Webmaster's note: This article makes frequent reference to the Constitution. These references can be looked up at www.Constitution.org
This is in response to the article included below following this response,
and authored by JOHN HANNA, Associated Press, TOPEKA, and printed in The
Wichita Eagle.
The article itself is then followed by a typically well
thought and stated response from Ron Branson, author of J.A.I.L.
It
is to the credit of JOHN HANNA, Associated Press, TOPEKA, and The Wichita Eagle
for bringing this controversy to the public light.
The headline in the
newspaper article is perhaps misleading, inaccurate or needlessly inflammatory:
"Judge blasts amendment to limit courts' powers."
This statement seems
misleading, unless of course, the powers that the courts, in admission to in
actual due course of practice, do hold, are indeed contrary to the powers
ordained and established in the judiciary by "We the People" through their/our
documented lawful instrument: "this Constitution for the United States of
America."
Did "We the People" intend to, and in actuality author a
constitution to "guarantee a Republican Form of Government?"
Do we
live with an operational and lawfully ordained and established "Republican
Form of Government" today? Why or why not? How many Americans even know what "a
Republican Form of Government" is and is not?
Why or why
not?I was "taught" we were a "democracy." I was "taught" we
were a Democratic Republic. I was "taught" we were a Republican
Democracy.Our government mandated "state public common high schools"
certainly do not teach in depth what "a Republican Form of Government" is and is
not.
Why might it be especially important to understand what "a
Republican Form of Government" is not?
"...this Constitution for the
United States of America bears upon government.
"...this Constitution for
the United States of America" has indeed been grossly misinterpreted by a
judiciary ostensibly claiming through presumption, innuendo, and propaganda to
assume that the document itself gives that branch the power to
"interpret."
"...this Constitution for the United States of America" is
very simple, and is worded precisely using plain and simple language in a direct
and forthright manner.
It is a historically documented fact that the very
letter of "this Constitution for the United States of America" was hotly
debated down to each exact formal structural placement of article and section,
grammatical construct, term, word, letter, style and punctuation mark, and was
forged, tempered, and implemented only after agreement on such exacting
precision was either reached or mutually conceded.
It would appear from
due diligent study of the signed body of the document that any judiciary
interpretation is a perversion of the letter of the law. The law is: "this
Constitution for the United States of America." This is the law. It is simple
and precise. Nowhere in what is, by definition within the document, a "law of
laws" is the "judicial Power of the United States" given power to interpret
"this Constitution," or anything arising from it.
To define words
contrary to actual etymological definition and apply thusly perverted definition
to conditions of living breathing human existence is usurpation and abuse of
power and authority by design of propaganda, deception, or
worse.
This would be to war upon the letter of the
law."...this Constitution for the United States of America"
(the preposition "for" is emphasized to distinguish between what has been
misrepresented as Title both as written, and as disingenuously offered as Title
with a blatant bastardization of the original wording, and thus, intent, of the
document as The Constitution of The United States of America. (Emphasis again
added.)
The "judicial Power of the United States" does not have any
express or implied authority--it has authored nothing, and is expressly
prevented from authoring anything. In fact, the whole purpose of the
Constitution is to explicitly prevent any authority over and above what "We the
People" are the express author of. There has apparently arisen a misperception
of the definition of the term " authority."
The term authority stems by
etymology from the term author. In Random House Websters Unabridged Dictionary,
Second Edition, the noun "author" is most clearly defined as "the maker of
anything; creator; originator;" and the verbal infinitive "to author" is defined
as, "to originate, to create a design for..." from the Latin auctor writer,
progenitor.
It would seem by simple logic to follow that authority, even
if construed contrary to the etymological definition of the root is, in
fact, nonetheless subject to the author.
(See a short, simple, and
concise treatise entitled Logic written in the mid nineteenth century by George
Booles, for rational application of logic to a problem, statement, or
proposition.)
Even if it were conceivable that the judiciary indeed had
the express power or even the implied power to interpret the letter of the law,
the judiciary has no express power to misinterpret the letter of the law by
construing and/or constructing terms in opposition to or in obfuscation of
rational and logically concluded meanings stemming from etymological roots, for
the presumptuous purpose of assuming powers not explicitly ordained and
established by "We the People," the author of "this Constitution for the United
States of America."
When "We the People" happen to become ignorant or
weary of the process of definition of terms, does that give the issue the right
or power to usurp the author (progenitor) who carefully chose terms based upon
limitation and definition to be explicit?
Has lack of vigilance in
popular understanding of definition played a key role in any usurpation of
any establishment or ordainment pursuant to the law of the Republic?
By
authority of "We the People" in ordaining and establishing "this
Constitution for the United States of America," the power of the judiciary"
is most explicitly "
bound by Oath or Affirmation to support this Constitution."
(Emphasis added.)
In empowering the judiciary, (as well as the other
branches) the judiciary is ultimately placed explicitly in bondage. A person, or
entity that is "bound" by definition, and law, logically becomes property of, or
at best, a bondservant to that author to which it is bound by
law.
To whom are the subjects of "this Constitution"
bound?Who and what are the subjects of "this
Constitution?"The Constitution as signed, is, metaphorically,
an organic document with a seminal force planted in fertile ground and
manifesting in structural proceeding from a root. This is so stated and
described in the "preamble" explaining and empowering the document.
The
statement is carefully and simply put and has explicit and clearly
discernible definition and meaning according to the grammar and etymology of
the English language:
"We the People of the United States, in Order to
form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility,
provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the
Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish
this Constitution for the United States of America."
This "preamble" is a
complex sentence. It consists of an independent clause, and a dependent
fragment.
The independent clause in a complex sentence is a complete
sentence unto itself that defines or gives meaning to or is defined by or all of
the preceding by a dependent clause or fragment, which is an incomplete
sentence--a sentence fragment lacking in some grammatical construct which would
render it complete, and relying upon the independent clause to render it
complete.
Here, the independent clause is "We the People of the United
States...do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of
America. It clearly states what is being activated and who and what the author
of the action is.
The dependent clause states why the action is taken:
"...in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic
Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and
secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity..."
This,
as precisely stated--no more no less--is the end which is the proposition of
the means.
One needs to understand exactly what is being stated here, by
definition, and grammatical construction--it is clear and explicit in meaning
and intention, and functions as a concise instrument of law, which lawfully
empowers and defines that which follows.
One needs thus-wise to also
examine the whole of the original finalized and signed constitution manuscript
as it was written in hand.
According to manuals of style and usage in
the English language, it would seem to must needs be to follow rationally and
logically, from observing the stylistic structure and formal design of the
letter of the manuscript itself, that the Title given is clearly to "We the
People," and further, the subtitle is "of the United States."
Further
still, the "United States" is explicitly referenced in the empowering statement
of the auctors (progenitors) as a "Union," to be further perfected in form and
substance, and referenced and defined in the signed body of the document
following as "the several states which may be included in this Union."
It
is grammatically clear that "the United States" is a description of the
parts of a Union rather than a Title in deed, and it is clearly a plural.
That the attaching article is invariably not capitalized precludes any claim of
Title by "the United States."
The Title to the
document set in hand
to manuscript and signed is clearly not given as to The Constitution, the
Constitution, The Constitution of the United States, The Constitution of the
United States of America, The U.S. Constitution, The US Constitution, or any
other various and sundry constructions or play on these terms, that is commonly
represented by many as holding Title.
To presume to think of the document
under such assumption or premise is utterly erroneous on the face of
it.
There is no such thing as the Constitution. An article does not
attach the object, thus not giving Title anywhere within the document as
signed. Rather, an adjective or pronoun at all times indicates an object of a
preposition rather than Title.
The Title to the document is, by accepted
grammatical, stylistic, and formal usage of the English language, held in proper
place rightfully and lawfully by "We the People."
Stated once only and in
the superior position holding clear Title to all that follows.
The words
I myself choose herein are chosen quite carefully and deliberately and each has
been researched and studied to ascertain definite functional and etymological
integrity.
Ever greatly more so were the words and grammatical construct
chosen for the preamble or empowering clause of "this Constitution for the
United States of America, as well as that which followed!
To do
otherwise would be totally lacking in integrity.One simply
cannot and must not read, write, or invoke words without knowing their history
and thus the integrity of their usage. Having left undone that which we ought to
have done, there is no health in us. In pondering the utmost importance of the
understanding of the use and power of words, consider: "In the beginning
was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God..."
The
prepositional phrase (pre-posit-ion-al) "of the United States," is the
predominant and preeminent frame of reference and object in "this
Constitution for the United States of America, which is subject.
The
prepositional phrase "of the United States," has absolutely no substantive
relevance to or connection to, or bearing on, the prepositional phrase used in
"this Constitution for the United States of America." (Emphasis
added.)
It is apples and oranges.Further, it is
grammatically integral that the phrase "of the United States" references as
a clear plural: Article III, Section 2, for instance, (since unlawful
usurpation of power by the judiciary is under consideration), "The judicial
Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this
constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall
be made, under
their Authority." (Emphasis added.)
Further reference
includes in a position of authority and not as subject to authority "...the
People of the several States," and, "...the several States which may be
included within this Union."
The definition of "the United States," which
is a phrase and not Title, is thus stated: "...the several States which may
be included within this Union."
This is consistent with
definition in the preamble.The phrase "Government of the United
States" renders the term government indistinct from all other constitutional
ordainments and establishments by "We the People," in connection with the object
of the preposition in the prepositional phrase "of the United States."
(Plural)
The "Government of the United States" is of no more consequence
than any other subject of the object, and in fact the majority of subjects
relative to this object serve explicitly to limit the definition and diminish
the construction of the terms of "government," as well as their substantive
manifestation. For instance, "the Congress of the United States" is
clearly superior to "the Government of the United States," since in Article I.
Section. 8. "The Congress shall have Power To... make all Laws which shall be
necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all
other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States,
or in any Department or Officer thereof."
If "The Congress" is recognized
as having "Power" superior to "the Government of the United States," as stated
above, it follows that the Congress of the United States is not even of "the
Government of the United States."
Logical application dictates
that it cannot be.No living breathing flesh and blood
person is subject to "the Government of the United States" (again, a distinct
plural object of a preposition), indeed, "the Government of the United States is
itself subject to that which does "ordain and establish." In fact, a
formal written and documented and signed declaration of independence, which
resulted in war, issued in large part, in opposition to a people being held
subject to government rather than existing in action and power as sovereign
to government.
The term "government" is used only about four times
in "this Constitution for the United States of America," as signed; only twice
subject to the prepositional phrase "of the United States" (plural), and only
once as subject to "Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the
United States..." and at that is defined and limited as being subject to the
Laws of the Congress of the United States.
Again--there is the Congress
of the United States--"...the People of the several States," and, "...the
several States which may be included within this Union."
It is
not the Congress of the Government of the United States.The
"Government of the United States" is by law, clearly inferior and subject to
"the Congress of the United States." In fact, any mention of "the Government of
the United States" is to distinctly make "the Government of the United States"
inferior and subject to those who hold in document clear Title and "do ordain
and establish."
A people cannot logically be subject to that which is
first and foremost subject to that same people.
Further, it is a
misperception and a falsehood that there are Branches of Government. There
are legislative Powers, (plural) executive Power (singular), and judicial Power
(singular). All are vested. None are vested under Title of "the Government of
the United States." In fact "the Government of the United States" is clearly but
a process, and not an entity, body, or institution in or of Title. Bouvier
in his treatise on law states: "In the United States the sovereignty resides in
the body of the people," and, "Strictly speaking, in our republican forms of
government, the absolute sovereignty of the nation is in the people of the
nation;" and further, "...by subject is meant one who owes permanent
allegiance..."
Again, "absolute sovereignty" documents historically the
duty "to alter or abolish," which was accomplished, and still holds in doctrine
under historicaly applicable documentation.
Even if one were to argue
that "We the people" is the subject of a sentence, "do ordain and establish" is
the predicate of a sentence, and "this Constitution for the United States of
America" is the object of a sentence, the fact that "We the People" hold clear
Title of the object documented, would put that subject in holding of sovereignty
over and above anything under that Title.
The subject of the sentence
then, by virtue of the definition of the predicate, is subject ultimately
only to itself.
Again, logic dictates that sovereignty, which resides in
the body of the people, cannot rationally be claimed as subject to that
which is first and foremost subject to that same sovereignty.
It is
cogent that judicial response to any perceived attempt to infringe upon a
presumptuously assumed power is often a bit hysterically incredulous, as
evidenced by what might seem to be an absurdly contrived
"statement:"
"Amending the state constitution to rein in the
courts would make the judiciary 'a toothless debating society,'
" (Emphasis added.)
Judiciary has no constitutionally express powers
to enforce laws, or values, any more than it has had powers to legislate simply
because as Mr. Bullock states, "for several centuries, judges have made
law."
Finally, judicial Power does not include the express power to
interpret "this Constitution for the United States of America, and
judicial power is vested and, further, "bound by Oath or Affirmation to
support this Constitution--" support not interpret, and further yet, bound
as property of the author!
So, we now have public admission by a judge,
of judicial Power "enforcing our most basic of legal values," and an admission
that "judges have made law," and an assertion that this abrogation of of the
separation of powers is actually essential to preserving the separation of
powers.
J.A.I.L. seems to propose judicial accountability largely
through jury.Article III, Section 1. "The Judges, both of the
supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour..."
(Emphasis added.) Honesty and Truth simply will not, do not, and cannot by
definition seek to eschew scrutiny!
It is becoming my experience that
many genuinely concerned and earnest people seem to believe that the
constitutionally limited and "Republican Form of Government" guaranteed by "the
United States" is somehow a repugnant anachronism, or are for some reason
totally uneducated, unaware and/or ignorant of, or blind to the concept of
Republic as applies to "...the several States which may be included within this
Union."
I am invariably scorned, ridiculed, and censured with mild to
moderate ridicule and sarcasm, or worse, when I seriously broach the subject
of "We the People," the Republic, or the constitution in a Public Forum,
meeting, private conversation, professionally viable public school lesson (I am
or was a public school teacher), etc...
Those who do this also poignantly
are invariably meeting to bemoan the vast oceans of interminable regulation in
which we seem to be floundering, yet they are seeking insistently to remedy the
excesses implemented through and occasioned by swells of debt-generating
regulatory excess with yet greater seas of costly and unnecessary regulatory
construction!
"We the People" did "ordain and establish" a simple
regulatory instrument that has been unhappily usurped, by a body that was
created to be largely a juristic referee, through unlawful presumptuous
assumption of powers not granted by its author.
The Price of
Liberty is Eternal Vigilance.That is not such an expensive
price--that is a bargain!
It is interesting to note, that when I address
these subjects seriously to the more or less innocent, innate critical
thinking capacities of young people in my duties (former) as a school teacher,
the young people, having never been privy to this level or form of information,
or exposed to this approach, thirsting for real knowledge, are eager to accept
the study. It is novel and out of the ordinary to them, and it answers many
troubling unanswered questions, and fills many gaps in their education that
their young inquisitive minds perceive and naturally wonder and fret
about.
For this work, I have apparently been relieved of a teaching
position, and blacklisted from further employment in the government mandated
"state educational system."
Passing a "Constitution Examination" is a
prerequisite for graduation from most "public" and "private" high schools and
universities.
However, the preparation for successfully fulfilling the
requirement has been observed to focus primarily on mere rote knowledge
concerning what is "in the Constitution," its form and structure, and not on the
application, comprehension, analysis, synthesis, and evaluation of the meaning
of the terms, and the substance of the instrument.
It is but another
pesky requirement cursorily administered, memorized, performed, passed
through, and forgotten.
Examine such an "examination" and one will find
an exercise that does not challenge any vestige of critical thinking or address
the higher cognitive skills mentioned above, other than rote knowledge--the
lowest of the taxonomy of right hemispheric cognitive functions and
skills.
Knowledge without comprehension, application, analysis,
synthesis, and evaluation will inevitably be forgotten. Examine a cross section
of "examinees," and carefully apply some critical thinking to data garnered by
the exercise.
This is a personal response, and is not intended to
represent the views or intent of J.A.I.L.However, to my best
understanding, J.A.I.L. is an extremely critical proposition, ultimately for
a Constitutional Amendment greatly needed to bring the judiciary back within the
limits of the mandate ordained and established by "We the People," in "this
Constitution for the United States of America," and the Constitutions of each
of "...the several States which may be included within this Union,"
through juristic accountability now lacking, by design of the judiciary itself,
in granting itself immunity from any lawful activity designed to enforce the
"law of the land" stating that: "The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior
Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour..."
There is now a
golden opportunity, hard won, to amend the Constitution of the state of South
Dakota to constitute, mandate, and insure judicial accountability, in the
interests of restoring the system of checks and balances between the three
branches under the separation of powers, thus reviving or restoring the
Republic to which we still on occasion Pledge Allegiance.
Michael R.
Glenn
