Replies

The 5th Amendment is a federal law and supersedes any law you are referring to but fail to cite to buttress your otherwise vacuous claim.

Yes, well when it comes to vacuous claims I appear to be talking to the expert.

Rule 6 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure states: "When the public interest so requires, the court must order that one or more grand juries be summoned." The courts, not a bunch of lunkheads who may or may not have ever read the Constitution to begin with.

The Bill of Rights was enacted in 1791. The Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure was enacted in 1946. The Bill of Rights was created specifically and only for powers granted to the people. The body of the Constitution lists powers granted to the three branches of government. The grand jury is not mentioned anywhere the body of the Constitution but is cited in the Bill of Rights purposely to grant the power of the grand jury only to the people.

The fact you actually argue a law created 155 years after the Bill Of Rights by a branch of government that has no Constitutional authority to usurp powers vested to the people only shows how little you understand or how much contempt you have for Constitution and The Bill of Rights.

Regardless of that fact you also failed to cite Note 4 of the Advisory Committee Notes on the Rules:

Presentment is not included as an additional type of formal accusation, since presentments as a method of instituting prosecutions are obsolete, at least as concerns the Federal courts."

Note four does not state Presentments are illegal or unconstitutional, only obsolete. This was not oversight. The writers purposely stated it this way because they knew a judicial rule cannot usurp the Constitution but did not want citizens to be aware they have the Constitutional power to form a grand jury.

Yes, well when it comes to vacuous claims I appear to be talking to the expert

Another statement revealing the depth of your ignorance. I didn't reach any conclusions on the grand jury until I had my father, who has been a lawyer for more than 55 years, thoroughly review all the information at the website. He examined all the information for two hours and concluded it was well reasoned and Constitutional but the I'm sure you feel, given you're vast legal knowledge, the sum of your legal expertise exceeds his.