J.A.I.L. News
Journal
______________________________________________________
Los
Angeles,
California
February 2, 2023
We Have A Constitution
In FORM Only
We need J.A.I.L. to give it SUBSTANCE
An Essay by Barbie, ACIC National J.A.I.L. Administration
Introduction
What Constitution, you ask? So that there is no doubt, I am referring to the organic Constitution of 1787 that is based on the Declaration of Independence (hereinafter "DOI"), the only Constitution that can legitimately be considered as the fulfillment of America's founding document. There is only one such Constitution and it was designed as the precise architecture of our national government, built and established by the People in accordance with the DOI.
The states ratified the Constitution in convention on September 17, "in the year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and eighty-seven" on behalf of the sovereign People of the United States, the only ones having the natural authority to create and benefit from the new constitutional government of the United States.
No, I am NOT talking about a "corporate" United States or anything relating to such unconstitutional, unauthorized, and treasonous notion.
(See
http://www.serendipity.li/jsmill/us_corporation.htm), nor would I suggest that any such treasonous acts, such as the Act of 1871, be given any credence or respect whatsoever. These issues can be argued before the J.A.I.L. Special Grand Jury after it is passed.
The authority for creating the "new government"
Describing "government" the DOI states "That to secure these [unalienable (or natural)] rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed." It also states that the People have the right to protect themselves from "any form of government [that] becomes destructive of these ends" of securing their unalienable rights, by "alter[ing] or abolish[ing] it" and by "institut[ing] new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them [emph.added] shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness." Only the Constitution of 1787 carries these principles.
In this regard, the DOI cautions the People against being quick to judgment of their government, stating "Prudence, indeed, will dictate that governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shown that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed."
However, that grace period by the People is not to last indefinitely, but only "while evils are sufferable." According to the DOI, there comes a point in time when the People must finally interfere in the ongoing violation and destruction of their rights by a tyrannical government, stating "But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, [emph.added] to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security."
That point was reached by the colonists and it was time to build a new government "to provide new guards for their future security," the DOI describing it as: "Such has been the patient sufferance of these colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former systems of government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute tyranny over these states."
The People's intentions declared
Determining that the time had come to establish a new government, the DOI concludes by stating the intentions of the People by and through their representatives: "We, therefore, the representatives of the United States of America, in General Congress, assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the name, and by the authority of the good people of these colonies, solemnly publish and declare, that these united colonies are, and of right ought to be free and independent states; that they are absolved from all allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the state of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as free and independent states, they have full power to levy war, conclude peace, contract alliances, establish commerce, and to do all other acts and things which independent states may of right do." Recall (above) that the DOI states that these principles must benefit the People, to wit: "...laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them [emph.added] shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness" --NOT the government.
In dedication of those declared intentions, the final sentence of the DOI states: "And for the support of this declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes and our sacred honor." One could say that J.A.I.L. deserves such appellations.
The means of carrying out these intentions
The only way the People had for carrying out their intentions was to write a constitution officially establishing their "new government" in fulfillment of protecting their newly founded independence and freedom from tyranny as they declared in the DOI. Over the next eleven years, the Framers officially memorialized in writing specific terms to limit the new government, restricting its power to that of a protective and serving role, in compliance with the DOI: "...governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed..."
Everything is fine up to that point in building the new government intended by the People in the DOI. The People were sovereign, as they are by nature and declared to be so in the DOI; and the new government was the servant of the People and protector of their natural rights as it was designed and intended to be according to the DOI. The Constitution, as written, was established, and still exists today, as THE SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND.
Where things went wrong
If you don't remember anything else, know this: The Constitution of 1787 is the Supreme Law of the Land, and anything repugnant thereto is null and void; an unconstitutional act confers no rights; it imposes no duties; affords no protection; it creates no office; it is in legal contemplation as inoperative as though it had never been passed. (Although the USSC made these rulings, we rely on this conclusion as self-evident truth --plain old common sense). The problem is, there is no enforcement provision in the Constitution, and so we have a Constitution in FORM only.
Does the fact that the Constitution exists in FORM only, reduce the rights of the People described in the DOI? Of course not-- the Constitution neither creates nor diminishes rights. It's supposed to enforce them. The Law of the Constitution is still there, officially established in writing and expected by the People to be obeyed by government. That expectation was there when the Constitution was written, and remains so independent of the Constitution in accordance with the Laws of Nature. Length of time does not reduce fraud and deception nor take away from the voidness of any unconstitutional acts by government; they are forever void. Government continues to operate on a counterfeit basis under color of law and will do so until the People take appropriate and meaningful action to put a stop to it, discussed below. Revolution and/or secession will not solve the problem-- neither of those acts provide for the enforcement of the Constitution by the People. If you ask "Is the Constitution Dead?" The answer is NO. Unenforceable? YES, until the People correct that omission.
While the Framers wrote into the Constitution those restrictive terms within which the new government was to function, they omitted the provision that would make it all possible, i.e., an enforcement provision whereby the People would be able to exercise their right to protect themselves from a subsequent "absolute tyranny" similar to that from which they had already historically extricated themselves as stated in the DOI.
Where the People went wrong was in failing to exercise their dominion as sovereigns (keeping vigilant) over the Framers, thereby allowing that careless omission to get by final scrutiny of the People prior to ratification.
The People have dominion and sovereignty by nature, but unless they exercise and maintain it, it will be usurped by the tyrants from which they were to protect themselves. That is where we find ourselves today! "The price of liberty is eternal vigilance." The People failed to pay that price and as a result, have lost the exercise of their liberty by the usurpation of absolute tyranny from which they have been unable to protect themselves.
Can the People recover what is rightfully theirs?
The natural properties of the People, to wit, Life, Liberty, and The Pursuit of Happiness, among others, with which they were endowed at birth, were stolen and kept from them due to the People's negligence at the time the Constitution was written. Along with the loss of their properties, they have lost their ability to exercise their sovereignty and dominion over a serving and protecting government as the natural order of things. The theft of natural rights by the usurpation of an unnatural force does not change the ownership of those rights. The People still hold title to their natural properties whether in their possession or not. Can possession be regained by the People?
To answer that question, it must be determined how and why the properties were lost. We know that they have been usurped by a tyrannical government not entitled to them. And why? Because the People "looked the other way" and allowed the Constitution to be ratified without an enforcement clause, leaving the door wide open for the tyrants to take over. Consequently, the People are left with a Constitution in form only, absent a provision to enforce its terms.
We know that we are entitled, by nature, to those stolen properties, but how can we reclaim possession of them? Despite the absolute tyranny that has usurped the rights of the People, after their patient sufferance for more than 100 years now, the People are still left with the right-- in fact the DUTY-- to provide new guards for their future security by doing what should have been done by the Framers, to wit, establishing a constitutional means of enforcing the Supreme Law of the Land. How can that be done?
J.A.I.L. is the answer! (Come to our Rally)
The method is already written up and waiting to be passed in its first state. Please visit our website at
www.jail4judges.org and read the Constitution & By-Laws which contains the initiative. As a national effort, we are campaigning for South Dakota passage of J.A.I.L. in 2006.
We invite as many as possible to come to the National J.A.I.L. Western Rally, sponsored by Peymon Mottahedeh of Freedom Law School. The JAILers-In-Chief of South Dakota, of Oregon, and of Washington state are planning to be there so far. Mark your calendars for Monday, March 14th, 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. on the day following Peymon's Freedom Rally at the same location: The Radisson Hotel, 4545 MacArthur Blvd., Newport Beach CA. (949) 833-0570. Peymon is graciously providing the meeting room for J.A.I.L. and so there is no admission charge. But we will be passing the hat for your generous donations to this national effort.
Take a look at the recent "Intelligence Reform Act" for instance, to realize how important J.A.I.L. is as a guard for our future security-- Real security, not what our tyrannical government is peddling. It doesn't depend on "terrorism." The People's right to security from absolute despotism brought on by a tyrannical government is a natural and unalienable right which the People have the DUTY to enforce! Let's DO IT with J.A.I.L.
Thanks to Peymon, and to everyone supporting J.A.I.L.
-Barbie