Government Abuse, Natural Law Remedies

By now you should have read Chapters 5, 6, and 19 from my book The Poverty Trap. You need to read these to provide a foundation for the following.

Note: This document was written with footnotes; HTML converted them into endnotes. I suggest you read them; there is a lot of information there. It's easy; use the back button when done.

The state can pass any law it wants to protect the morals, health, safety, peace, and general welfare of the people, but the exercise of these powers is subject to constitutional restraint. It cannot pass laws that violate your unalienable rights to life, liberty, safety, the pursuit of happiness, and other rights, unless there is some threat of harm to society or third persons.

As human beings, we have certain unalienable rights given to us by God. These rights are not given to us by government, nor can government take them away from us, but they are secured by both state and federal constitutions. Our problems with government, in the area of alternative health care, is that government is prohibiting right action or compelling wrong action, and both are violations of our duty to God.

The courts seem to construe narrowly what duty to God means, and I am suggesting that we construe it broadly. It is our own religious belief, and we have a right to construe it as broadly as we want. It is something that should not just be practiced in church, or only be a relation with God; it should be a daily practice encompassing all our relationships. You must use your own beliefs, it's your religion after all; I hope I am giving expression to what you already believe.

For most people, God is not to be found anywhere. Since He is out of view, people doubt the truth that God has anything to do with anything. Most of us have never seen atoms, molecules, germs, or carbon dioxide, yet few of us would doubt their existence because our scientists tell us what these things look like. Similarly, there are people who can see God on the level of the senses.¹ They experience God just as people experience houses and trees, with their senses, It has been explained to me, and I am just reporting to you what this person has seen, the first time you see God, you see Him where you are looking; then you see Him everywhere. He is omnipresent, there is no place that He is not, totally spellbinding on the level of the senses. Until we become seers ourselves, knowledge will be based on someone telling us what they see. The point is: Just because most people can't see something, whether God or atoms, doesn't mean they don't exist. It is enough that seers tell us what they see.

If God is not found in common experience, He will not be accorded His true status of lawmaker, and people (and the state) will act as if He doesn't exist. Nevertheless, when you violate the laws of the lawmaker (whether God or man), you incur a penalty. When the state, which is subservient to God's Law, violates God's law, there is a penalty upon the state. Thus, it is in the state's own best interest to know what Natural Law is and to follow it. Furthermore, since God is the sovereign of both the state and the people, the state is not in a position to prevent the people from following Natural Law.

We need to learn how to follow Natural Law to the exclusion of statutory law whenever there is a conflict. This is not as hard as it may appear, for both state and federal law already provide the vehicles for following Natural Law.

It will probably require courage, for when the state's laws are in conflict with Natural Law and you choose to follow Natural Law, the state might ask you to explain what you are doing, and why. Whenever you break the law, you have to have a reason why!

Our bodies were created with self-correcting mechanisms. Obviously it was the intent of the Creator that these bodies should stay healthy, but when life gets out of balance and these mechanisms breakdown or are overloaded, help is sometimes needed.

Some state constitutions, including Iowa's,² guarantee us the right to the pursuit of safety and happiness. Certainly, the use of alternative health systems is a promotion of ones safety, especially when conventional systems are ineffective or have harmful side effects.

The right to alternative health systems is a right that cannot be infringed by the state; any regulation under the police powers can only be imposed if there is a threat to society, and such regulation must be limited to remedy the harm. The Iowa constitution protects this right under the clause: “This enumeration of rights shall not be construed to impair or deny others, retained by the people.” Other states have this clause as well. The Supreme Court of Ohio said:

Our constitutions are founded upon individualism, and they make prominent the theory that to the individual should be granted all the rights consistent with public safety; and our development is chiefly attributable to the firm establishment and maintenance of those rights by an authorized resort to the courts for their protection against all hostile legislation which is not required by considerations of the public health or safety. In the absence of such considerations those rights are alike immutable; in their presence they must alike yield. [State v. Gravett, 62 NE 325, 326 (1901)]

The above court recognizes that there can be hostile legislation, and unless you stand up against it, the legislation will stand against you.

Creation is obviously well organized. It is no accident that food exists for the purpose of providing nourishment to man; the same applies to herbs, which exist for the purpose of restoring balance whenever disease occurs. Every herb has its place. State government does not have the power to prohibit the use of herbs for medicinal purposes because they were given by God, and to prohibit such use is to violate an obvious intention of the Creator. While the state can regulate such use in order to maintain the health and safety of society, it cannot regulate when there is no harm to society.

There is a large body of evidence that marijuana gives tremendous relief from the severe side effects of chemotherapy used for the treatment of cancer. The benefits are clear, the herb has its desired effect, and unless the state can show how the use of this herb for medicinal purposes causes harm to society or third persons, it is obvious that such use cannot be prohibited. Somehow the government has confused the recreational use of marijuana with the medicinal use. Recreational use may be prohibited under the police powers to protect the morals and safety of society, but not the medicinal use.

Some would argue that if a drug is so dangerous, you must not allow anyone to have it because it is liable to fall into the wrong hands, or a black market will develop in it, or will you be condoning its use.

We are condoning its medical use which is why it was created by God, that is its intended purpose. We are not condoning recreational use. Anyone desiring to prohibit it must answer why God's Will needs to be rejected. Then there are minor arguments:

A black market will only develop in items that are artificially scarce, prohibited, or expensive. If you want a drug or herb to get into the wrong hands, prohibit it; this will insure a black market, and make it a very profitable activity for the pushers, promoting crime in our midst. This will add fuel to the prison growth industry (I have heard that about 3% of the US population is in jail). If the drug is addicting, it will also promote theft by addicts who need money for their next fix. Protection of society should consider these facts, not just the effect of the substance. You can remove the crime from addiction to dangerous substances by allowing and regulating their availability and use.

Wherever there is a desire, there will be someone to fulfill it; society is better protected by controlling the channel of fulfillment, than attempting to prohibit it and create alternate uncontrolled channels.

When the population does not buy the government's story that a substance is dangerous, the government loses credibility. For example, most agree that heroin is dangerous; few agree that marijuana is. Both are prohibited by the federal government, but some state governments agree that marijuana is safe for medicinal use. I believe that the purpose of our war on drugs is to profit the pushers, not protect society.

I have heard of people being raided by the federal government and their medical marijuana confiscated, even though their state allows its use. You can avoid such a raid by issuing a Declaration of Intent and Purpose, described later. If you still get raided, the federal government needs some consequences.

It is certainly in the interests of society to have a good supply of competent medical practitioners. All those who want to hold themselves out as medical doctors, must accept the licensing requirements. This protects society; you can go to a licensed doctor and feel secure in the knowledge that he has been judged as competent by others in his field.

Since modern medicine has boundaries and limitations that are mapped, charted, and well defined, it is suitable to licensing. But there are other systems of healing, and there are unique individuals with gifts, and their uniqueness and scarcity make it impractical to license. The state cannot prohibit such practitioners because they practice a form of healing or medicine that is unconventional. Such prohibition would violate one's right to the pursuit of safety and happiness. Such practitioners cannot call themselves medical doctors, they must disclose that they are not licensed or regulated, and when you go to one for treatment, may the buyer beware.

No harm comes to society by allowing healers to heal, as long as they do not misrepresent themselves. Indeed, many complaints are heard today that true cures for disease are being suppressed by the state; it is a common theme on the Internet. This is a real harm to society, and if you end up in court, I would argue that the police powers actually hurt society by preventing cures from being distributed to those who need them, and done under color of law using the pretext of protecting society.

There is a problem with offering evidence or proof that alternative methods actually heal disease. A drug typically costs $750 million to bring to market. No medical research company would spend money on a product that cannot be patented, so the level of proof for inexpensive or home remedies will necessarily be lacking. Since government requires proof that can never exist, claims of alternative remedies can never be “legally” made. Besides, who decided the standards by which a remedy should be proved?

The government goes so far as to make it illegal to provide testimonials as evidence that a remedy works, claiming that testimonials are misleading and therefore fraudulent.

The solution to the testimonial problem is to speak the Truth, which is a Natural Law right that happens to be secured by the First Amendment freedom of speech clause, and in my view cannot be superseded by any law against providing medical advice, or misleading the public. You speak the truth: This is a testimonial, and this person had this experience, and others have had a similar experience, and if you are lucky you may also, but you may not; etc. That is the truth, and that is your safety, and if government get down on you STAND UP for it.³ There really are some things that we should not put up with.

The medical profession has a different paradigm than the alternate health practitioners. This paradigm is not accepted by all of society, yet the medical profession tries to force it upon society as the only correct or reasonable one.

For example, the medical profession believes in using violence upon the body such as surgery. And they use chemicals to attack “enemy” cancer cells, as if the cancer cells are enemies. While these approaches have their place to those who believe in them, alternative health practitioners might view the body as a harmonious whole that has gotten out of balance.

The medical profession removes the active ingredients from herbs to use as medicines, instead of using the entire herb. This is like taking the intelligence out of God's design for the herb, and leaving behind the wisdom. It results in serious side effects.

Different systems of healing have different effects, and some systems are more suited to peoples temperaments, beliefs, and preferences than others. The approved forms of medicine do not have all the answers and do not satisfy all people.

With the right to receive alternate health care comes the right to provide it, for it would not be possible to receive such care if there were no providers of it.

At common law the practice of medicine was open to all who desired to follow it in any of its branches, subject only to liability for damages in a case of lack of skill on the part of the practitioner, and to the right of government to proceed by quo warranto to prevent incompetents from following the business. [State v. Borah, 76 P. 2d 757, 758 (Supreme Court of Arizona, 1938)]

Quo warranto, which is Latin for “by what authority”, is defined by Bouviers law dictionary as follows:

The name of a writ (and also of the whole pleading) by which the government commences an action to recover an office or franchise from the person or corporation in possession of it.

The writ commands the sheriff to summon the defendant to appear before the court to which it is returnable, to show (quo warranto) by what authority he claims the office or franchise. It was a writ of right, a civil remedy to try the mere right to the franchise or office, where the person in possession never had a right to it or had forfeited it by neglect or abuse.

Thus, the government had a remedy at common law against incompetents who abuse their rights. Of course, the common law has generally been repealed by statutory law. Continuing with American Jurisprudence:

And as a general proposition, the right to follow the profession of medicine and surgery as a lawful occupation is one of the fundamental rights of citizenship--a valuable property right which, under the constitution and laws of the state, one is entitled to have protected and secured. However, it has been observed that no person has a natural or absolute right to practice medicine or surgery or any of the various healing arts; it is a right granted upon condition. It is beyond the power of a state to prohibit the practice of medicine and surgery, or any of the limited systems thereof, in the absence of any showing of injury or tendency of injury to the public health, safety, or morals, although a state may validly deny to itinerant physicians the right to practice. [61 Am Jur 2d Physicians, Surgeons, etc., §13]

The above quote from American Jurisprudence shows that some cases regard the practice of medicine as a property right that cannot be prohibited in the absence of injury, while other cases say it can be granted upon condition. That this is a right under Natural Law should be self evident, but all rights can be regulated as necessary to protect society.

When you drop a hammer, it always falls to the ground without exception. The laws never change; reactions always follow from actions; effects always follow from causes. You plant corn, you get corn. As you sow, so shall you reap. This is what justice means; nobody ever gets away with anything. The state does not need to regulate areas that cause no harm to society; Nature will always take care of it; the lessons will be learned.

I know of parents who did not want their child to undergo chemotherapy, and took her to Mexico to get alternate treatment. Mexico, the land of freedom. It sounds backwards to me; something is wrong here.

I have a friend that tells me that oxygenation therapy through ozone and hydrogen peroxide have been shown to cure aids and cancer, and he told me of a doctor friend who envies his practice because he can do what the doctor can't. This is wrong.

If you are a licensed practitioner, that license should not forbid alternative treatment, especially when the approved forms don't work or are unacceptable to the patient. The solution is to fully disclose to your patient that you are practicing without license in this case, an unapproved form of medicine, and bring him under contract (described elsewhere). Diverse interests can and should be harmonized.

I would rather go to a licensed practitioner who practices alternative methods because I know he is competent in many areas, not just one.

I was pleased, after writing all this, to find a court case that supported my position. Not surprisingly, it is an earlier case, 1903. In State v. Biggs, 46 SE 401, the defendant was prosecuted for unlawfully practicing medicine and surgery, and the branches thereof, for fee or reward, without a license. The proof showed that the acts he was convicted of doing were administering massage baths, physical culture, manipulating muscles, bone, spine, and solar plexus, and advising his patients as to diet. The proof also showed that he did all those things without prescriptions being given to the patients, or any drugs or surgery used, that he charged and received fees therefore, and had no license. The Supreme Court of North Carolina held that there is nothing in such treatment that calls for the exercise of the police power, and defendant could not be punished under a law, passed by virtue of the police power, prohibiting such treatment by unlicensed persons.

The defendant advertised himself as a "nonmedical physician"; that he held himself out to the public to cure disease by a "system of drugless healing, and treats patients by said system without medicine, claiming not to cure by faith"; that he advertises to cure by natural methods, without medicine or surgery.

Those who wish to be treated by practitioners of medicine and surgery had the guaranty that such practitioners had been duly examined and found competent by a board of gentlemen eminent in that high and honorable profession, and those who had faith in treatment by methods not included in the “practice of medicine and surgery,” as usually understood, had reserved to them the right to practice their faith and be treated, if they chose, by those who openly and avowedly did not use either surgery or drugs in the treatment of diseases.

Such examination is eminently proper for one who holds himself out as an M.D., and those who wish to employ an M.D. should certainly have the guaranty that is given by his license that the M.D. is competent. But how about those who are too poor, or too ignorant, or too perverse, to wish that kind of treatment?

Those not M.D.'s contend that the allopathic system of practice is contrary to the discoveries of science and injurious to the public. Some M.D.'s doubtless believe that all treatment of disease, except by their own system, is quackery. Is this point to be decided by the M.D.'s themselves, through an examining committee of five of their own number, or is the public the tribunal to decide, by employing whom each man prefers, whether allopath, homeopath, osteopath, or the defendant?

... they cannot decide for mankind that their own system of healing is now and ever shall be the only correct one, and that all others are to be repressed by the strong arm of the law.

This is a free country, and any man has a right to be treated by any system he chooses.⁴ The law cannot decide that any one system shall be the system he shall use. If he gets improper treatment for children or others under his care, whereby they are injured, he is liable to punishment; but whether it was proper treatment or not is a matter of fact, to be settled by a jury of his peers, and not a matter of law, to be decided by a judge, nor prescribed beforehand by an act of the Legislature.

The public have a right to know that those holding themselves out as members of that ancient and honorable profession are competent, and duly licensed as such. The Legislature can exert its police power to that end, because it is a profession whose practice requires the highest skill and learning. But there are methods of treatment which do not require much skill and learning, if any. Patients have a right to use such methods if they wish, and the attempt to require an examination of the character above recited for the application of such treatment is not warranted by any legitimate exercise of the police power. The effect would be to prohibit to those who wish it those cheap and simple remedies, and deprive those who practice them of their humble gains, by either giving a monopoly of such remedies to those who have the title M.D., or prohibiting the use of such remedies altogether.

All the law can do is to regulate and safeguard the use of powerful and dangerous remedies, like the knifeand drugs, but it cannot forbid dispensing with them.

End of quote. I might be inclined to disagree with the court about the prohibition of surgery or drugs to all except licensed practitioners. Even though surgery is unusually dangerous; and drugs, since they are active ingredients removed from the wisdom of the complete herb, they certainly are dangerous. If a person was so perverse as to want surgery or drugs from an unlicensed person, I just might want the state to stay out of it, but don't ask me to defend the issue.

For now, the battle is to allow unlicensed practitioners to practice, and to make those prohibited remedies available. Society benefits because the conventional remedies are well laid out and regulated; and the unregulated remedies handle those cases that can't be handled conventionally.

As long as no harm comes to society and you are willing to accept responsibility for your actions, the protective powers of the state must stay out of it.

The state has the power to pass any law it wants in order to protect the morals, health, peace, safety, and general welfare of the people. This power is called the police powers, and comes from the people as a general legislative grant of power to the state. The exercise of the police powers is subject to constitutional restraints.

The courts have ruled that the state can regulate and control the practice of medicine either generally or in any of its limited branches, including the power to prescribe the qualifications of its practitioners. The state can even lay down general qualifications to which all practitioners of all schools must conform, but cannot require knowledge of a subject that bears no relation to the practice. It can also require knowledge of subjects not used in the particular system. Some studies may be required to enable practitioners to recognize cases where their limited methods are ineffective, and the services of a doctor are required. See 61 Am Jur 2d Physicians, Surgeons, Etc., § 52: Power of state to prescribe qualifications. Unless otherwise noted, all further references to Am Jur sections are to Chapter 61.

This all sounds very reasonable, so why are we here today reading this article? The answer is that statutory law often forbids actions that are in accord with Natural Law. In legal terms, this means that the practice of medicine at common law was not mala in se, that is, not wrong as such, when unaccompanied by acts that are evil, vicious, or criminal. See Am Jur § 125. When the state forbids any action that is in accord with Natural Law, this is mala in prohibita; the acts are not wrong, but simply prohibited.

Laws mala in prohibita, even though there are no natural penalties, may be necessary for public safety. Traffic laws are good examples.

But when the state tries to protect individuals from harm by preventing private acts between consenting adults, then your will and judgment is replaced by the state's without your consent, and this is wrong.

There are people who, if not protected, will be taken advantage of by unscrupulous people with poor moral character. See Am Jur § 61: Moral character. It could be that these people are here to learn a lesson, whether to be able to recognize unscrupulous people, or to check references first, or buyer beware, whatever the lesson.⁵ If a person needs this type of lesson, it doesn't matter how the state tries to protect him; Nature will arrange things so that he is confronted by this lesson over and over until he learns it. If the state, in its noble desire to protect these people, prohibits individual actions that do not harm society, this prohibition is a violation of Natural Law because it restricts freedom in general. Freedom is given to us for the purpose of learning lessons. If God did not want us to have freedom, He would not have given it to us. Since He gave it to us, the state must not infringe upon that higher authority.

Traditionally, children and incompetent people have guardians to make decisions for them. If you felt you were incompetent to handle your affairs, you could apply to the state for a guardian who would look after your affairs and make decisions for you. See 39 Am Jur 2d Guardian and Ward.

Since the law already provides for those who need a guardian, the state can harmonize all interests without turning everyone into wards of the state. It is wrong to convert a whole society into wards in the interest of protecting the incompetent.

How can the state know when its actions are in accord with Natural Law? When it harmonizes all interests.⁶ Ask the question: How do you harmonize all interests in this case?

The licensing of practitioners can be harmonized by allowing licensed and unlicensed practitioners. This would satisfy society's right and interest in having an ample supply of licensed competent practitioners. Those without a license would provide alternative health care that is not accepted by the mainstream of society. They would fully disclose their unlicensed status and credentials to their clients. Individuals will be free to choose between them. This perfectly harmonizes societal and individual interests.

When the state can harmonize diverse interests, under what theory of law can the state choose other methods? Nature employs the principle of least action. Whatever the job, it gets it done with the least expenditure of time, energy, etc. It might be said that Natural Law does not have a choice; it can only act in the best possible way. Government aligned with Natural Law would be maximally efficient and capable of harmonizing all interests. The only reason the state can't do this is because it doesn't know how. Your job is to tell it how. For government to choose otherwise is to violate your right to the pursuit of happiness, and maybe other rights.

If I had an incurable disease, I would seek unlicensed alternate practitioners because licensed ones, by their own admission of labeling the disease incurable, cannot help me. And since there are unlicensed ones that claim to have cures, I would want to keep hope.

Either the state must go to the trouble of writing statutes that harmonize your rights to health, freedom of choice, the pursuit of safety and happiness, etc., or it must not regulate, and let Natural Law take care of it. It is not possible for statutes written in books to harmonize all possible situations, and the common law didn't even try. The common law gave maximum freedom, but held you accountable for your damages.

Happiness is the result of right action. The right to the pursuit of happiness is therefore the right to perform right action. The state cannot prohibit such actions, but can only regulate to the extent necessary to remediate any possible harm to society. Freedom is the rule; regulation is the exception. The U.S. Supreme Court said:

While there is no such thing as absolute freedom of contract and it is subject to a variety of restraints, they must not be arbitrary or unreasonable. Freedom is the general rule, and restraint the exception. The legislative authority to abridge can be justified only by exceptional circumstances. [Wolff Co. v. Industrial Court, 262 U.S. 522, 534 (1922)]

The purpose of government is to harmonize differences. The purpose of the court is to satisfy all parties. Since you are asserting your right to the pursuit of happiness, the court now has the duty to keep you happy, as a matter of law, whenever it is possible to do so without causing harm to society.

If you find that your state will not listen to this type of reasoning, then bring it under religious free exercise and have every client sign a contract agreeing to receive treatment from you under religious free exercise.

If you have a cure for some disease, for example cancer, reason and logic should permit you to advertise it as such. You might complain that government does not listen to reason or logic, that they will close you down or lock you up if you advertise a cure for disease. The courts have upheld statutes against advertising cures for chronic and incurable diseases, so you need to be careful what you say. See 61 Am Jur 2d § 141 and 142 on advertising.

If you have no proof of a cure, then you cannot make any claims. You can provide your evidence, but you must state it very clearly. And you can use testimonials. Mrs. X says she got great relief.

You have a right to freedom of speech, and freedom of the press, which is what advertising is, but you are limited to speaking the truth, which is where your safety lies. Such speech cannot be against the law; if it is, the law is unconstitutional. Any government claims that testimonials are misleading, that is not your problem. Disagreement goes hand in hand with free speech. The right was included in the Constitution to allow people to say things that the government disagreed with. May the reader or listener of the testimonial beware. Political⁷ speech is protected in this country, so stand up for it. But -- your testimonial must be the TRUTH. Did Mrs. X really say it? And did she really get relief?

This theory is supported by a U.S. Supreme Court case on advertising of prices by attorneys. This decision severely limited restrictions on advertising by state regulators because of First Amendment protections to the free flow of information. See Bates v. State Bar of Arizona, 433 US 350.

It may be that you can do what you want to do by simply reading and following the letter of the law, without having to challenge the power of the state to regulate you. If you do not have the temperament, it might be wise to avoid a conflict if you can achieve results without one, and leave it to those who are so inclined, to do the work of safeguarding and protecting our and our children's rights. It is best to have motivated people to take on this type of challenge.

Many states only use general terms prohibiting the practice of medicine or surgery without a license, and do not define specifically what constitutes a violation thereof. In some states, the practice of medicine means that you are engaged in that line of work as a business, holding yourself out as being so engaged, or for a consideration treating those who will accept your professional services. If the statute requires that you be paid for your services in order to constitute the practice of medicine, then you can avoid the practice of medicine by not charging, but instead accepting a donation. You can suggest a donation amount, but, of course, the person does not have to pay it, and you have no legal recourse if he doesn't.

In some states, actual practice is the opposite of casual, occasional, or clandestine practice, and carries with it the thought of open, active, and notorious engagement in the business, vocation, or profession. If you do not advertise and do not carry on an open business, you may be able to do your practice under the current laws of the state.

Diagnosis of symptoms to determine the disease, and then prescription of remedy, have been considered necessary elements of the practice of medicine. We will discuss this topic in the next section. See 61 Am Jur 2d, Physicians, Surgeons, Etc., § 36: What constitutes practice of medicine.

You can find the laws of your state in your local library (or on the Internet). Look up physicians, surgeons, medicine, drugs, licensing, food, and related topics in the index. Look at the annotated version of the code which consists of about 50 to 100 volumes. This version will inform you about all the litigation on the statutes of interest.

There may be a law in your state forbidding you from diagnosing or prescribing. It may be that, in your particular practice, diagnosis is not necessary. People who come to you may already know what their ailment is and come to you because modern medicine has been ineffective, and they are looking for alternatives. Diagnosis has already been accomplished by a medical doctor.

I know of ayurvedic healers who can read your pulse and tell you what is wrong with you. If you have such skill but are not a licensed practitioner, you could easily obey the law by simply keeping the knowledge of what you know to yourself, and use that knowledge to guide you in the appropriate method of restoring balance. For example, if you can see blocks of energy in the body that manifest as symptoms of illness, and your procedure involves the laying of hands on appropriate points in order to effect a cure, it is not necessary to tell the client anything; he will simply feel better.

It may be that you provide the same procedures to all your clients, which avoids the diagnosis issue altogether; you never diagnose.

The same applies to the prohibition against prescribing. If you provide the same procedures to all clients, they already know your “prescription” before you even begin.

For those of you that need to diagnose and/or prescribe, here is a legal position that can be argued in court. Remember that the police powers of the state can be exercised for the purpose of protecting society and third persons from harm. Freedom is the rule, and restraint the exception. While the state may want to prevent you from exercising your form of healing, including diagnosing and prescribing, when two people come together under Natural Law and give their informed consent, and their practice does not cause harm to society or third persons, the state cannot prohibit it. You bring them under contract.

The power of perception (which is equivalent to diagnosis), and the power of healing (which is equivalent to prescription), have been given to some people as a gift from God, and the exercise of such power is between the people and God, and the state is powerless to intervene. Where rights under the constitution are concerned, there shall be no rule making which abrogates those rights. If the rules against diagnosis and prescription violate those rights, they are void, at least as might be applied to your situation.

The Constitution gives Congress the power to regulate commerce among the several states, and I would hope the courts do not construe the clause to give the federal government power to regulate commerce, period, even to prohibit what the states condone. Regulating commerce among the states, is a different power from regulating commerce, period. If two states approve the sale and use of marijuana, how can the federal government prohibit it between those states? The states have the power to regulate matters of health, not the federal government, and their power is superior.

The power to regulate commerce is not absolute; it does not carry with it the right to destroy or impair other provisions of the Federal Constitution and in its amendments, but is subject to those limitations and guaranties. [15A Am Jur 2d Commerce, § 12]

The enumerated powers of the federal government must be in harmony with the rest of the constitution; the Constitution does not conflict with itself. The powers must also be exercised in harmony with the unalienable rights given to us by God that government is suppose to protect; that is its charter from the people. It would be a strange construction of the Constitution, if the powers of government were given a liberal interpretation, but our rights were given a narrow interpretation.

Because we have the unalienable rights to liberty, safety, and the pursuit of happiness, freedom is the rule and restraint the exception in both the federal and state arenas. While all statutes may seem reasonable, the effect of each statute is to either restrict freedom of action, or take something from the citizen, and unless this restriction has the effect of protecting society from harm, it may violate the freedom given to us by God.

While the government can regulate interstate commerce, it cannot arbitrarily prohibit certain types of commerce if such prohibition violates your right to life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness, or other rights not enumerated. Our job is to expand the role of God in the interpretation of the Constitution. The courts recognize our duty to Him, but are not very clear about our rights from Him.

It is hard to determine whether an activity will be construed as interstate or intrastate commerce. The courts have carefully avoided any attempt to give interstate commerce a comprehensive definition. We just don't know how the courts will respond until we test the issue, as the rule of law is not clear. Quoting American Jurisprudence:

The language of the United States Supreme Court is not always consistent in analyzing the application of the commerce clause to varying facts and it is difficult to rationalize it into one harmonious jurisprudential whole. [15A Am Jur 2d Commerce, § 6]

Unless otherwise stated, further references to Am Jur are to Chapter 15A, Commerce.

It seems that the Supreme Court has become bogged down in complexity and detail and is unable to express a general rule of law. The laws of nature that govern the entire universe without a problem and in perfect harmony, are not lively in the court's awareness. They have to make rulings on a case by case basis, and their decisions do not bring harmony to all fields of life. If we can give the Court the knowledge and understanding to harmonize the various interests, we can bring government closer to Natural Law.

When government conforms to Natural Law, it is really not so important how the commerce clause draws the line, whether the state regulates an area, or the federal government regulates the area. The universe is governed by only one government and one body of Natural Law. We have many governments to protect us from abuse by one government gone amuck. In a gray area in which it is difficult to decide which government should have the power, both governments would be capable of harmonizing diverse interests. But at this time when both state and federal governments are violating Natural Law and actively working to suppress individual rights, it is to our advantage to be able to choose our regulatory jurisdiction. Or, when the states approve but the federal government prohibits, we can choose to stay out of interstate commerce, and I will talk about how to do this later.

The federal government has superior authority in the area of interstate commerce. Plus, an activity that is strictly intrastate, could be regulated by the federal government if it interfered with interstate commerce; see Am Jur § 13 and 16.

We saw that the federal government is a government of enumerated powers, that it has no power except those explicitly given it in the Federal Constitution, or necessary by implication. It does not have the general power to regulate food, drugs, physicians, or medical practice. It was the intent of the Founding Fathers that the states should regulate the general welfare, and this power was not given to the Federal government.

The Federal Government has been given the power to regulate interstate commerce. Does this mean that Congress can pass any law it wants to regulate interstate commerce? Clearly not; the exercise of this power is subject to constitutional restraints. Examples will illustrate the point.

The Federal government has the power to regulate the post office. Does this mean that government can open and read letters at its discretion? No, because this violates your right to privacy. Government would need a court order, based upon probable cause that a crime has been or is being committed, before it can open your mail.

Congress has the power to coin money and regulate the value thereof. Can Congress arbitrarily change the value of gold and silver coin? No, because that is a theft upon the people. Those few times in our history when the value of coins was changed, was to correct or regulate the difference in value between gold and silver coin that was causing one or the other to be forced out of circulation. What we use today as paper money, isn't money under the law, and isn't issued under the authority of this clause, and the “inflation” we are experiencing is another story that is explained in my book The Poverty Trap.

Congress has the power to fix the standards of weights and measures. Can Congress arbitrarily change the length of the foot, or weight of the pound? Clearly not, otherwise this would be a theft upon the people because it would change the intent of contracts which specify payment of material in feet or pounds.

Can congress prohibit the sale of vitamins, to be allowed by prescription only, when the states allow it? I don't see where congress can prohibit intrastate what the states condone. The problem is that the cost to manufacture vitamins precludes setting up plants in 50 states. Interstate commerce is necessary to get the vitamins into the states.⁸

The regulation of alternate health systems within a state is outside of the province of the Federal Government. However, the Federal Government can regulate alternate health practitioners engaged in interstate commerce. Later we will discuss how to avoid interstate commerce in order to avoid federal regulation.

However, even if you avoid interstate commerce, the federal government may attempt to regulate your practice in intrastate commerce because it interferes with interstate commerce. Whatever the extensive power of the commerce clause, even if the courts allow the power to regulate intrastate commerce in areas not enumerated, to the point of prohibiting alternative health systems, it cannot violate the unalienable rights given by God, of a healer and an ill person coming together to attempt to cure a disease that the regular medical establishment has labeled incurable. We always come back to fundamental principles.

As a starting point of argument, since the medical establishment has given up on such disease by labeling them incurable, this should relieve the medical establishment of any supposed jurisdiction over such diseases. Why would anyone go to a medical doctor who admits he has no cure for the malady? If the medical establishment can't help someone, the right thing to do is to let them try to find someone who can.

Can anyone be so arrogant as to state that since they do not know how to cure a disease, a cure therefore doesn't exist, and any claim of a cure must be a fraud or hoax, and society must be protected against such claims by punishing people who try to help those desperate for help?

And why would the determination of the existence of a cure be placed in the hands of those whose vested interest is that no cure be found? The cancer, diabetes, and heart disease treatment industries would be shattered is their cures got out.

When a person is dying from an incurable disease, how can any potential cure be said to be unsafe? Every potential cure becomes a safe one, precluding the exercise of the police powers to stop it. Hope, or even so called unsound methods, could induce spontaneous remission. But the mere right to the pursuit of safety is sufficient to stop federal or state regulators from preventing practitioners from administering to the “incurable disease” condemned.

Federal regulation is dealt with the same way as I have laid it out for state regulation. Whenever regulation is in conflict with Natural Law, we follow Natural Law. By following Natural Law which is superior to federal and state law, we do not break any law, and therefore are not subject to a penalty.

The federal government is currently attempting to reclassify vitamins as drugs, which would be made available only by prescription. This attempt has been going on since 1900, with the Nutrition Labeling and Education Act of 1990; the Dietary Supplement Task Force Report; and the FDA Enforcement Amendments of 1991 (HR 3642 and S 2135). The most recent attempt is the Codex Alimentarius, an attempt by the United Nations to "help governments consider the formulation and adoption of similar international standards of [...] purity for all foods"

Can Congress take herbs, vitamins, and minerals, things which have been on the market's shelves for decades, and convert them into drugs available only by prescription? This action is in effect the exercise of a police power whose purpose is to protect the health and general welfare of the people, and there is the requirement that Congress show that there is a potential of harm to society justifying the reclassification into drugs, and after so many decades of safe use, the burden of proof would be on Congress to show it. Otherwise, this action would violate ones rights to liberty, safety, and the pursuit of happiness, and by a single clause, all the barriers would be broken down, with the federal government becoming a general government over all the states. In the federal arena as well as the state, freedom is the rule, restraint the exception; this is why we are known as a free country.

Furthermore, since the federal government cannot regulate in this area, if companies chose to place these vitamins on the market intrastate, it would completely fend off the power of the federal government to require prescriptions in interstate commerce. The problem is that the cost to manufacture vitamins precludes setting up plants in 50 states. Interstate commerce is necessary to get the vitamins into the states.

If a manufacturer could have plants in all states, it would separate intrastate business from interstate business. The interstate vitamins would be made available by prescription only; a separate batch would be set aside for intrastate business only, that would not cross state lines, and would be available to the general public in the manufacturer's own state. Since the federal government might try to force any company engaged in interstate commerce to follow the same rules in intrastate commerce, I would find out what is legal by asking the Interstate Commerce Commission for a ruling, and if they rule against you, I would pursue a declaratory judgment which I will discuss later. You can get the answer to the question without jeopardizing your company.

But even with 50 separate manufacturing plants, one in each state, the federal government might step in to prevent such intrastate commerce because it interferes with interstate commerce. Again, a declaratory judgment would be in order.

The more practical question is the question of power given to the federal government. I presume that vitamins are generally available without prescription in most of the 50 states. The states have either been unwilling or unable to pass regulations under the police powers to restrict the distribution of vitamins. There has presumably been no significant harm to society from the vitamins. The states allow intrastate commerce of vitamins, and wish to trade vitamins with other states. The federal government is authorized to regulate commerce in vitamins among the 50 states, but is not authorized to regulate vitamins.

Since the federal government would have to prohibit intrastate commerce of non-prescribed vitamins in order to prohibit the interstate commerce of non-prescribed vitamins, it would be exercising powers reserved to the states, under the guise of regulating interstate commerce. The federal government would necessarily have to prohibit intrastate vitamins, before it could even think of regulating interstate commerce in vitamins.

The Natural Law solution harmonizes all interests. Allow the federal government to regulate the standards for manufacturing and purity because one plant will provide vitamins to many states. This is the proper role of regulating interstate commerce, which could not adequately be handled by individual states. Questions of final distribution (i.e. health and safety) are reserved to the states, as has been the tradition and the law.

The power to regulate interstate commerce should not give the power to prohibit it when the states have condoned it. If the states want to continue to participate in the intrastate commerce of vitamins, or if they want to participate in the interstate commerce of vitamins, the federal government should not be able to prohibit. Otherwise the federal government would be clearly exercising a power not granted by enumeration in the Constitution, and what would be the need for enumerated powers? The Founding Fathers included these powers in the Constitution because, without an enumeration the federal government would not have them.

We would not need the post office clause. Mail, which is basically interstate in nature, would be regulated under the commerce clause, and state regulation could be prohibited if it interfered with interstate mail..

The coining and regulating of money, as an indispensable part of commerce, would come under the commerce clause; the states could not pass laws interfering with such interstate commerce.

The punishment of counterfeiting the securities and coin of the U.S., being interstate in nature, would come under the commerce clause.

Protection by copyrights and patents could be regulated by the commerce clause, and such regulation would be forbidden to the states.

The Founding Fathers put these clauses into the constitution because they were needed to give the federal government power in these areas. If the courts interpret the commerce clause so liberally that the other clauses are not needed, then obviously the interpretation of the grant of power from the people is wrong. The proper interpretation of the commerce clause must be limited in order to allow these other enumerations to have weight on their own.

Since freedom is the rule and restraint the exception a state cannot prohibit something unless there is a threat of harm to society, and that regulation can only be to the extent necessary to remedy the harm, so vitamins could not be prohibited after so many decades unless the state could show harm. If the state cannot prohibit it, then by the same reasoning, the federal government cannot prohibit it. The attack upon federal police powers is the same as laid out for the state. The federal government cannot violate the unalienable rights to liberty and the pursuit of happiness absent a showing of harm to society.

Finally, according to American Jurisprudence, an embargo would not be permissible as a regulation of interstate commerce since the primary purpose of the commerce clause is to secure freedom of commercial intercourse among the states. See Am Jur §§ 88.

If vitamins are converted into prescription drugs, this would make them more costly and less freely available; this can only have the effect of lowering the level of health and safety of society, not increase it, which should remove the legitimacy of using the police power.

Worst case: If the federal government manages to convert vitamins into prescription drugs, yet the states condone non-prescription vitamins, there is one more solution. Only ask me when it happens.

While the federal government has superior jurisdiction under the commerce clause, it might be exercising jurisdiction concurrently or independently with the state. The federal government may choose not to exercise its power of regulation, and can authorize the states to regulate interstate commerce or place burdens upon it, even though it cannot strictly speaking delegate to the states the power to regulate interstate commerce. State regulations that affect interstate commerce will stand until preempted by the federal government. Am Jur §§ 20 and 21. In practicing your alternate health system, you may have two governments to contend with.

To reduce the regulatory load, you can so conduct your affairs so that the federal government has not jurisdiction and cannot regulate your practice.

It may be that the courts will not allow you to drop out of interstate commerce. Even if your activities are conducted within state lines, and even if they are not regarded as commerce, if they have a substantial economic effect on interstate commerce, then you are within reach of the commerce clause. See Am Jur § 13.

If it is possible to avoid interstate commerce by staying in intrastate commerce, this is how to do it. Only solicit business and run advertisements within your state. The right to engage in any private business or occupation carries with it the right to advertise. See 3 Am Jur 2d Advertising § 7. Be careful here, because if the paper you run your ads in has even one subscription out of state, this might be construed as advertising in interstate commerce. American Jurisprudence cites cases where newspapers with large circulation were ruled to be engaged in interstate commerce because a small percentage of subscriptions, less than 1 percent, were out of state. See Am Jur §§ 12, note 38.

I would think it alright for an interstate paper or magazine to interview you and write an article about you or your operation; this is not advertising.

Just because a newspaper, or other company that you deal with, engages in interstate commerce, doesn't mean that you engage in interstate commerce. Your transaction with such companies would be strictly intrastate.

If the federal government prohibits whatever it is you want to do, then I would make sure that your clients are residents of your state, by asking them. I would even include a statement on the contract so that they affirm that they are residents. Otherwise, you may be prosecuted for an illegal act in interstate commerce. While the character of your business may be intrastate, and while normally occasional or incidental interstate business does not convert your intrastate business into interstate business, I would want to avoid even a single act that is prohibited.

On the other hand, if what you want to do is not prohibited by the federal government, then I would not want to discriminate against interstate commerce. In this case, I would think that the best approach would be to act like other intrastate businesses who sell to all and do not discriminate against interstate travelers. I would consider any out of state business to be incidental to your main business which would be intrastate, and therefore out of reach of federal regulation. I think that if you are not soliciting business from outside of your state, then you would be safe. Obviously, incidental business from out of state cannot turn intrastate commerce into interstate commerce, otherwise virtually all intrastate commerce would be transformed into interstate commerce due to tourism.

If you buy goods from an out of state company that has a branch office in your state, even if the product is shipped from out of state, this is intrastate commerce for you, even though for the company it is interstate commerce. See 15A Am Jur 2d Commerce, §§ 44 and 46.

However, and here is a very subtle distinction, if you buy goods shipped from out of state, from an agent or salesman who represents an out of state company, that is interstate commerce, even if the company maintains an office for the accommodation of the agent or salesman. This rule prevails when orders are subject to acceptance or rejection by the out of state company.

If the federal government prohibits the sale across state lines, of drugs or equipment that you need, you must purchase or build these items from within your state. If the federal government taxes a drug or device that you use in your practice, or even taxes your occupation, be sure to pay the tax. If the drug or device is prohibited by the state and you want to challenge the state, paying the federal tax keeps the federal government out of it; your dealings are only with the state; you don't want to be charged with federal tax evasion which may carry harsh penalties.

If, in addition to your intrastate practice, you want to sell products interstate, keep this business separate from your intrastate business. While I am not certain it is necessary, I would keep them as separate legal entities. Of course, your interstate business would be subject to federal regulation.

If you live in Washington, D.C. or a federal enclave, you automatically come under the federal jurisdiction of article 1 section 8 clause 17 of the constitution.

Finally, as a practical matter, the federal government can regulate by taxation. According to the federal Uniform Controlled Substances Act, any person who produces, manufactures, imports, compounds, deals in, sells, dispenses, or gives away narcotic drugs, as defined, or marijuana, must register with the Secretary of the Treasury or his delegates and pay a special occupational tax represented by appropriate stamps on containers or order forms.

In legal theory, a tax cannot be used to regulate, and a taxing statute will be upheld only if its provisions clearly indicate that it is designed for revenue purposes and not to encroach upon the police powers reserved to the states. But if for example your state prohibits the possession of a drug, you are going to be reluctant to pay a federal tax on it because this will be admitting you possess it. If I was in this kind of position, I think I would pay the federal tax, and expect the federal government to keep it private..

If you wanted to, you could test this issue by simply paying the tax to the federal government but not possessing the drug, since possession of the drug would put you into jeopardy with the state. No one would know that you don't have the drug, and paying a tax to the federal government is not illegal. In fact, your possession or non-possession of the drug is none of the federal government's business. The federal government will not come to your door because you are not violating federal law.

If the state knocks at your door with a search warrant, this could only mean that the federal government has violated your right to privacy; and more importantly it is attempting to regulate by use of the taxing clause, Article 1 Section 8 Clause 1. I believe that, if this happened, the courts would order the federal government to take steps to keep the information private. The federal government cannot do indirectly what it is prohibited from doing directly, and it cannot use its taxing power for the purposes of regulation. See 25 Am Jur 2d Drugs, Narcotics, and Poisons, § 33

You cannot avoid interstate commerce by manufacturing in one state, and shipping the unfinished product to the other 49 states where you do final assembly or packaging. Such methods would completely subvert the power of the federal government to regulate interstate commerce. You may need to obtain substantially all raw materials within your state, in order to avoid interstate commerce. This does not mean that all materials must be manufactured in your state. If some other company imports something into the state in interstate commerce, that comes under federal regulation. When you buy the product from that company, the product ceases to be in interstate commerce, and your purchase of it is intrastate commerce.

Speaking about the general welfare clause; If your state passes any legislation that regulates your practice because the state is coerced by the federal government under threat of withholding funds, I would challenge the federal government for exercising a prohibited power in an indirect way.

While the courts allow the government to tax for the general welfare and return the money to the states if specific conditions are met, we saw in the case of U.S. v. Butler that this single clause did not give power to the Congress to tear down the barriers, to invade the state's jurisdiction, and to become a parliament of the whole people, subject to no restrictions save such as are self-imposed.

Spending under the general welfare clause must be regulation neutral; it cannot regulate, otherwise it would break down the constitutional barriers and give the federal government uncontrolled police powers, which of course we see it already has.

If the courts have established rules that give the federal government prohibited powers, cause the constitution to conflict with itself, or coerce the states, then the rules need to be changed. When court rules of interpretation cause a problem, changing court rules will fix it. Quoting the Supreme Court:

Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule making or legislation which would abrogate them. [Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 491, (1966)]

“Congress cannot, under the pretext of executing delegated power, pass laws for the accomplishment of objects not entrusted to the Federal Government. ...” [U.S. v. Butler, 297 U.S. 1, 69]

The federal government can regulate by writing uniform codes which the states voluntarily adopt. As long as the states legislate these codes that come down from time to time, it is legal because the states are regulating, not the federal government. However, the states cannot delegate legislative authority to the federal government in an area that the federal government has no power to act, and a state cannot write a law that simply adopts future federal acts. See Cilento v. State, 377 So. 2d 663, at 665 (1979 Fla).

This principle must also apply to laws passed by foreign governments or entities such as the United Nations. Neither the federal nor the state governments can merely adopt rules or regulations passed by the United Nations, unless the federal or state governments voluntarily adopt them.

The reason we have innumerable city and county governments, and 50 state governments, is by design. It is much easer for the people to make changes at the local level, what would be extremely difficult at a higher level. To attempt to change the regulation from the UN would be a lot more difficult than to influence our federal or state government..

And while our state might be competing with 50 other states to get us our share of the market, if the UN is in control, we would be competing with all the other countries of the world, and we would not be represented at all. This lack of representation of the Codex Alimentarius, is one of the most sinister aspects of it. Instead of trying to influence our congressmen, we would have to influence them to influence the UN. And even if we were given representatives, it would be one step further removed, and more difficult to make changes. And, cultural preferences of Europeans would be imposed upon Americans.

The regulation of vitamins, whether they are to be distributed by prescription or otherwise, is a health and safety issue, and such issues are reserved for the states. The federal government does not have jurisdiction to regulate these matters because such power is not enumerated in the constitution, but it can regulate interstate commerce. Thus, the exercise of federal power to do so via treaty is void..

In the past it had been attempting to regulate vitamins through the general welfare clause, but political pressure through representative government has resisted these attempts. Now with the Codex Alimentarius, the federal government is attempting to regulate through treaty. By delegating the power, they avoid responsibility; they can tell their constituency that it is not their fault, it is out of their power to control. They can get what they want without being responsible for it - have their cake and eat it too. They can cater to the drug companies for money to keep them in office, while avoiding any criticism from their constituency.

This process worked with the Federal Reserve; congress delegated the power to regulate the quantity of money in circulation to the fed, but no longer has control and is not responsible. The Federal Reserve is, in fact, a fourth major branch of government, even though it is not a government institution. But that is another story discussed in my book The Poverty Trap.

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

I have heard it argued, and I dismiss as ridiculous, the notion that a Treaty can give the federal government power beyond what is enumerated in the Constitution. If it were true, all restraints of the constitution could be broken, and any new power granted, by simply writing a treaty (with anyone) to that effect. The power to make a treaty would be a new method for amending the constitution.

Since government under Natural Law is capable of harmonizing all interests, how would we harmonize the interests involved with the UN Codex Alimentarius? The effect of this law is to turn over control of vitamins to a foreign government.

There is no benefit to the American consumer, of turning over control to a foreign government outside of our representative government. This is a benefit only to those wishing to create a world government, which necessarily means local control (city, county, state, or federal) is given over to world government control. No legitimate entity gains anything; the American people end up losing sovereignty..

The regulation of what and how much of vitamins we could consume would be based on the paradigm adopted by the UN. What interest would it serve us to put control into the hands of people who actively suppress the cures to disease?

There are no interests of legitimate entities to harmonize with this issue, and there is nothing to gain for Americans. Someone correct me if I'm wrong.

From my preliminary research, under treaty (NAFTA or GATT?), if we do not harmonize our vitamin laws with those of the Codex, we are subject to penalties (embargo?), and not just in the vitamin industry, but in other unrelated industries. Congress would thus be reluctant not to comply with the Codex vitamin regulations. The treaty that created this situation is wrong, because it allows one industry to be penalized for choices made by another unrelated industry. And it “legally” establishes economic warfare.

As I mentioned before, since God is out of sight to most people, He is not accorded His true status of lawmaker, and people act as if He doesn't exist. My concept behind religious free exercise is to reestablish the link between inner and outer; between the depth and the surface; between God's Will as Natural Law, and the expression of His Will in your feelings, heart, mind, and actions. Asserting the right to follow God as lawmaker is to bring inner Truth into outer daily life.

How you feel is a spiritual matter that is suppose to be recognized by government as a right to the pursuit of happiness. Since government today construes your right to happiness to be a right to property, the wrong thing is being protected, and the correct principle needs to be reestablished by arguing it in court.

That freedom is the rule, and restraint the exception, is already an established principle of law. When God is recognized as the lawmaker, government would want to stay out of peoples lives, so as not to interfere with Natural Law. This was the original construction of our state and federal governments, which is why laws can only be passed to protect society from harm, and we are otherwise free to do as we please. You can prove this to yourself by reading the preamble of many of the state constitutions which pay tribute to God as giver of unalienable rights.

The fundamental reason which prompted adoption of the constitutional guaranty of religious freedom was the fear of state authority over the human conscience. [16A Am Jur 2d Constitutional Law, § 471 footnote 51]

In U.S. v. Seager, a case on conscientious military exemption, the Supreme Court said:

The validity of what he believes cannot be questioned. Some theologians, and indeed some examiners, might be tempted to question the existence of the registrant's “Supreme Being” or the truth of his concepts. But these are inquiries forclosed to Government. As Mr. Justice Douglas stated in United States v. Ballard, 322 U.S. 78, 86 (1944): “Men may believe what they cannot prove. They may not be put to the proof of their religious doctrines or beliefs. Religious experiences which are as real as life to some may be incomprehensible to others.” Local boards and courts in this sense are not free to reject beliefs because they consider them “incomprehensible.” Their task is to decide whether the beliefs professed by a registrant are sincerely held and whether they are, in his own scheme of things, religious.

But we hasten to emphasize that while the “truth” of a belief is not open to question, there remains the significant question whether it is “truly held.” This is the threshold question of sincerity which must be resolved in every case. It is, of course, a question of fact--a prime consideration to the validity of every claim for exemption as a conscientious objector. [U.S. v. Seager, 380 U.S. 163, 184]

Thus, the issue of fact to be determined in your case, is: are your beliefs truly and sincerely held? You should know what you believe and why you believe it in case you are called upon to explain it. Your explanation only needs to be comprehensible to you, and that it occupies an essential place in your life.

[P]utting aside dogmas with their particular conceptions of deity, freedom of conscience itself implies respect for an innate conviction of paramount duty. The battle for religious liberty has been fought and won with respect to religious beliefs and practices, which are not in conflict with good order, upon the very ground of the supremacy of conscience within its proper field.” [Seager, 176]

The Chief Justice says that your practices have to tend to good order, and he argues about the supremacy of conscience within its proper field. We want to expand the field of conscience into the realm of daily life which is where it belongs, where it has real value. Free exercise is not something you do only at church.

If you are willing to go to jail for your beliefs, this will prove your conviction and your conscience. You may not have to go to jail, but I suggest that you better be willing, otherwise your conscience, duty to God, and rights from God, may not be strong enough to free you from statutory law. You must believe that what you are doing is the right thing, and be willing to stand up for it, or don't do it. If you go to jail, your beliefs must be strong enough so that you do not suffer a jailhouse conversion. You may get to find out from direct experience what the phrase “Land of the free and home of the brave” really means..

Government seems to have framed and defined religious free exercise in terms of duty to God; you are allowed to do what you want because it is your duty, and the state does not want to jail people who would go to jail rather than violate their conscience or duty to God. I have not seen them talk about it in terms of the exercise of rights given by God. Our job is to reframe the issue, to make the connection that it is our duty to God to exercise the rights He gave us.

The real truth is that man has been given the free will to do any and every possible action, subject only to the condition that you cause no harm to others, and you take responsibility for your damages and make restitution.

The real truth is that if it tends to good order, and the government will let you do it as long as it is your duty to God, then why can't you do it if it is not your duty to God? You cannot claim duty to God as a basis to steal, murder, etc.; it would not fly because it causes harm to others, it does not tend to good order. But if there is no harm to society or third persons, where is the legitimacy of the regulation? That is the crucial point in a free society, and that is the weak point in the governments position.

But then, the claim of duty to God is the last resort when the government is too far gone to listen. It is the baseball bat that you can wield against government because no judge wants to touch it. A word of caution: You can't lose an action in court, and then bring a second action based on duty to God; you will be thrown out. Raise all your issues, including duty, in the same action. No one has to endure multiple prosecutions over the same issue.

How do you know when something is a duty? We all have our alloted duty in life. Warriors make war; teachers teach; musicians make music; healers heal; in more enlightened societies, a person is born into a family and does what the family does. The kids learn from their parents very easily this way. You chose the family you were born into so there is no violation of free will, but if you don't believe that, you can always follow your inner calling which is how you know your duty. Force a person to do what is not his calling, and you cause suffering, the feedback from Natural Law indicating a violation. Take a musician and force him to fight a war, you are violating a natural duty.

The exercise of a right is not optional when the non-exercise of it causes you suffering, which makes it your duty to do it. Your pursuit of happiness is the pursuit of your calling, the exercise of your duty to God, the manifestation of Natural Law, the Will of God. When you don't exercise your duty, you suffer, and individual suffering is a seed of social disharmony, so it is in the states interest to keep individuals happy by allowing them to exercise their duties and rights.

According to the court, in order to qualify for an exemption to the law based on religious free exercise, your exemption must be based upon religious training and belief in a relation to a Supreme Being involving duties superior to those arising from any human relation, but not including essential political, sociological, or philosophical views or a merely personal moral code. [Seager, 165]

Your exemption cannot be based on political, sociological, or philosophical views because these considerations are reserved for government.

Be careful about the phrase “personal moral code”. I had trouble with it at first, so I'll explain it to you. The phrase implies that if you are the author of your behavior, instead of God, then it is not a duty to God. I believe Natural Law does not have to be written in scripture or stated by a prophet, in order to come from God. Your personal moral code represents your highest ideal of conduct. Your code is the applied value of Natural Law in your life; it represents the highest ideals of conduct that you can comprehend. Just because you wrote it, doesn't mean it has no validity or no truth. God may have had a hand in developing your personal moral code even if you don't recognize it, and your duty to exercise your rights would be expressed in that code.

Now that you understand what a personal moral code is, it is better to call it a duty to God, and stay away from judicial Orwellian double meanings.

There are people who have set up churches for the purpose of practicing alternate healing under religious free exercise. I don't think it is necessary to start a church to assert these rights, and it may even be counterproductive. A church is usually thought of as a place of worship, and alternate health practices are not commonly forms of worship; this approach has the flavor of evading the law. Of course, the laying of hands can be a church practice as comes from the Bible.

American Jurisprudence cites cases of interest. Where Christian Science healing has been conducted as a business for payment rather than as religious worship, its regulation was not unconstitutional as an interference with the right to worship..

In another case, a defendant who treated patients by prayer and the laying of hands under the tenants of his church, was held an insufficient defense in light of his experience and background, and the manner in which he mingled the operations of his church and office practice.

In another case, we learn that just because you are a minister of a church, you are not immune from prosecution for practicing medicine without a license when your acts are not connected with the tenants of your church. See 61 Am Jur 2d Physicians, Surgeons, Etc., § 49; Prayer and faith healing.

The first step to practice alternative health methods might be to write a declaration of intent and purpose, and send a copy to the state Attorney General, the U.S. Attorney General, and other appropriate federal and state agencies telling them what you are doing and why. I would tell them that I am not engaging in any illegal activities, that I do not use illegal drugs, that I do not advocate the overthrow of the government, etc. You can lay out your whole legal and spiritual position. Also, file a copy in your county recorder's office to make it a matter of public record.

I would also invite them to visit my operation to inspect for any violations to be corrected. This will prevent a raid in the future. If, after all this, they raid you and charge you with a crime, what jury would convict? You would not be faulted for your efforts of staying within the law. And, you could prosecute them for harassment.⁹ A court has ruled that:

“No one may be required at peril of life, liberty or property to speculate as to the meaning of penal statutes. All are entitled to be informed as to what the State commands or forbids.” [Roe v. Wade, 314 F. Supp. 1217, 1223 (1970)

Furthermore, the government cannot raid you without a warrant supported by a sworn statement that some crime has been committed. If they come to your door, you should demand to see the warrant, signed by a judge; without it, or if it appears defective, make them push you out of their way. In this way you secure your rights. If you don't assert a right in a timely manner, you lose it.

If someone tried to entrap you by planting an illegal drug on your premises, your declaration of intent, plus your invitation for an inspection, would cast doubt that you are the one responsible for the violation.

I have heard some tapes by Dennis Lee, a man who has invented amazing alternative energy systems capable of generating free energy, disconnecting you from the power grid. If his claims are true, it would put the oil and power companies out of business.

He was charged with violating a minor law that in a survey, nine out of ten prosecuting attorneys in his county had never heard of, that required him to fill out a form. He plead guilty because factually he had not filled out the form, which was his second mistake. By pleading guilty, he opened himself to penalty without benefit of a trial or appeal..

He could have plead not guilty by way of confession and avoidance, which would admit to the facts as charged, but would have reserved his right to test the issue that the law is unconstitutional as applied to him because it violates certain rights, that since 500,000 other people are in violation of the statute but only he is prosecuted, this violates his right to equal protection under the law.

His first mistake was in not inviting all the appropriate government agencies to tell him if he was committing any violations. He had a lawyer to keep him out of trouble, but the lawyer didn't know about the law either, and there is a saying that ignorance of the law is no excuse. The government was looking for something to nail him with, and they found it.

The only way to avoid government misconduct before the fact is to ask the government to inspect your operation to tell you if you are doing anything wrong. You need to document your request, otherwise they will deny that you ever asked. You can make your request by phone, tape record the conversation, and follow it up with written copy. Dear Attorney General: Per our phone conversation of yesterday, you said this and I said that, and we agreed to this, and my understanding was that. Send it certified mail, return receipt requested. Have a witness watch that you put it in the envelope and put it in the mail, otherwise they could argue that you sent them junk mail. These measures may be extreme, but the further out you are, the more protection you need.

When you give an affidavit which is a sworn statement that you asked for inspection, and they give an affidavit that you didn't ask, then the tape recording, which normally can't be introduced into evidence because it is so easily altered, may be introduced as the highest and best evidence to decide the issue. An affidavit is considered to be true without proof, and when two affidavits contradict each other, something else has to decide the issue. Keep the tape under lock and key and within your control at all times, so that it is not discredited as an alteration.

To continue my story, Mr. Lee's plant was raided, and they removed everything from it, documents and hardware, even though the warrant only stated that they were to gather evidence that he didn't fill out the form. If his story is accurate, violating the terms of the warrant would represent armed robbery under color of law. Mr. Lee lost his company without benefit of a trial, but by a search warrant, in violation of the 4th Amendment. The 4th Amendment reads:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and not Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Since the sheriff seized items not particularly enumerated in the warrant, it would be interesting to research if the sheriff was subject to citizens arrest, or for armed robbery.

Mr. Lee was also deprived of his 5th Amendment right not to be deprived of property without due process of law. I don't know if Mr. Lee got his stuff back, but his competitors must have got their hands on a trillion dollars worth of trade secrets..

Finally, the typical bail for not filling out a form was $5,000, but it was raised to $1 million, and when he managed to raise the million, they disallowed any bail and kept him in jail for a year, again a violation of his right to equal protection and due process of the law, and I wonder if he filed a writ of habeas corpus for being illegally deprived of his liberty. Habeas corpus forces his captor to bring him before a judge to determine if he is being held legally.

A lot of wrongs were committed by government in this case, and I understand he is suing them for those violations. I would like to watch the government squirm its way out of them.¹⁰

A declaration of intent, and an invitation to government officials, should keep you out of trouble, but when it doesn't, such misconduct by government needs to be prosecuted in order to protect the rights of us all.

The great majority of states have adopted the Uniform Declaratory Judgments Act, or have statutes that perform the same and other legal relations, The purpose of the declaratory judgment is to resolve uncertainties and controversies before obligations are repudiated, rights are invaded, wrongs are committed, or criminal or civil sanctions imposed. See 22A Am Jur 2d Declaratory Judgments.

Before you can get a judicial determination, you have to exhaust all administrative remedies from the appropriate regulating agency in your state. Your state probably has an administrative procedure for this, and you can find it in your state's code of administrative procedures, also available at your local library..

Be sure to completely lay out your theory of facts and law; you have to give them sufficient information to be able to make a ruling. If they rule against you and you can go no further at the administrative level, your next step is to sue for a declaratory judgment from the state.

Plan on defending your position with the same vigor that you would if you were charged with a criminal act. The only difference is you are defending your rights before you commit the act, not after.

If the court rules against you, you can appeal to the state supreme court, then to federal district court, and then the U.S. Supreme Court.

To minimize your liability, full disclosure should be made to your clients. The more unconventional or dangerous the approach, the more information I would provide. Your clients should give you informed consent. Such disclosure might include your procedures; the known dangers of such procedures; possible symptoms or side effects and how to deal with them; the benefits to be expected; the length and duration of treatments; the cost of treatment; the cost of supplements, herbs, or medicines; the statistical success rate; whether procedures are experimental or well known; the names of other practitioners and their published results; the theory of how it all works; what the regular medical establishment thinks of these procedures or theories and why, etc.

Include only those points in your contract that are appropriate to the care you are providing, and what you feel comfortable with. Create paragraphs that apply to your business; use the example below.

Also, you can view the Contract I once used when I sold controversial health products from my website. Before they could reach my order page, they had to read and agree to the Contract. The Contract contained a user name and password embedded in the text. They had to read the contract in order to find the password needed to enter the order page, but it is now disabled.

(EXAMPLE) HEALTH CARE CONSULTATION AGREEMENT, AND WAIVER AND RELEASE OF LIABILITY

I understand that John Smith is a licensed Goodlife Practitioner, by the American Goodlife Society,

[or]

I understand that John Smith is not licensed by any government or regulatory agency,

and I am consulting him in the understanding and management of concepts pertinent to my health and well being. I understand that I am seeing John Smith for my own self improvement and spiritual development, that he will make recommendations based upon his knowledge of healing which includes, but is not limited to lifestyle and dietary changes, breathing exercises, meditation, polarity, ... .

I understand that John Smith will assist me to learn the difference between diseases and the balancing of life energy, which deals with health factors that are within an individual's control. I understand that I may consult a physician at any time and that the information that John Smith provides is in no way to be considered as a substitute for consultation with a duly licensed physician.

I understand that people may develop pathological conditions (i.e., illness, injury and/or disease) when natural resistance or immunities may be lowered as a result of energy and health imbalances persisting for extended periods. I am aware that an energy or health imbalance does not necessarily create or reveal the existence of a medical condition. I am aware that recovery from an illness or injury may be facilitated by balancing vital energy, but am also aware that there may be no way to assure that this effect may occur in any particular case.

I know that it is my responsibility to decide whether to implement any of John Smith's recommendations or procedures.

As a parent of a minor who I am consulting with John Smith regarding his/her lifestyle, I agree to indemnify and hold harmless John Smith from claims or actions made or brought on behalf of my child in connection with his recommendations or procedures.

I am aware that standard medical practices exist for the maintenance of health, of for treating a specific condition, but for the following reasons I have chosen alternative health care provided by John Smith:

* I have tried conventional medicine, and have not been totally satisfied with the results. I wish to try alternatives.

* Conventional medicine does not provide what I am looking for, and I wish to experience alternative approaches to health care.

* Conventional medicine has a different paradigm regarding my condition that I do not agree with.

The undersigned understands that the practices and theories of John Smith may be unproven and/or not accepted by the American Medical Association, the Food and Drug Administration, or other state, federal, or regulatory agencies, but still desires to undergo the treatment provided by John Smith.

I assert my rights to receive such treatment or health care, and John Smith asserts his rights to give such treatments, under the first amendment free exercise clause of the U.S. Constitution; the right to peaceably assemble; the right to freedom of speech; the right to contract; the rights to liberty and the pursuit of safety and happiness given by God; and other rights secured by both state and Federal Constitutions.

As a client, I agree to indemnify and hold harmless John Smith from claims or actions in connection with his recommendations that I have chosen to follow. In addition, I hereby waive, release and discharge John Smith from all actions, claims or demands my heirs, guardians, legal representatives or assigns, no have, or may hereafter have for injury or damages resulting from my consultations with him.

I understand the relationship between action and reaction, between cause and effect, that Justice is a Law of Nature, and rather than involving the state or federal government to effect a remedy, I agree to allow Natural Law to effect a full and complete remedy that would be more just than one from government.

I represent that I am a resident of the State of Iowa, that I am of legal age, in full control of my mental faculties, and have full capacity to enter into contracts. I have carefully read this agreement and attachments and fully understand its contents. I am aware that this is a waiver and release of potential liability and a contract between myself and John Smith and sign it of my own free will.

1 1 I personally know three people who have described their experience with meeting God. No, you don't have to die first.

2 I provide detailed information for one state; you must research your own state.

3 If you lose at the administrative level, continue on with a court ruling, then on to appeal, and finally to the Supreme Court, as necessary.

4 I would include “herb” here.

5 I have lost many thousands of dollars in my life; I learned that there are dishonest people out there! If the state was a meddling big brother and protected me, I might never have learned these lessons.

6 One way is to listen for grumbling. So many websites express concern for government suppression.

7 Of or pertaining to public policy, or to politics; relating to affairs of state or administration - Webster's 1913 Dictionary.

8 The latest attempt by congress to delegate the power by treaty, will be discussed in the section Regulation By a Foreign Government.

9 If you are a defendant, harassment could be a cross-complaint.

10 This book was written in 1991; by now (2005) Mr. Lees case will have been disposed of, for those interested in researching it.