WHICH CONCEPT OF 'LAW' ARE YOU THINKING OF?

by
Betty Luks

MAGNA CARTA AND THE SUPREME LAW

It is fifty years ago this month since an article, "Magna Carta and the Supreme Law," by Social Crediter John Mitchell appeared in The New Times. I was drawn to it again after reading a current circular titled "God's Rod of Correction". The circular typifies the confusion of concepts and half-truths in the minds of so many of us these days, as we try to grapple with what is happening in the fields of law and politics.

The circular confuses the laws of a State (man-made 'law') and the Supreme Law of God. John Mitchell's article clarifies the confusion and also explains that western man, though he pays 'lip-service' to God, has lost the great concept of 'Law' as his forefathers once understood it. Men of good will are guided by a higher Law than the law of the land. For ease of flow I won't continually "quote" Mitchell but will draw from his article.

The 'Supreme Law' to which Mitchell refers is not man-made law at all, but the 'Law' which runs through the very warp and woof (threads of the fabric) of the Universe. Clifford Hugh Douglas wrote of it in "Realistic Constitutionalism". "Constitutionalism must be organic; it must have a relation to the nature of the Universe." Jesus referred to it when he said: Heaven and earth will pass away but My words will never pass away."

The conception held by our forefathers was that there is in fact a kingdom of God to which we mortals are subject while on earth. Even if we ignore the kingdom of God, we are subject to it and by breaking its laws suffer the penalties. Call it Truth, call it objective Reality or call it natural law, it is there. History and experience has shown mankind "the laws of God grind slowly but they grind exceedingly small". In other words God's laws work out over time. Eric Butler often referred to this Truth. In his Social Dynamics lectures he speaks of the fellow who thought he could defy the law of gravity by jumping off the top of a very tall building. The fellow was okay half way, but eventually he would hit the ground! Thus demonstrating the law of gravity. And so with human relations.

Objective Right:
The traditional Christian position is that man's rights do not stem from the State but from God. It was this conception that the Church in England, headed by Stephen Langton, Archbishop of Canterbury, at the time of the Great Charter (Magna Carta) stood for. The army, which the barons gathered and with which they marched against King John, was called "the army of God and the Church". The army was composed of virtually the whole nobility of England with their retainers. Guided by the Archbishop, the barons based their cause on the fundamental truths of liberty and justice complaints.

Considered in their proper perspective the circumstances which led up to Magna Carta, are just as important to us today. The stand taken by the Barons and the Church did not mark a victory of one power bloc against another, but established a principle of objective right in English politics.

Until recent times, the pursuit of this principle, by honest men through all the clashes for power, can be traced through the centuries as decisively moulding our civil laws. It has been written of the Great Charter, "Those positive laws and institutions of later times, which secure our rights and liberties, all have their root in this charter." In fact, they all have their root in the Christian Faith and its outworking over the centuries.

John misused the power of his position:
Yet the striking characteristic of the Charter is that its clauses are negative. They inhibit the Chief Executive in the nation, at that time King John, from doing something. It recognises that each individual has inviolable natural rights both in the liberty of his person and in the possession of property. Both of these principles are being continually violated by Australia's present 'John'.

The chief cause of the Charter was that a king had misused the power of his position to impose grossly wicked taxation, and, in other ways, had used arbitrary power to achieve his ends. Just as we see politicians of all persuasions using arbitrary political power today.

But our forefathers understood that even had that arbitrary power been covered by laws imposed on the nation by the King (Executive); even though the acts had been "legalised" by Acts of parliament, they would still have been lawless by the great conception which formed a background to political thinking and political action in England for centuries.

These men had a conception that there is a kingdom of God to which we mortals are subject while on earth. We might even ignore it, but we are subject to it and by breaking its laws suffer the penalties. Call it Truth, call it objective Reality or call it natural law, it is there.

May be Legal, but Lawful NO!
One of our actionists wrote to the Federal Treasurer Peter Costello protesting at the proposed foreign takeover of the Qantas Airline. The response he received from a 'senior adviser' says it all:
"I would like to assure you that the Government carefully scrutinised the proposal to ensure it met all the requirements of the Qantas Sale Act 1992, the Airports Act 1996, the Foreign Acquisitions and Takeovers Act 1975, the Government's foreign investment policy and other relevant regulations. .."

They would have us believe, that as long as the terms of the legislation imposed upon the people of Australia, through their parliaments, are adhered to, that which is 'legalised' should be acceptable to you.

NO!!! The intent to sell Qantas is simply a furtherance of the agenda to centralise all power and control into the hands of an elite in a tyrannical new world order. It may be considered 'legal' by today's tyrants but that does not make it lawful!

From a Christian position that which is 'legalised' is not necessarily lawful. For me, the parable of the Workers in the Vineyard, states the matter clearly: "Why do you think evil because I mean to do good? Is it not lawful (i.e., moral, right, just) for me to do what I want with my own?"

It was this conception of lawful that the Church in England, at the time, headed by Archbishop Stephen Langton stood for. The army, which the barons had gathered and marched against John, was called "the army of God and the Church". The army was composed of virtually the whole nobility of England with their retainers.
On 25 August of the same year the Archbishop, Stephen Langton, called a second council of the barons and read to them the provisions of the charter granted by Henry I on his accession, and followed it by delivering an address advocating the principles of liberty and justice.

It was because, guided by the Archbishop, the barons based their cause on the principles of liberty and justice, that both the Church and the freemen of the cities aligned themselves with it. So that when after repeated attempts to bring the king to reason he at last had to bow the knee, it was not only the barons who met him on June 15th, 1215 at Runnymede. They were attended by representatives of the Church, headed by Stephen Langton, and a "vast multitude", representing all classes of the population. The King was attended only by the Grand Master of the Templars and twenty-three others.

The event at Runnymede was only temporarily decisive, because John soon after broke all his promises. But, nevertheless, the Charter itself became the basis for political action in the cause of liberty and justice down through the centuries, being confirmed more than thirty times by English kings. In 1689 its principles were embodied in the Bill of Rights.

Secret Societies and King John:
There is a circumstance underlying the events leading up to Runnymede and the ability with which John afterwards, despite having virtually the whole nation opposed to him, was able to recruit and land mercenary troops from the Continent with which he ravaged the land, that is only briefly referred to in history, but which is of the greatest consequence.

That circumstance is the existence of a secret society under the mask of Templarism, with a sinister purpose. There is no other explanation of how a monarch of feeble and pusillanimous character could so long have carried out tyrannous acts against the whole community.
It was in the stronghold of the Templars that John took refuge from the barons, and it was in the Templar Church in Dover that he committed the disgraceful act of handing to Pandulph, the Papal Legate, the document surrendering to Pope Innocent and his successors, the kingdom of England "for ever".
It should be remembered in this connection that the election of King John's nominee as Archbishop of Canterbury was ruled out by Pope Innocent as unconstitutional, and he had instructed the Canterbury monks present in Rome at the time to elect someone, and they chose Stephen Langton.

Whether or not Pandulph, the Papal Legate, was a Templar, it should be noted that Archbishop Langton insisted that in taking the stand that he did against John, whom Pandulph supported, he was carrying out the Pope's real wishes.

Beginnings of the Common Law:
This question of the Executive in the State endeavouring to have the determining voice in choosing who should fill high appointments in the Church is one encountered again and again in English history. So far as Magna Carta was concerned the outcome was vital. And it should be noted that it was not until a century later, when Edward I banished the Order of the Templars from England, that we find the beginning of those permanent laws which have come down to us as Common Law.
Today we have the sinister purpose for which the Order of the Templars was a vehicle of disguise housed in other secret societies. In key positions of Church and State the influence is decisive and disastrous.

'Change of heart' not enough:
In the midst of the great crises and terrible catastrophes in today's world, the clergy, with very few exceptions, have stubbornly maintained that the great need is "a change of heart", and that if this came about our troubles, financial, economic and otherwise would 'melt away'. They have refused to acknowledge that bad systems corrupt men and put venal men on top; they refuse to acknowledge that the systems need changing.

CONFUSION REIGNS SUPREME
Cameron Hawley's address to the Pennsylvania Bar Association many moons ago.
Our Tax Laws Make Us Dishonest:
The evidence proves that the clergy have been wrong. And that is further corroborated by a series of striking articles which have appeared in the Sunday Times in which the leading Hungarian intellectual leader, Paloczi-Horvath, portrayed some of the well-known Communist leaders.
So terrible are the facts exposed that it was found desirable to publish an epilogue to the sixth article, which says: "These profiles of some of the scum of humanity should not make anyone despair of mankind…it was an evil system which turned their monstrous potentialities into horrible reality. Society can cope with men of criminal tendencies if it remains faithful to common sense and common decency."

Precisely, but men and women of common sense and common decency have not, a small minority excepted, espoused the cause of sense and decency as did the champions of Magna Carta and the Bill of Rights. Will they do so before it is too late?