Wow! What a great conversation about the Constitution
- Wow! What a great conversation about the Constitution(Thanks to Zeke Layman, zeke@...)----- Original Message -----From: Zeke LaymanTo: VictoryUSA@...Sent: Tuesday, April 19, 2005 12:06 PMSubject: Re: Fine Tuning The Importance of J.A.I.L.Wow! What a great conversation going on here about the Constitution and it's "powers" or lack thereof. I am also a student and teacher of the Constitution and after reading the below discussion, I can see more clearly the thinking behind the JAIL initiative.
Because most of the discussion in the area of Constitution and law digress into the words and definition of words, I'll give a short overview of my general perspective with general definitions. First, I'll start with the statement that the Constitution IS the government. This is spelled out in many Supreme Court cases. Now I'll qualify the statement to say that the Constitution is the "National" Government, as opposed to the "Federal Government".
What is the difference? The National government which is the Constitution, is divided into three SEPARATE AND EQUAL POWERS, was established in 1787 by Article III of the Constitution, creating the "One Supreme Court". "The Judicial power of the United States shall be vested in one supreme court, and in such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish....
In 1889, two years after the ratification of the Constitution, Congress, created an INFERIOR COURT, by way of the 1789 Judiciary Act, (statute) called the Department of Justice (all federal district and appellate courts are established under this act). These courts operate by Federal statutes (Article I) as opposed to the original National article III courts which operate pursuant to the rules of the Common Law. This act of Congress created the "Federal judicial code" commonly known as Title 28... and all the Courts which follow these statutes.
So the National government is established under the Common Law, or Judicial power, and the Federal government is established by statute, or the Legislative power. Both are separate and equal. This is one way the dual jurisdiction of the Constitution is uncovered.
I view the judicial department as a statutory court, departing from the Judicial Power, created to litigate controversies between statutory persons or corporations. These courts will IMPOSE its authority upon a non corporate person if not objected to. The PROBLEM arises when they override the objection. Very few people challenge the statutory scheme or jurisdiction of the court in the first instant.
I believe that each case is separate and that a non corporate person must get to this point, before the court, in order to find out if the Department of Justice will extend its jurisdiction beyond its limits. If there is no objection to their imposition of statute upon the common person, they will assume they have permission to proceed. I believe this is spelled out in the California Constitution at Article 6 Section 2.
I have not seen or heard of any other organization that is attempting to bring a bill for judicial accountability into the Congress, which is desperately needed, if not for anything but to draw attention to the problem.
Dear Zeke:Thank you for your feedback on our recent JNJ "Fine Tuning The Importance of J.A.I.L." May I first comment on your final statementthat "a bill for judicial accountability into the Congress, which is desperately needed, if not for anything but to draw attention to the problem." J.A.I.L. does have a Federal Bill which is found on our website at www.jail4judges.org which has been presented to several Senators and Congressmen, including the previous Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, Henry Hyde. We personally handed it to Congressman Ron Paul on one of his California speaking engagements several years ago. Other JAILers around the country have presented the Federal J.A.I.L. Bill to their representatives. So, they know about it.We don't expect the feds will do anything about it until J.A.I.L. is passed in a sufficient number of states first, indicating that J.A.I.L. is not just a figment of someone's imagination.1. Is the Constitution government?Saying that the Constitution is government is closer than saying that We, the People, are the government, the latter of which I discussed in the last paragraph of Item 2 of "Fine Tuning." One creates (institutes) the other. The creator is not the same as the product of its creation. However, there are also inconsistencies in the idea that the Constitution is government, in that one is the LAW (and we have to respect it as such, otherwise what can this country stand on?) and the other is the function instituted by the People to carry out that LAW.How many times have you heard a police officer say "I am the LAW!" That's where we get into trouble-- government, even constitutional government, is not the LAW. Government, including the police, is subservient to the law, and must obey the law. Enforcing the law on others is part of obeying the law themselves-- the same with executing the law by government in general. The law is not the same as the delegated power instituted to enforce/execute it.2. Are Supreme Court cases lawful authority?The Supreme Court is part of the product created by the People, via the Constitution. Therefore, Supreme Court decisions must be viewed cautiously by the People. Those decisions are not the LAW; they must comport with the LAW. That's a point that will make a lot of people and even the legal profession dizzy, because they have grown accustomed to courts legislating from the bench for many years. I have been told that law students are taught that the "law" is whatever the judge says it is. (I haven't gone to lawschool, but I've discussed the law with many students and lawyers.) Very little, if anything, is taught about the Constitution and its true station in life. That is shown by the way law is practiced, and the way judges rule. (If you bring up the Constitution once more in MY courtroom, I'll have you held on contempt! --infamous words.) It's funny how every judge "owns" the courtroom in which he presides. Even judge Judy says "This is MY courtroom!" That does a disservice to the viewing audience, but the media is part of the problem.The only legitimate value of court decisions (referred to as case "law") is for use as guidance to judges in ruling on future cases of similar circumstances, citing them as "points and authorities" therefor. I think the term "case law" confuses people, because it isn't really law in general, but is only the application of law to that case. And then, to be valid at all, it must have been decided through due process of law and in accordance with local court rules (part of due process). So again, it is the Constitution that is the true authority in all cases, and judges making decisions at all levels must be held accountable to it by the People. So when saying "the Supreme Court said so," be careful!3. National versus Federal governmentZeke, this was quite an interesting discussion and I don't recall having heard this analysis before. I know the term "federal" is something to be leery of because it is used so loosely. The most striking example is "Federal Reserve" which is neither federal, nor reserve. When I hear the term "the feds" I think of the evil, despotic, usurping powers-that-be. Of course "the feds" don't have a monopoly on that-- it reaches all levels. I arrive at this conclusion from the intention for government established by the Declaration of Independence (DOI). "That to secure these [the People's] rights. governments are instituted...." Does the de facto government do that today, or for the last 200+ years? All the fraud, deception, and trickery in the world doesn't justify this evil. The People have been fooled, yes-- but that doesn't justify the dishonesty, just because they have gotten away with it for so long. Evil is evil no matter what, and it only grows more egregious with the passage of time. THE EVIL IS NO LONGER SUFFERABLE!Reading your analysis, Zeke, is like taking a piece of rope and separating each individual strand and examining each one. You say the Constitution establishes the National government under Common Law[Article III] whereas the Federal government, including the inferior courts, is established by statute (legislation by Congress) [Article I]. That seems to be a logical analysis so far, but confusion sets in when you get into discussion on the judiciary.There appears to be a distinction between the vesting of judicial power in "federal" (as opposed to state) courts, both the Supreme Court and the inferior courts [Article III], and the establishing of the inferior courts by Congress [Article I]. While the judicial power is vested in all "federal" courts by the Constitution under Article III, only one court is established by the Constitution under Article III, i.e., the U.S. Supreme Court. Therefore, it appears that inferior courts are vested with judicial power by the Constitution, even though not yet established and ordained by Congress. That's somewhat confusing to me, but that's what it appears to be from a reading of the Constitution. I'm not sure if this part of the discussion is necessary for understanding the importance of J.A.I.L., but "just for fun" I'll continue.... (Yes, I'm having fun!)Here's where I get confused: Zeke, you say that the National government "was established in 1787 by Article III of the Constitution, creating the "One Supreme Court". Continuing your quote: "So the National government is established under the Common Law, or Judicial power, and the Federal government is established by statute, or the Legislative power. Both are separate and equal. This is one way the dual jurisdiction of the Constitution is uncovered." Looks like you're saying that the National government, established by the Constitution, is limited to the "judicial power" [Article III] while the Federal government is everything else that is established by statute [Article I].My take is that National government is established by the entire Constitution, all articles. Federal government is established by Congress which is part of the National government. Said another way, National government consists of all three branches [NOT the People] established by the Constitution, and Federal government is the product of one of the branches of National government, i.e., Congress. Statutory law is subject to the Constitution; therefore, according to this analysis, Federal government (statutory) is subject to National government (constitutional). I like that analogy. Too much power has been assumed by "Federal" government.I am reminded of the following statement in the DOI: "He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his assent to their acts of pretended legislation." The operation of Federal government has certainly conjured up a "jurisdiction foreign to our Constitution" and our judiciary (the oligarchy of kings) has certainly "given its assent to [Congress'] acts of pretended legislation."4. Does government have the right to "assume" authority?Zeke, you said "If there is no objection to their [the courts] imposition of statute upon the common person, they will assume they have permission to proceed." You are referring to the courts here, but this applies to government generally. This is the problem that we, the People, are facing: GOVERNMENT, INCLUDING THE COURTS, ASSUMING "PERMISSION TO PROCEED" when the "common person" (individual) fails to object. [I recall one time when I was appearing as plaintiff in court, the judge asked opposing counsel what my case was all about rather than reading the paperwork before him or asking me. Needless to say, opposing counsel (County Counsel who is also counsel to the judge sitting at the bench) was really messing up the facts, and I would orally object to each false statement. Finally the judge said to me in a stern voice "If you interrupt one more time, you will be held in contempt." Yet if I didn't object, it would be determined that I "accepted" what was being falsely stated on the record. Damned if you do, and damned if you don't! By the way, that judge was promoted to the L.A. Court of Appeals the following month. He was a "good" tyrant! That he was!]"Assuming" authority is nothing less than usurpation of power! Remember-- government (especially the courts) is to protect our rights, not "assume" permission to proceed when rights are being compromised and even destroyed. Oh-- you didn't OBJECT! Well, you see what happens when you DO object! There's such a thing as "Due process of law" which prevents this misunderstanding, and is described as "protection of the individual against arbitrary action of government." (Yes, by case law-- but if it's constitutional, it's valid. See Daniels v. Williams (1986) 474 U.S. 327, 331). The courts ignore it anyway! They would rather "assume permission to proceed" against you --actually whether you object or not.We really appreciate the feedback. It allows us to refine matters even more and to learn from it. I've learned a lot, especially in the last month or so when we've received such interesting discussions regarding the basis of J.A.I.L. --namely the Declaration and the Constitution upon which it is based. Thank you for reading our material, even if it is lengthy at times. It's worth it.-BarbieACIC, National J.A.I.L.
J.A.I.L.- Judicial Accountability Initiative Law - www.jail4judges.org
Contribute to J.A.I.L. at P.O. Box 207, N. Hollywood, CA 91603
See our active flash, http://www.jail4judges.org/national_001.htm
JAIL is a unique addition to our form of gov't. heretofore unrealized.
JAIL is powerful! JAIL is dynamic! JAIL is America's ONLY hope!
E-Group sign on at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/jail4judges/join
Get involved at JAIL_SALE_USAemail@example.comTo be added or removed, write to VictoryUSA@...
"..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 <><