We Have A Constitution
J.A.I.L. to give it SUBSTANCE
An Essay by Barbie, ACIC National J.A.I.L.
What Constitution, you ask? So that there is no
doubt, I am referring to the organic Constitution of 1787 that is based on the
Declaration of Independence (hereinafter "DOI"), the only Constitution that can
legitimately be considered as the fulfillment of America's founding
document. There is only one such Constitution and it was designed as the precise
architecture of our national government, built and established by the People in
accordance with the DOI.
The states ratified the Constitution in convention on September
17, "in the year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and eighty-seven" on
behalf of the sovereign People of the United States, the only ones having the
natural authority to create and benefit from the new constitutional government
of the United States.
No, I am NOT talking about a "corporate" United States or
anything relating to such unconstitutional, unauthorized, and treasonous
nor would I suggest that any such treasonous acts, such as the Act of 1871, be
given any credence or respect whatsoever. These issues can be argued before the
J.A.I.L. Special Grand Jury after it is passed.
The authority for creating the "new
Describing "government" the DOI states "That to secure these
[unalienable (or natural)] rights, governments are instituted among men,
deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed." It also states
that the People have the right to protect themselves from "any form of
government [that] becomes destructive of these ends" of securing their
unalienable rights, by "alter[ing] or abolish[ing] it" and by "institut[ing] new
government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers
in such form, as to them [emph.added]
shall seem most likely to effect their safety
and happiness." Only the Constitution of 1787 carries these
In this regard, the DOI cautions the People against being quick
to judgment of their government, stating "Prudence, indeed, will dictate that
governments long established should not be changed for light and transient
causes; and accordingly all experience hath shown that mankind are more disposed
to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing
the forms to which they are accustomed."
However, that grace period by the People is not to last
indefinitely, but only "while evils are sufferable." According to the DOI, there
comes a point in time when the People must finally interfere in the ongoing
violation and destruction of their rights by a tyrannical government, stating
"But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same
object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their
right, it is their duty, [emph.added]
to throw off such government, and to provide new
guards for their future security."
That point was reached by the colonists and it was time to build
a new government "to provide new guards for their future security," the DOI
describing it as: "Such has been the patient sufferance of these colonies; and
such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former systems of
government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of
repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment
of an absolute tyranny over these states."
The People's intentions declared
Determining that the time had come to establish a new
government, the DOI concludes by stating the intentions of the People by and
through their representatives: "We, therefore, the representatives of the United
States of America, in General Congress, assembled, appealing to the Supreme
Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the name, and by
the authority of the good people of these colonies, solemnly publish and
declare, that these united colonies are, and of right ought to be free and
independent states; that they are absolved from all allegiance to the British
Crown, and that all political connection between them and the state of Great
Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as free and independent
states, they have full power to levy war, conclude peace, contract alliances,
establish commerce, and to do all other acts and things which independent states
may of right do." Recall (above) that the DOI states that these principles
must benefit the People, to wit: "...laying its foundation on such
principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them [emph.added] shall seem most
likely to effect their safety and happiness" --NOT the
In dedication of those declared intentions, the final sentence
of the DOI states: "And for the support of this declaration, with a firm
reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each
other our lives, our fortunes and our sacred honor." One could say that
J.A.I.L. deserves such appellations.
The means of carrying out these
The only way the People had for carrying out their intentions
was to write a constitution officially establishing their "new government" in
fulfillment of protecting their newly founded independence and freedom from
tyranny as they declared in the DOI. Over the next eleven years, the Framers
officially memorialized in writing specific terms to limit the new government,
restricting its power to that of a protective and serving role, in compliance
with the DOI: "...governments are instituted among men, deriving their just
powers from the consent of the governed..."
Everything is fine up to that point in building the new
government intended by the People in the DOI. The People were sovereign, as they
are by nature and declared to be so in the DOI; and the new government was the
servant of the People and protector of their natural rights as it was designed
and intended to be according to the DOI. The Constitution, as written, was
established, and still exists today, as THE SUPREME LAW OF THE
Where things went wrong
If you don't remember anything else, know this: The Constitution of 1787 is the Supreme Law of the Land, and
anything repugnant thereto is null and void; an unconstitutional act confers no
rights; it imposes no duties; affords no protection; it creates no office; it is
in legal contemplation as inoperative as though it had never been passed.
(Although the USSC made these rulings, we rely on this conclusion as
self-evident truth --plain old common sense). The
problem is, there is no enforcement provision in the Constitution, and so we
have a Constitution in FORM only.
Does the fact that the Constitution exists in FORM only, reduce
the rights of the People described in the DOI? Of course not-- the Constitution
neither creates nor diminishes rights. It's supposed to enforce them. The
Law of the Constitution is still there, officially established in writing and
expected by the People to be obeyed by government.
That expectation was there when the Constitution was written, and remains so
independent of the Constitution in accordance with the Laws of
Nature. Length of time does not reduce fraud and deception nor take away
from the voidness of any unconstitutional acts by government; they are forever
void. Government continues to operate on a counterfeit basis under color of law
and will do so until the People take appropriate and meaningful action to put a
stop to it, discussed below. Revolution and/or secession will
not solve the problem-- neither of those
acts provide for the enforcement of the Constitution by the
People. If you ask "Is the Constitution Dead?" The answer is
NO. Unenforceable? YES,
until the People correct that omission.
While the Framers wrote into the Constitution those restrictive
terms within which the new government was to function, they omitted the
provision that would make it all possible, i.e., an enforcement provision
whereby the People would be able to exercise their right to protect themselves
from a subsequent "absolute tyranny" similar to that from which they had already
historically extricated themselves as stated in the DOI.
Where the People went wrong was in failing to exercise their
dominion as sovereigns (keeping vigilant) over the Framers, thereby allowing
that careless omission to get by final scrutiny of the People prior to
The People have dominion and sovereignty by nature, but
unless they exercise and maintain it, it will be usurped by the tyrants from
which they were to protect themselves. That is where we find ourselves today!
"The price of liberty is eternal vigilance." The People failed to pay that price
and as a result, have lost the exercise of their liberty by the usurpation
of absolute tyranny from which they have been unable to protect
Can the People recover what is rightfully
The natural properties of the People, to wit, Life, Liberty, and
The Pursuit of Happiness, among others, with which they were endowed at birth,
were stolen and kept from them due to the People's negligence at the time the
Constitution was written. Along with the loss of their properties, they have
lost their ability to exercise their sovereignty and dominion over a serving and
protecting government as the natural order of things. The theft of natural
rights by the usurpation of an unnatural force does not change the ownership of
those rights. The People still hold title to their natural properties whether in
their possession or not. Can possession be regained by the People?
To answer that question, it must be determined how and why the
properties were lost. We know that they have been usurped by a tyrannical
government not entitled to them. And why? Because the People "looked the other
way" and allowed the Constitution to be ratified without an enforcement clause,
leaving the door wide open for the tyrants to take over. Consequently, the
People are left with a Constitution in form only, absent a provision to enforce
We know that we are entitled, by nature, to those stolen
properties, but how can we reclaim possession of them? Despite the
absolute tyranny that has usurped the rights of the People, after their patient
sufferance for more than 100 years now, the People are still left with the
right-- in fact the DUTY-- to provide new guards for their future security by
doing what should have been done by the Framers, to wit, establishing a
constitutional means of enforcing the Supreme Law of the Land. How can that be
J.A.I.L. is the answer! (Come to our
The method is already written up and waiting to be passed in its
first state. Please visit our website at www.jail4judges.org
and read the
Constitution & By-Laws which contains the initiative. As a national effort,
we are campaigning for South Dakota passage of J.A.I.L. in 2006.
We invite as many as possible to come to the National J.A.I.L.
Western Rally, sponsored by Peymon Mottahedeh of Freedom Law School. The
JAILers-In-Chief of South Dakota, of Oregon, and of Washington state are
planning to be there so far. Mark your calendars for Monday, March 14th, 9 a.m.
to 5 p.m. on the day following Peymon's Freedom Rally at the same location:
The Radisson Hotel, 4545 MacArthur Blvd., Newport Beach CA. (949)
833-0570. Peymon is graciously providing the meeting room for J.A.I.L.
and so there is no admission charge. But we will be passing the hat for your
generous donations to this national effort.
Take a look at the recent "Intelligence Reform Act" for
instance, to realize how important J.A.I.L. is as a guard for our
future security-- Real security, not
what our tyrannical government is peddling. It doesn't depend on "terrorism."
The People's right to security from absolute despotism brought on by a
tyrannical government is a natural and unalienable right which the People have
the DUTY to enforce! Let's DO IT with J.A.I.L.
Thanks to Peymon, and to everyone supporting J.A.I.L.