No person shall be held to answer for a capital or other infamous crime unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service, in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation.
The grand jury consists of not more than twenty-three men called in by the sheriff of the county (or by the United States marshal of the District) to hear witnesses respecting any subject that may properly be brought before them. If they believe that a person accused should be brought to trial, they return into court [sic] a “true bill” or indictment, which is a formal charge in writing that acts were done amounting to a crime; otherwise they write “no bill.” The person indicted is later brought to trial before a petit jury of twelve, which after hearing the evidence on both sides, returns a verdict of guilty or not guilty.1
When judicial proceedings are conducted according to Yahweh’s2 protocol, grand juries are as unnecessary and as inherently flawed as are petit, or trial, juries. (See Chapter 6 for more concerning the United States Constitutional Republic’s unbiblical jury system.) Instead of grand juries, Yahweh has provided the following six safeguards in His Word:
Be not a witness against thy neighbour without cause…. (Proverbs 24:28)3
Frivolous cases that fail to merit the court’s attention should be immediately dismissed. This criterion alone would eliminate most cases that clog today’s courts.
If a man deliver unto his neighbour an ass, or an ox, or a sheep, or any beast, to keep; and it die, or be hurt, or driven away, no man seeing it: Then shall an oath of YHWH4 be between them both, that he hath not put his hand unto his neighbour’s goods; and the owner of it shall accept thereof, and he shall not make it good. (Exodus 22:10-11)
The oath of Yahweh is also referred to in the New Testament epistle to the Hebrews:
For men swear by one greater than themselves, and with them an oath given as confirmation is an end of every dispute. (Hebrews 6:16, NASB)
In order for such an oath to affect disputes, it must be self-maledictory – that is, an oath by which the person calls a curse upon himself if he provides false testimony. An example is found in Nehemiah:
…their nobles … entered into a curse, and into an oath, to walk in God’s law … and to observe and do all the commandments of YHWH our Lord, and his judgments and his statutes; and that we would not give our daughters unto the people of the land, nor take their daughters for our sons. (Nehemiah 10:29-30)
A self-maledictory oath to Yahweh should be required of all litigants in every court case:
If any man trespass against his neighbour, and an oath be laid upon him to cause him to swear, and the oath come before thine altar in this house: Then hear thou in heaven, and do, and judge thy servants, condemning the wicked, to bring his way upon his head; and justifying the righteous, to give him according to his righteousness. (1 Kings 8:31-32)
Unlike the vast majority of oaths taken in our modern courts or by presidents and other politicians who break their oaths of office whenever it is to their advantage, the oaths taken in Nehemiah’s day actually meant something:
An outward pledge given by the person taking it that his attestation or promise is made under an immediate sense of his responsibility to God…. The term has been variously defined: as, “a solemn invocation of the vengeance of the Deity upon the witness if he do [sic] not declare the whole truth, so far as he knows it;” … or “religious asseveration by which a person renounces the mercy and imprecates the vengeance of Heaven if he do [sic] not speak the truth” … or “a religious act by which the party invokes God not only to witness the truth and sincerity of his promise, but also to avenge his imposture or violated faith, or … to punish his perjury if he shall be guilty of it;”…. The essential idea of an oath would seem to be, however, that of a recognition of God’s authority by the party taking it, and an undertaking to accomplish the transaction to which it refers as required by his laws.5An oath, according to Biblical law, consisted in the invocation of God to witness the covenant or promise of the person taking it and to take vengeance upon him if he should fail to keep his word. Thus it was not the mere taking of an obligation to testify truly, but was a method of solemnizing a promise to do or not to do a certain thing and which, without an oath, was not considered binding.6
The oath of a witness was originally an appeal to God to bear witness to the truth of his testimony and to visit vengeance upon him if it should be false. Anciently it seems to have been customary for a witness to take such an oath, and this sacramental observance, with some modifications, has continued thought the ages.7
So solemn and awful were all appeals to God considered in those ancient times, that it was taken for granted that the man was innocent who could by an oath appeal to the omniscient God that he had not put his hand to his neighbour’s goods. Since oaths have become multiplied, and since they have been administered on the most trifling occasions, their solemnity is gone, and their importance little regarded. Should the oath ever reacquire its weight and importance, it must be when administered only in cases of peculiar delicacy and difficulty, and as sparingly as in the days of Moses.8
The solemnity and consequence of the oath has been lost not because of its multiplied use, but because its judgment is no longer enforced. As a transgression of the Third Commandment, lying or breaking an oath made in the name of Yahweh is punishable by death.
And ye shall not swear by my name falsely, neither shalt thou profane the name of thy God: I am YHWH. (Leviticus 19:12)And he that blasphemeth the name of YHWH, he shall surely be put to death, and all the congregation shall certainly stone him: as well the stranger, as he that is born in the land…. (Leviticus 24:16)
If a judge deemed it a serious enough offense, he could order the perjurer put to death on a Third Commandment violation alone.
One witness shall not rise up against a man for any iniquity, or for any sin, in any sin that he sinneth: at the mouth of two witnesses, or at the mouth of three witnesses, shall the matter be established. (Deuteronomy 19:15)
Every matter must be determined by the testimony of at least two witnesses. Under Yahweh’s juridical system, a false accuser cannot even hope to get his case docketed without coercing or bribing someone else to take the same risk, as described in Safeguard 6.
If a false witness rise up against any man to testify against him that which is wrong; then both the men, between whom the controversy is, shall stand before YHWH, before the priests and the judges, which shall be in those days; and the judges shall make diligent inquisition…. (Deuteronomy 19:16-18)
Nicodemus alluded to this statute:
Doth our law judge any man, before it hear him, and know what he doeth? (John 7:51)
Every man is given an opportunity in court to defend himself against false accusations. This provides the judge the opportunity to make “diligent inquisition” into the accusations, to administer self-maledictory oaths, and ultimately to determine which litigant is speaking the truth.
Then shalt thou bring forth that man or that woman, which have committed that wicked thing, unto thy gates, even that man or that woman, and shalt stone them with stones, till they die. At the mouth of two witnesses, or three witnesses, shall he that is worthy of death be put to death; but at the mouth of one witness he shall not be put to death. The hands of the witnesses shall be first upon him to put him to death, and afterward the hands of all the people. So thou shalt put the evil away from among you. (Deuteronomy 17:5-7)
In capital cases, witnesses must be so certain of their testimony that they, along with the blood avengers (Deuteronomy 19:11-12), are prepared to initiate judgment upon the person against whom they testify. In non-capital cases, in which a judge prescribes a beating as punishment (Deuteronomy 25:1-3), the witnesses would assist in the flogging.
If a false witness rise up against any man to testify against him that which is wrong; then both the men, between whom the controversy is, shall stand before YHWH, before the priests and the judges, which shall be in those days; and the judges shall make diligent inquisition: and, behold, if the witness be a false witness, and hath testified falsely against his brother; then shall ye do unto him, as he had thought to have done unto his brother: so shalt thou put the evil away from among you. And those which remain shall hear, and fear, and shall henceforth commit no more any such evil among you. And thine eye shall not pity; but life shall go for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot. (Deuteronomy 19:16-21)
Before going to trial, a false witness must take a calculated risk, knowing that if he is caught perjuring, he will suffer whatever malice he intended upon his adversary. This judgment, known as lex talionis, or the law of retribution, protects the integrity of the court and all but guarantees truthful testimony. Mahatma Gandhi is reputed to have said, “An eye for eye makes the whole world blind,” but, in fact, the deterrent effect of lex talionis ensures far fewer maimings and murders. It also eliminates any real or contrived need for insurance companies and their suspension of personal responsibility. Lex talionis provides for equitable retribution while restricting the extent of retaliation (Exodus 21:23-25, Leviticus 24:18-20).
Biblical law placed high entry barriers on those initiating lawsuits. In this system, which punished a losing litigant by doing to him “as he had thought to have done unto his brother,” it is not surprising that few court cases are chronicled in the biblical narratives. Knowing the high stakes of failure, most litigants probably found other ways to negotiate, settle, resolve, mediate, or alternatively end their legal disputes. In a country that is becoming more and more litigious, and while the legal profession is seeking ways to encourage alternative dispute resolution, reformers might well recognize that the biblical system worked for hundreds of years, efficiently and successfully, in large part because significant responsibility was placed on litigants to be sure that the actions they brought were sincere and well founded….One of the major problems creating backlogs in courts today is the pervasive problem of perjury. District attorneys and prosecutors with whom I have spoken report that perjury is rampant and that they assume that virtually every witness is lying to some degree. Yet perjury is hardly ever studied, let alone prosecuted. The stakes are too small, and the difficulty in getting a conviction is too high.
Yet, here again, biblical law may provide some insight. The biblical legal system worked largely because it exacted high penalties for perjury. The prohibition against bearing false witness was aimed not so much against lying in general but more particularly against committing perjury in a judicial proceeding, especially where the name of god was invoked in bearing testimony as witness (and therefore offending God by such prevarication). Biblical law assumed that people would tell the truth, and oaths were taken very seriously. If they did not tell the truth, false witnesses were punished by suffering the consequences that would have befallen the person against whom they has falsely testified.9
Most of the injustices taking place in America’s courts fall under the jurisdiction of the Ninth Commandment. Among other reasons, Yahweh placed these six safeguards within His juridical system to assure maximum protection against fallacious court cases and false testimony.
If we would return to Yahweh’s perfect laws, and particularly the Ninth Commandment statutes, few would dare bear false testimony, and the need for grand and petit juries would be eliminated.
Amendment 5 forbids “any person [to] be subject for the same offence” and thereby to “twice be put in jeopardy of life or limb.” However, because this amendment does not stipulate the number of times a grand jury can be convened for the same person accused of a crime, prosecuting attorneys have been known to keep calling up grand juries until they finally find one that rules in favor of a trial.
Under biblical law, Safeguard 6 alone would make double jeopardy extremely unlikely. In capital cases, either the capital offender or the false witnesses are to be put to death. Consequently, either there would be no one remaining to try a second time or there would be no surviving witnesses to testify. The same effect is true in non-capital cases, to a lesser extent.
The Fifth Amendment further provides that no man can be compelled to testify against himself:
The origins of the right go back to objections against the inquisitorial proceedings of medieval ecclesiastical tribunals as well as the British Courts of Star Chamber. By the late 17th century, the maxim of nemo tenetur prodere seipsum – no man is bound to accuse himself – had been adopted by British common law courts and had been expanded to mean that a person did not have to answer any questions about his or her actions. The state could prosecute a person, but could not require that he or she assist in that process. The colonies carried this doctrine over as part of the received common law, and many states wrote it into their early bills of rights. Madison included it as a matter of course when he drafted the federal Bill of Rights.10
Today this idea is often described as “taking the Fifth.” In Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966), this provision was expanded. Writing on behalf of a five to four majority, Chief Justice Earl Warren concluded that a person under arrest had to be clearly informed of the constitutional right to remain silent and that anything said at that point could be used against him in a court of law.
Many people laud the Fifth Amendment and Justice Warren’s ruling, but how does “taking the Fifth” and Miranda v. Arizona comport with Yahweh’s Law?
The Fifth Amendment’s self-incrimination exception conflicts with Yahweh’s oath requirement in Exodus 22:10-11 and 1 Kings 8:31-32, in which litigants are not allowed to remain silent. Anyone who does not plead guilty must swear to his innocence and pay the consequences if proven otherwise. Pleading innocent, as done in today’s constitutional courts with no judgment for perjury, is not the same as swearing a self-maledictory oath, which can result in a Third Commandment death penalty if sworn mendaciously.
For lesser crimes of theft, anyone caught in an intentional cover-up is required to pay an additional 20% of the two-to-five times restitution (Exodus 22:1, 4) already required, depending upon the nature of the theft:
If a soul sin, and commit a trespass against YHWH, and lie unto his neighbour … or hath deceived his neighbour … and sweareth falsely [in a court of law]; in any of all these that a man doeth, sinning therein: Then it shall be, because he hath sinned, and is guilty, that he shall restore that which he took violently away, or the thing which he hath deceitfully gotten, or that which was delivered him to keep, or the lost thing which he found, or all that about which he hath sworn falsely; he shall even restore it in the principal [in full, NASB], and shall add the fifth part more thereto, and give it unto him to whom it appertaineth, in the day of his trespass offering. (Leviticus 6:2-5)
The two-to-five times restitution is the judgment for theft, the additional 20% is the judgment for the crime of perjury. This added judgment serves to motivate apprehended thieves to confess to their crimes, which, in turn, would expedite their cases, saving court expenses.
Leviticus 5 demands testimony of all witnesses, including the accused:
If someone is officially summoned to give evidence in court and does not give information about something he has seen or heard, he must suffer the consequences. (Leviticus 5:1, TEV)
This Ninth Commandment statute stipulates that a witness to any crime must testify to that crime, without undue coercion or torture, including the criminal himself:
When a person is guilty, he must confess the sin. (Leviticus 5:5, TEV)…When a man or woman shall commit any sin that men commit, to do a trespass against YHWH, and that person be guilty; then they shall confess their sin which they have done…. (Numbers 5:6-7)
The Ninth Commandment not only condemns false testimony, it demands truthful testimony. Leviticus 5:1 requires a criminal to testify against himself whereas the Fifth Amendment declares a criminal cannot be compelled to do so. In effect, the Fifth Amendment sides with the criminal.
American jurisprudence further dictates that no one can be compelled to testify against a spouse. This exception is another transgression of Leviticus 5:1.
The Bible describes murder in terms of blood crying from the ground for justice. Certainly, Yahweh would want a wife who is privy to a murder committed by her husband to reveal his crime. Does it seem reasonable that Yahweh would prefer a wife to remain loyal to her murderous husband and allow the murder to go unpunished?
In Acts 5, the Apostle Peter required Sapphira to testify against her husband Ananias. Sapphira chose to lie, and Yahweh struck her dead. He had already struck Ananias dead when he refused to testify against himself. On the other hand, in 1 Samuel 25, righteous Abigail was rewarded for testifying against her husband Nabal to save his and others’ lives.
The spousal exemption in American jurisprudence came, not from the Bible, but from the heretical Babylonian Talmud. In his book The Ten Commandments for Today, William Barclay comments upon Talmudic law as it pertains to this and other non-scriptural exceptions to the Ninth Commandment:
No relation of the man on trial is eligible to give evidence, and the disqualifying relationships are carefully listed – kinsmen, father, brother, father’s brother, mother’s brother, sister’s husband, father’s sister’s husband, mother’s sister’s husband, together with all their sons and sons-in-law. A stepson may not give evidence, but his sons can. In general, no one qualified to be the heir of the person on trial can give evidence (Sanhedrin 3.3, 4; Makkoth 1.8). Neither a friend nor an enemy can give evidence. The friend is described as one who had been the accused’s groomsman and an enemy as one who has not spoken to him for three days, because of a difference (Sanhedrin 3.5).11
These exceptions effectively eliminate just about everyone from testifying in courts of law. Because the Talmud is nearly always antithetical to Yahweh’s law, this should come as no surprise.12
Certain Bible expositors have attempted to exempt pastors and doctors from Leviticus 5:1:
The right to silence on the grounds of privileged communication is to a degree granted to pastors and doctors. The presupposition in both cases is the same. The statements or confessions made by a person to his pastor or doctor in the course of a formal or professional relationship are privileged communications, because the person in question is in effect confessing to God in the form of a ministering agent. Both doctor and pastor are concerned with health, the one with physical and the other with spiritual health. Salvation literally means health. The religious nature of a doctor’s calling is a deeply rooted one. Doctors were formerly monks, and hospitals until fairly recently were entirely and exclusively Christian institutions. The modern divorce of both pastor and doctor from Biblical faith does not alter the essential nature of their calling. Privileged communication rests on the presupposition of the religious function of pastor and doctor as God’s servants in the ministry of health. A person’s relationship to them is thus not the property of the human agent but of God. This does not deny the duty of pastor and doctor to urge a person to make restitution where restitution is due, or to urge confession where confession is due. It is their duty to uphold the law of God by urging compliance with it of all who come to them, but they cannot go beyond that fact of counsel.13
The source of this “privileged communication” is not Yahweh’s law. The Catholic Church’s Seal of Confession or Seal of Secrecy demands the same unbiblical protection for their priests:
In the “Decretum” of the Gratian … we find … the following declaration of the law as to the seal of confession: “Deponatur sacerdos qui peccata p nitentis pulicare praesumit.”, i.e., “Let the priest who dares to make known the sins of his penitent be deposed.”14
Under Yahweh’s law, the spouse, priest, pastor, or doctor who helps conceal a crime by refusing to testify against a criminal should face the judgment of lex talionis.
Attorneys are allegedly exempt from Leviticus 5:1 as well:
…conferences with one’s attorney are privileged communications, since the attorney serves as the defendant’s agent and representative in court. To compel an attorney’s testimony is to deny the defendant his liberty and privacy.15
Nowhere does the Bible provide for attorney privileges. Defense attorneys routinely cover up their clients’ crimes and get them acquitted despite their guilt. Such attorneys are guilty of transgressing Leviticus 5:1 and are thereby accomplices to the crimes of their clients. Consequently, they should be prosecuted and punished according to lex talionis.
Privileged communication does not originate with the laws of Yahweh; it is a form of Pharisaism, or Talmudism that predominates our modern constitutional courts.
The Fifth Amendment concludes with the provisions that no one shall be “deprived of … property without due process of law” and “private property [shall not] be taken for public use without just compensation.” These assurances, however, are nothing but a cover for theft. What this is really saying is the Constitution provides for its government to legally steal private citizens’ lands.
Because of Amendment 5’s promise of “just” compensation, most people do not even think to ask whose “due process of law” is going to be employed and whether the government’s confiscation of private lands for public use is ethical or whether governments should own property at all.
According to the Constitution, “just compensation” is not what the private owner considers equitable, but instead what the government decides is equitable.
But thou shalt remember YHWH thy God: for it is he that giveth thee power to get wealth…. (Deuteronomy 8:18)…Blessed is the man that feareth YHWH, that delighteth greatly in his commandments. His seed shall be mighty upon earth: the generation of the upright shall be blessed. Wealth and riches shall be in his house…. (Psalm 112:1-3)
Property is a blessing from Yahweh and is inherent to both the Fourth (Remember the sabbath day to keep it holy) and Eighth (Thou shalt not steal) Commandments. The Fourth Commandment’s stipulation concerning six days of labor provides a means of acquiring property, and the Eighth Commandment is predicated upon the right of property ownership.
Property implies ownership, and ownership entitles the owner to do with his property whatever he wishes, provided it does not damage others:
Is it not lawful for me to do what I will with mine own? (Matthew 20:15)
In The World Under God’s Law, Robert Ingram expounded upon ownership:
…the power of ownership must be absolute. It is black and white; I own a thing or I don’t. I may own a part of it, but there is no such thing as a part of ownership. Christians have a commonplace saying that every man’s home is his castle. He is king in his own residence; he may go to any lengths to stop a trespass; soldiers, in the United States, may not be quartered in his home without his consent; and not even a policeman may enter without a proper warrant issued under careful safeguards. If a man really owns his property, he may refuse to sell it, even to a king, as Naboth refused to sell his vineyard to King Ahab. He may dispose of it at his death by will; he may develop it or not as he sees fit, and within the limits of it there isn’t much he can’t do. The same conditions apply to personal property and money.16
In The Myth of Social Cost, Professor Steven Cheung provides three distinguishing attributes of a property owner:
A good or an asset is defined to be private property if, and only if, three distinct sets of rights are associated with its ownership. First, the exclusive right to use (or to decide how to use) the good may be viewed as the right to exclude other individuals from its use. Second is the exclusive right to receive income generated by the use of the good. Third, the full right to transfer, or freely ‘alienate,’ its ownership includes the right to enter into contracts and to choose their form.17
The Fourth and particularly the Eighth Commandment stand in stark contrast to the First Plank of the Communist Manifesto: “Abolition of private property and the application of all rent to public purpose.” The Fourth and the Eighth also stand in contrast to the nearly identical Fifth Amendment’s provision for the confiscation of private property for public use. The Fifth Amendment also violates the law of the Jubilee:
And thou shalt number seven sabbaths of years unto thee, seven times seven years; and the space of the seven sabbaths of years shall be unto thee forty and nine years…. And ye shall hallow the fiftieth year, and proclaim liberty throughout all the land unto all the inhabitants thereof: it shall be a jubilee unto you; and ye shall return every man unto his possession, and ye shall return every man unto his family…. And if thou sell ought unto thy neighbour, or buyest ought of thy neighbour’s hand…. The land shall not be sold for ever: for the land is mine. …that which is sold shall remain in the hand of him that hath bought it until the year of jubilee: and in the jubilee it shall go out, and he shall return unto his possession. (Leviticus 25:8-28)
The law regarding the year of Jubilee makes it impossible for any one person or family to amass property to themselves or for the government to confiscate private property.
Moreover the prince shall not take of the people’s inheritance by oppression, to thrust them out of their possession … that my people be not scattered every man from his possession. (Ezekiel 46:18)
Governments tend to be more ingenious than the average citizen in the ways they steal. In 1848, French statesman Frederic Bastiat wrote the very insightful book The Law, in which he expounded upon this inherent vice of human governments and their perversion of the law:
The law perverted! And the police powers of the state perverted along with it! The law, I say, not only turned from its proper purpose but made to follow an entirely contrary purpose! The law become [sic] the weapon of every kind of greed! Instead of checking crime, the law itself guilty of the evils it is supposed to punish!18…unfortunately, law by no means confines itself to its proper functions. And when it has exceeded its proper functions, it has not done so merely in some inconsequential and debatable matters. The law has gone further than this; it has acted in direct opposition to its own purpose. The law has been used to destroy its own objective. It has been applied to annihilating the justice that it was supposed to maintain; to limiting and destroying rights which its real purpose was to respect. The law has placed the collective force at the disposal of the unscrupulous who wish, without risk, to exploit the person, liberty, and property of others. It has converted plunder into a right, in order to protect plunder. And it has converted lawful defense into a crime, in order to punish lawful defense.19
This fact, combined with the fatal tendency that exists in the heart of man to satisfy his wants with the least possible effort, explains the almost universal perversion of the law. Thus it is easy to understand how law, instead of checking injustice, becomes the invincible weapon of injustice. It is easy to understand why the law is used by the legislator to destroy in varying degrees among the rest of the people, their personal independence by slavery, their liberty by oppression, and their property by plunder. This is done for the benefit of the person who makes the law,20 and in proportion to the power that he holds.21
Now, legal plunder can be committed in an infinite number of ways. Thus we have an infinite number of plans for organizing it: tariffs, protection, benefits, subsidies, encouragements, progressive taxation, public schools, guaranteed jobs, guaranteed profits, minimum wages, a right to relief, a right to the tools of labor, free credit, and so on, and so on.22
Although most of this should sound all too familiar, the average United States citizen regrettably does not usually recognize such entitlements as theft.
Ultimately, all property belongs to Yahweh:
…all the earth is mine. (Exodus 19:5)The land shall not be sold for ever: for the land is mine…. (Leviticus 25:23)
In The Institutes of Biblical Law, Rousas John Rushdoony commented on Yahweh’s title to the earth:
The earth is indeed the Lord’s, as is all dominion, but God has chosen to give dominion over the earth to man, subject to His law-word, and property is a central aspect of that dominion. The absolute and transcendental title to property is the Lord’s; the present and historical title to property is man’s.23
Yahweh has blessed us with everything we possess and placed us as stewards over it. To keep our property and possessions in their proper perspective, we must humbly acknowledge that it is Yahweh who enables us to acquire everything we own:
The blessing of YHWH, it maketh rich, and he addeth no sorrow with it. (Proverbs 10:22)
As stewards of Yahweh’s gifts, Christians should regard wealth and property with a view toward furthering the kingdom of Yahweh:
But seek ye first the kingdom of God, and his righteousness; and all these things shall be added unto you. (Matthew 6:33)And whatsoever ye do, do it heartily, as to the Lord, and not unto men. (Colossians 3:23)
The tithe from a property’s increase is particularly intended for building Yahweh’s kingdom. The tithe is tacit testimony to the fact that Yahweh possesses title to the earth. This is the principle reason property taxes are so insidious. Our biggest concern regarding property taxes should not be the taxes themselves, but instead their ownership implications. (Property tax will be discussed in more detail in Chapter 25 when addressing Amendment 16.)
Yahweh holds ultimate jurisdiction to the entire earth and everything thereon. Article 6’s claim that the Constitution is the supreme law of the land is clearly a case of jurisdiction usurpation. The framers had no right to claim the Constitution as the supreme law of the land since they neither created nor held title to the land.
The Fifth Amendment’s provision for property confiscation is also applied in the administration of eminent domain, which is nothing more than a form of organized theft:
Thou shalt not remove thy neighbour’s landmark, which they of old time have set in thine inheritance, which thou shalt inherit in the land that YHWH thy God giveth thee to possess it. (Deuteronomy 19:14)Woe to them that devise iniquity, and work evil upon their beds! When the morning is light, they practise it, because it is in the power of their hand. And they covet fields, and take them by violence; and houses, and take them away: so they oppress a man and his house, even a man and his heritage. (Micah 2:1-2)
Eminent domain – the Constitutional Republic’s socialistic so-called right to seize property for the “betterment” of the people as a whole – is one way by which the government moves boundary markers and steals from its citizens. Bouvier’s Law Dictionary defines eminent domain, in part, as follows:
The superior right of property subsisting in a sovereignty, by which private property may in certain cases be taken or its use controlled for the public benefit, without regard to the wishes of the owner…. The right of every government to appropriate otherwise than by taxation and its police authority … private property for public use.24
This property appropriation and redistribution is sometimes justified under the guise of urban renewal by which private property is condemned for private use or sometimes transferred from one private “owner” to another. This occurred in the infamous 2005 case of Kelo v. City of New London (545 U.S. 469), in which the Supreme Court decided 5-to-4 in favor of transferring one private owner’s home and property to another individual under the auspices of furthering economic development. These kinds of decisions were made possible when in 1954, in Berman v. Parker (348 U.S. 26), the Supreme Court expanded the government’s “right” to confiscate private property to include “eliminating blight” as justification for such theft.
Because there is no exception clause in Deuteronomy 19:14, no individual or collective body of individuals has the authority to steal land by moving boundary markers, regardless the reason:
Eminent domain is a divine right. It belongs to God alone. The “right” of the state to eminent domain has no place in Biblical law.25Eminent domain is thus an attribute of ultimate sovereignty, and therefore it is an attribute of divinity…. The right of eminent domain, then, is a divine right and power. Moreover, there are no degrees of divinity: divinity is a total concept. A deity is either divine, or he is not; he is either a god, or he is not. Thus, when the state lays claim to divinity, it lays claim to total power. The right of eminent domain ostensibly limits the state to the confiscation of properties necessary to the common good, or to the public welfare. But the state is the judge of the common good and public welfare, and so the power of eminent domain expands steadily towards the total possession by the state of all properties within the state. The state, being viewed as the higher or supreme power, and the possessor of eminent domain, is seen as the natural guardian and agency of the public welfare. In terms of this presupposition, private ownership is seen as hostile to the common good, whereas state ownership advances the public welfare…. The right of eminent domain, therefore, by associating a “necessary common use” or good with the state, makes the state into a benevolent god whose control and ownership are necessary to the welfare of man.26
The “need” for straight highways is often employed by proponents of eminent domain. But which is more important, straight highways or property rights? Yahweh did not provide for straight highways in His law. He did provide for property rights.
Eminent domain – as provided by the Fifth Amendment – is just an impressive term for legalized plunder. Because only Yahweh is sovereign, only He holds eminent domain to all land (Exodus 19:5, Leviticus 25:23). Any government claiming domain is breaking not only the Eighth Commandment when it enforces that claim, but also the Second Commandment by putting itself in the place of Yahweh.
The creation of public lands is another method employed by the United States Constitutional Republic to move boundary markers. Identifying these lands as “public” is part of the ruse to cover up the theft. Except for the fact that the public is permitted limited access to them, they are not public at all. These lands, which are often stolen by legislation (such as the Wilderness Act of 1964, the Clean Air Act of 1970, the Endangered Species Act of 1973, and the Clean Water Act of 1977) from private property owners, are owned by the government, not the public.
Even public use is changing due to the government’s incremental restriction of access to more and more of these areas. The very fact that the government can restrict access further proves its ownership. Moreover, the public is perpetually paying taxes toward upkeep and fees to gain admittance to what is supposedly already theirs.
The people’s support of public lands is misplaced. The government has yet to demonstrate that it can manage anything better than private entrepreneurs. Certainly, private owners would recognize Yellowstone Park’s potential source of revenue and make parts of it available to the public, probably at far less expense than does the federal government. Dude ranches are one example of how private citizens are doing exactly this on a smaller scale. Even if America’s federal and state park systems are exceptions to this rule, it does not exempt government from its theft.
Public lands are just the tip of the iceberg. All of America is owned by federal and state governments via their claim to property taxes and eminent domain:
…technically the state as sovereign … [has] ultimate title to the land, so too does it have ultimate title to the land on which rests churches and private houses.27
Most people are unaware that eminent domain confers ownership of all land to the government. Although the government covers up its theft by paying what it considers just compensation for the land it appropriates, it ultimately can seize any citizen’s land at its discretion:
Eminent Domain as Exercise of Sovereignty. It was the theory of Grotius that the power of eminent domain was based on the principle that the state had an original and absolute ownership of the whole property possessed by the individual members of it; antecedent to their possession, and that their possession and enjoyment of it being subsequently derived from a grant by the sovereign, it was held subject to a tacit agreement or implied reservation that it might be resumed and all individual rights to it extinguished by a rightful exertion of this ultimate ownership by the state.28
If a property owner does not have total control over his land, he does not own it. No middle ground exists. With the exception of anything owned in a partnership, you cannot partially own something. It is oxymoronic to say you own something when you do not have absolute control over it. Therefore, because the government maintains the right and has the power to tax and confiscate property and exercise eminent domain, the property most people think they own is not really theirs at all.
Just because the government seldom exercises its claim to eminent domain does not make it any less a reality. Ultimately, the government can seize any citizen’s land at will. The fact that government can and does exercise eminent domain anytime and anywhere it chooses proves it has stolen title to all the land in America.
The only difference between King Ahab’s theft of Naboth’s vineyard (1 Kings 21:1-16) and the United States government’s theft under the guise of taxation and eminent domain is that today’s government is more sophisticated and all-inclusive in its methods.
Because Yahweh never abdicated title to the land, His eminent domain encompasses the entire earth (Exodus 19:5, Leviticus 25:23). Consequently, governments (such as the United States Constitutional Republic that confiscates land under cover of Amendment 5) are thieves who steal from Yahweh.
Click to order the Bible Law vs. The United States Constitution CDs:
- The e-book (on CD) A Christian Perspective on the U.S. Constitution
- The audio CD The Bible vs. The U.S. Constitution (Pts. 1 & 2)
1. Thomas James Norton, “The Constitution For the United States: Its Sources and Its Application: Article [Amendment] V,” <http://www.barefootsworld.net/consti11.html>.
2. YHWH (most often pronounced Yahweh) is the English transliteration of the Hebrew Tetragrammaton, the principal name of the God of the Bible. For a more thorough explanation concerning the sacred names of God, “The Third Commandment” may be read online, or the book Thou shalt not take the name of YHWH thy God in vain may be ordered from Mission to Israel Ministries, PO Box 248, Scottsbluff, Nebraska 69363, for a suggested $4 donation.*
3. All Scripture is quoted from the King James Version unless otherwise noted. Portions of Scripture have been omitted for brevity. If there are questions regarding any passage, please open your Bible and study the text to ensure it has been properly used.
4. Where the Tetragrammaton YHWH – the four Hebrew characters that represent the personal name of God – has been unlawfully rendered the LORD or GOD in English translations, I have taken the liberty to correct this error by inserting YHWH where appropriate. For a more thorough explanation concerning the sacred names of God, “The Third Commandment” may be read online, or the book Thou shalt not take the name of YHWH thy God in vain may be ordered from Mission to Israel Ministries, PO Box 248, Scottsbluff, Nebraska 69363 for a suggested $4 donation.*
5. John Bouvier, Bouvier’s Law Dictionary: A Concise Encyclopedia of the Law, 3 vols., s.v. “Oath” (Kansas City, MO: Vernon Law Book Company, 1914) vol. 3, p. 2388.
6. H.B. Clark, Clark’s Biblical Law (Portland, OR: Binfords & Mort, 1943) p. 102.
8. Adam Clarke, Clarke’s Commentary, 6 vols. (New York, NY: Carlton & Phillips, 1853) vol. 1, p. 413.
9. John W. Welch, “Biblical Law in America: Historical Perspectives and Potentials for Reform,” 30 September 2002, <http://www.contra-mundum.org/essays/theonomy/WEL1.pdf>.
10. International Information Programs, USINFO.STATE.GOV, “Rights of the Accused,” Rights of the People: Individual Freedom and the Bill of Rights, <http://usinfo.org/zhtw/DOCS/RightsPeople/accused.html>.
11. William Barclay, The Ten Commandments for Today (Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdman’s Publishing Company, 1946) pp. 199-200.
12. For additional documentation regarding the heretical nature of the Babylonian Talmud, God’s Covenant People: Yesterday, Today and Forever may be read online, or it may be ordered from Mission to Israel Ministries, PO Box 248, Scottsbluff, Nebraska 69363, for a suggested $14 donation.*
13. Rousas John Rushdoony, The Institutes of Biblical Law (The Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Company, 1973) p. 567.
14. “The Law of the Seal of Confession,” Online Catholic Encyclopedia, <http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/13649b.html>.
16. Robert Ingram, The World Under God’s Law: Criminal Aspects of the Welfare State (Houston, TX: St. Thomas Press, 1962) p. 94.
17. Steven N.S. Cheung, The Myth of Social Cost, p. 34, quoted in Gary North, Tools of Dominion: The Case Laws of Exodus (Tyler, TX: The Institute for Christian Economics, 1997) p. 576.
18. Frederic Bastiat, The Law (Irvington-on-Hudson, NY: The Foundation for Economic Education, Inc., [1848] 1987) p. 5.
20. Man cannot make law (James 4:12, Isaiah 33:22); he merely legislates. Any legislation in agreement with Yahweh’s laws is already law and does not need man’s ratification to validate it anymore than the law of gravity needed man to name it for it to become viable. Any legislation not in agreement with Yahweh’s law is simply legalized immorality.
26. Rousas John Rushdoony, Politics of Guilt and Pity (Nutley, NJ: The Craig Press, 1970) pp. 325, 327.
27. Leo Pfeffer, God, Caesar, and The Constitution: The Court as Referee of Church-State Confrontation (Boston, MA: Beacon Press, 1975) pp. 337-38.
28. William M. McKinney and Burdett A. Rich, ed., Ruling Case Law, quoted in Rousas John Rushdoony, The Institutes of Biblical Law (Vallecito, CA: Ross House Books, 1973) p. 500.
*We are admonished in Matthew 10:8 “freely ye have received, freely give.” Although we have a suggested a price for our books, we do not sell them. In keeping with 2 Corinthians 9:7, this ministry is supported by freewill offerings. If you cannot afford the suggested price, inform us of your situation, and we will be pleased to provide you with whatever you need for whatever you can send.