The Inherent Right of ALL People to Alter
or Reform Abusive Government
The Right Upon Which All Other Rights
The Torchbearer for J.A.I.L. Nationally - Support Them!
P.O. Box 412, Tea, S.D. 57064 - (605)
Too Many Legislatures
Are Blocking The People
By Barbie, ACIC, National J.A.I.L.
One of the seven judicial violations listed
in the J.A.I.L. Amendment is "Blocking of a lawful conclusion of a case."
Not only does the judiciary block the rights of the People, but so does the
legislature of too many states.
Ever since the South Dakota J.A.I.L.
campaign started, we've been hearing more from our readers in the non-initiative
states than from others. People in the initiative states realize that it is just
a question of funding to collect the required signatures for the J.A.I.L.
Initiative, and the initiative process will take care of getting J.A.I.L. on the
ballot if the required signatures have been certified. So the ball in those
states is in the People's hands.
However, such is not the case with People
living in the non-initiative (NI) states which amounts to slightly more than
half of all states. These states include Texas
and New York-- two of our largest states. People in NI states are hit with
a "double whammy." Before they can present J.A.I.L. to the public and convince
them of the need for J.A.I.L. in their state, they must
first present J.A.I.L. to their legislature and
convince their legislators of the need for J.A.I.L. in their state. Now when it
comes to the J.A.I.L. Amendment, this disparity between
initiative and non-initiative states is a problem of paramount
Unlike other measures, J.A.I.L. epitomizes
the inherent right of the People --ALL People-- to alter or reform their
government whensoever they --the People, not the
legislators-- deem it necessary to do so. People living in NI states are not
second-class citizens. The right is theirs as much as for others. The right to
alter or reform government doesn't come from government-- it isn't a "privilege"
granted by government. The fact that some state governments are honest enough to
acknowledge that inherent right in the People by stating it in the state
Constitution, doesn't mean that it is thereby granted by that government. The
word "inherent" is used (or its equivalent) which means existing as a matter of
nature --not government.
When the Founder of J.A.I.L. first presented
the measure for filing with the California Secretary of State in 1996 (it was
then known as "The Judicial Reform Act of 1996"), among the questions by
the Legislative Analyst was this final one: "Mr. Branson, if, as your initiative states,
'no judge under the jurisdiction of the Special Grand Jury, or potentially
affected by the outcome of a challenge hereto, shall have any jurisdiction to
sit in judgment of such challenge,' then whom do you propose should sit in
judgment? A judge from another state or a federal judge?"
Ron responded by telling him that he was not
there to advise the state on how to defeat the measure, but that he cites
the authority for presenting the measure: "All
political power is inherent in the people. Government is instituted for their
protection, security, and benefit, and they have the right to alter or reform it
when the public good may require." Article II, Sec. 1, California Constitution.
There were no further questions. Clearly
that stated the authority for J.A.I.L. But California is an initiative state.
What authority is given for the NI states?
It is the same
authority as that acknowledged --not granted-- by California! The
statement "All political power is inherent in the
people" acknowledges a truth that is self-evident under the laws of
nature. It doesn't depend on the state, or any state. Furthermore,
California's acknowledgement that the people "have the right to alter or reform
[government] when the public good may require" is based on the acknowledgement
that "Government is instituted for [the people's] protection, security, and
Those facts are true in all
All political power is inherent in the
Government is instituted by the People for
their protection and benefit;
Therefore the People have the right to
alter or reform government when they deem it necessary to do
It is a common belief of government
officials that they are better able to determine what's "good" for the People
than are the People themselves. Officials think that's what they get paid for.
However, that is a dangerous fallacy that creates the usurpation of power by
Government's responsibility is NOT to
protect the People (as we constantly hear on world news
reports), but to protect the rights of the People. Our
physical being isn't as important as is our rights to
the benefit and protection our being. People are not dumb cattle that require
the protection of their being by a superior human authority, like a rancher over
a herd of cows. The difference is that People are human beings with inherent
rights by nature, including the right to institute
government for the protection of their rights --not of their being-- and thereby
have the concomitant inherent right to alter or reform that government when it
ceases to protect their rights.
This is the point that must be made to the
state governments of the NI states. This point is more fundamental than even
J.A.I.L. in the first instance, because the People cannot present
J.A.I.L. without a mechanism in place for them to do so in exercise of
their inherent right to alter or reform government (in this case, the judicial
system) since their rights are no longer being protected by that
At first we said that we should concentrate
on getting J.A.I.L. passed in the initiative states first, and then have better
leverage to convince the legislatures in the NI states to do the same thing. But
with the barrage of emails we've been receiving from our readers of the NI
states, the question arises, Why should those People have to wait to
get J.A.I.L. passed in their states? That's about half the people,
or more, in this country!
Since it is the initiative process that is
well established for the passing of state constitutional amendments by the
People in approximately half the states, then it would appear that the People of
NI states would have to present jointly with the proposed J.A.I.L. Amendment,
sufficient signatures also to pass an initiative process (I would think the same
number of signatures for each-- it's 8% of the voters in the previous
gubernatorial election in California. It may be 10% in some states). But,
the People must take the initiative (pun intended).
We've had some of our JICs in the NI states
give up, or JAILers not even become JICs in the first place, in those
states, because of the unlikelihood of convincing the legislature to
introduce the J.A.I.L. Bill as written (copywrited by the Author), due to their
conflict of interest. It isn't the province of government to alter or reform
itself. It won't happen, nor can we expect it to.
The People of each NI state has to decide
how best to go about making it possible to get J.A.I.L. on their ballot. We
don't micromanage the states, and so please don't ask us what you should do. We
can publish suggestions by our readers to share with the JAILers as we have
started to do, but that's all we can do. If some of you find some good methods
in your state, pass them along to us and we'll send them to the JAILers.
J.A.I.L. is a national team and we need all of us to make it
It's up to you!