*** The Consent of the Governed is the U.S. Constitution ***
J.A.I.L. News Journal
Los Angeles, California January 30, 2007
The Battle Lines are Drawn: J.A.I.L. versus The Foreign Power
A Power Foreign to Our Constitution
J.A.I.L. News Journal
Los Angeles, California January 30, 2007
The Battle Lines are Drawn: J.A.I.L. versus The Foreign Power
A Power Foreign to Our Constitution
The Consent of the Governed is
the U.S. Constitution
By Barbie, National J.A.I.L. victoryusa@...
America's government institutions derive their "just powers"
from the Constitution, and the Constitution derives its authority
from the consent of the people who have ordained and established it.
Because consent is the only legitimate source of political power,
government must rule according to the rule of law.
--Ronald J. Pestritto, Ph.D
Introductory Message about "Foreign Power"
Dale writes: Just my two cents, I would be concerned about the wordage of "foreign power" and would think a more domestic name. I agree they have created something other than what they were intended to be, but I am not sure using the word "foreign" is the right way. It seems too radical. A more domestic terminolgoy should be substituted, maybe REPLACED POWER or SUBVERTED POWER or USURPED POWER...you get the idea. I think you might scare off some who only see words and not intent.
Dale: Thanks for your concern and interest in J.A.I.L. I'll mention this concern in my upcoming JNJ so that our readers know we're being "advised" about usage of the term "foreign power."
Have you read John Locke's "Of the Dissolution of Government"? I stated in a previous JNJ the following:
John Locke, known as the Freedom Philosopher, influenced Thomas Jefferson in writing the Declaration of Independence. Since J.A.I.L. is based on Lockean principles, we refer to him as a source of information for J.A.I.L. principles. Locke used the term "foreign power" at least twice in Chapter XIX of his Treatise, Of the Dissolution of Government:
Sect. 217. ... The delivery also of the people into the subjection of a foreign power, either by the prince, or by the legislative, is certainly a change of the legislative, and so a dissolution of the government: for the end why people entered into society being to be preserved one intire, free, independent society, to be governed by its own laws; this is lost, whenever they are given up into the power of another.
Sect. 220. ... To tell people they may provide for themselves, by erecting a new legislative, when by oppression, artifice, or being delivered over to a foreign power, their old one is gone, is only to tell them, they may expect relief when it is too late, and the evil is past cure.
One of our JAILers asked us if we had a better name for "foreign power" in this country. If "foreign power" is good enough for John Locke to use regarding a power that the People are "delivered into the subjection of" or "delivered over to," then it's good enough for us. We highly recommend our readers read the entire chapter about the Dissolution of Government to understand what's happening today.
I believe it is important to use terms as given by previous respected authorities-- John Locke is certainly one of them, in fact the "father" of J.A.I.L. since he influenced Jefferson in writing the Declaration on which J.A.I.L. is based. Read Locke's "Dissolution" and you'll see J.A.I.L.'s philosophy. The other source is the Declaration itself: "He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction FOREIGN to our constitution, ..." We want to relate to those authorities.
We're majoring now on informing the People about the FOREIGN POWER-- what it is and what it does and doesn't do, and why. I believe that "foreign power" aptly describes what's in control, because it may as well be from another country-- it isn't in line with lawful authority in this country. When you say "scare people off" -- do you think they WANT a foreign power running this country? We're speaking AGAINST the Foreign Power, not advocating it. I would think that "foreign power" would be a greater alarm to wake up the sleeping masses, than "replaced power" or "usurped power."
But I'll acknowledge your concern publicly and explain our position. Thanks again, we appreciate people's concern.
* * * * *
Consent of the Governed explained
A condition urged by many as a requirement for legitimate government: that the authority of a government should depend on the consent of the people, as expressed by votes in elections. [emphasis added -j4j]
Consent of the Governed http://www.answers.com/topic/consent-of-the-governed
The consent of the governed must be amended by vote of the People. We saw and heard what happened in the South Dakota 2006 election. The foreign power in South Dakota unconstitutionally interfered in the election process that frustrated the People's ability to amend their consent of the governed in the manner set forth in "Amendment E" (The J.A.I.L. Amendment) pursuant to their inherent right to do so as acknowledged by the S.D. Constitution.
Consent of the governed is a political theory that says a government's legitimacy and moral right to use state power is, or ought to be, derived from the people or society over which that power is exercised. This theory of "consent" is historically contrasted to the divine right of kings and has often been invoked against the legitimacy of colonialism. Following John Locke's notion of a nation of "free and equal" citizens, the Founders of the United States believed that consent of the governed was the only legitimate basis upon which one "free and equal" citizen could exercise legal authority over another -- otherwise neither equal could overcome the other. Consent of the Governed, supra.
Consent of the governed is obtained through the practice of regular elections that feature the Right to Vote. The People cannot allow a foreign power, or even government itself, to interfere with that right. Government must come before the People at least every two years to establish, in an open and transparent manner, that it has obtained their consent to function accordingly. The foreign power that has usurped government power does not follow, nor recognize, that process as we have experienced in South Dakota.
A more satisfying particularization of consent of the governed is that it is obtained through the practice of regular elections that feature broad or universal suffrage (i.e., rights to vote). That some choose not to vote would not prevent the People as a whole, via majority rule, from establishing their consent via elections, just as the existence of Representatives elected by the People does not mean the laws approved by the Representatives are invalid. Under this approach, the government must come before the People for continuing authority at each election [emphasis added - j4j]
and establish through open and transparent checks and balances that it has achieved the right to exercise authority in a fair and incontestable manner.
The Founders also thought consent of the governed to be conditional, in that there are certain things that the government just can't do, when they are against the interests of the People themselves such that it could not be reasonably deemed that the People had consented to it. Consent of the Governed, supra.
Without the enforcement of rights by the informed consent of the People, elections amount to the ignorant masses following a "seditious ringleader" (i.e., an influential foreign power) "who owes his advancement merely to his own impudence." It's the impudence of a foreign power, together with ignorance of the People, that sustains such power. Tacit consent is not informed consent.
The following excerpts by Dr. Ronald J. Pestritto explains the flow of legitimate power as being first, inherently of the People; second, by their consent set forth in the Constitution; and third, to government from that Constitution. The Constitution is the Supreme Law of the Land which is the vital link (the consent of the governed) between the People and their government.
The Claremont Institute
Constitution Day By Ronald J. Pestritto, Ph.D Posted September 15, 2000:
...[C]onstitutional government means that our governing institutions legislatures, executives and executive agencies, and courts are bound by a higher authority. These institutions can only exercise powers that are first granted to them by the Constitution. As Alexander Hamilton put it in The Federalist Papers, which were written to explain and defend the American Constitution by those who framed it, the Constitution is the "superior" authority and the government is the "inferior"; the Constitution is the "original" power and the government is the "derivative"; the Constitution is the "principal" and the government is the "deputy." This notion of limited, constitutional government means that any exercise of power not authorized by the Constitution is illegitimate.
... [C]onstitutional government is strictly limited because government itself is created by the people. Political power is legitimate only because the people have authorized and established it. This is why the words of the Constitution's preamble merit close attention: "We The People," the Constitution begins, "do ordain and establish this Constitution." Simple logic offers a clear explanation of these words from the preamble, and this meaning is confirmed by an examination of the writings of the founding fathers. All political power, by nature, belongs first to the people themselves. When the people see fit to create a political society, they freely give up some of this power in order to establish a government.
...[L]egitimate constitutional government, therefore, exists only by the consent of those governed. As the Declaration of Independence explains in laying out the principles of the new nation, "Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed." So America's government institutions derive their "just powers" from the Constitution, and the Constitution derives its authority from the consent of the people who have ordained and established it. Because consent is the only legitimate source of political power, government must rule according to the rule of law. In other words, government cannot simply exercise power as it wishes, but must instead exercise power according to rules and laws authorized by the consent of the people.
Why does government exist by the consent of the People? Dr. Pestritto explains:
...[W]hy is it that the people would freely choose to establish government and give it power? Government exists to secure the natural rights of the people. As the Declaration of Independence explains, government is grounded on the truths 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," and "that to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men." It is for this purpose of securing rights that the people consent to the creation of government and authorize it to exercise power over them. When government, therefore, acts without the authority of the Constitution it fails to fulfill the purpose for which the people consented to it in the first place. This is why, after all, the Americans declared independence from Britain the famous "no taxation without representation" theme from the Revolution is simply a different way of saying that legitimate government must act only upon the consent of the governed for the securing of their rights. Constitution Day, supra.
For credentials of Dr. Pestritto: http://www.claremont.org/scholars/id.282/scholar.asp
The foreign power has no separation of powers nor checks and balances among the three branches. There are no branches with the foreign power. It is entirely administrative in nature, including the courts. It is not bound by the Constitution nor by the consent of the People. The following describes the usurpation of power:
In Politics and Administration, [Frank J.] Goodnow criticized the constitutional separation of powers between the legislative, executive, and judicial branches, and suggested instead a two-part division, between politics and administration. The traditional system, he argued, interfered with the national government's efficient operation and kept it limited in scope. His system, by contrast, would free up administration from political interference, allowing administrators wide discretion to regulate the complex modern economy without interference from politicians. Politics, he contended, was "polluted" and full of "bias," whereas administration was all about the pursuit of "truth." He was among the first to join Woodrow Wilson in calling for a powerful central bureaucracy, insulated from political control and equipped with expert authority to enact and enforce regulations.
What does this have to do with the courts today? Goodnow considered courts to be part of the administrative machinery, which distinguished his argument from many other Progressives' and makes it highly relevant to the politics of the 21st century. Administration, he claimed, involves both the "administration of government" (by agencies) and the "administration of justice" (by courts). Administrationmade up of agencies and courtsis modern government's focus and the primary means by which Progressivism would be realigned, free from the impeding forms of the Constitution. As he wrote in Comparative Administrative Law (1893), the book that first drew attention to him, "the great problems of modern public law are almost exclusively administrative in character. While the age that has passed was one of constitutional, the present age is one of administrative reform."
Leaving the Constitution By Ronald J. Pestritto, Ph.D - A review of Politics and Administration: A Study in Government by Frank J. Goodnow
The foreign power was not instituted by the People, nor based upon their consent, and to this day it is a power by usurpation; and pursuant to the Founding Charter of this nation, it should be "thrown off" by the People. Length of time does not cure the fraud nor the voidness of this foreign power. It is as void today as it was when it was foisted by fraud upon the People. Looking at the title of Goodnow's "study" it is a misnomer-- if it doesn't comport with the Constitution, it isn't "government" in America.
This is one of the main obstacles we must overcome-- calling the foreign power "government." The existence of the foreign power in this country rests upon the ignorance and gullibility of society at large. As long as the People are willing, intentionally or unwittingly, to believe a LIE, the foreign power will consider the People's "consent" to be in its favor, by silence. That is why the voice of the People must be made clear, through the voting process; and that is exactly why the foreign power is so terrified about J.A.I.L. If J.A.I.L. appears on the ballot, the foreign power in control will thwart, any way it can, the People's right to vote as it did in South Dakota. It knows that J.A.I.L. is the only means by which the People can uncover the TRUTH and annihilate the LIE by which the foreign power operates. Nothing else can touch the Evil Empire-- J.A.I.L. can and WILL!
J.A.I.L.- Judicial Accountability Initiative Law - www.jail4judges. org
Our South Dakota site: www.SD-JAIL4Judges. org
Contribute to J.A.I.L. at P.O. Box 207, N. Hollywood, CA 91603
See our active flash, http://www.jail4jud ges.org/national _001.htm
JAIL is a unique addition to our form of government heretofore unrealized.
JAIL is powerful! JAIL is dynamic! JAIL is America's ONLY hope!To Unsubscribe, reply with UNSUBSCRIBE in the Subject Line He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign toour constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his assentto their acts of pretended legislation. - Declaration of Independence
"..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 whois striking at the root." -- Henry David Thoreau