Declaration of Independence
The Law of the Land
from the J.A.I.L. News Journal
Accountability Initiative Law, July 1, 2007
Constitutionalism in the Founding era "remains the same
today", despite developments since then that have eroded the "consent of the governed" and turned constitutional authority over to the judiciary, "and, in particular, to the Supreme Court" creating the doctrine of "Judicial Supremacy."
The entire purpose of law, including the supreme law of this land, the Constitution, is so that all People may know exactly and precisely the standard by which issues are measured.
The Word of God addresses this issue in I Cor.14:8, "For if the trumpet give an uncertain sound, who shall prepare himself to the battle?"
When one approaches a STOP sign, is it feasible for one to have to pause and interpret what "STOP" means?
Of course not. Any law that is subject to multiple interpretations by common people is void for vagueness.
God said, "Thou shalt not commit adultery," "Thou shalt not steal," "Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour."
These are clear and unequivocal commands from God. But what if we were to adopt a "living" interpretation of these commands, could we adopt the interpretation of "Thou shall not commit adultery except under dire circumstances of last resort"? or "Thou shalt not steal, except in dire need,"? or "Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor unless truth is just too embarrassing"?
What good is a yardstick if it is a "living" yardstick adaptable to
circumstances or a measuring cup that renders false readings? If the U.S. Constitution is lacking in its wording, the proper method of curing the problem is set forth in the Constitution itself - amendments.
If we are going to entertain "living" interpretations of the Constitution, then why not "living" laws, and "living" regulations subject to anyone's interpretations.
Is this not the ingredient for anarchy and revolution?
Thomas Jefferson stated, "Let no more be heard of confidence in men, but rather bind them down by the chains of the Constitution."
We all understand what a chain is. This does not refer to a "living" chain.
We could imagine what would happen if the timing-chain in our automobile engine was a "living" timing chain, or our watches rendered "living" time, or we bought and sold property with big and small acres.
"... thou shalt have a perfect and just weight, a perfect and just measure shalt thou have: that thy days may be lengthened in the land which the LORD thy God giveth thee."
Truth is absolute and fixed, not nebulous or fuzzy!
Man deals in generalities and relevance, truth in narrowness and absolutes!
Jesus said, "I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life:" John 14:6. What is there left to discuss?
We must stick to a literal interpretation of the Constitution, and not a pliable one designed after the U.S. Supreme Court, and this is precisely what J.A.I.L.1 will accomplish!
Constitutionalism in the Founding era" remains the same today, despite developments since then that have eroded the consent of the governed and turned constitutional authority over to the judiciary, "and, in particular, to the Supreme Court" creating the doctrine of "Judicial Supremacy."
Quite ironically, the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, the second highest Court in this Land, has done something with the
WTP2 (We the People) lawsuit that it cannot
do -- it has effectively overruled its own source of power, i.e., the consent of the governed via the Constitution, and fraudulently bestowed it upon its senior brethren, the Supreme Court, which is but a higher level of the same receptacle of delegated power via the Constitution!
"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."3
Once we accept that the Justices have the power to decide for us what the Constitution means, and that their decisions determine, finally, what constitutional law "is," the interpreters are in power.
Constitutionalism in the Founding era was different. Then, power to interpret (and not just the power to make) constitutional law was thought to reside with the people.
And not theoretically or in the abstract, but in an active, ongoing sense.
It was the community at
large - not the judiciary, not any branch of the government - that controlled the meaning of the Constitution and was responsible for ensuring its proper implementation in the day-to-day process of governing.
This is the notion I labeled "popular
constitutionalism" - to distinguish it from "legal constitutionalism" or the idea that constitutional interpretation has been turned over to the judiciary and, in particular, to the Supreme Court.
It stands to reason that the People (the community at large) would "control[ ] the meaning of the Constitution and [be] responsible for ensuring its proper implementation in the day-to-day process of governing" since the Constitution itself is the "consent of the governed" from which government, which includes the judiciary, derives its just powers.4
"Constitutionalism in the Founding era" remains the same today, despite developments since then that have eroded the consent of the governed and turned constitutional authority over to the judiciary, "and, in particular, to the Supreme Court" creating the doctrine of "Judicial Supremacy."
The J.A.I.L. Initiative specifically sets forth in paragraph 15 Procedures:
". . . The Jurors shall keep in mind, when making their determination, that they are entrusted by the People of this State with the duty of restoring judicial accountability and a perception of justice.
The standard of authority by which the Jurors shall be guided in making their determinations shall not be opinions of courts,
but shall be the Constitutions of [name of State] and of the United States and laws made in pursuance thereof. . .
As pointed out in
The Claremont Institute Constitution Day: American government, which includes the judiciary, is based on the fact of "Constitutional Supremacy":
...[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.5
Indeed, this raises the question: Why have a Constitution at all, if opinions of the Supreme Court supersede it?
Law students are taught that the law is not what the law says, but what the judges say the law says.
"Judicial Supremacy" implies that the judiciary has inherent power; but, to the contrary, we know that the Judicial is one branch of government which functions with delegated power, loaned from the People (the governed), by their consent, who do have by nature inherent, sovereign power endowed by their Creator which the judiciary does not have.
The judiciary in America has not been knighted with "the divine right of kings."
We have separated, and claimed our independence from kingship rule and have established the rule of law by the Constitution.
"This theory of 'consent' is historically contrasted to the divine right of kings ..."
Question: Would the People have consented to "the right of the People to petition government for a redress of grievances" if it meant petitioning without obtaining a redress of grievances?
What would be the point? "Redress of grievances" is part of the Clause itself!
Just who is the Supreme Court to overrule the People in determining that "Executive and Legislative responses to and consideration of petitions are entrusted to the discretion of those Branches" (as in the "We the People" case)?
Did the People consent to that disposition of their petitions for a redress of
grievances, the specific purpose stated in the Constitution?
Too many people have (accepted blindly) the counterfeit power of "Judicial Supremacy," by claiming that "There is no Constitution"!
The Constitution has not been repealed as a matter of law.
Because the powers-that-be don't recognize nor respect the Constitution doesn't, ipso facto, mean that it doesn't exist!
It only means that America has been taken over by a power that fraudulently exercises a power that is foreign to the Constitution, i.e., a foreign power is sitting at the controls and is not legitimate in this country.
It's time people quit being apologists for this foreign power and stand up for America and our Constitution!
Let's especially remember that, this coming Independence Day, the Fourth of July..
From the Declaration of Independence
He (King George, III) 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.
To secure (our) Rights Governments are instituted among Men,
deriving their just Powers from the consent of the governed.
Go to "J.A.I.L" ("Judicial Accountability Initiative
WTP (We the People) lawsuit: The decision by the Court of Appeals, D.C. Circuit, decided May 8, 2007, in the
"We The People Foundation (WTP)
'Right to Petition' lawsuit".
Ronald J. Pestritto, Ph.D, The Claremont Institute Constitution
Day, Posted September 15, 2000. (Back
See Jail News Journal, 1/30/07, "The Consent of the Governed is The U.S.
Ronald J. Pestritto, Ph.D. (Back
to comment on this article? We value your input
send us your comments and if you wish, a link to your site or a link
to another page that supports your views and we'll post your valued