WORDS AND MEANINGS

In our Constitution there are a lot of words, and many style forms. Those had the meanings "in common use" in the 13 colonies from about 1770 onwards. It is a fact that if words meanings are not defined, many conclusions can be reached by rational people who only have different meanings for the word. Word meanings also change over time "naturally in common conversation use" and become "to have new formal meanings" in limited domains such as the law, government and courts. Often this process both changes the original intent/meaning of a word or a whole document that depends upon that word. Since these words were not defined in our founding documents, their meanings then, and their meanings now are probably different. Initially, the words meant what they did at the times of those writings, and to cover that issue in "matters of law", we have inherited much of Colonial times British "common law" as part of our system of justice. However, many of the present day re-defining of those words have occured in courts, the legislature, and at the lowest level of the practice of law (e.g. cops in the street, low level courts, elected judges, etc.) it operates only on a list of "do's and do not's" that are quite arbitrary and many juries are "directed by judges" as to what they can and cannot do as juries. The constitution gives judges no such power, and Congress has passed many laws to these effects under powers, such as the so-called "necessary and proper" power, without that "necessary and proper" being shown to be so to meet the stated purposes of the Constitution, as in the so-called Preamble and Amendments.

This use of "common law" is actually still a part of our legal system, and can be used to the advantages of the citizenry. However, it seems that those "presently controlling the legal and legislative" systems are working hard to negate it.

One of the most common abuses is the negation of verbal agreements. In the 1770 era, writing was not a very common skill, and many "contracts" were verbal.  In jury sittings, evidence is and was allowed based upon verbal testimony of the facts the speaker believed true. That still is the case often; but often also it is not. Public officials, juries, soldiers, and others are made to make oaths of performance. Those oaths are verbal contracts between speaker and listener, and dire consequences follow from their being broken.

But in others, such as marriage contracts/agreements, which the present legal system now calls only marriage vows, these verbal contracts are not accepted. Instead, there are whole bodies of these low level laws, which most of us know nothing about that are set to rule all that follows a marriage under the rubric of "family law". I maintain these are non-Constitutional and that a jury of peers are the only ones able  to judge the present "commonly accepted meanings" of words, and they are fully capable of judging cases of verbal contracts  based on their own observations of speakers words and reactions. And that is how it should be. An elected judge, or a lawyer in a system where his interests must be assumed to be "self-interest" is likely out of touch of the world of the common man of "peers", and is biased toward his interests. So on the basis of their ignorance and bias, they should not be a part of the interpretive nor the decision on guilt/fairness in law and/or equity. By common law, which is still part of our historical law, verbal contracts must be accepted as valid for jury decision in courts.

Prepare yourself to hear all sorts of arguments contrary to this, mostly from those who gain from its not being "presently allowed"; but believe only your neighbors with no such self iterest and your fellow jurors, whom you must test to see whether they have any such self interest.