In this nation today, Citizens are constantly demanding that the State, County, and municipal officers obey the Constitutions of both the United States and their respective States.

Citizens complain about the blatant violations and deprivations of their rights to the officials only to find that the officials completely ignore them. Citizens then complain that the officials are violating their oath of office and are committing acts of sedition and treason.

All officials, whether of the States or of the United States, are bound by the provisions of the Constitutions. This includes Judges, Sheriffs, Clerks, & etc. What governs their decisions is the constitution which created them and they can do no more or less than those constitutions allow them. Obviously then, the whole matter comes down to a question of just which constitution (original or amended) ARE they operating under and what IS the nature of the authority that CREATED them. It is perfectly apparent to all, that they are not operating under the organic law (common law) as it was ordained and established.

If Citizens fail to study past the organic law (Organic Constitution), which includes Articles 1 through 7 and the 10 Articles in Amendment (Bill of Rights), basing their opinions solely on the organic law, then they fail to recognize or interpret the statutory articles which start at the 13th through the 26th Amendments. This also applies to the several States as well, since their constitutions have been amended to comply with the statutory law of the 13th and later amendments.

Notice I said "amendments", not "articles". To be Articles in Amendment to the organic law, they would have to be organic in nature, not statutory, and be in harmony therewith, which the 13th and later amendments ARE NOT!

To be organic, the alleged amendments would have to sustain and embody the principles of the common law and the triune form of government. We illustrate this with the following citation from Ex parte Reynolds et al, Federal Case No. 11, 720, in which district Judge Rives says this about the State government:

"It is conceded that this inhibition applies exclusively to the state. But that term presents a complex idea. A state is a sort of a trinity; it exists, acts, and speaks in three capacties: legislative, executive, and judicial. What is forbidden to it in one capacity is forbidden to it in each and all. It may not infringe this article by legislation, but it may equally do so by its courts or its executive authorities."

One of the problems Citizens face today with their officials is that the Citizen is still demanding the enforcement of the common law (the organic maxims of law embodied in the original State and U.S. Constitutions and their respective Bills of Rights), while the officials are enforcing the statutory maxims of the amended constitutions, State and United States; the one comprised of the 13th, 14th, 15th et seq. Amendments. The problem is simple, the cure difficult, to say the least.

If the amended constitutions are one of the problems, i.e. if the constitutions by amending are creating this problem, then the cure is in amending or re-amending the constitutions. Or, in other words, to bring consistency to the laws, both State and United States, we must bring the State and United States constitutions back into harmony with each other and within Christian doctrine as the original Constitutions, both State and United States, did. This is, of course, exactly what the socialists are trying to do, but in the opposite direction. They want the entire system to conform to the anti-thesis of Christian doctrine, id est, the talmud. Thus, once again we see, law is always a product of religion and while superficially we have two systems of law struggling for pre-eminence, it is in fact a religious struggle.

What was the original purpose of the United States of America?

"With equal pleasure I have as often taken notice that Providence has been pleased to give this one connected country to one united people - a people descended from the same ancestors, speaking the same language, professing the same religion, attached to the same principles of government, very similar in their manners and customs, and who, by their joint counsels, arms, and efforts, fighting side by side throughout a long and bloody war, have nobly established their general liberty and independence." The Federalist Papers, No. 2, Jay, p.38, Rossiter Edition.

It was to secure a nation of Christian Faith and principle, i.e. First Article in Amendment. What Christian doctrine was considered as protected by the First Article in Amendment? All religious doctrines? Or was Christian doctrine only defined?

Story (1810-45) commented extensively upon the National Faith and its embodiment in the First Article in Amendment:

"How far any government has a right to interfere in matters touching religion, has been a subject much discussed by writers upon public and political law. The right and the duty of the interference of government, in matters of religion, have been maintained by many distinguished authors, as well as those, who were the warmest advocates of free governments, as those, who were attached to governments of a more arbitrary character. Indeed, the right of a society or government to interfere in matters of religion will hardly be contested by any persons, who believe that piety, religion, and morality are intimately connected with the well being of the state, and indispensable to the administration of civil justice. The promulgation of the great doctrines of religion, the being, and attributes, and providence of one Almighty God; the responsibility to him for all our actions, founded, upon moral freedom accountability; a future state of rewards and punishments; the cultivation of all the personal, social, and benevolent virtues; -these never can be a matter of indifference in any well ordered community. It is, indeed, difficult to conceive, how any civilized society can well exist without them. And at all events, it is impossible for those, who believe in the truth of Christianity, as a divine revelation, to doubt, that it is the especial duty of government to foster, a point wholly distinct from that of the right of private judgment in matters of religion, and of the freedom of public worship according to the dictates of one's conscience." Commentaries, Story, supra, Vol. III, at 722-23.

"Now, there will probably be found few persons in this, or any other Christian country, who would deliberately contend, that it was unreasonable, or unjust to foster and encourage the Christian religion generally, as a matter of sound policy, as well as of revealed truth. In fact, every American colony, from its foundation down to the revolution, with the exception of Rhode Island (if, indeed, that state be an exception), did openly, by the whole course of its laws and institutions, support and sustain, in some form, the Christian religion; and almost invariably gave a peculiar sanction to some of its fundamental doctrines. And this has continued to be the case in some of the states down to the present period, without the slightest suspicion, that it was against, the principles of public law, or republican liberty. Indeed, in a republic, there would seem to be a peculiar propriety in viewing the Christian religion, as the great basis, on which it must rest for its support and permanence, if it be, what it has ever been deemed by its truest friends to be, the religion of liberty. Montesquieu has remarked, that the Christian religion is a stranger to mere despotic power... Massachusetts, while she has promulgated in her Bill Of Rights the importance and necessity of the public support of religion, and the worship of God, has authorized the legislature to require it only for Protestantism. The language of that bill of rights is remarkable for its pointed affirmation of the duty of government to support Christianity, and reasons for it. 'As,' says the third article, 'the happiness of a people, and the good order and preservation of civil government, essentially depend upon piety, religion, and morality; and as these cannot be generally diffused through the community, but by the institution of the public worship of God, and of public instructions in piety, religion, and morality; therefore, to promote their happiness and to secure the good order and preservation of their government, the people of this Commonwealth have a right to invest their legislature with power to authorize, and require, the several towns, parishes, &c., &c. to make suitable provision at their own expense for the institution of the public worship of God, and for the support and maintenance of public Protestant teachers of piety, religion, and morality, in all cases where such provision shall not be made voluntarily.' Afterwards there follow provisions, prohibiting any superiority of one sect over another, and securing to all citizens the free exercise of religion. "Probably at the time of the adoption of the constitution, and of the amendment to it, now under consideration, the general, if not the universal, sentiment in America was, that Christianity ought to receive encouragement from the state, so far as was not incompatible with the private rights of conscience, and the freedom of religious worship. An attempt to level all religions, and to make it a matter of state policy to hold all in utter indifference, would have created universal disapprobation, if not universal indignation. ..."

"But the duty of supporting religion, and especially the Christian religion, is very different from the right to force the consciences of other men, or to punish them for worshiping God in the manner, which they believe, their accountability to him requires... Mr. Locke himself, who did not doubt the right of government to interfere in matters of religion, and especially to encourage Christianity, at the same time has expressed his opinion of the right of private judgment, and liberty of conscience, in a manner becoming his character, as a sincere friend of civil and religious liberty. 'No man, or society of men,' says he, 'have any authority to impose their opinion or interpretation on any other, the meanest Christian; since, in matters of religion, every man must know, and believe, and give an account for himself.'..." Ibid, at 724-27.

And Story goes on to say that the First Article in Amendment sanctioned Christianity only and none other:

"The real object of the amendment was, not to countenance, much less to advance Mahometanism, or Judaism, or infidelity, by prostrating Christianity; but to exclude all rivalry among Christian sects, and to prevent any national ecclesiastical establishment, which should give to an hierarchy the exclusive patronage of the national government. It thus cut off the means of religious persecution, (the vice and pest of former age) and of the subversion of the rights of conscience in matters of religion, which had been trampled upon almost from the days of the Apostles to the present age." Ibid, at 728.

"And whereas we are required, by the benevolent principles of rational liberty, not only to expel civil tyranny, but also to guard against that spiritual oppression and intolerance wherewith the bigotry and ambition of weak and wicked priests and princes have scourged mankind, this conviction doth further, in the name and authority of the good people of this State, ordain, determine, and declare that the free exercise and enjoyment of religious profession and worship, without discrimination or preference, shall forever hereafter be allowed, within this State, to all mankind: Provided, that the liberty of conscience, hereby granted, shall not be so construed as to excuse acts of licentiousness, or justify practices inconsistent with the peace or safety of this State." Constitution of New York (1777)

I sure don't see authority for satanic cults in this article!

"Christianity, general Christianity, is and always has been a part of the common law of Pennsylvania; not Christianity with an established church, tithes and spiritual courts, but Christianity with liberty of conscience to all men." Updegraph v. The Commonwealth, 11 Sergeant & Rawles Pennsylvania Supreme Court Reports 400.

"The people of this State, in common with the people of this country, profess the general doctrines of Christianity, as the rule of their faith and practice, and to scandalize the author of these doctrines is, not only in a religious point of view, extremely impious, but, even in respect to the obligations due to society, is a gross violation of decency and good order. The free, equal and undisturbed enjoyment of religious opinion, whatever it may be, and free and decent discussions on any religious subject is granted and secured, but to revile, with malicious and blasphemous contempt, the religion professed by almost the whole community is an abuse of that right. Nor are we bound by any expressions in the constitution, as some have strangely supposed, either not to punish at all, or to punish indiscriminately the like attacks upon the religion of Mahomet or of the Grand Lama, and for this plain reason, that the case assumes that we are a Christian people, and the morality of the country is deeply ingrafted upon Christianity, and not upon the doctrines or worship of those imposters." The People v. Ruggles, 8 Johnsons New York common law Reports 290, 294 and 295.

Compare this train of thought to:

"In order to ensure to citizens freedom of conscience, the church in the USSR is separated from the state, and the school from the church. Freedom of religious worship and freedom of anti-religious propaganda is recognized for all citizens." U.S.S.R. Const., Article 124.

You can see the difference between a constitution within the principles of the Christian common law and a constitution within the principles of socialist anti-christian law, which recognizes all religions and allows anti-religious propaganda.

The Constitution of Delaware (1776) says it best:

Article 22: "Every person who shall be chosen a member of either house, or appointed to any office or place of trust, before taking his seat, or entering upon the execution of his office, shall take the following oath, or affirmation, if conscientiously scrupulous of taking an oath, to wit: And also make and subscribe the following declaration, to wit:

'I, A B, do profess faith in God the Father, and Jesus Christ His only Son, and in the Holy Ghost, one God, blessed for evermore; and I do acknowledge the holy scriptures of the Old and New Testament to be given by divine inspiration.'

This oath did not establish a test on the Bible; it only demands a declaration of faith. There's a big difference between the two.

The Christian doctrine was defined and established by the States and courts. Were all who declared themselves Christian sects protected by the First Article in Amendment?

Even in the territories, to vote, a you had to take the following oath:

"...I am not registered to vote at any other place in this Territory; and I do further swear that I am not a bigamist or polygamist; that I am not a member of any order, organization or association which teaches, advises, counsels or encourages its members, devotees or any other person to commit the crime of bigamy or polygamy, or any other crime defined by law as a duty arising or resulting from membership in such order, organization or association, or which practices bigamy, polygamy or plural or celestial marriage as a doctrinal right of such organization; that I do not and will not, publicly or privately, or in any manner whatever, teach, advise, counsel or encourage any person to commit the crime of bigamy or polygamy, or any other crime defined by law, either as a religious duty or otherwise; that I do regard the Constitution of the United States and the laws thereof and the laws of this Territory, as interpreted by the courts, as the supreme laws of the land, the teachings of any order, organization or association to the contrary notwithstanding, so help me God,..." Davis v. Beason, 133 U.S. 638.

As evidenced at trial:

"...when, in truth, each of the defendants was a member of an order, organization and association, namely, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, commonly known as the Mormon Church, which they knew taught, advised, counseled and encouraged its members and devotees to commit the crimes of bigamy and polygamy as duties arising and resulting from membership in said order, organization and association, and which order, organization and association, as they all knew, practiced bigamy and polygamy and plural and celestial marriage as doctrinal rights of said organization; and that in pursuance of said conspiracy the said defendants went before the registrars of different precincts of the county (which are designated) and took and had administered to them respectively the oath aforesaid." Ibid @ 638.

Justice Field delivered the opinion of the supreme Court:

"Bigamy and polygamy are crimes by the laws of all civilized and Christian countries. They are crimes by the laws of the United States, and they are crimes by the laws of Idaho. They tend to destroy the purity of the marriage relation, to disturb the peace of families, to degrade woman and to debase man. Few crimes are more pernicious to the best interests of society and receive more general or more deserved punishment. To extend exemption from punishment for such crimes would be to shock the moral judgment of the community. To call their advocacy a tenet of religion is to offend the common sense of mankind." Ibid @ 639.

"The term 'religion' has reference to one's views of his relation to his Creator, and to the obligations they impose of reverence for his being and character, and of obedience to his will. It is often confounded with the cultus or form of worship of a particular sect, but is distinguishable from the latter. The First Amendment to the Constitution, in declaring that Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion, or forbidding the free exercise thereof, was intended to allow everyone under the jurisdiction of the United States to entertain such notions respecting his relations to his Maker and the duties they impose as may be approved by his judgment and conscience, and to exhibit his sentiments in such form of worship as he may think proper, not injurious to the equal rights of others, and to prohibit legislation for the support of any religious tenets, or the modes of worship of any sect." Ibid @ 640.

"It is assumed by counsel of the petitioner that, because no mode of worship can be established or religious tenets enforced in this country, therefore any form of worship may be followed and any tenets, however destructive of society, may be held and advocated, if asserted to be a part of the religious doctrines of those advocating and practicing them. But nothing is further from the truth. Whilst legislation for the establishment of a religion is forbidden, and its free exercise permitted, it does not follow that everything which may be so called can be tolerated. Crime is not the less odious because sanctioned by what any particular sect may designate as religion." Ibid @ 641.

In 1893 (28 Stat., page 159), the Congress of the United States dissolved the corporation of the Church of the Latter Day Saints. If the mormons had any First Article (in Amendment) protections, it is not in evidence in this act.

Further, in the mormons 12th article of faith, you read this: (in pertinent part)

"We believe in being subject to kings, presidents, rulers, and magistrates, in obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law."

In other words, the Mormons will follow Satan, and all of his laws, if he were in power.

Further, in the Universal Dictionary of the English Language (1897), you read this on page 3196: (in pertinent part)

Mor-mon (2), s. [Named from a mythic personage, Mormon, who, according to Joseph Smith, led a Jewish immigration into America in early times.]"

Then you read this from the American Universal Encyclopedia (1884): (in pertinent part)

"... We look forward with perfect confidence to the day when we will hold the reins of the U.S. government. That is our present temporal aim; after that we expect to control the continent."

"When the newspaper correspondent, to whom this was said, remarked that such a scheme seemed somewhat visionary, considering the fact that Utah cannot secure recognition as a state, the bishop's reply was: 'Do not be deceived; we are looking after that. We do not care for these territorial officials sent out to govern us. They are nobodies here. We do not recognize them. Neither do we fear any practical interference by congress. We intend to have Utah recognized as a state. Today we hold the balance of power in Idaho, we rule Utah absolutely, and in a very short time we will hold the balance of power in Arizona and Wyoming. A few months ago president Snow, of St. George, set out with a band of priests for an extensive tour through Colorado, New Mexico, Wyoming, Montana, Idaho, and Arizona to proselyte. We also expect to send missionaries to some parts of Nevada, and we design to plant colonies in Washington territory. In the past six months we have sent more than 3,000 of our people down through the Sevier valley to settle in Arizona, and the movement still progresses. All this will help build up for us a political power which will, in time, compel the homage of the demagogues of the country. Our vote is solid, and will always remain so. It will be thrown where the most good will be accomplished for the church. Then, in some great political crisis, the two present political parties will bid for our support. Utah will then be admitted as a polygamous state, and the other territories we have peacefully subjugated will be admitted also. We will then hold the balance of power, and will dictate to the country.'"

The teachings of Joseph Smith were ruled not within the protections of the First Article in Amendment, as the Mormons were not within Christian doctrine. Of course, they qualify today under the statutory law of the 14th amendment, even to the point that they allow colored priests, as do the Judeo-Christians.

For example, why does Utah have two modes of execution? You can choose either to be shot by gunfire or to be hanged because the Mormons believe that by the shedding of their own blood, as opposed to that of Christ (whom they place below Joseph Smith), their sins are forgiven.

The purpose of this article is to show the difference between the organic law and the statutory law, or, Christian Law v. Pagan Law.

Jerry.

"Ye cannot drink the cup of the Lord, and the cup of devils: ye cannot be partakers of the Lord's table, and of the table of devils." 1 Corinthians 10:21.

Reprints of this article and other articles of Behold! Newsletter are available from Jerry.