Leading the Nation for
SDJA: (605) 231-1418
J.A.I.L. - An Inherent Right Of ALL People
By Barbie, ACIC, National J.A.I.L.
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
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?
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?
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!
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
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).
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, §26).
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
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.
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.
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.