Constitutional Ignorance Invites Tyranny

"It is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the peacemakers for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country." Reichsmarschall Hermann Goering

It is May 31 and, for the last week I watched Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge and Attorney General John Ashcroft predict that, for the remainder of the year, there is a strong possibility of multiple acts of terrorism in any or all of the Fifty States. They pleaded for the People to report anything that suggests terrorist activity or a suspicion that someone may be a terrorist. It seems to me, that the People, who since 1791, have the Constitutional power to protect the lives, liberties and property of every inhabitant in the Federal Republic, are not doing their job.

If the reader does not know he has the Constitutional power to protect the lives, liberties and property of every inhabitant in the Federal Republic, then I suggest you should reread the Constitution.

As the Framers designed the Constitution, the People’s vested powers were equally divided between the National and State governments and the People. Unfortunately the People have been taught to believe that they and the government are separate. This is not true, and such a belief invites tyranny.

Before and since 9/11, the National and State Governments have legislated [or usurped] to themselves new powers to more effectively wage the war on Terrorism. Because there are only three powers, and because National Government has the unique power to wage war, any such new or expanded powers, legislated [or usurped] by the National Government must come from the States or the People.

It is at this point that I question the constitutional knowledge and wisdom of our politicians, professors, judges, and the objectivity of the Press and their politicized commentators and reporters.

When the Founding Generation ratified the U.S. Constitution, State Grand Juries functioned as local assemblies. They proposed new laws, protested the abuses of those in government, performed administrative tasks, sought to improve their communities, and charged those that broke the law with Indictments and Presentments. They charged Grand Juries with guarding the rights of the people and the sanctity of their Laws, Charters and Constitutions. Jurors had the power to accuse on their own knowledge. This they did by making a "Presentment" to the court.

A "Presentment" is an accusation made on the Jury's initiative while an "Indictment" is a charge that originates outside the Grand Jury. Under the power of "Presentment" Grand Juries may investigate ANY matter that appears to involve a violation of the Law, the Rights of the People or the Constitution. As an independent power functioning under a strict rule of secrecy, Grand Juries could not reveal to anyone, the evidence gathered or upon the evidence they acted. When government officials misused their authority or made dishonest and groundless accusations, they intervened for the accused and the People. As England became more tyrannical the Grand Jury inquests became the bulwarks that defended the liberties of the people and shielded them from the King's persecutions. This is the "Grand Jury" the Founders intended.

We need not create a Terrorist State to win the war with Terrorists. We can win by returning to the Constitutional design created by the Founding Generation. Imagine in every State and Federal Courthouse is one or more Special Grand Juries charged to investigate suspected terrorists and terrorist activity. Imagine twenty-six people with intimate knowledge of their neighbors and community, empowered to investigate make recommendations to improve local security. Attorney General Ashcroft and Secretary Tom Ridge plead for the same information but their departments are too limited and cumbersome to act in every county across the United States simultaneously. Should they react in some, they must Constitutionally submit their information to a Grand Jury for further action.

Below are quotations that defines the reasons for, and use and trust of Grand Juries.

http://www.dojgov.net/Legislate_tyranny.htm Anti-Terror Bill number H.R. 3162 or USA Patriot Act Has Potential to Terrorize Us All For bill text: http://thomas.loc.gov

October 26, 2001 “On Thursday, Attorney General John Ashcroft vowed to publish new guidelines.” He said: “I will issue directives requiring law enforcement to make use of new powers in intelligence gathering, criminal procedure and immigration violations,”

“President Bush said that he looks forward to signing the USA Act, which his administration requested in response to the Sep. 11 hijackings, "so that we can combat terrorism and prevent future attacks."

“Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-New York) seemed to speak for the rest of the Senate by saying "the homefront is a war front," arguing that police needed new surveillance powers. Senator Schumer has been a long time stalking horse for the US Department of Justice and legislating away personal liberty.

“Congressman Ron Paul (R-Texas) …in a Fox News Interview, he stated that there were enough laws on the books to protect the American people from terrorism and that the government had essentially dropped the ball.

“Some provisions of this bill are timely and reasonable although questionably needed. But several are very ominous. The worst sections of this legislation involve: …

“Burglars with Badges: Police can sneak into someone's house or office, search the contents, and leave without ever telling the owner. This would be supervised by a court, and the notification of the surreptitious search "may be delayed" indefinitely. (Section 213). Not only is this a gross invasion of privacy, but it allows for abuse by planting false evidence. This section will NEVER expire. It is not written limiting use to fighting potential terrorism. Essentially, this provision trashes the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution.

“Any U.S. Attorney or state Attorney General can order the installation of the FBI's Carnivore surveillance system (now renamed DCS1000). They can record addresses of Web pages visited and read e-mail correspondences from virtually anyone -- without going to a judge. Previously, there were stiffer legal restrictions on Carnivore and other Internet surveillance techniques. (Section 216). Nobody in their right mind actually believes that terrorists would openly communicate using easily snatched email. But this long sought after USDOJ power to infiltrate our lives intimidate free and open communication and eventually censor the internet has received a big boost. The government now has authority to gather information on the Web-surfing habits of any user, suspect or not, if authorities convince a judge that the information obtained could be relevant to an ongoing investigation. Additionally, the law permits "roving'' wiretaps, opening the door to the placement of bugs in telephones of individuals not suspected of any wrongdoing. This section has a lifespan "Sunset Provision" of four years although the US Senate wanted it to be permanent.

“The law also makes it easier for the FBI and CIA to obtain a person's medical, financial and student records. It grants the FBI the authority to obtain library and bookstore records in its pursuit of terrorism. As opposed to the usual search warrant, law-enforcement authorities don't have to show that evidence of wrongdoing is likely to be found. Librarians and booksellers are prohibited, under threat of prosecution, from informing anyone that his or her records were seized.”

In the light of our recent history, and given these facts it is plain to see why the People, in their Constitutional role as Grand Jurors, are the only true and steadfast guardians of the Law, the People's Rights, and the Welfare, Peace and Tranquillity of the Nation.

Below are some quotations that attest to the respect and esteem Englishmen and the Founder’s held for the Grand Jury.

“THE SECURITY OF ENGLISHMEN’S LIVES, OR THE TRUST POWER AND DUTY OF THE GRAND JURIES OF ENGLAND [1773]

“Grand Juries are to examine with the utmost diligence the evidence against their peers.

“Until the Councils of the King come to the Grand Jury he can bring no such criminals to judgment, or to answer to the accusations and suggestions against them.

“For the support of Government and the safety of all men’s lives and property that some should be entrusted to inquire after all suspicions that may subvert the government, endanger or hurt the King or destroy the lives or estates of the innocent people, suspicions of treasons, murders, conspiracies, felonies or lesser crimes and disturbances of the common peace that they might be prosecuted and brought to their deserved (condign) punishment. Our laws intend the Councils of the King to be continually upon the protection and security of the People and the prevention of all their mischiefs and dangers by wicked, lawless and injurious men.

“And in order thereunto, to be advising how to right his wronged subjects in general, if the public safety be hazarded or beset by treasons of any kind, or their relations snatched from them by murderers, or in any way destroyed by malicious conspirators in form of law, or their estates taken away by robbery and thieves or the peace broken. And for these ends to bring exemplary justice all offenders and to deter others from the like wickedness.

“It is no less needed for everyman’s quiet and safety that the trust of such inquisitions shall be in the hands of persons of understanding and integrity and indifferent and impartial that no man shall be falsely accused or defamed or their lives be put in jeopardy by malicious conspiracies or the perjuries of of any profligate wretches. For the necessity of honest ends was the institution of Grand Juries created. They thought it not in their best interests to trust their well being in the hands of any officer of the King, or in any Judge named by him nor in any given number of men lest the be influenced or awed by men of great persuasion, corrupted by bribes, flatteries, love of power, or the become negligent or partial to friends and relatives, pursue their own quarrels or private revenges, connive within the conspiracies of others and indict thereupon.

“The people must never allow their legal power and jurisdiction in the Grand and Petit Juries be decayed and taken out of their hands, for there will be no peaceful means to preserve their lives and interests. No agency of government should be allowed to exert dictatorian power over the Grand Jury or commanded to find a verdict to the liking of the usurper. Nor should they be coerced or threatened with arbitrary taxes. If this should occur the Juries will be vassals sworn to abide by the directions of the Judges.

“Next to the power of the Legislature the grand Jury is and aught to be considered as the greatest concern of the People.

“Grand Juries are the principle means of preserving the internal peace of the nation as offenders will be punished with the wisdom, diligence and faithfulness in making due inquires after all breaches of the peace, and bringing everyone to answer for his crime at the peril of his life, limb and estate, that every man who lives within the law may sleep securely in his own house.

“That the courts, or judges, or commissioners of the Oyer and Terminer, and of Goal-Delivery, are to receive from the Grand Inquest all capital matter whatsoever, to be put in issue, tried and judged before them by Petit Juries. That capital offenders to pay with their lives to the cause of justice and criminals of lesser crimes other punishments according to their demerits.

“As it is one part of their duty to indict offenders so another part is to protect the innocent, in their reputations, lives and interests from false accusations and malicious conspirators. That in their search for the truth they find a reasonable suspicion of malice or wicked designs against any man’s life or estate the laws of the kingdom and God bind them to discover the villainy is a conspiracy against the accused they are bound not only to reject the bill of indictment, but to forthwith indict the all the conspirators, abettors and associates.

“All our lives are entrusted to the care of our Grand Inquests and none may be put to answer for their lives unless by their indictment. If a careless indictment cause the suffering of an innocent and guiltless man their fault cannot be executed by any accuser. To oblige juries to exercise more conscientious care an oath was devised and imposed upon them in the words following, viz.

“You shall diligently enquire, and true presentment make of all such articles, matters and things as shall be given you in charge: And of all other matters and things as shall come to your own knowledge, touching this present service. The King’s Council, your fellows, and your own, you shall keep secret: You shall present no person for hatred or malice; neither shall you leave any one unpresented for favour, or affection, for love, or gain, or any hopes thereof: but, in all things you shall present the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, to the best of your knowledge; so help you God.”

U.S. Constitution, Amendment V: “No Person shall be held to answer for a capital or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law, nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation.”

Comment: Between 1776 and 1791 and before the ratification to the U.S. Constitution the several States constitutionally provided for a Grand Jury. The following are related Clauses from the State Constitutions of 1776–1791.

Excerpted from: The True Intent of the First American Constitutions of 1776-1791 ISBN 0-7414-0235-1

The Declaration of Rights of the State of Delaware. “10. That every member of society hath a right to be protected in the enjoyment of life, liberty, and property, … but no part of a man’s property can be justly taken from him, or applied to public uses without his own consent, or that of his legal representatives: …” “15. That no man in the courts of common law ought to be compelled to give evidence against himself.”

The Constitution of the State of Georgia. “45. No grand-jury shall consist of less than eighteen, and twelve may find a bill.”

The Constitution of the State of Maryland. “10. That the house of delegates may…inquire, on the oath of witnesses, into all complaints, grievances, and offences, as the great inquest of this state, and may commit any person for any crime to the public jail, there to remain till he be discharged by due course of law; …”

The Declaration of Rights of the State of Maryland. “20. That no man ought to be compelled to give evidence against himself in a common court of law, or in any other court, but in such cases as have been usually practiced in this state, or may hereafter be directed by the legislature. “21. That no freeman ought to be taken or imprisoned, or disseized of his freehold, liberties, or privileges, or outlawed, or exiled, or in any manner destroyed, or deprived of his life, liberty, or property, but by the judgment of his peers, or by the law of the land.”

Part I, Declaration of Rights, Constitution of the State of Massachusetts. “X. Each individual of the society has a right to be protected by it, in the enjoyment of his life, liberty, and property, according to standing laws. He is obliged, consequently, to contribute his share to the expense of this protection; to give his personal service, or an equivalent, when necessary: …”

The Declaration of Rights, Constitution of North-Carolina. “8. That no freeman shall be put to answer any criminal charge but by indictment, presentment, or impeachment.”

The Constitution of the State of North-Carolina. “23. That the governor, and other officers offending against the state, by violating any part of this constitution, maladministration, or corruption, may be prosecuted on the impeachment of the general assembly, or presentment of the grand jury of any court of supreme jurisdiction in this state.”

The Constitution of the State of South-Carolina. “41. That no freeman of this state be taken, or imprisoned, or disseized of his freehold, liberties or privileges, or outlawed, or exiled, or in any manner destroyed, or deprived of his life, liberty, or property, but by the judgment of his peers, or by the law of the land.”

Chapter I, Declaration of Rights, Constitution of the State of Vermont. “X. That every member of society hath a right to be protected in the enjoyment of life, liberty and property; and therefore is bound to contribute his proportion towards the expense of that protection, and yield his personal service, when necessary, or an equivalent thereto: …”

“XIX. That no person in this Commonwealth can, in any case, be subjected to law-martial or to any penalties or pains, by virtue of that law, except those employed in the army, and the militia in actual service.”

Once upon a time this article would have been recognized for what it is and suggested as required reading for all Freepers.

Unfortunately, as this article is also an indictment of W and his Merry Band of Beltway Socialists, I suspect that this article will get little recognition if allowed to survive.

That just about sums it up.

The new and odious laws are not means to protect us, they are meant to protect the asses of the people who dropped the ball in the first place.

"Unfortunately the People have been taught to believe that they and the government are separate."

This would explain why some thing burning the US flag is appropriate. Presumably, they equate the flag as representing the government only. Additionally, I suspect they have no concept of nation and no sense of responsibility to their fellow citizens.

So the government should be clairvoyant, and without any ability to actually gather the necessary information to do so? It would be nice, wouldn't it? I do not thinkthatt is realistic.

Perhaps we have enough laws, perhaps not. Certainly we should be very cautious about new ones. But I hardly think the government "dropped the ball." Discerning real threats from false ones is always easy in hindsight.

Mr. Simpson’s Stacked Court

OJ was not indicted by a Grand Jury. The defense argued that any inquest by a Grand Jury would be tainted because of the mass of publicity surrounding the case.

“It is standard practice in Los Angeles County to file a case in the superior court of the judicial district in which the crime occurred. This was Santa Monica in the case of the Brown and Goldman murders. Instead, Garcetti made the decision to file the case downtown. He claimed this was because Special Trials were located there and that Santa Monica didnít have the physical facilities to manage a trial of the kind envisaged. He also wanted it downtown to get the indictment of Simpson through a grand jury instead of the more commonly used preliminary hearing method, by which 99.9% of criminal cases in Los Angeles go to superior court.

“The grand jury route would have been of strategic advantage to the prosecutor because these proceedings are secret and the defense does not participate, allowing the prosecution to secure its indictment without revealing the basis of its case to the defense prior to the trial. There is only one grand jury in Los Angeles and it is only convened downtown. However, the defense succeeded in getting the grand jury dismissed on the grounds that it had been tainted by the adverse publicity surrounding the case.”

http://www.crimelibrary.com/notorious_murders/famous/simpson/man_8.html?sect=7

Mr. Simpson was found not guilty by a PETIT JURY.

Ed

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.