I was waiting for the debut of Version 13 of Phil’s World to post this. Back in the period from March to May, Best was running his mouth about the COVID-19 pandemic being a hoax and howling blue murder over the restrictions. At certain points he claimed that the hard and fast rule was the United States Declaration of Independence, and nothing else mattered. He specified that as the Declaration being the “only law”.
What a lot of rot!
This is the basis of John Best Junior’s sheer lunacy. I have looked at the Declaration. It’s purpose was to depart from the British Empire and cease to be a British Colony. That’s all. Nothing more. To claim it as the rule of law in 2020 is ridiculous because it has no base upon which an unwritten law can be acted on. That’s why one of the first things the new country did was formulate a Constitution. THAT is the base upon which laws can and should be made. Best in effect is saying that the Constitution has no validity.
So let’s look at this in detail. Even though the Declaration of Independence was originally laid out as one all encompassing document, it has been broken down into sections without changing any of the words. The first section is the introduction;
In CONGRESS, July 4, 1776.
The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America,
“When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.”
The modern definition of this is; “Asserts as a matter of Natural Law the ability of a people to assume political independence; acknowledges that the grounds for such independence must be reasonable, and therefore explicable, and ought to be explained. “
I look on it as simply the background reasoning to America breaking away from Britain, simply stating that those who reside in America did not like the British rules and they had a right to say no and do their own thing. Fair enough.
The second section is the preamble;
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.–That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,–That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.
The modern definition of this is; “Outlines a general philosophy of government that justifies revolution when government harms natural rights.”
Now this is key to Best’s translation which is wrong. He is claiming that this part enables the People to fire Congress. That isn’t true because the only way to do that by this precedent is to do what America did in 1776 – depart from the prevailing rule and create your own country. Best isn’t advocating that and that’s why his translation is based in a fallacy. The right of the people to alter or abolish is already present – through fair and equal elections. That’s a Democracy. You have to remember that at the time, Britain was ruled not by the monarchy alone but by the House of Lords, with the House of Commons existing but not having anywhere near the power that it has now – indeed the position of Prime Minister had not gained the proper standing. The reigning monarch was still in proper charge.
Now remember that this section is a preamble. It had no legal validity as such. It simply extends from the introduction the reasons why America wanted independence from Britain. This is what Best doesn’t get.
The third section is the indictment;
Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.
*He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.
*He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.
*He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.
*He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their Public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.
*He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness of his invasions on the rights of the people.
*He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected, whereby the Legislative Powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the meantime exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.
*He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.
*He has obstructed the Administration of Justice by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary Powers.
*He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.
*He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people and eat out their substance.
*He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures.
*He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil Power.
*He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:
*For quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:
*For protecting them, by a mock Trial from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:
*For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world:
*For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:
*For depriving us in many cases, of the benefit of Trial by Jury:
*For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences:
*For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies:
*For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:
*For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.
*He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us.
*He has plundered our seas, ravaged our coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.
*He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation, and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty & Perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation.
*He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands.
*He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.
*In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince, whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.”
The only addition to this in modern terms is; “A bill of particulars documenting the king’s “repeated injuries and usurpations” of the Americans’ rights and liberties.”
There are quite a few similarities here between the colonial governments in America and the colonial governments in Australia. We had what was called the Rum Rebellion, as well as Eureka Stockade. But I suspect as a result of the experience with America, the British learned something of a lesson and were more co-operative with Australia. That’s why we are a Commonwealth country instead of a Republic. But I digress.
These are in effect court charges against the reigning British monarch – at the time George the third (the grandfather of Queen Victoria). Now at the time as well the courts in Britain were presided over by Lords in the House of Lords, something unthinkable nowadays. Many early court decisions were made by Lords – most notably in my view one of the first rulings in the matter of defamation; R v Burdett in 1820. Now I don’t have an issue with these claims. The British Empire was at times very stubborn and xenophobic (see for example the original section 127 of the Australian Constitution which was a British document approved by Australia which deemed the Australian Aborigines to not be a part of the population – a section that was repealed by referendum in 1967) and the monarchy was inaccessible. That barrier only started to come down with Queen Victoria, although it took until George the sixth for that to become something of the norm and only because of World War 2.
But this is the point. These charges were brought against the reigning British monarch and in the absence of a fair trial (which in essence was impossible and the American’s knew it) the only solution was breaking away entirely. Hence the basis of the Declaration. The fact that these charges are long since obsolete takes away any legal validity.
The fourth section is the denunciation;
Nor have We been wanting in attentions to our British brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which, would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends.
The modern interpretation is; “This section essentially finishes the case for independence. The conditions that justified revolution have been shown.”
Not only that, it also shows respect for the British consequent to the clearing of the air between them – as equals consistent with the very first sentence of the Preamble. And yet Best shows the British no respect at all. That’s consistent with his warped claims, but he is still wrong.
The fifth section is the conclusion;
We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these united Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States; that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.
The modern interpretation is; “The signers assert that there exist conditions under which people must change their government, that the British have produced such conditions and, by necessity, the colonies must throw off political ties with the British Crown and become independent states. The conclusion contains, at its core, the Lee Resolution that had been passed on July 2.”
Now if this is the law as Best says – he needs to pay attention to two words;
Establish Commerce.
If this was the law, this is the authority that allows Congress to do what Best thinks they can’t do. Create money! And everything associated with it including guess what? A RESERVE BANK!
The sixth and final section is simply the signatures of the representatives of the original 13 states.
Best – this document is NOT the law! It can NOT be the law – not by itself. It needs back up, and that back up comes in the form of the Constitution. Then there are the amendments, the first ten of which are the Bill of Rights. Best you violate the Bill of Rights constantly – in particular the Tenth Amendment when you call yourself the Authority. That Amendment prohibits that claim from anyone all the way up to the President! Not to mention the fifth Amendment in a time of public danger refusing to held accountable for his lies re COVID-19, the seventh Amendment where he constantly puts up common law complaints withOUT a jury’s decision thinking himself to be the judge, the eighth Amendment where he has called for a coup against the government in Washington in the past and the ninth Amendment where he is trying (and not succeeding – I hope) to deprive others of their rights to live free of disease – COVID-19.
I said this on the May edition of my podcast and I’ll repeat it here. Stop talking about firing Congress, because you can’t. You have to contest an election against them, and you don’t have the guts to do that properly. You are nothing but a squealing spoilt brat and a coward. You need to be medicated as you are totally out of your mind.
HARB Commentary Blog 