What guarantees your right to common law name changes
At the heart, the thing that guarantees your right to a common law name change or other identity change is the Magna Carta, the Confirmatio Cartarum, the U.S. Constitution (if you are in the U.S.) and the common law forms of action. As one looks over the state codes and the numerous federal civil cases, they mention suits at common law, common law procedure, common law theory, and the forms of common law actions, but, as shown on this site, they do not typically teach you what such things specifically are. That is because such state civil codes and civil suits are almost exclusively just that – “civil law” and not the common law – and as such cannot be necessarily relied upon to secure such rights.
In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
One may be aware that at the founding of the United States, there was some debate about whether to even have a Bill of Rights, simply because the various common law forms of action (in civil law they are often condensed into single form called a “complaint”) had for centuries acted as the protectors of our rights. Australia, it is told, never got a Bill of Rights, probably because of this very reason. That people would forever rely on the common law forms of action to secure their rights.
The common law was and is the history of law (what is right and wrong), the common law forms, and, above all, common sense. As you read throughout this site, though the civil codes teach not the common law as codes tend to only establish civil law, the absence of common law from statutes does not mean that it does not exist, nor can be evoked (see the Amendments above). As well, the U.S. Supreme Court has even said of this:
(from Common-Law Pleading and Practice: Its History and Principles, by R. Ross Perry, p.8-9)
For someone just beginning to understand common law, if you were to file a civil suit, the action is typically titled as a “Complaint” and it covers all issues — “a single genus.” At common law, the first document of a suit takes the title of one of common law forms of action, and each action secures specific human rights, so you do not need to know some specific code that says you have this or that right.
For changes to name, gender, ethnicity, religion, or other personal indica changes, as shown elsewhere on this site, the form of action used is “Case” or specifically “Trespass on the Case.”
Each form was developed over centuries to specifically secure all of our rights for us. When we choose to follow code or civil law we fall into the dire trappings of “an endless wrangle in writing” as civil law “destroy[s] the certainty and simplicity of all pleadings.” To secure such rights, we must all stand up and claim them and not sit idly by and watch them vanish in the complexity of civil codes of which no one can ever know every one.
A thorough reading of this U.S. Supreme Court case above, McFaul v. Ramsey, 61 U.S. 20 How. 523 523 (1857), reveals that they declared quite dramatically, that it is our right not to follow civil law and civil procedure, and that except in the State of Louisiana, the common law and common law procedure is the actual law in this nation and that any attempts to adopt or to use any kind of civil law or civil procedure should not be used. And moreover, that civil law and civil procedure cannot trump common law.None found.