Critics who mock us as “tenthers” because we share views identical with Thomas Jefferson repeatedly make a fatal error. They believe that we are the same as the beltway, neoconservative, GOP-loyal rightwing.
For instance, check out Alan Colmes attempt at “tenther-bashing.” His big finisher? Under our analysis, George W. Bush’s No Child Left Behind is unconstitutional. Well, duh. Of course it is!
America’s most prominent constitutionalist, Ron Paul, has been critical of the federal government’s involvement in education for decades. There are serious differences between mainstream conservatives and constitutionalists on some of the most important issues of the day – namely war and the powers of the President.
Many mainstream conservatives believe in an imperial presidency embued with king-like powers which would make even the Hamiltonian monarchists of the Founding blush. They also consistently advocate for an agressive foreign policy of Empire-building completely contradictory to the vision of our Founders.
Perhaps if liberals like Alan Colmes understood this, they might take a second look at what it is “tenthers,” or more accurately “constitutionalists,” are actually saying.
Tampering with the juries by the judges.
Imagine this, you are summoned for ‘jury duty’ and, though a bit disconcerting, as a good patriotic man or woman you trudge on to do your duty. Along the process you are being placed in you get to a point where the judge addresses you and your fellow members of the jury and informs you, in so many words, that ‘You have been selected to determine the facts of this case. I will tell you the law and you determine if the defendant ….’
The “AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION” wrote, “The judge will point out that his or her instructions contain the interpretation of the relevant laws that govern the case, and that jurors are required to adhere to these laws in making their decision, regardless of what the jurors believe the law is or ought to be. In short, the jurors determine the facts and reach a verdict, within the guidelines of the law as determined by the judge.” (See http://www.abanet.org/publiced/courts/juryinstruc… Instructions ¶ 4)
In a country based on Liberty, there is something deeply sinister with this language from the ABA. Does not the ABA inform us that the judge has the duty to commit a felony of ‘jury tampering’? Imagine the impact of what the ABA has written: the law is by the interpretation of the judge and that the jurors are required to adhere to what(?), the judge’s interpretation, and “reach a verdict, within the guidelines of the law as determined by the judge” “regardless of what the jurors believe the law is.” Is this not a blatant act of Treason against “We the People” and the Bill of Rights in the Constitution for the United States of America? Does not this mean that the ‘defendant’ was arrested for violating a law that is prosecuted based on an interpretation?
Is not the Bailiff a “law enforcement officer?” Why does he/she not arrest the judge on the spot for ‘jury tampering’ and ‘treason’? After all, is not this an overthrow of the Constitution? Does this felonious act not happen in most every case and should not the Sheriff be there to witness and arrest the judge? There is no defense for this flagrant criminal act. The entire jury and Bailiff, amongst others, are witnesses.
We are told that to be good Americans we should welcome the opportunity to be jurors so that our system of right-ruling would be sacrosanct and protect us in the long run. Then I propose a little food for thought: If it is a good American to be a juror, and I believe it is, then as this preserver of right-ruling is it not your duty to charge the Bailiff to place the judge under arrest for ‘jury tampering’ and attempting to overthrow the Constitution? See Title 18 U.S.-Code §1503, “Influencing or injuring officer or juror generally.” This deliberate atrocity encompasses both the State and Federal judges, both tamper with the juries as directed by the BAR Association, the monopolistic private corporation/trust who licenses them.
Austin-Gary: Cooper
The understanding of Law and decisions by the supreme Court of today.
What an interesting world we live in. The study and practice of law allegedly requires four years of college, three years of law school, take and pass the BAR exam, serve an informal internship and then on average you win and lose 50% of your cases against an opposing attorney. Yet the intriguing part is that it is the common layman or laywoman that gets charged with breaking the law and goes to jail/prison, has to pay a fine, loses their home or all of the foregoing for not understanding this complicated system that requires so much sophisticated education.
One would think that with a system that is so complicated that even the educational elite can only get it right 50% of the time, its profundities and intricacies would be taught throughout the schooling process, beginning at the first grade and throughout high school so that we would be well schooled in this profession. This way when the judge asks, “Do you understand the nature and the cause of the accusation” we might just be able to “stand under” such accusation and truly understand what it means. Moreover, is not it interesting that the gavel comes down based on opinion of the judge? This implies that after all of this education we would accumulate and declare ourselves knowledgeable of the nature and cause we are still subject to the opinion of the judge. Further, if ignorance of the law is no excuse then why are the powers that be keeping the People ignorant? Moreover, why are the Attorneys going through this education process when they should already know the law since ignorance of such is no excuse?
Another interesting point is that Attorneys in the Legislature write the statutes, Attorneys in the Executive Branch prosecute the statutes and Attorneys in the alleged Judiciary hear the case and direct the juries according to their determination of what law is. That means that the BAR Association is in control of all three branches of government. This brings a quote to mind from Lord Acton, “Power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely.”
Additionally, I understand that there are over 3 million law books in the Library of Congress, and these law books are written from Attorneys who only have 50% efficiency in the law. Further, if every Attorney read every law book in the Library of Congress, one per day, 365 days per year it would only take 8,219.2 plus years of reading if no other books are written.
Imagine what this means. No one is capable of understanding this system of “law.” Does not common sense and logical thinking direct us to an acknowledgment that before you can be charged with a crime you should be cognizant of what the crime is before you can be tried and sentenced? Of course injury to a man, woman or child is different, but these myriad victimless alleged crimes, are they just a way to fleece the public to empower the BAR and extirpate our rights?
Austin-Gary: Cooper
I should point out that it is somewhat difficult to share views with the deceased as Thomas Jefferson expired some time ago. Were he alive today it is extremely speculative to say he would share views with “constitutionalists” given the different roles government has changed to play today vs. the simplified roles it played a couple of centuries ago.
The supreme court has found a lot of what the government has going on today to be constitutional with a more modern perspective applied. Perhaps “constitutionalists” should become a justice, leave opinions on what is constitutional to the court, or devote themselves to things like a “supreme court awareness day” and telling the public how great the constitution and American government foundations are.
And I should point out to you that it is extremely speculative to say that Thomas Jefferson would NOT agree with the views of the constitutionalists of today. You assume that simply because someone is dead that we have no insight into how it is they thought. Thomas Jefferson was an extremely prolific author and orator. If you have any doubt – either way – as to how he would have leaned, I suggest that you read some of his many works. It may give some insight into the man's thought processes.
"On every question of construction, (of the Constitution, let us), carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying, (to find), what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed."
- Thomas Jefferson
(words in italics are mine for clarification purposes)
I have no problem with more modern application, as long as the guiding principles of the Constitution are applied, for that document says to me that the self responsibility and the rights of the people are considered to be paramount.
"If to please the people, we offer what we ourselves disapprove, how can we afterwards defend our work? Let us raise a standard to which the wise ans honest can repair. The event is in the hands of God.
- George Washington
Susan D. Eagle