CRUDEN v. NEALE

This is one of many court cases affirming the rights of mankind to informed consent and independence of all governmental institutions. 
 
The plea in substance stated, that the plaintiff in the year--------- removed himself from this State to avoid giving his assistance in the then war, carried on against the King of Great Britain, and attached himself to the enemy, etc., and the plea concluded with praying judgment, whether he should be answered, etc. To this there was a demurrer and joinder.

Counsel for the plaintiff—It will not be denied, and is admitted by the pleadings, that the plaintiff previous to the Revolution resided in this country; after the establishment of the present form of government he can be considered but in one of these two lights, as one who refused to become a member of the new government, continuing his allegiance to the King of Great Britain, or as a citizen. When a change of government takes place, from a monarchical to a republican government, the old form is dissolved. Those who lived under it, and did not chuse to become members of the new, had a right to refuse their allegiance to it, and to retire elsewhere. By being a part of the society subject to the old government, they had not entered into any engagement to become subject to any new form the majority might think proper to adopt. That tile majority shall prevail, is a rule posterior to the formation of government, and results from it. It is not a rule binding upon mankind in their natural state. There, every man is independent of all laws, except those prescribed by nature. He is not bound by any institutions formed by his fellow-men without his consent. (emphasis added)

Source: CRUDEN v. NEALE 2 NC 338