Throughout time humanity has divided itself based on land disputes as well as disputes over which laws are fair, and which laws are not fair. Historically, the fairest systems of law have not only included collective distributions to the poor, but also rights for the poor in order that their cause should be heard, which is the sole basis for case law (common law).
The most unfair systems in history have been empires with imperial ambitions to rule and govern people as a whole, leaving little or no room for the cause of the poor to be heard and understood from their hardships. An imperial rule is no different to a fascism historically, because both imperial rule and government dictatorships rely on covet means to expand their interests abroad to include foreign territories for resources, and direct taxation of the inhabitants to fund imperial ambitions.
The best way to describe the differences between these two systems of rule is to imagine a straight line with a 100% margin at the left end of the line, and a 0% margin at the far right of the line. The far left represents total government, which is defined as a fascism because of its totalitarian authority.
The far right on the other hand is distinguished by having no government, which is defined as anarchy, because there is no system of law in place.
Between these two scopes there is a wide margin between anarchy and fascism, with the conservative view in the middle. The conservative view includes a system of law from the government that protects the people's right to life and liberty.
A democratic republic is defined as a conservative system, because the democracy is from the far right, while the republic is from the far left.
A constitutional system of law presides from the middle of these two extremes as being conservative, which is in the best interests of the democracy, and the republic. Because if democracy is not upheld by the republic then the government is to be defined as a fascism, and not as a democratic republic.
The declaration of independence in its second paragraph says that:
“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.”
And these words have had such a significant level of importance on human life that the declaration itself is never to be underestimated in terms of its value. Because, this is the sole basis for human equality, and without human equality, there will be no lawful premise for equal justice.
So according to the First Amendment, the human being is endowed with rights, and these rights have been defined as inalienable, meaning that a person is born with them, and they cannot be given away, and can be exercised at any time.
But what makes this different from being just a concept is due to the fact that we are all endowed with a conscience in order to understand morality, which is how we decide right from wrong.
And what is self-evident here, is that no amount of chemical reactions can ever become self-aware, which means that life is a conscious reality, and not just a physical one, which is self-explanatory.
The difference between being conscious, and having a conscience, is that the conscience is specifically for determining fact from fiction, the truth from a lie, and yes or no with. While being conscious means to be aware of your surroundings, yourself and to be breathing also, because, being conscious was initially from breath to begin with according to Genesis chapter 2.
And what all of this means is that we are all equal under the law according to our God given conscience, and not, according to one's appearance. And this is the international standard for equal rights according to article 1 from the United Nations Global Declaration of Human Rights and Equality.
The definition of what a natural person is under law, has been defined as being an individual who is endowed with the ability to reason from their conscience. So the proper legal definition of what a human is under law has been defined by the endowed conscience. Which means that without a conscience, you are not a human being, but only an animal or a thing.
An animal or thing has been legally defined as property under the law. But because slavery is unlawful, as it deprives people of their equality, it will mean that there is no legal obligation for anyone to regard them self or others as being from an animal, because an animal is without a conscience, and a conscience is required before the law in order to make a case.
What is the first liberty?
Freedom of thought (also called freedom of conscience or ideas) is the freedom of an individual to hold or consider a fact, viewpoint, or thought, independent of others' viewpoints.
What do we mean by freedom of conscience?
Freedom of conscience – sometimes called “freedom of worship” or “religious freedom” – means simply the freedom to worship in one's own way, including the right not to worship.
Psalm 41:1-3
1 Blessed is the one who considers the poor!
In the day of trouble the Lord delivers him;
2 the Lord protects him and keeps him alive;
he is called blessed in the land;
you do not give him up to the will of his enemies.
3 The Lord sustains him on his sickbed;
in his illness you restore him to full health.
