. On the contrary, constitutional authors' are tasked to learn exactly what human nature depends on for life’s success, recognise those masterly principles and their governing laws, and embody them into a constitutional document that upholds and protects them. That is completed, and the people’s rights and freedoms are ensured in perpetuity. 

“But what about A, B, or C”? People may howl indignantly. How can my thoughts or opinions be trashed as irrelevant or unimportant? Simple. If your thoughts or opinions support and sustain your life with the equal rights of all others, they are decidedly vital, relevant, and important to you!  Congratulations, you’re a winner fully supported by a free society constitution.

Conversely, if actions resulting from your thoughts or opinions trespass or violate the equal rights of someone else, perhaps causing harm, you have trespassed their boundaries, but more importantly, you’ve rejected the governing laws of your nature, which forbid any right to perform that action. You’ve repudiated your nature and rejected your life. Do you see the difference? Your right to freedom is maintained by you, not the government. No court of Justice can rule against you when (court-proven) evidence certifies you’ve already ruled against yourself. 

And that is what all governments do! 

Their ministers, senators and members of legislative assemblies have forsaken the jurisdiction of life into which they were born expressly to rule, violate, usurp and even deny your life. You do not need to resign from their (legal) jurisdiction. They have already vacated your (born) life jurisdiction.

When their voluntary sacrifice of life’s freedom to authoritarian rule is exposed to the world, a bountiful future for humanity looms. Do you get it yet? Individuals entering into society must never give up a share of liberty to preserve the rest, as ‘social contracts’ inherent in democracies and republics demand. The people must prize and protect their freedom fully, respecting all other’s rights because that guarantees their freedom.

Tell the truth

These facts must be spelled out in a free society’s constitution, and those protections must also be protected against all trespass, denial, and usurpation to complete the document. Necessarily, that requires more words than legislative Constitutions require, but when done, resultant case histories in law libraries will be minuscule in comparison.

Consider legislative Constitutions as wholly dependent on multitudes of (subsequent) court decisions recorded in libraries throughout the land. The sum of written words is massive yet still incomplete as new legislation piles on top weekly. By contrast, think of freedom Constitution documents being (say three times) larger yet fully complete, with no additions necessary, and their word sum is minuscule in comparison. 

Only one court of appeal in Free Societies

Constitutional authors have much to consider about free societies, but the principles are clear-cut in our human nature. Provided they appraise and apply them as they should, all who disagree can present any dispute to our Creator for resolution. That is how natural law works in free societies.