In my article “Five to Four”, I suggested that controversies in law are more often than not resolved with more controversy. It is my conclusion that either the judiciary is ignorant of the law, or its purpose is to destroy the sovereignty of the People.

There are several questions that come to mind when considering the judicial system. The first of which is whether or not it conforms to the mandates and restrictions set forth in Article III of the Constitution? Then I must ask if it sets itself within the original idea that it was to protect the People from the transgressions of the executive, and legislative branches?

More importantly has it procured authorities that it was never granted? The powers of interpretation, and fiat are not enumerated anywhere.

Robert Yates writing in opposition to the language and meanings of the proposed Constitution wrote, “The supreme court under this constitution would be exalted above all other power in the government, and subject to no control.” The Supreme Court is not the ultimate arbiter of the law. The law as established through the Declaration of Independence comes solely within the jurisdiction of the People as they granted limited powers to the government to perform very few specific tasks.

I would also like to note that the parameters of whether the rule is federal or local are specious arguments that are designed to obfuscate the obligation of the People’s servants; “That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,—.” The state, as an instrument created by the People, did not create the federal government, in turn, with a completely different operating paradigm.

The distinction made between federal and state disregards the fact that every individual that is in some way attached to a function of government must swear an oath to the Constitution. It also ignores the law enforcement authority of the People as explained through the function of the Militia. Did the People leave themselves bare to local tyranny, but not federal? No! The servants in our form of government, be it local or federal, should be working overtime to protect our rights, or else be subject to our rule of law.

The argument of federal and state is made, in my opinion, to denigrate our unalienable rights by making the fallacious claims that the state has no obligation to adhere to the Bill of Rights, and that instead of securing “these rights” the state governments may by acts of the local legislature convert them to privileges. Or as some would say, we operate under De Facto law; exercising power as if legally constituted.

Did some of the most brilliant philosophical and political minds of any time mean to protect the People from the federal government, but make no such restrictions upon the local governments? It is without logic, and has no reconciliation in the build up that initiated the Declaration of Independence, and the ratification of the Constitution.

In addition, the arguments create a miasma of legal definitions, precedents, twists, and turns that are ultimately designed to centralize powers to the federal government. When the judiciary interprets the law, such as its wildly inaccurate and unlawful claim that the “general welfare” clause gives government powers not listed, it is taking power from the People, and transfers it to the government.

Madison clarified the meaning of “general welfare” by stating, “Had no other enumeration or definition of the powers of the Congress been found in the Constitution than the general expressions just cited, the authors of the objection might have had some color for it. . . . But what color can the objection have, when a specification of the objects alluded to by these general terms immediately follows, and is not even separated by a longer pause than a semicolon?”

However, from the very outset, and over the decades we have allowed the judiciary to make outlandish claims of interpretations that render the Constitution and the power of the People moot. Robert Yates went on to say, “[the authors of the constitution] have made the judges independent, in the fullest sense of the word. There is no power above them, to control any of their decisions. There is no authority that can remove them, and they cannot be controlled by the laws of the legislature. In short, they are independent of the people, of the legislature, and of every power under heaven. Men placed in this situation will generally soon feel themselves independent of heaven itself.”

The inevitable conclusion is that the legal profession through its brotherhood can, and will establish an autocracy with divine powers equivalent to the system we fought to overturn.

In the “Rights of Man” Thomas Paine writes, “There was a time when Kings disposed of their Crowns by will upon their deathbeds, and consigned the people, like beasts of the field, to whatever successor they appointed.”

Paine goes on to say, “The laws of every country must be analogous to some common principle. In England no parent or master, nor all the authority of Parliament, omnipotent as it has called itself, can bind or controul the personal freedom even of an individual beyond the age of twenty-one years. On what ground of right, then, could the Parliament of 1688, or any other Parliament, bind all posterity for ever?”

With each passing decision rendered by the judiciary, that body of men and women trained in the law have consigned not only you and I, but also our progeny to terms and conditions that jeopardize, or abolish our natural rights.

It should be obvious that when one right is deemed subject, then all rights are at risk of the interpretations established in the first case. It is a slow and inconspicuous erosion of rights geared toward the centralization and monopoly of power.

Remember that the legal system is a contained unit of those who learn the law as it is ever changing by their own hands. That is to say that those people who write the laws, interpret the laws, and validate the laws also teach the next generation that the law is correct in whatever context the court deems appropriate. How could anything be more insidious, and unethical? I speak therefore it is so, as in the divine right of kings.

In my opinion, a good deal of the danger that our unalienable rights now suffer is from the wrangling of that body of men and women sworn to the allegiance of the courts. What do we do as the states have completely abdicated their duty to protect our rights?

We have enumerated in the Bill of Rights that the Grand Jury, and the Jury are amongst the most notable of our unalienable rights.

Thomas Jefferson stated, “I consider trial by jury as the only anchor devised by man, by which a government can be held to the principles of its constitution.”

John Adams said, “It is not only his [the juror's] right, but his duty . . . to find the verdict according to his own best understanding, judgment, and conscience, though in direct opposition to the direction of the court.”

Our first Chief Justice, John Jay wrote, “The jury has the right to judge both the law as well as the fact in controversy.”

If this is indeed a responsibility of the jury as stated by our founders, how can the judiciary remove this authority? Are not the People, with whom all sovereignty lies, expressing their inherent power by nullifying those actions believed to be contrary, even dangerous to the well being of the People?

If the courts take away the power of the Jury to nullify unconstitutional acts, then what recourse is left to us?

Some would say that the ballot box is the answer, but there is ever the issue of fraud as pointed out at Black Box Voting. The media was declaring Obama a victor in states where he was clearly behind, or there was no count at all. The vote tallies in no way matched the preceding polls. In every district where an ID was required, Obama lost. In many districts, Romney received no votes at all, and there is at least one recorded instance where a voter saw his vote change on the screen from Romney to Obama.

Some would say that we have the bullet box when all else fails. Do we really want to have that fight? And if we had that in the back of our minds why would we allow the very people we will be facing in combat to disband our militias, or administratively hinder the flow of the weapons we would need to engage an established military force? For that matter why do we allow a standing army to exist contrary to our fundamental doctrine?

As with any case concerning the erosion of rights, it has been gradual, and accomplished with the willingness of the ignorant public. Too many of our fellow citizens would give up freedom for some false sense of security. Many, I believe, have an innate hatred of those who disdain the idea of a controlling government, and self rule. Other’s are simply incapable of independent thought and just parrot what they hear on the boob tube.

At this point in time we are ‘Without Rule of Law’. We have abandoned most of our freedom to regulations, license, fear, and ambivalence. We need to strike out immediately in order to turn the tide. I believe in the jury as the first step.

When we enter the jury box we should be cognizant of the duty placed upon us by the fact that we have the responsibility to protect our rights at all cost. We are not given rights by mere words, but rather we exercise and maintain them by our actions.

Our actions, while in the jury box, are to tell the judge, and the state that we will not condone your unlawful acts. We will stand firm, and declare that the actions of the state are unlawful by being outside the powers we have given to you. You, the state, are not above our authority, and we will act in accordance with the rule that established this nation of free and sovereign People.

We will not succeed in this supposed great ‘awakening’ where there is no concept of the battle in front of us. We can make no headway shouting out that this person is evil, or that person is the devil incarnate.

We have a ‘Rule of Law’, and that rule is straightforward. We may from time to time “whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.”

It is the essence of this nations foundation. It is our law. It is the only law that counts. And when you are called for the duty to sit in the jury box, exercise your authority. Know your responsibility to the accused, to yourself, and your posterity. Stare down the face of tyranny to boldly state that this is your court. It is not a court of the state, but rather an institution devised for the proper dissemination of justice.

It is all we have left before we are forced to the bullet box.

‘Nick’