Is Polygamy Really Illegal
It may seem presumptuous for someone with no formal training in the law to write a legal opinion of a practice declared illegal by every one of the fifty states and held illegal by the United States Supreme Court. Recognizing that the blueprint of American government, the fundamental law of our land, was written to the understanding of every common citizen, however, I stand forward as one citizen in defense of the plural family, suggesting that our courts, legislatures, government officials, and citizens have never been presented with, nor have they considered the arguments I will present here.
In the United States of America, government is not the law. In this country, government is subject to law, as is every citizen. Here, when government assumes a power not specifically granted by consent of the people government violates the law, and any law created under illegally usurped power is not, in truth, law, but a violation of law.
It is assumed by many Americans that the U.S. Supreme Court is the court of last resort in this land. This is not true. Our court of last resort is We the People. This court was established by the Declaration of Independence, which declared the people?s right, their duty, to alter or abolish government when it becomes destructive of fundamental human rights. It is not reasonable to assume that any government will police itself. The Constitution has no power unless it is upheld and enforced by the People. No government is policed unless its own citizens police it.
This appeal is presented, therefore, to We the People, with the understanding that every judge, every prosecutor, every legislator, and every government executive in the land is a member of this tribunal. I challenge any to publicly refute the reason and logic contained herein.
It is my contention that anti-bigamy statutes in the United States of America are violations of the law of this land, that they constitute violations of fundamental human rights, that polygamy has never in truth been illegal, but that government, by prohibiting it, illegally persecutes the family as a sovereign institution.
Family Sovereignty
Whether you believe in the Judeo-Christian account of Adam and Eve or hold to the Humanist concept of evolution, you must accept the fact that at some point in history, a man and a woman united to form the first unit of civilization on this planet, a family.
This first family relationship rose above the typical animal attractions that draw male and female creatures together for reproductive purposes or mutual survival. The first man and woman to form a family unit were drawn to each other by virtue, by the emotional energy of compassion unique to our species, and were bound together by the selfless love this energy feeds.
Call them Adam and Eve or Missy ’n Link, the first couple on earth to form a family relationship did not have a county courthouse to go to for a marriage license, no justice of the peace or minister to perform a wedding ceremony, no county recorder to issue a marriage certificate and record their union. If they did engage in any kind of ritual marking family union, it is doubtful there were mortal witnesses to their sacred commitment and new family identity. In a world utterly void of civil government, they formed and maintained a family unit, the first earthly civilization in microcosm.
This truth is self-evident, that the family defines itself, by virtue, the energy of compassion, the tender emotions that bind individuals into one societal unit.
No civil government, no church, not even God has the power to legislate or decree the love that binds individuals to each other in family relationships. These binding feelings exist only in liberty, by the choice of each individual. Once existent these feelings can be destroyed or abandoned only by the individuals themselves. The family institution exists only in liberty. This is also self-evident.
The family is a self-defined entity, existent by the choice of the individuals involved and held together by love, by virtue in action, by the power of human compassion.
In the early history of man the first families gathered and formed a community. To provide order to their society, each family sent representatives to a community council, forming the first civil government entity. The family existed before and is the founder of civil governments. This truth is also self-evident.
The family is a sovereign entity, self-defined, existing before civil government and independent of its approval. Civil government is a creature of the family, responsible to it, not for it.
The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State. (Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 16:3)
The Tenth Amendment
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
In Reynolds vs. United States (1879), the Supreme Court justices unanimously supported the Morrill Anti-bigamy Law of 1862 against a constitutional challenge based upon freedom of religion. In his written opinion, Chief Justice Morrison R. Waite argued that every government had the power to decide whether polygamy or monogamy should be the basis of social life.
Obviously Congress also assumed they had this power when they passed the law, as did President Lincoln when he signed it, yet I would like to ask where in the Constitution was our national government given that power? Where in the Constitution is the federal government given any authority to define or place limits upon the family institution? In reading the Constitution I find no such power delegated to the federal government. I do, however, find two amendments that forbid this power to government.
The Supreme Court is considered our last resort in protecting the individual rights of citizens against the unjust power of government. We have here, however, an instance where that court openly usurped a power never given by consent of the People to dictate and enforce social norms among the citizenry.
By assuming this power without the consent of the governed, both Congress and the Supreme Court violated the law.
The Morrill Anti-bigamy Act of 1862 was not law, but a violation of law.
In addition to usurping power to establish social norms in our society, to decide whether polygamy or monogamy should be the basis of our social life, in passing the Morrill Anti-bigamy Act Congress assumed another power without consent of the governed; the power to selectively breed the American citizenry.
Can a government interfere with an individual’s choice of a spouse without assuming the power of selective breeding, a power that exists only in absolute despotism?
Can you deny a black person the right to marry a white without engaging the power of selective breeding? Can you deny a single woman the right to marry a married man without enforcing this same power? You cannot.
If you deny a woman the right to choose a certain man for a husband you have asserted the power to deny her every choice you disapprove of, leaving her only your choice of a mate for her. Your power to deny her choice is the power of selective breeding, a power we rightfully exercise over cattle and dogs, but not over people.
The Declaration of Independence asserts this truth to be self-evident, “that to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.”
Have the governments of the United States or any of the fifty individual states been granted the power of selective breeding by their citizens?
The burden of proof rests upon civil government. Unless someone can show that this power has been given government by the people, or can justify anti-bigamy under some specific power granted by their Constitution, every law prohibiting bigamy is unjust and illegal.
The Tenth Amendment to the Constitution reserves all powers not specifically granted Congress by the Constitution to the states or to the people, which is always the case in a territory, where no state government exists. Thus the Morrill Anti-bigamy Law of 1862 was and is unconstitutional under the Tenth Amendment, as Congress was not given power to interfere with intimate or family relationships among its citizens.
In addition, Congress assumed unconstitutional power by placing prohibition of polygamy as a condition of statehood for Utah and other states. All prohibitions of polygamy placed in state constitutions under federal duress are thus null and void.
The U.S. federal government has no legal power, power granted by the people, to dictate or enforce social norms or traditions.
The U.S. federal government has no power granted by the people to forbid any citizen&rquot;s choice of a spouse, be it interracial, same-sex, or polygamous.
The Ninth Amendment
The enumeration, in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.?
Will someone argue that the “other” rights, “retained by the people” and guaranteed by the Ninth Amendment do not include the right to choose one’s own spouse without government interference?
The Ninth Amendment has been applied to establish and defend the Freedom of Intimate Association, including the right to bear and beget children outside of civil marriage (Eisenstadt v Baird, 1972). Can the Supreme Court consistently defend the right of a man and a woman to bear a child while denying them the right to establish themselves together with that child in a family unit? Can the court deny the child the right to a complete family with those two parents?
Suppose a man, married with children, becomes involved with a second woman and begets a child with her? He has committed no crime under the law, and now has children with two women. Anti-bigamy law denies him the right to family relationships with both women, one woman’s right to a family relationship with the man she has chosen to father her child, and the child’s right to a united family unit with both parents. Will someone argue that the Ninth Amendment to the Constitution guarantees none of these individuals the right to join together in one family unit?
Please note that anti-bigamy laws do not, can not deny a man the right to engage in sexual relationships with more than one woman. They only succeed in denying all of these individuals the right to identify themselves as one family unit. An anti-bigamy law is not anti-a dultery. Anti-bigamy is anti-family.
I submit that the right to unite with others in a plural family relationship is one of the “other rights” protected by the Ninth Amendment to the Constitution, and that no government state can constitutionally deny it.
Conclusion
Civil government has no power to legislate or destroy the feelings that bind individuals in family units.
The family defines itself from within, by the choice of individuals who generate and maintain tender feelings for each other.
The family is a sovereign institution, existent before and independent of civil government.
Government is a creature of the family, responsible to it, not for it.
Governments are instituted to preserve rights (Declaration of Independence).
Governments are responsible to protect and preserve the family (Universal Declaration of Human Rights).
Government violates law when it usurps power not specifically granted by the People.
Government has no just power to establish and maintain social norms among the people.
Government has no just power to practice selective breeding among the people.
In prohibiting polygamy, government violates the law.
Polygamy is legal.
Polygamy has always been legal --Ben Szymanski
It may seem presumptuous for someone with no formal training in the law to write a legal opinion of a practice declared illegal by every one of the fifty states and held illegal by the United States Supreme Court. Recognizing that the blueprint of American government, the fundamental law of our land, was written to the understanding of every common citizen, however, I stand forward as one citizen in defense of the plural family, suggesting that our courts, legislatures, government officials, and citizens have never been presented with, nor have they considered the arguments I will present here.
In the United States of America, government is not the law. In this country, government is subject to law, as is every citizen. Here, when government assumes a power not specifically granted by consent of the people government violates the law, and any law created under illegally usurped power is not, in truth, law, but a violation of law.
It is assumed by many Americans that the U.S. Supreme Court is the court of last resort in this land. This is not true. Our court of last resort is We the People. This court was established by the Declaration of Independence, which declared the people?s right, their duty, to alter or abolish government when it becomes destructive of fundamental human rights. It is not reasonable to assume that any government will police itself. The Constitution has no power unless it is upheld and enforced by the People. No government is policed unless its own citizens police it.
This appeal is presented, therefore, to We the People, with the understanding that every judge, every prosecutor, every legislator, and every government executive in the land is a member of this tribunal. I challenge any to publicly refute the reason and logic contained herein.
It is my contention that anti-bigamy statutes in the United States of America are violations of the law of this land, that they constitute violations of fundamental human rights, that polygamy has never in truth been illegal, but that government, by prohibiting it, illegally persecutes the family as a sovereign institution.
Family Sovereignty
Whether you believe in the Judeo-Christian account of Adam and Eve or hold to the Humanist concept of evolution, you must accept the fact that at some point in history, a man and a woman united to form the first unit of civilization on this planet, a family.
This first family relationship rose above the typical animal attractions that draw male and female creatures together for reproductive purposes or mutual survival. The first man and woman to form a family unit were drawn to each other by virtue, by the emotional energy of compassion unique to our species, and were bound together by the selfless love this energy feeds.
Call them Adam and Eve or Missy ’n Link, the first couple on earth to form a family relationship did not have a county courthouse to go to for a marriage license, no justice of the peace or minister to perform a wedding ceremony, no county recorder to issue a marriage certificate and record their union. If they did engage in any kind of ritual marking family union, it is doubtful there were mortal witnesses to their sacred commitment and new family identity. In a world utterly void of civil government, they formed and maintained a family unit, the first earthly civilization in microcosm.
This truth is self-evident, that the family defines itself, by virtue, the energy of compassion, the tender emotions that bind individuals into one societal unit.
No civil government, no church, not even God has the power to legislate or decree the love that binds individuals to each other in family relationships. These binding feelings exist only in liberty, by the choice of each individual. Once existent these feelings can be destroyed or abandoned only by the individuals themselves. The family institution exists only in liberty. This is also self-evident.
The family is a self-defined entity, existent by the choice of the individuals involved and held together by love, by virtue in action, by the power of human compassion.
In the early history of man the first families gathered and formed a community. To provide order to their society, each family sent representatives to a community council, forming the first civil government entity. The family existed before and is the founder of civil governments. This truth is also self-evident.
The family is a sovereign entity, self-defined, existing before civil government and independent of its approval. Civil government is a creature of the family, responsible to it, not for it.
The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State. (Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 16:3)
The Tenth Amendment
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
In Reynolds vs. United States (1879), the Supreme Court justices unanimously supported the Morrill Anti-bigamy Law of 1862 against a constitutional challenge based upon freedom of religion. In his written opinion, Chief Justice Morrison R. Waite argued that every government had the power to decide whether polygamy or monogamy should be the basis of social life.
Obviously Congress also assumed they had this power when they passed the law, as did President Lincoln when he signed it, yet I would like to ask where in the Constitution was our national government given that power? Where in the Constitution is the federal government given any authority to define or place limits upon the family institution? In reading the Constitution I find no such power delegated to the federal government. I do, however, find two amendments that forbid this power to government.
The Supreme Court is considered our last resort in protecting the individual rights of citizens against the unjust power of government. We have here, however, an instance where that court openly usurped a power never given by consent of the People to dictate and enforce social norms among the citizenry.
By assuming this power without the consent of the governed, both Congress and the Supreme Court violated the law.
The Morrill Anti-bigamy Act of 1862 was not law, but a violation of law.
In addition to usurping power to establish social norms in our society, to decide whether polygamy or monogamy should be the basis of our social life, in passing the Morrill Anti-bigamy Act Congress assumed another power without consent of the governed; the power to selectively breed the American citizenry.
Can a government interfere with an individual’s choice of a spouse without assuming the power of selective breeding, a power that exists only in absolute despotism?
Can you deny a black person the right to marry a white without engaging the power of selective breeding? Can you deny a single woman the right to marry a married man without enforcing this same power? You cannot.
If you deny a woman the right to choose a certain man for a husband you have asserted the power to deny her every choice you disapprove of, leaving her only your choice of a mate for her. Your power to deny her choice is the power of selective breeding, a power we rightfully exercise over cattle and dogs, but not over people.
The Declaration of Independence asserts this truth to be self-evident, “that to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.”
Have the governments of the United States or any of the fifty individual states been granted the power of selective breeding by their citizens?
The burden of proof rests upon civil government. Unless someone can show that this power has been given government by the people, or can justify anti-bigamy under some specific power granted by their Constitution, every law prohibiting bigamy is unjust and illegal.
The Tenth Amendment to the Constitution reserves all powers not specifically granted Congress by the Constitution to the states or to the people, which is always the case in a territory, where no state government exists. Thus the Morrill Anti-bigamy Law of 1862 was and is unconstitutional under the Tenth Amendment, as Congress was not given power to interfere with intimate or family relationships among its citizens.
In addition, Congress assumed unconstitutional power by placing prohibition of polygamy as a condition of statehood for Utah and other states. All prohibitions of polygamy placed in state constitutions under federal duress are thus null and void.
The U.S. federal government has no legal power, power granted by the people, to dictate or enforce social norms or traditions.
The U.S. federal government has no power granted by the people to forbid any citizen&rquot;s choice of a spouse, be it interracial, same-sex, or polygamous.
The Ninth Amendment
The enumeration, in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.?
Will someone argue that the “other” rights, “retained by the people” and guaranteed by the Ninth Amendment do not include the right to choose one’s own spouse without government interference?
The Ninth Amendment has been applied to establish and defend the Freedom of Intimate Association, including the right to bear and beget children outside of civil marriage (Eisenstadt v Baird, 1972). Can the Supreme Court consistently defend the right of a man and a woman to bear a child while denying them the right to establish themselves together with that child in a family unit? Can the court deny the child the right to a complete family with those two parents?
Suppose a man, married with children, becomes involved with a second woman and begets a child with her? He has committed no crime under the law, and now has children with two women. Anti-bigamy law denies him the right to family relationships with both women, one woman’s right to a family relationship with the man she has chosen to father her child, and the child’s right to a united family unit with both parents. Will someone argue that the Ninth Amendment to the Constitution guarantees none of these individuals the right to join together in one family unit?
Please note that anti-bigamy laws do not, can not deny a man the right to engage in sexual relationships with more than one woman. They only succeed in denying all of these individuals the right to identify themselves as one family unit. An anti-bigamy law is not anti-a dultery. Anti-bigamy is anti-family.
I submit that the right to unite with others in a plural family relationship is one of the “other rights” protected by the Ninth Amendment to the Constitution, and that no government state can constitutionally deny it.
Conclusion
Civil government has no power to legislate or destroy the feelings that bind individuals in family units.
The family defines itself from within, by the choice of individuals who generate and maintain tender feelings for each other.
The family is a sovereign institution, existent before and independent of civil government.
Government is a creature of the family, responsible to it, not for it.
Governments are instituted to preserve rights (Declaration of Independence).
Governments are responsible to protect and preserve the family (Universal Declaration of Human Rights).
Government violates law when it usurps power not specifically granted by the People.
Government has no just power to establish and maintain social norms among the people.
Government has no just power to practice selective breeding among the people.
In prohibiting polygamy, government violates the law.
Polygamy is legal.
Polygamy has always been legal --Ben Szymanski
No comments:
Post a Comment