Leading the Nation for
J.A.I.L. - An Inherent
Right Of ALL People Everywhere
By Barbie, ACIC, National
In the past few months, a lot of our new
people joining J.A.I.L. are from non-initiative states who want to "do
what they're doing in South Dakota" in their states-- New York, Texas,
Tennessee, Wisconsin, New Hampshire, Georgia, Massachusetts, Kansas, just to
name a few we've heard from lately. I've had to dampen their spirits by telling
them that their state is not an initiative state, which means that J.A.I.L.
cannot be passed by the People in those states, but must be presented as
proposed legislation and passed by the Legislature.
The frequency with which I've had to say
this to numerous new people who are on fire for J.A.I.L. after seeing
the accomplishments developing in South Dakota, has caused me to be haunted
with the idea that there is something wrong with this picture. Why are the
People in only half our states able to pass a measure without having to go to
the Legislature? Are only half our states so kind and benevolent as to
"allow" its inhabitants to initiate the passage of laws?
The more I thought of it, the more I
began to realize that the disparity between the initiative and non-initiative
states is a serious injustice to the People as a whole. This injustice is as it
relates to the right of the People to alter and reform their
government when it becomes destructive of their rights. Do
only some people have this right, while others do not?
The legislature is not in a position to
"allow" or "disallow" this right of the People. It is a natural right --an
unalienable right-- a right that cannot, by nature, be alienated or ignored
by government. We are guided by the words of the Declaration of Independence--
NOTE: I said "words of" the DOI, whether or not the Declaration itself is
considered to be a legal document of authority in this country-- it doesn't
matter. We can be guided by those words because they represent self-evident
truth, regardless of who signed the document, what
organization the signers were members of, what hidden purpose they had in mind
when signing it, or any fraud that may have been involved by the signing of the
Declaration of Independence. The People must not be distracted by
the fraud any longer!
The words of the DOI that are based on the
laws of nature states as a self-evident truth of nature
that the People have created government for the purpose of securing their
inherent rights. That's not just a matter of opinion-- it's unadulterated truth
--regardless of who expressed the fact or in what document it was expressed. It
stands on its own!
Furthermore, the words of the DOI
communicates the fact that whenever government breaches the responsibility for
which it was created (instituted) by the People, the People, from whom
government derives its just powers, have not just the right, but the DUTY, to
repair that breach by altering or reforming their government in such a way that
will insure the respect and protection of their inherent rights by its
government. Bear in mind, the Declaration of Independence does not grant those
rights-- they exist by nature, regardless of any document. The document merely
assures us of the fact that independently exists. That assurance doesn't depend
upon the authenticity of the document, nor of any document.
Likewise, state constitutions do not grant
inherent rights, such as the right of the People to alter or reform their
government when it becomes destructive of their rights. They merely acknowledge
the right --at least the initiative states do. For instance, the California
Constitution states "All political power is inherent
[emphasis added] 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).
The South Dakota Constitution states: "All
political power is inherent in the people, and all free government is founded on
their authority, and is instituted for their equal protection and benefit, and
they have the right in lawful and constituted methods to alter or reform their
forms of government in such manner as they may think proper. ..." (Art. VI,
Similar provisions are made in other state
constitutions, acknowledging the existence of the inherent right of the People
to alter or reform government in whatever way they deem necessary to assure the
protection of their rights by government. But what about states that do not
acknowledge this right? Does that mean that the People of those states do not
have that right? Of course not!
J.A.I.L. is a means by which the People must
perform their duty --an inherent right-- to alter and reform government, in this
instance the judiciary, in such manner as they deem proper, in this instance by
holding the judiciary accountable to the People for violations of law as
specifically set forth in the J.A.I.L. amendment. Do the People have the right
to do this in only some of the states? Absolutely not! The People have that
inherent right in all states-- even the world, wherever nature exists.
Remember-- no document grants that right to the People.
It is government's responsibility to respect
and protect that right of the People as well as any other inherent right. In the
"initiative states" government provides the means of signing petitions according
to rules established for that purpose. Whether or not only registered voters
possess the right may be questionable. Certainly only state residents of a
minimum age would qualify for a state measure (in my opinion). But a model of
the initiative process must be allowed in all states as part of government's
responsibility of securing that right. It isn't within the discretion of
government to "allow" such process for the People-- it is a mandatory
responsibility of all governments.
The same right exists with the federal
government. But, in my opinion, that's another "ball of wax" that should
probably wait until we get the state systems obedient first before attempting to
unravel the federal mess. The People will decide. The Federal J.A.I.L. Bill is
written up as legislation, although it should be an amendment to the organic
Constitution since it was not included in the Constitution when
originally created. The People are sure suffering from that absence now. Had the
J.A.I.L. provision been originally included in the Constitution, we'd be living
in an entirely different world, where the sovereignty of the People and the laws
of nature would be respected and obeyed.