YesToHellWith cover art

YesToHellWith

YesToHellWith

By: and may TRUTH reign supreme!
Listen for free

YesToHellWith is determined to expose the wrongful conviction and imprisonment of Orlando Carter. We are asking that President Trump review this injustice and exonerate Carter.

yestohellwith.substack.comyestohellwith Hourly Political Science Politics & Government
Episodes
  • The Court, Constitution, and Remedies

    The Court, Constitution, and Remedies
    Aug 8 2026

    WHAT HAPPENED TO THE COMMON LAW?

    Welcome to YesToHellWith.com.

    In our last discussion, we asked a fundamental question.

    What created the Office of Sheriff?

    Did the office arise from statute?

    From the Constitution?

    Or from a much older legal tradition?

    Today, we continue that journey by examining another historical question.

    What happened to the common law?

    Before America declared its independence...

    Before the Constitution was written...

    Before modern administrative agencies existed...

    The common law formed much of the legal tradition inherited by the American colonies.

    The Framers knew it.

    They practiced within it.

    They relied upon many of its principles.

    Its influence can be seen throughout the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

    Trial by jury.

    Due process.

    Protection against unreasonable searches and seizures.

    The security of private property.

    The preservation of the peace.

    These ideas did not suddenly appear in 1787.

    They developed over centuries.

    But history did not stop there.

    As America grew...

    Legislatures enacted more statutes.

    Government expanded.

    Administrative agencies emerged.

    Administrative tribunals became common.

    New procedures developed.

    New methods of enforcement appeared.

    Which brings us to an important historical question.

    What happened to the common law?

    Was it abolished?

    Was it modified?

    Was it incorporated into statutory law?

    Did it continue to exist alongside statutory law?

    Or did administrative procedures gradually replace many of the remedies that ordinary people once understood?

    These are not merely academic questions.

    They are questions about remedies.

    If people once relied upon common-law processes to protect their persons, property, and freedoms...

    What became of those remedies?

    Do they still exist?

    If they do...

    In what form?

    If they changed...

    How did they change?

    And why?

    Notice what we are not doing.

    We are not arguing that everything old was better.

    We are not suggesting that history should simply be recreated.

    We are not reaching conclusions.

    We are asking disciplined historical questions.

    Because before we can understand the remedies available today...

    We should understand the remedies that existed yesterday.

    History often explains the present.

    And understanding the past frequently reveals questions that the present no longer asks.

    In our next discussion, we will begin examining one of those questions.

    If the common law emphasized remedies for injuries to persons and property...

    How does that compare with the administrative remedies that many Americans encounter today?

    That is where we continue the conversation.

    May truth reign supreme.



    Get full access to YesToHellWith at yestohellwith.substack.com/subscribe
    Show More Show Less
    4 mins
  • The Enemy of Freedom?

    The Enemy of Freedom?
    Aug 7 2026
    The Enemy of FreedomMan understands boundaries.We understand instructions. We understand mandates. We understand when authority has been given to us — and when it has not.A man can read a document, understand what it says, and govern his conduct accordingly.If a contract gives you authority to do one thing, you do not assume it gives you authority to do everything.And if the organic law creates an office, delegates powers to that office, and places limits upon those powers, a public official can understand that too.That is where freedom begins.With a boundary.On one side is delegated governmental authority.On the other are the rights and freedoms of the People: life, liberty, property, privacy, conscience, family, speech — and the right to be let alone.Government receives authority for defined purposes.The individual retains freedom outside the lawful reach of that authority.So what destroys freedom?Human nature.Ignorance enters first.A man gains authority without understanding its source. He learns procedure, but not principle. Policy, but not limits. He learns how government operates, but not why government was limited in the first place.Then ego enters.The official begins to confuse possession of power with possession of wisdom.Because he can act, he believes he should act.Authority somewhere becomes assumed authority everywhere.And the boundary begins to move.A limitation becomes an inconvenience.An intrusion becomes procedure.Eventually the official stops asking:Do I have the authority to do this?And begins asking:Can I get away with doing this?That is the corruption.Ignorance distorts the boundary.Ego dismisses the boundary.Power crosses the boundary.And the absence of character allows it to continue.That is how freedom is destroyed.Not because the Constitution vanished.Not because rights ceased to exist.But because human beings entrusted with authority stopped honoring its limits.Paper cannot defend freedom.A constitution cannot rise from the page.Words can define the boundary.Only human beings can defend it.And that means freedom ultimately depends upon character.Integrity.Knowledge.Humility.Courage.Especially courage.Because the real test of a public servant comes when respecting the boundary costs him something.Will he tell his superior no?Will he refuse an unlawful demand?Will he protect the rights of someone he dislikes?Will he risk his position rather than cross a line he has no lawful authority to cross?That is the person freedom requires.Someone capable of saying:I have power.But my power ends here.I may disagree with you.But your rights do not depend upon my agreement.I may be ordered to act.But an order cannot create authority that does not exist.That is character.And character matters especially at the local level.Because government is an abstraction until a human being carries out its command.A legislature acts.An agency issues a directive.A bureaucracy interprets it.But eventually somebody must enforce it.A police officer.A prosecutor.A regulator.A county official.A sheriff.Somebody ultimately decides whether government power will cross that divide and enter the life of the individual.And that is why the sheriff matters.Not because the sheriff stands above the law.Because the right sheriff understands that he stands beneath it.He understands that authority is a trust.That power has limits.That the People possess rights government did not give them.And when power comes downstream, he is willing to ask:Where is the authority?What is its scope?Where does it end?What right are we about to invade?And if lawful authority cannot be shown:No.We do not cross.That is not hostility toward government.That is limited government.And that is why ConstitutionalCounty.org exists.To find good men and women willing to serve as sheriffs in counties and parishes across America.Men and women who understand the organic law.Who understand the boundary between public authority and individual freedom.Who have the character to protect people, rights, freedom, and property — even when doing so comes at a personal cost.Because power upstream can only reach the People when somebody downstream agrees to carry it out.Imagine sheriffs across this country willing to stand at that boundary.Not seeking more power.Restraining power.Not asking what government can get away with.Asking what government has lawful authority to do.That is the message of ConstitutionalCounty.org.The enemy of freedom is ignorance joined with ego and armed with power.Authority without understanding.Power without humility.Office without character.Freedom survives when good men and women are willing to stand at the divide.The boundary has already been drawn.Now we must find the people willing to defend it.County by county.Parish by parish.Sheriff by sheriff.Government has limits.The People have rights.And there are still good men and women willing to stand between the two.Go to ConstitutionalCounty.org.Read the questions.Read the Sheriff’...
    Show More Show Less
    7 mins
  • The Court, Constitution, and Remedies

    The Court, Constitution, and Remedies
    Aug 7 2026

    IS THE SHERIFF LIMITED BY STATUTE?

    Welcome to YesToHellWith.com.

    In our last discussion, we examined the Sheriff’s constitutional oath.

    Today we ask a different question.

    What created the Office of Sheriff?

    Many people instinctively answer:

    “The legislature.”

    Others assume:

    “The Constitution.”

    But history invites us to examine another possibility.

    What if the Office of Sheriff existed long before many of the statutes that now regulate it?

    What if it predates our modern state governments?

    What if it predates the Constitution itself?

    If that were true...

    Then another question immediately follows.

    Can a legislature completely redefine an office it did not originally create?

    Can statutes alone determine the entire character of the office?

    Or do they merely regulate an office whose fundamental character already existed?

    These are not academic questions.

    They go to the very nature of public authority.

    If the Sheriff is nothing more than a statutory officer...

    Then perhaps the legislature may define, redefine, expand, or diminish the office at will.

    But if the office possesses a constitutional or historical character that predates many modern statutes...

    Then perhaps the analysis becomes more complicated.

    Notice what we are not doing.

    We are not reaching conclusions.

    We are not claiming that statutes are irrelevant.

    We are not claiming that history overrides enacted law.

    We are asking a much narrower question.

    What is the source of the office itself?

    Every serious constitutional inquiry begins by identifying the source of authority.

    The same should be true here.

    Before asking what powers the Sheriff possesses...

    Shouldn’t we first determine what created the office?

    That question deserves careful examination.

    Because the answer may shape everything that follows.

    May truth reign supreme.



    Get full access to YesToHellWith at yestohellwith.substack.com/subscribe
    Show More Show Less
    3 mins
adbl_web_anon_alc_button_suppression_t1
No reviews yet
In the spirit of reconciliation, Audible acknowledges the Traditional Custodians of country throughout Australia and their connections to land, sea and community. We pay our respect to their elders past and present and extend that respect to all Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples today.