The Erosion of Democracy in America
Edward M. Renner
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness… That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.
These are the words from the Declaration of Independence that declared and justified the right of a people to determine by who and how they would be governed. They unequivocally say that the powers given any government are provisional and dependent on the will of the people, and it is the government’s job to put their rights and welfare above all other concerns. If you think these paragraphs now sound vaguely unpatriotic by your current concept of patriotism, or didn’t even know where this paragraph came from, don’t bother reading any further; you’ve probably already drank the Kool-Aid.
So, do you actually trust the Federal Government to look out for the interests and rights of the American people? Do you actually believe everything the government tells you is true? Do you feel that the federal government’s primary concern is the welfare of the American people rather than its own interests and agenda or that of corporate America and the uber-rich? Or, do you believe the government would purposely lie, distort facts, and fabricate information to support its’ agendas? And how many and how much of your freedoms are you willing to give up in the name of Public Safety or the governments’ definition of the greater good? These are questions you must ask yourself every time your Legislature proposes new legislation or laws that would infringe upon a freedom or increase the power of government.
Many people think they live in a democracy just because they have the right to vote. But who actually decides who they can vote for? Is it the American people or the special interest groups, ultra-rich, and the political parties who are financed by them? How often have you witnessed the candidate with the most money to spend getting the nominations and winning elections? And, how often do you feel that your election choices come down to the lesser of two evils rather than the best or most qualified person for the job? Of the people you’ve voted for, how many, once elected, have actually fulfilled their campaign promises?… and were you actually naive enough to believe they would or could? There is a saying that says, “Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me”; so how many times must we say shame on me before it sinks in that politicians will say or promise anything to get elected? Then once elected, will follow their own agenda and their party’s line rather than that of the people who elected them.
The Hijacking of Democracy By Government
The government of the people, by the people, and for the people. These are the words that our founding fathers and Lincoln in his Gettysburg Address used to define our democracy, establish the relationship between government and the people, and state from where our government derives all its just powers… the people. Yet, over the past two hundred years, these founding principles have been infringed and arrogantly ignored to such an extent that our democracy bears little resemblance to what our founding fathers had in mind, or what our citizens have shed their blood and sacrificed their lives to protect. Step by step, democratic control by the citizenry has been minimized and subverted by the influence and control of the rich and powerful, by collusions of government and corporate America, and by the insatiable desire of the government for more power in order to dominate and control all aspects of American life and frustrate attempts by the people to control government or hold it accountable. Further, when the law and Constitution has restricted government power, it has often simply ignored them or used other means to get around them and to restrict freedoms and rights; often resorting to tactics that are little more than edicts and proclamations that are contrary to the Constitution and Will of the people.
Although the Federal government has laws that make it a crime to lie or withhold evidence from the government (even when testimony would violate 5th Amendment rights), there are no such laws that hold the government accountable for lying, obfuscating facts, or withholding evidence. Nor is there any actual means of forcing the government to obey the laws and Constitution… short of armed rebellion. Even the Supreme Court, the supposed protector of our Constitutional Rights, has frequently decided in support of political agendas by reinterpretations of the articles of the Constitution, despite their being quite clear in and of themselves; i.e., Eminent Domain issues, privacy rights, Presidential powers, the requirement for Search Warrants, Habeas corpus issues, etc.. And one only need look at many of the provisions of the so-called Patriot Act to see numerous and crass violations of Constitutional Rights imposed upon the American people in the name of Public Safety during a time of public anger, fear, and a collective desire for revenge (as it has done may times before). Many of these grabs for more Federal power are based on little more than fear of the People or it‘s watchdog groups and agencies; or is based on hidden agendas to consolidate power and control, while minimizing the power of the States and People or their ability to defend themselves.
We also have a legal system that enforces laws unequally and discretionarily*, considers public opinion, political agendas, and moneyed power interests to be higher priorities than human rights or justice; and considers members of the government, legal system, law enforcement, and certain privileged classes of people to be above the law.
______________________________________
* There are numerous laws on the books that range from being unconstitutional to being absurd or even silly, yet even though they are never enforced, they still hold the power of law and could be. It is only the discretion of law enforcement and prosecutors that keep this from happening. Thus if everything is made illegal and subject discretionary enforcement, the people would have no rights other than that which the state sees fit to grant… and we would live in a totalitarian state. Therefore it is wise for people to consider every law as a infringement of freedom.
Further, our legal system metes out justice based upon one’s ability to afford it, and even though it supposedly acts in the name of the people, has increasingly excluded and restricted the peoples role in the justice system and has purposely withheld knowledge of key constitutional jury rights from jury members. At the same time, inequitable tax laws have been used to limit the political influence of the middle and working classes, with the primary tax burden being placed upon the struggling classes while the rich get to keep what already may be seen as an obscene excess; and who use this excess to influence government in support of their interests.
Further, many Constitutional rights have come under increasing attack by Politicians and Federal agencies, often orchestrated by politically active billionaires who pull the strings of political parties and government. We see an ever increasing attitude of arrogance at all levels of government, and rights that were once seen as self-evident and inalienable, are now treated as if they were privileges that are conditionally granted the people; with the government able to reinterpret, suspend, or infringe them. Yet, according to the Constitution, the only people who can alter or change the Constitution are the People themselves, so why aren’t elected officials who work to infringe on or disregard our constitutional rights charged with criminal activity, including sedition or treason under the Constitution? Is it maybe because they are the ones who make and enforce the laws? Further, even the meaning of the word Patriotism seems to have been hijacked and subverted by the government to mean unquestioning support of Federal actions, rather than its’ true meaning of steadfast support of country and our democratic institutions, and the willingness to defend it from all enemies, foreign and domestic.
In the past, the government has relied on simple-minded trust and ignorance to hoodwink the public into believing the government always had their best interests at heart. However, the government learned a valuable lesson in the 60’s when faced with the largest, best classically educated, and freest thinking generation in our history; a generation that wasn’t trusting or buying the government’s lies. The free or inexpensive college system, created after World War II, and a large middle class with enough money to educate their children created this threat to government control. Since then, the government has made college increasingly more expensive to attend. States have also allowed the academic requirements for a college degree to take on the narrow focus of trade schools, so that college graduates now seem to lack the historical perspective, broad knowledge, and critical thinking ability of previous generations of graduates. Combined with economic disasters that were the fault of both the policies of government and the greed of the already wealthy, the era of educated free speech and thinking has given way to an era of economic struggle and desperation for the middle class. Thus, once again the government can hoodwink the public and only the well off, or those willing to be thousands or hundreds of thousands of dollars in debt, can afford college. For the very best or ivy league schools (necessary to get into the “Old Boys network“), only the very rich can once again afford them.
This usurpation of power by government seems ironic in this day and age, in that at no time in our history have we been more technologically able to enact a true working democratic republic where the will of the people can be known and implemented. Our communication and personal computer systems are now sophisticated enough to allow virtually every citizen the ability to have a say in government and hold the feet of their elected representatives to the fire. By electronic plebiscite we can insist and ensure that the electorate’s will is represented in Congress and the Senate, rather than that of political parties, lobbyists, and other moneyed interests. Every legislative act could be approved or rejected by a plebiscite of each representative’s electorate, who would dictate how a representative will vote rather than their political party, and if this might slow down the legislative process or frustrate agendas, so what; the people have an absolute right in dictating how their representative should vote. But this is something our government is truly afraid of… actual representative democracy.
Violations Of The Bill of Rights
To clarify and illuminate governmental infringements on the Bill of Rights, let us review and clarify these amendments, as well as see how quasi-legal legislation, enforcement agencies who are minimally accountable, and tax laws have ignored them; while at the same time the Supreme Court has engaged in either vacancy-of-office (refusing to review or hear constitutionally controversial cases) or gross reinterpretations of the Constitution to suit political agendas:
Amendment 1
Freedom of Speech - This freedom should only be restricted by courts when slander (actual lies) is involved; or it infringes on the rights or safety of other citizens, e.g., yelling fire in a theatre. Not liking what someone or some group has to say, or whether it is politically correct or not, can never be grounds for infringement of this right. The principle of: “I may not agree with what you say, but I‘ll defend to the death your right to say it“… is the essence of this amendment.
Though morally reprehensible, hate speech cannot be a crime unless it actively provokes followers to violence (not those it’s directed at), and all legislation criminalizing it is unconstitutional. This freedom of the 1st Amendment allows everyone to freely express their opinions, no matter how stupid, hateful, insensitive, or politically incorrect they are; ostracism and a contrary yet free-speech response by the community is the proper venue for countering this type of behavior, not law.
Inciting is also an act that should not be criminalized; i.e., it is the responsibility of the audience or crowd members to obey the law, temper their anger or enthusiasm, and keep an assembly peaceful… or bear the consequences of breaking the laws.
Conspiracy laws are also unlawful when no crime has been committed or actions taken to commit a crime. Thinking or talking about committing a crime cannot be one, it is only a crime of thought. Only when it crosses the line by the actual (evidential) planning of a crime could it be criminal; however, the penalty for committing such a crime must always be less than the actual crime.
Informing the public or press of governmental and corporate wrongdoing and other illegal acts (whistle blowing) must also be protected speech, and the Official Secrets Act or any other gagging law cannot be evoked by public entities when they have engaged in illegal activity and have been found out. The government should never be allowed to use its’ legislative and enforcement powers to cover up wrongdoing or stifle and punish informants.
Freedom of the Press - This is one freedom we don’t seem to have too much of a problem with. The press is now big business and is usually the voice of political parties and owned by the rich elite with their own political agendas, so what we read and view is already generally biased; usually in favor of one political party/agenda or the other. So thank God for the Internet.
Freedom of Religion - This freedom must include freedom from religious biases and beliefs as well. This principle is also known as freedom of conscience, and should only lead to legislative restrictions when its’ practice actually infringes on the constitutional and legal rights of others or those within the religious group. This is the United States of America, and its’ constitutional laws and guaranteed freedoms must be respected and obeyed. No contradictory religious law can be respected or allowed to repress anyone’s freedoms. This includes any and all religious groups, not just minority religions but the mainstream religions as well. Morality is not the business of government so as long as no constitutional right is infringed. Government at all levels must never be allowed to inflict any religious moral code or belief on the citizenry, including educational curriculums, nor restrict the free practice of any religious group as long as they respects our rights and laws. Thomas Jefferson said that “I have sworn upon the altar of God eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man” ; and this should be the essence of this freedom.
Freedom of Assembly - This is a freedom that has also been abused and restricted in the name of public safety, and this is clearly unconstitutional. As long as an assembly is peaceful, no restrictions can be placed upon it as long as the assembly does not infringe upon the rights of others. This means no permits or permission can be required for assembly on public property, and the only responsibility of the assembly is to inform authorities when it takes place in a public place where safety issues might be an issue; not in a private facilities or locations. Public safety may be the responsibility of government and law enforcement, but they cannot use it as an excuse to restrict or prohibit this constitutional right; rather, it is their responsibility to maintain the peace during its free exercise.
Amendment 2 - The Right to Keep and Bear Arms
This is one freedom that has come under the most vitriolic attacks, even though the founding fathers considered it to be one of the most important. This freedom is the right to keep and bear arms in defense of self, family, community, and country; it is a time honored and well vindicated human right with some of the deepest historical roots and links to achieving and preserving freedom. The 2nd Amendment is fairly unequivocal in prohibiting it from being infringed upon, and this is clearly supported by the correspondence of our Founding Fathers and architects of the Constitution. Yet no other right has come under so much attack in the past 40 years as this one, and no other amendment has been so regulated and unconstitutionally infringed on. In order to understand this right fully, it is necessary to restate it in modern terms that express both its original intent and importance:
A well-armed and trained citizenry being the cornerstone defense of a free nation, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall never be prohibited, suspended, or infringed; nor shall the free exercise of this right be subject to legal or civil restriction, nor to any litigation who’s intent is for the purpose of restricting the free exercise of this right. Further, any arm allowed any law enforcement agency or domestic armed force shall also be allowed the citizenry without special permits; provided they have not had that right legally taken away from them because of conviction for acts of violence or crass irresponsibility involving firearms. To lose the right to keep and bear arms, an individual must be convicted by a jury of peers. However, an individual can have this right suspended if they are judged to be a danger to themselves or others, or because of a mental illness or disorder that makes them a threat. To do this, a formal hearing must be held, and testimony given by two psychiatrists, witnesses consisting of friends and/or family members, and law enforcement if applicable.
From a historical perspective, the right to keep and bear arms is what separates a subject from a citizen, and it is the only insurance citizens have against oppression, tyranny, and general lawlessness. Without this right, all other rights are in jeopardy from a government that might seek to impose tyrannical control through force and/or subornation of the legal system. Further, governments have consistently demonstrated an inability to protect populations in the event of a breakdown in society or large scale lawlessness. Ultimately, we must come to realize the truth that law enforcement is limited in it’s ability to protect the citizenry and that the People must always retain the right of self-protection. It is a good rule of thumb that any government that fears an armed citizenry should itself be watched and feared.
Amendment 4
This is the amendment that is supposed to protect people and their property from unreasonable searches or seizures. And even reasonable searches or seizures must take place under the auspices of a Warrant; issued only for a specific probable cause with hard evidence through a Magistrate and supported by an oath of veracity for cause by the requestor. The Warrant must also be exact (not nebulous descriptions such as contraband) as to where the search will take place and what precisely is the evidentiary or illegal item(s) to be confiscated or seized; that is, no fishing expeditions. So how do such things as Patriot Act provisions, the “gut feeling” of an Officer, nose of a dog, or possibility that hypothetical evidence might be destroyed, end up being sufficient grounds for an unwarranted search? Also, how can large scale electronic intrusion on citizens e-files and correspondence be constitutionally justified? These practices are clearly illegal and unconstitutional under this Amendment, and if allowed to continue under the pretense of seeking out potential “terrorists“, or for “proactive” public safety measures, will end up being used primarily against the American people in general, just as every like-minded measure has been in the past.
Amendment 5
This amendment covers the necessity of a Grand Jury indictment before a trial for serious crimes; the prohibition against double jeopardy; the prohibition against self-incrimination; the right of a person to due process of law before life, liberty, or property can be taken; and the necessity for just compensation in the taking of private property for public use. The first two of these rights for the most part seem to be moderately well preserved and protected by our legal system; however, the last three, to one extent or another, have been infringed on by all levels of government, law enforcement, and Tax Departments; e.g., Grand Juries and Congress have compelled citizens to bear witness against themselves in violation of the 5th Amendment. Further, the indefinite incarceration of Americans suspected of terrorist-type activity (often nebulously worded accusations) without due process of law is allowed by the Patriot Act, but clearly prohibited by several amendments to the Constitution. Also, the Supreme Court has reinterpreted Eminent Domain and allowed governments to take private property away, not just for public use, but rather for giving to other private citizens who would pay more taxes on it; thus, combined with property tax codes, the Supreme Court has essentially negated American private property rights.
Amendment 6
This amendment covers the requirement for a fair, speedy, and public jury trial for all crimes where life, liberty, or property may be taken (one’s cash assets are also considered property). This is a right that has again been infringed on by multiple levels of government, from the assessment of large fines and courts comprised of no juries, to the seizure of property and assets by law enforcement and tax agencies without actual due process. This is another thing our government seems to ignore while the Constitution guarantees; the simple fact that citizens must realize is, that according to the Constitution, a law is not an enforceable law until the people say it is by way of a jury ruling!
Amendment 8
This amendment protects the people from excessive bail or fines and prohibits cruel or unusual punishment. This is an amendment that needs to be re-enumerated and augmented to protect citizens from the unreasonable imposition of excessive fines and jail sentences by legislative action, magistrates, and courts. With the number of people put in jail at an ever expanding rate and consuming an ever increasing amount of tax revenues, we need to reassess our ideas on crime, the morality of punishments that do not fit the crime, and the idea that all crimes need to be punished by incarceration. Our present system has clearly not worked and has worsened both our repeat offender rates and our public cooperation and respect for law enforcement. This attitude by government often comes down to little more than governmental arrogance and an attempt to frighten people into compliance with bad laws that are both unjust, unfair, and beyond the constitutional purview of government.
Further, ignorance of the law should be a valid defense when laws are such as to be obscure or unreasonable enough that the average citizen would be unaware of their existence. As a matter of fact, this precept was almost added to the 5th Amendment by the architects of the Constitution, and was only grudging excluded because they were made to believe that the legal system would be fair and take mitigating facts and circumstances into consideration; plus many were afraid that the “backwoods” people, who were not familiar with anything but frontier justice, might break “civilized” laws without consequences, using ignorance as a defense.
Also, incarceration should only be an option for punishment when crimes involve violence, or the perpetrator is deemed a threat to the community by way of being a violent repeat offender with a history of increasing violence; in other words, needing isolation from the community at large. We need to get away from this anal English mindset that all those convicted of some crime need to be punished by taking away their freedom; there are proven better and far less expensive ways to mete out justice than our taxpayer funded Crime Colleges.
Amendment 10
This amendment essentially says that the powers of the U.S. Government are limited to those powers delegated it by the Constitution; and that all other powers are reserved to the people or the States when those powers are not prohibited it by the Constitution. Do we live in a country defined by this amendment? The Federal government certainly hasn’t thought so. They have consistently stuck their nose into State jurisdictions and people’s private lives, expanding their powers to exceed their legal constitutional reach. They have created many enforcement agencies that are empowered to usurp the jurisdiction of State law enforcement and regulatory departments in defiance of State Rights and laws. This growing expansion of Federal enforcement agencies is a bell weather that the country is being moved towards a kind of Federal Police State (similar to Nazi Germany’s and Communist Russia’s); and with immunity and other unconstitutional Patriot Act type powers backing them, we might soon be living in a country where the Feds dominate all aspects of government, and relegate States to little more than powerless fiefdoms, whose State legislated freedoms can be run over rough-shod by the Federal government. This we cannot allow, and the enforcement jurisdiction of federal agencies must be restricted and limited to interstate crime.
Amendment 13
This amendment prohibits slavery or involuntary servitude except as reasonable punishment for a person convicted by a jury of a major crime. The Military Draft, however, is certainly a violation of this amendment even in the event of war; and the Supreme Court has agreed with this on more that one occasion. Less crass but equally illegal is technical involuntary servitude in conjunction with contractual obligations even after the conditions of the contracts are changed unfairly. The government cannot and should not force people to comply in deference to business or government service contracts.
Amendment 14, Section I.
This amendment says that no State can deny any citizen equal protection under the law; and cannot pass any law that restricts or infringes on any Constitutional right. What about local and State restrictive guns laws? Religious restrictions, prohibitions, or Blue Laws? Liquor laws?, etc.. There have been, and still are, numerous violations of this amendment. So what have the U.S. Attorney Generals been doing … that is, other that selling guns to the Mexican gangs and drug cartels and defying Congressional accountability?
Amendment 16
This amendment was ratified in 1913 to tax personal incomes rather than trade between States or between the U.S. and other countries; which the original Constitution had specified as the Federal Government’s primary funding source. This amendment was sold to the American people under the pretence of equalizing a uneven distribution of wealth in the country and creating additional revenue for federal projects and expansion. The amendment would have had the excess income and profits of corporations and the rich footing much of the bill for a government that, for the most part, had already become responsible for protecting U.S. business interests overseas and assisting the industrialization of America; with the rich obviously benefiting the most. Little did the people know that they were opening a Pandora’s Box that would have the opposite effect of equalizing wealth, and would eventually end up over taxing and eroding the middle class; work as an instrument of an even more obscene uneven wealth distribution; plus be used as a tool of oppression, that could, and has been, used to intimidate and repress government critics and political enemies. e.g., The powers given the IRS for the purpose of fighting organized crime when poor FBI investigative efforts couldn’t, is another instance of a power that has been turned against the average American with a vengeance. While criminal organizations, corporations, and the uber-rich have high priced tax lawyers to keep them out of trouble and exploit built in tax loopholes, the average American taxpayer suffers relatively helplessly with the IRS’ foot on their neck.
Amendment 27
This amendment prohibited government from increasing their salaries during the term of their present office. This amendment was submitted to the States in 1789, yet not ratified until 1992.… interesting! How often have you seen this amendment ignored or congressional raises not known about until after they had gone into effect?
ARTICLE I, Section 9, clause 2
This Constitutional Section prohibits any suspension of Habeas Corpus (holding a person without charging them with a specific crime) unless in the event of rebellion or invasion. It seems that many Federal Acts in the past, as well as the Patriot Act, have flagrantly violated this right; i.e., Cherokee relocation, Japanese Internment, many of Roosevelt’s War Acts, etc.. So where was the Supreme Court on this? It appears that when push comes to shove, the government drops all pretences of constitutionality and does what it wants, despite the Supreme Court, Constitution, or will of the People; and it has seldom been held accountable for this
An RX For Returning Democracy to the People
So what can we do to regain control of the government? To start with, we need to add a preamble to the Bill Of Rights that in no uncertain terms lets the government know from where their powers come from. The following is such a proposed preamble:
The Bill of Rights of the American Constitution is a solemn and binding compact between the People and the Government. It exists sacrosanct, inalienable, and apart from any alterable provision of the Constitution, and the powers that are granted the government in the Constitution are given (by the People) if, and only if, the Government upholds, protects, and defends these Rights. The Government is also given no power to suspend, alter, or infringe upon the Constitutionally given rights of any citizen, to confiscate property, or to fine an individual without due process of law. The process for any such infringement shall be in the form of formal charges and a fair and speedy trial by a jury of the citizens peers. These juries must be informed fully of their rights, including the powers of law nullification.
Further, the citizenry retains the right to expel from office any public official or appointee, suspend or take away any power granted the government in the Constitution, or alter or abolish governmental powers by any means necessary, up to and including armed resistance, if any attempt by the government is made to suspend these Rights or impose tyranny upon the people. This relationship between the Citizenry and the Government is fundamental to American Democracy and the principles upon which this country was founded.
At the end of the Bill of Rights the following caveat needs to be added as a warning to government officials and their agents:
Before being allowed to hold public office, all public officials, elected or appointed, shall be required to swear a solemn and binding oath to uphold, protect, and defend the letter and intent of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights . Refusal to take or uphold this oath will be grounds for disqualification or dismissal from holding public office; in other words, an impeachable offense. Any public official who campaigns, conspires, or attempts to legislate an infringement of the rights guaranteed by the Constitution shall be charged with violation of oath-of-office and sedition. If appropriate, the individual shall be publicly tried in a Federal Court of Law by a Supreme Court Judge chosen by lottery and 12 senate jurors also chosen by lottery. Further, any public official who actively works through the auspices of his office, or by means of any law enforcement agency, armed force, legislative process, or any appointed agency, to infringe, alter, suspend, or abolish any constitutionally guaranteed right, shall be charged with violation of oath-of-office and treason, The official shall be removed from office and tried by 3 Supreme Court Judges, chosen by lottery, and a jury consisting of 50 Senators, 1 from each of the 50 States. Conviction by a 2/3rd majority shall carry a potential capital offense penalty; the final decision of guilt and penalty may be confirmed by a plebiscite of the general citizenry.
Additional Rxs
An amendment needs to be added to the Constitution which states that no citizen, elected or appointed official, or agency at any level of Federal or State government shall be above the law or allowed to operate outside the law. This means that all laws must apply to everyone or to no one!
Just as we are not supposed to maintain a standing army or allow a President to serve more than two terms, we should not have professional politicians, and term limits must be constitutionally enacted to stop the creation of political dynasties and power cliques that dominate and restrict the democratic processes of Congress and the Senate. Professional politicians accumulate far too much power and influence when they stay in office too long; and they often use this power to both subvert the democratic process and interfere with protective regulations and prosecutions when it comes to their cronies and contributors.
We need to restrict federal law enforcement agencies to interstate crime and enforcing constitutionally guaranteed rights only; as was originally intended. We cannot allow a state police force to be created. Let the States regulate state matters with only aid and constitutional oversight by the US Attorney Generals Office.
We need to restrict the enforcement powers of the IRS and its’ ability to imprison or freeze tax payers assets without due process of law. We should even question the legality of criminalizing non-payment (or penalizing under-payment) of taxes, as it is tantamount to legalized extortion. In 1819, Chief Justice John Marshall said that “The power to tax involves the power to destroy” (and control); … and history tells us this is quite true. So how did we ever believe we could trust accountants with enforcement powers or guns? http://www.fee.org/the_freeman/detail/the-power-to-tax-is-the-power-to-destroy
ADDENDUM
The Power Of The Jury
In their wisdom, our founding fathers insured that the final say as to the enforcement and validity of laws would remain in the hands of the people, despite the powers granted the legislature, President, or even the Supreme Court; and this power was placed in the hands of the Jury. It has roots that go back to 1215 in England, is the basis of English Common Law and the U.S. Constitutional System of Justice, and has always been upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court (even though the Court has also ruled that juries do not have to be informed of this right!). It is essentially the power of veto over the enforcement of any law and is known as Jury Nullification. It gives juries the power not only to decide what the facts are in a particular case, but to determine the issues of law and whether a law is just, fair, or appropriate; even if these laws exist under, or part of, the Constitution. It has been determined by the Supreme Court (1972) that this power is non-reviewable and irreversible; thus it is the last safeguard against unjust law and tyranny. The law is not the law until the jury/people say it is!
No comments:
Post a Comment