for the People to do
so
by Barbie, ACIC National J.A.I.L.
Administration
The Fatal
Omission
Law is only as effective as it can be
enforced. Without enforceability, what good is it? Likewise, the
Constitution --the Supreme Law of the Land-- is
only as effective as IT can be enforced.
Without enforceability, WHAT GOOD IS IT?
Is it any wonder that the Constitution is routinely ignored by the
powers-that-be, and has been impotent since its inception?
Can there be any doubt that the
omission of an enforcement provision in the Constitution when it was framed is,
and has been for over 200 years, fatal to the
enjoyment of our life and liberty? to the acquisition, possession and
defending of property? to the pursuit of happiness, safety, and
privacy? Can there be any doubt that the natural course leading to the
fulfillment of these unalienable rights has been
literally blocked through the usurpation of power
by an evil and despotic occupying force in this country under color of law,
fraudulently pretending to be "the government"?
Does it seem strange to you that what
we read in the Declaration of Independence and in the U.S.
Constitution reads like a fairy tale, (for instance: "...deriving
their just powers from the consent of the governed...") and does not match
the reality of what we are experiencing in this country today, nor even
throughout our lifetimes? and that it is growing
even stranger and further removed from reality at
an ever-increasing pace as time goes on? And
does it seem strange to you that the more we
hear about peace, health, and SAFETY, the
less of it we actually have? Do you
really feel safer today than you did yesterday?
And most provocative-- do you
feel helpless to be able to do anything about it? Well
folks, it's NOT going to get any better!
J.A.I.L. is needed
regardless of all else
Although we have often said that the
objective of J.A.I.L. is judicial accountability -i.e., We the People
holding judges accountable to themselves under the standards set forth in the
United States Constitution-we have, over time, become more enlightened to the
fact that the ultimate objective is To
Enforce The Constitution by holding
judges accountable to the People under its standards. And to drive home the fact
that "J.A.I.L. is the ONLY answer" to accomplishing that objective, J.A.I.L. is
the ONLY proposal available providing a detailed, spelled-out method and process
designed for the People to do so.
More and more people are realizing
that the objective must be the enforcement of the Constitution by the People,
however no one beyond J.A.I.L. has come up with the specific means by which to
accomplish that task. Despite all other ideas, none offers an alternative
to J.A.I.L. No, not one! Regardless of what others have
suggested as a solution, all are inherently dependent upon the implementation of
J.A.I.L. to stand guard in
keeping government within the bounds it was designed to function. Yes, government
must be leashed by the People, and that leash must be held firmly by the
People on an instant
and permanent
basis to maintain our Constitutional Republic.
Only J.A.I.L. provides such leash!
That's not to say that the People
aren't free to pursue whatever project they deem appropriate. However it's vital
to our ultimate freedom to choose our priorities-- to
first put our resources into the cause that will best and most
efficiently bring real security by the People to the
People on a permanent basis. Only
J.A.I.L. provides such security! Government cannot, and will not,
provide it on its own.
J.A.I.L. is rooted in the Declaration
of Independence, the Founding Document of this country and the most logical
place to begin in correcting the tyranny that has overtaken us. ("...to
provide new guards for their future security.") We must go back to Square
One which, for purposes of J.A.I.L., consists of two parts:
first, the Declaration (the foundation);
second, the U.S. Constitution read in light
of the Declaration (the ground floor).
It is imperative that
everything that has occurred since the ratification of the
Constitution be cleared from your thinking --the slate must be wiped clean--
otherwise you will be distracted by the myriad of irrelevant events that have
taken place since that ratification, inasmuch as they are in violation of the
Constitution, and hence, null and void.
So forget them (I realize it's easier
said than done) --but do so, at least for purposes of
focusing on what we must now do to "get it right" albeit some
200-plus years later. All that the passage of time has done is allow the
dung heap created by the powers-that-be (hereinafter "PTB") to pile higher and
deeper and at a faster rate with each passing year, until the heap has
gotten so huge over the past two centuries, that it is doubtfully even
possible to clean up at this point. But knowing that it is waste (wholly
void) --not in compliance with the Constitution-- we have to by-pass it and start over at Square One in rebuilding our
Constitutional Republic that has been stolen from us by this usurping, foreign,
occupying force operating under color of law, the PTB.
In Volume
16, American Jurisprudence, 177, we find the following: "The general rule
is that an unconstitutional statute, though having the form and name of law, is
in reality no law, but is wholly void, and ineffective for any purpose; since
unconstitutionality dates from the time of its enactment, and not merely from
the date of the decision so branding it. An unconstitutional law, in legal
contemplation, is as inoperative as if it had never been passed. Such a statute
leaves the question that it purports to settle just as it would be had the
statute not been enacted.
"Since an unconstitutional law is void, the
general principles follow that it imposes no duties, confers no rights, creates
no office, bestows no power or authority on anyone, affords no protection, and
justifies no acts performed under it. . . .
A void act cannot be legally consistent with a
valid one. An unconstitutional law cannot operate to supersede any existing
valid law. Indeed, insofar as a statute runs counter to the fundamental law of
the land, it is superseded thereby.
No one is bound to obey an
unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to enforce it. "
Our American Common Law by Howard Fisher and Dale Pond.
J.A.I.L.'s Reliance on
the
Declaration of Independence: (the foundation)
The Declaration of Independence (hereinafter
"Declaration") describes government as the body of men (mankind) created by the
governed (The People) for the purpose of protecting the rights of The People--
thusly:
...That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among
men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the
governed...
When government ceases to function in that assigned
capacity as the protector of the People's rights, it ceases
to be government.
This principle is ably taught by John Locke, prior to
the Declaration, in
Of the Dissolution of Government by John
Locke
This is demonstratively to reduce all to anarchy, and so
effectually to dissolve the government: for laws not being made for themselves,
but to be, by their execution, the bonds of the society, to keep every part of
the body politic in its due place and function; when that totally ceases, the
government visibly ceases, and the people become a confused multitude, without
order or connexion. Where there is no longer the administration of justice, for
the securing of men's rights, nor any remaining power within the community to
direct the force, or provide for the necessities of the public, there certainly
is no government left. Where the laws cannot be executed, it is all one as if
there were no laws; and a government without laws is, I suppose, a mystery in
politics, unconceivable to human capacity, and inconsistent with human
society.
See also Fisher and
Pond, supra,
stating:
If any agency of the Federal, State or County government, including
the court, would act as if it were Principal, and Freeman, against its true
Principal, the People, this would be an inversion of the legal principle of
Sovereignty of the People. By so acting, any agency of the government, including
the court, would be a pretender to the power, and as a pretender, its
acts would be a nullity and would not exist, at Law; that is to say, that it
would be null and void, and of no force and effect, at Law. That, in fact, it
would not be government at all, but would be a private, criminal operation,
imposing a rule of force, fraudulently pretending to be government,
since, in this country, the only legitimate function of government is to protect
the Rights and freedoms of the
People. Such acts are not unlike the privately owned and operated Mafia who
demands our money (taxes, fees, etc.) in
exchange for them not committing violence against us or our property.
[emphasis theirs]
So, we can see that we do not have a legitimate, lawful
government in power, and haven't had since shortly after the Constitution was
ratified more than 200 years ago. Thus, instead of living under the Rule of Law
by government, we are surviving as best we can under the rule of force imposed
by the PTB. Although Frederic Bastiat says that "Law
is Force," it must be a legitimate Force authorized by
Law-- not an arbitrary power.
(All Law is Force-- if it is enforceable, but not all
Force is Law).
Whosoever uses force without right, as every one does in society,
who does it without law, puts himself into a state of war with those against
whom he so uses it; and in that state all former ties are cancelled, all other
rights cease, and every one has a right to defend himself, and to resist the
aggressor. John Locke,
supra
Along the same line, John Locke further states, when
people's property is destroyed under arbitrary power of the PTB, the PTB are
at war with the People who are absolved from further
obedience:
The reason why men enter into society, is the preservation of their
property; and the end why they chuse and authorize a legislative, is, that there
may be laws made, and rules set, as guards and fences to the properties of all
the members of the society, to limit the power, and moderate the dominion, of
every part and member of the society: for since it can never be supposed to be
the will of the society, that the legislative should have a power to destroy
that which every one designs to secure, by entering into society, and for which
the people submitted themselves to legislators of their own making; whenever the
legislators endeavour to take away, and destroy the property of the people, or
to reduce them to slavery under arbitrary power, they put themselves into a
state of war with the people, who are thereupon absolved from any farther
obedience... ... ...by this breach of trust they forfeit the power
the people had put into their hands for quite contrary ends, and it devolves to
the people, who have a right to resume their original liberty, and, by the
establishment of a new legislative, (such as they shall think fit) provide for
their own safety and security, which is the end for which they are in
society. Id.
(Although the above relates to "the legislative," it has full
application to government in general, as the Declaration
indicates.)
We have been told that we cannot rely upon the
Declaration today because it applied only to the Thirteen Colonies when written.
Well, J.A.I.L. wholly relies on the Declaration
because it is based on the Law of Nature which is universal and ubiquitous. It
applies as much today as it did then, and will apply throughout the future of
human existence. As Dr. Alan Keyes stated:
I believe
it can only be made rational to respect the original intention of the Framers if
that intention somehow respects a permanent and transcendent principle of
justice which was true then, and is true now, which applied then, and which
applies now.... [I]f we accept that understanding, we are still part of a
community with them. We still are part, as it were, of the same society, because
we live in a universe governed by the same moral principles.... There is no
common ground between us and our Founders if there are no transcendent
principles of justice which allow us to understand that their painstaking effort
to establish a government based upon consent was in fact a requirement of
justice.
Presidents' Day lecture by Dr.
Alan Keyes, Thomas Aquinas College, February 21,
1997.
While the Declaration contains wording that is superfluous to some, when taken to its lowest common denominator --based entirely on Nature-- it is certainly a document that can be relied upon by all people, just as J.A.I.L. is for all people in this country.
A
Critique of the Declaration of Independence- by Paul Wakfer.
"Laws of
Nature" being entirely sufficient since nature - reality - is all that
exists. [T]hey meant that all men have equal "rights"...
They are unalienable specifically because they are a
necessary consequence of the reality of the nature of human beings - i.e. a part
of existence. They are essential and logically unalienable because their not
being true would be contradictory to the immutable structure of reality. Nor,
being true of reality, can valid rights ever be removed. All that can be done is
to "break" them - i.e. to not allow them to take their natural course and to be
fulfilled. Many people take "life" to include property and logically
this has merit. [The pursuit of happiness] is logically derivable from the
rights of Life, Liberty and Property. [Happiness] can rightly only be made by
the individual himself under the circumstances of full freedom of life, liberty
and property.
From href="">The Virginia Declaration of
Rights (a more
accurate statement): That all men are by nature equally free
and independent, and have certain inherent rights, of which, when they enter
into a state of society, they cannot, by any compact, deprive or divest their
posterity; namely, the enjoyment of life and liberty, with the means of
acquiring and possessing property, and pursuing and obtaining happiness and
safety.
The California Constitution begins
with, after the Preamble:
All people are by nature free and
independent and have inalienable rights. Among these are enjoying and defending
life and liberty, acquiring, possessing, and protecting property, and pursuing
and obtaining safety, happiness, and privacy. Art. I, Sec.1
In discussing the various schools of thought
regarding the interpretation of the Declaration, the following site states,
near the end of the article, the method to be used in evaluating the Declaration
in terms of the universal laws of nature:
(On Interpreting the
Declaration):
In the interest of efficiency, people should choose the school of thought that is most likely to answer their questions. For example, a person wanting to evaluate the Declaration's place in guiding principles for human life would look to universalism in history or to liberal originalism in political theory.
J.A.I.L.'s Reliance on the U.S. Constitution: (the ground floor)
We have also been told that we cannot
rely on the Constitution because it was drafted and signed by the elite for
their own benefit and "the common man be damned." One source that would support
that view is:
Settling the matter that, the common
man never created the U.S. Constitution nor was the Bill of Rights for him. - By
the Informer
Since 1990 I have been preaching
that the Constitution was never mine and the People in "We the People" was not
the common man on the street, but rather the aristocracy of Hamilton, Jefferson,
Adams, Washington, Jay and others. Lysander Spooner is another man in the 1800's
that had the same sentiments. He too showed that the constitution was not
only NOT a contract with the people, but that none of the signers signed it
with any conviction and it is evident that they only signed in a witness
capacity, check it out
for yourself by looking at how they
signed the constitution and bound no one unless they agreed to the terms in
the alleged contract called a constitution that they drafted. The
following is from the Cases in Constitutional law.
An opposing view is shown by the following
source, based on the Preamble:
We the People of the United States - The Framers were an elite group -
among the best and brightest America had to offer at the time. But they knew
that they were trying to forge a nation made up not of an elite, but of the
common man. Without the approval of the common man, they feared revolution. This
first part of the Preamble speaks to the common man. It puts into writing, as
clear as day, the notion that the people were creating this Constitution. It was
not handed down by a god or by a king - it was created by the
people.
promote the general Welfare
- This, and the next part of
the Preamble, are the culmination of everything that came before it - the whole
point of having tranquility, justice, and defense was to promote the general
welfare - to allow every state and every citizen of those states to benefit from
what the government could provide. The Framers looked forward to the expansion
of land holdings, industry, and investment, and they knew that a strong national
government would be the beginning of that.
and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity -Hand
in hand with the general welfare, the Framers looked forward to the blessings of
liberty - something they had all fought hard for just a decade before. They were
very concerned that they were creating a nation that would resemble something of
a paradise for liberty, as opposed to the tyranny of a monarchy, where citizens
could look forward to being free as opposed to looking out for the interests of
a king. And more than for themselves, they wanted to be sure that the future
generations of Americans would enjoy the same.
do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States - The
final clause of the Preamble is almost anti-climatic, but it is important for a
few reasons - it finishes the "We, the people" thought, saying what we the
people are actually doing; it gives us a name for this document, and it restates
the name of the nation adopting the Constitution. That the Constitution is
"ordained" reminds us of the higher power involved here - not just of a single
person or of a king, but of the people themselves. That is it "established"
reminds us that it replaces that which came before - the United States under the
Articles (a point lost on us today, but quite relevant at the
time).
Yet another view states that the
Constitution was ratified by "the authoritative voice of the
people":
The ratification process knowingly chose constitutional conventions instead of State legislatures as the authoritative voice of the people, the "we" of the Constitution. The goal was to allow the Constitution to rest on the people and not be at the mercy of the States. [emph. ours] Thus, the text became the embodiment of the people. The Declaration announced and created the people, and the Constitution cataphorically embodied or instantiated them. Though differences in the people can be identified during the process, one self-referential people began and consummated a creative act. The Constitution refers to the twelfth year of independence and links itself to the performative moment of the Declaration. The reference indicates the continuity of the "we" in both documents.
On Interpreting the Declaration,
supra.
It is the position of J.A.I.L. that the
Constitution must be read and understood in light of
the universal principles set forth in the Declaration. As the above citation
shows, the Constitution is intended to put into practice what the Declaration
sets forth in fact. Stated more succinctly, the Constitution is the
fulfillment of the Declaration. That is why I state
that "Square One" consists of two parts: (1) the Declaration as the
foundation, and (2) the Constitution as the ground floor (based upon the
foundation). The two must go together --be connected as one
purpose.
Thomas Paine, upon whose
thoughts Thomas Jefferson greatly relied when authoring the Declaration,
stated there must be some intermediate authority
between the governed (the People) and the governors
(the government) by which the law must be established. In fulfillment of the
Declaration, the Constitution became that "intermediate authority."
But as there is a peculiar
delicacy, from whom, or in what manner, this business must first arise, and as
it seems most agreeable and consistent, that it should come from some
intermediate body between the governed and the governors, that is between the
Congress and the people. ... [T]hat a charter is to be understood as a bond of
solemn obligation [between the governed and the
governors], which the whole enters into, to
support the right of every separate part, whether of religion, personal freedom,
or property... The members of Congress, Assemblies, or Conventions, by having
had experience in national concerns, will be able and useful counsellors, and
the whole, being empowered by the people will have a truly legal
authority. ... A government
of our own is our natural right: [emphasis
ours] And when a man seriously
reflects on the precariousness of human affairs, he will become convinced, that
it is infinitely wiser and safer, to form a constitution of our own in a cool
deliberate manner, while we have it in our power, than to trust such an
interesting event to time and chance. ... First, they had a king, and then a
form of government; whereas, the articles or charter of government, should be
formed first, and men delegated to execute them
afterwards... [man existed before kings and would be the
creator of government, by nature] Common Sense by Thomas Paine (1776)
Only the People
can Enforce the Constitution
The Jeffersonian
Perspective
[excerpts]
There is no other mechanism in
existence that can adequately and consistently protect our rights. Power quickly
leads to corruption, and the power to protect the rights of the people can be
trusted nowhere but with the people themselves. Therefore it is the
responsibility of the citizens themselves to look after their own rights.
To say that our
rights are protected by the Constitution is to rely on a piece of paper if we
ignore the control of the powers of government exerted by the people. It is the
people who are the ultimate guardians of the Constitution and the rights it
guarantees...
A constitution alone cannot control government without republican forms, i.e., mechanisms that keep control of their representatives in the people's hands. Constitutions are not self-enforcing.... [W]ithout a sovereign people in control determining what shall be the constitution and the form of government functioning thereunder, that determination is made by the governors themselves. They function as a higher power, and that higher power then becomes the sovereign, dictating government and its policies to all others.
The only check upon arbitrary power is the
People:
It is the law, and the law only, which can
successfully resist the encroachments of despotism. In the absence of defined
laws, and an independent judiciary to enforce them, the only check upon
arbitrary power is popular insurrection;... http://www.svpvril.com/comcivlaw.html
It's the People who must be
the ultimate judge of constitutional behavior of government:
We need to emphasize the Principle of
Nuremberg: that every individual has the responsibility to make an independent
determination of the constitutionality of every law and official act, to support
those that are constitutional and resist those that are not, and never to try to
delegate that responsibility to public officials or superiors. Not even the
Supreme Court. --Constitution
Society, San Antonio TX
And it's the People who must
provide the means required to enforce the Constitution!
It must be explained to
people that many of the unconstitutional assumptions of power are in response to
the demands from people to do something about real problems, but that they need
to refrain from making such demands unless the Constitution is first amended to
make such measures legal, and if they still insist that such action is needed,
then involve them in proposing the constitutional
amendments that might provide the necessary legal foundation.
Id.
[emphasis ours]
YES, LET'S GET THE
PEOPLE INVOLVED IN GETTING THE J.A.I.L. AMENDMENT PASSED IN EVERY STATE
THAT WILL PROVIDE THE
NECESSARY LEGAL FOUNDATION TO ENFORCE THE CONSTITUTION!
Our target state is South Dakota for 2006 --but we aren't limited to just one state. We have 49 more! We must especially concentrate on the Initiative States first- (about 26 of them).
Conclusion
J.A.I.L. is the means of self-defense for an oppressed people:
Must the people then always lay themselves open to the cruelty and rage of tyranny? Must they see their cities pillaged, and laid in ashes, their wives and children exposed to the tyrant's lust and fury, and themselves and families reduced by their king to ruin, and all the miseries of want and oppression, and yet sit still? Must men alone be debarred the common privilege of opposing force with force, which nature allows so freely to all other creatures for their preservation from injury? I answer: Self-defence is a part of the law of nature; nor can it be denied the community, even against the king himself... John Locke, supra.
* * *
"..it does not require a majority to prevail, but rather an
irate, tireless
minority keen to set brush fires in people's minds.." -
Samuel Adams
"There are a thousand hacking at the branches of evil to one who
is
striking at the
root."
-- Henry David Thoreau
<><