A Matter of Right In ALL
By Barbie, ACIC, National
I have been spending the last couple days adding numerous
new subscribers to J.A.I.L.'s email list, and lately we've had an unusual large
number of new JAILers coming on board, most of them wanting to do in their state
what we're doing in South Dakota. The South Dakota J.A.I.L. campaign has
certainly attracted a lot of attention, many of whom state that they have
"watched" or "followed" the newsletters of J.A.I.L. for some time --sometimes a
matter of years-- and they are just now deciding to "join"
(although we don't have memberships, as such) our lists. People
are beginning to see some hope for this country through J.A.I.L. and it is
awakening them from their doldrums.
We are seeing a difference in attitude toward J.A.I.L.
throughout the country. Indeed, the traffic to our website href="../../index.html">www.jail4judges.org has abounded
immensely. Most websites start with one gigabyte or less of bandwidth. Ours
started with two gigabytes. We have now had to double that to handle our
traffic, otherwise our website would have gone dark similar to a power-grid
blackout. We now have approximately 20,000 independent websites on the
internet that point to JAIL4judges. This is a tremendous unsolicited
advertisement for J.A.I.L. that great riches could not afford.
As I was welcoming new JAILers, especially of the non-initiative
states, after they were expressing excitement about wanting to get J.A.I.L.
passed in their state too, I would have to apologize to them that their state is
not an initiative state. A paragraph in our standard "welcome" states:
J.A.I.L. is the only means available to the
People by which they can exercise their duty to renew the use and protection of
their inherent rights, by enforcing the Constitution through holding the
guardian of those rights, i.e., the judiciary, accountable to them for
unconstitutional judicial action. I had to ask myself: Is that
means available to the People of the non-initiative states?
I recently posted a JNJ on 10/10/05 titled "The
People Must Get Over Fear." It emanated from a discussion I was having with Dick
Marple, a New Hampshire Legislator, wherein he informed us of a provision
of the New Hampshire Constitution acknowledging the right of the People to
petition the legislative body for redress, to wit:
[Art.] 32. [Rights of
Assembly, Instruction, and Petition.] The people have a right, in an
orderly and peaceable manner, to assemble and consult upon the common
good, give instructions to their
representatives, and to request of the legislative body, by way of petition or
remonstrance, redress of the wrongs done
them, and of the grievances they suffer. June 1784 [emphasis in red]
My comment was "If New Hampshire makes that provision, the People there
must determine exactly how it is to be carried out.
[emph. added]Actually such a right is not granted by the state, but is
one of our inalienable, inherent rights of the People."
This principle came to light when I found myself explaining this to the new
JAILers of the non-initiative states. I referred to the Declaration of
Independence, the foundation upon which J.A.I.L. is based, asking: If it is the
right, indeed the DUTY, of the People --when government through abuses and
usurpations "evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism"-- to
"throw off such government and... provide new guards [i.e., J.A.I.L.]
for their future security," then why do the People have to have the
blessings of the state, by its acknowledging that right in the State
Constitution, in order to exercise it? (Long sentence, I know-- it's an
"if-then" question using quoted material).
California acknowledges the right by providing in its Constitution: "All
political power is inherent in the people. Government is instituted for their
protection, security, and benefit, and they have the right to alter or reform it
when the public good may require." (Art.II, Sec.1). That is what we claim
as authority to present J.A.I.L. as an initiative in California, although the
People have inherent authority of themselves to do
so. The South Dakota Constitution has an almost identical provision under
Article VI, §26.
In analyzing this principle in terms of the U.S. Constitution, according to
the founding document, The Declaration of Independence, it is self-evident truth
that the People are created equal with unalienable (inherent) rights, and that
they institute government for the purpose of protecting those rights from
infringement. That when government ceases to protect those rights, and indeed
infringes upon them, the People have the duty to provide new guards for such
protection in the future. That new guard must include the
mechanism by which the People implement --put into
operation-- that guard.
I emphasized that point in my JNJ dated 10/21/05
titled "It's the MEANS of
J.A.I.L. That Sets It Apart" when I quoted Thomas Jefferson: A constitution alone cannot control government without
republican forms, i.e., mechanisms that keep control of their representatives in
the people's hands. Connecting that with
J.A.I.L., I stated: "That tells us that we need
'mechanisms' in place to 'keep control of their representatives [i.e.,
the judiciary in the instance of J.A.I.L.] in the
people's hands.' And as reported in my previous Journal... J.A.I.L. is the ONLY proposal available providing a detailed,
spelled-out method and process designed for the People to do
So, the importance of J.A.I.L. and why it is set apart from anything else,
is the mechanism --the specific means-- by which the
objective of judicial accountability is achieved, i.e., the "what," "who," and
"how." I have now discovered, however, that the "how" is only partially
answered. Once J.A.I.L. is implemented, we know HOW it will function. But what
is even more fundamental is, HOW do the People effect, or bring about, the
measure in the first place? As I said, that question has come to my mind
while processing new JAILers to non-initiative states, and reconciling that
status with our statement J.A.I.L. is the only means available
to the People by which they can exercise their duty to renew the use and
protection of their inherent rights,... Is the means available to the People if there is
no state provision, such as the initiative process, to bring it
That brings yet more questions: Can the state (government)
prevent the People from exercising their inherent right to alter or reform
government by failing to provide a means to do so? Does
that, or any, inherent right of the People depend on a government provision to
exercise it? It appears to me that it would be a conflict of interest--
government has no interest in being altered or reformed, especially since it
benefits from the corruption and indeed is the source of it. From government's
perspective, "J.A.I.L. Isn't Necessary" as Tom Barnett, Director of the South
Dakota State Bar, stated in a newspaper article. Wouldn't the Legislature say
the same thing?
It must be realized that it is another self-evident truth that altering or
reforming government is a natural DUTY of the People, not dependent upon
government "allowing" or "providing for" its reformation by the People. Thus,
J.A.I.L. itself is self-evident truth. The
reforming of government through implementation of J.A.I.L. is a matter of right
in ALL states. This is something that the potential passage of J.A.I.L. brings
to our concern, and is something about which the People must think seriously.
The People of non-initiative states have equal rights to reform their government
as does all the People in this country.