The Libertarian Surge

[Ares]

Libertarianism — the political philosophy that says limited government is the best kind of government — is having its moment. Unfortunately, that’s mostly because government has been expanding in the aftermath of the Sept. 11 attacks and the financial crisis. Somehow government failures lead to even more government.

When the financial crisis hit in the fall of 2008, the politicians in Washington had one response: start printing money and bailing out big businesses. First it was Bear Stearns, then Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, then most of Wall Street. But voters had a different response. Polls showed widespread opposition to the bailouts. When Congress prepared to vote on President George W. Bush’s $700 billion Troubled Asset Relief Program, Americans made their opinions known in no uncertain terms. Ohio Sen. Sherrod Brown reported, “Like my colleagues, my phones have been ringing off the hook. The sentiment from Ohioans about this proposal is universally negative.”

In the end, though, Congress took another vote, and the lobbyists won. Wall Street got its bailout. And we can date the birth of the tea party movement to that very week.

Meanwhile, the government’s response to the financial crisis sent people looking for answers. Sales of Ayn Rand’s “Atlas Shrugged” and Friedrich Hayek’s “The Road to Serfdom” soared. The Cato Institute’s pocket edition of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution even hit The Washington Post best-seller list.

Libertarian ideas often cross left-right boundaries. Lots of libertarians were involved in the tea party and the opposition to the bailouts, the car company takeovers, the 2009 stimulus bill and the quasi-nationalization of health care. But libertarians were also involved in the movement for gay marriage. Indeed, John Podesta, a top adviser to Presidents Bill Clinton and Barack Obama and founder of the Center for American Progress, noted in 2011 that you probably had to have been a libertarian to have supported gay marriage 15 years earlier. Or take marijuana legalization, which is just now becoming a majority position: Libertarians have been leaders in the opposition to the drug war for many years.

Libertarians have played a key role in the defense of the right to keep and bear arms over the years, notably in the two recent Supreme Court cases that affirmed that the Second Amendment means what it says: Individuals have a right to own guns. Support for stricter gun control has been declining for years.

Much of the libertarian energy in the past few years was generated by the presidential campaigns of former Rep. Ron Paul of Texas, and then by the leadership of his son Rand Paul representing Kentucky in the Senate. When Ron Paul began his campaign in 2007, he didn’t attract much attention. But then, in a nationally televised debate, he clashed with former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani over the causes of the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks. The confrontation became the cable TV moment of the night.

The next day, the conservative magazine National Review declared it a victory for Giuliani. But his campaign never got off the ground, while Ron Paul’s took off. “Ron Paul” briefly even became one of the most popular search terms on Google News. Paul’s support, especially online and among young voters, was intense, but it wasn’t broad enough to win any primaries.

Paul ran again in 2012, and he found even more success. He hadn’t changed much; indeed, his themes sounded like what he’d been saying since he entered Congress in 1976: The federal government is spending too much, printing too much money and launching too many wars. But the country, and the issues, had changed.

In 2007, Ron Paul warned that an economy based on debt and cheap money from the Federal Reserve was not sustainable, but the economy was booming and nobody wanted to listen. After the crash of 2008, they started listening.

In 2007, Paul criticized excessive federal spending, but with a Republican in the White House Republicans weren’t much interested. When Obama opened taxpayers’ wallets, they listened.

In 2007, Paul criticized endless military intervention, but most Republicans were content to repeat, “The surge is working.” By 2012, even Republicans were getting weary of 10 years of war. They listened.

In 2007, Ron Paul said that Congress and the president should not act outside their powers under the Constitution, but Republicans didn’t want to hear about unconstitutional acts by a Republican president. After the bailouts and the health care takeover and Obama’s unauthorized war in Libya, they listened.

And in 2010, a hitherto unknown ophthalmologist in my home state of Kentucky got elected to the U.S. Senate, helped by being the son of Ron Paul and by the energy of the tea party. Rand Paul upset the Republican establishment candidate in the primary, then comfortably defeated the Democratic attorney general in November.

Rand Paul, like his father, doesn’t agree with libertarians on everything. But in the Senate he’s been a strong voice for freedom on a wide range of issues. He introduced a bill to cut spending and actually balance the federal budget. He spoke out against President Obama’s intervention in Libya. He managed to kill a particularly bad piece of indefinite detainment legislation just by demanding that the Senate vote on it in public view. He fought “government bullies” from the EPA to the TSA, and even managed to get detained by the TSA when he objected to a full-body patdown.

Most memorably, in 2013 he stood like Jimmy Stewart in the movie “Mr. Smith Goes to Washington” at a desk in the Senate for 13 straight hours to force the country’s attention on the issue of unmanned drone strikes.

Shortly after Paul’s filibuster, America’s libertarian soul was pricked again by a series of revelations about government surveillance, overreach and abuse of power. First came the reports suggesting that the IRS had targeted tea party groups and those engaged in “educating on the Constitution and Bill of Rights” for extra scrutiny and delays in confirming their tax-exempt status. Then we learned that the Justice Department had been looking at the telephone records of as many as 20 reporters and editors at The Associated Press as well as Fox News reporter James Rosen. Both those efforts were part of the Obama administration’s unprecedented war on whistleblowers.

Then came the stunning revelations about the massive surveillance of Americans’ phone calls and emails by the National Security Agency. We learned that in more than a dozen secret rulings, the secret surveillance court has created a secret body of law authorizing the NSA to amass vast collections of data on Americans. The NSA broke privacy rules or overstepped its legal authority thousands of times a year.

Americans were shocked. Members of Congress expressed outrage. President Obama defended the surveillance programs and assured us that the people with access to all this data “take this work very seriously. They cherish our Constitution.”

But distrust of government is in America’s DNA. As Thomas Jefferson wrote in condemning the Alien and Sedition Acts: “Confidence is everywhere the parent of despotism. Free government is founded in jealousy, and not in confidence; it is jealousy, and not confidence, which prescribes limited constitutions to bind down those whom we are obliged to trust with power.”

This time it wasn’t “Atlas Shrugged” or “The Road to Serfdom” that shot up on the best-seller lists, it was another libertarian classic: George Orwell’s “1984,” known for its warning that “Big Brother is watching.”

http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/04/the-libertarian-surge-105446.html

[Libertarian_Guard]

How sweet it is!

[Buddha]

It's a "Brave New World"

[singular_me]

I'd rather go along with those lines... but the problem remains... if people truly understand Libertarianism, they will push further, until the gov is completely voided. Libertarianism is a stage "in between", hence is doomed to go either way... centralization or voluntarysim. Libertarianism can only remain a transition... for a while... IMHO

[Ares]

I'd rather go along with those lines... but the problem remains... if people truly understand Libertarianism, they will push further, until the gov is completely voided. Libertarianism is a stage "in between", hence is doomed to go either way... centralization or voluntarysim. Libertarianism can only remain a transition... for a while... IMHO

As they saying goes. What's the difference between a Libertarian and an Anarchist?

Answer = About 6 months.

[Bigjon]

As they saying goes. What's the difference between a Libertarian and an Anarchist?

Answer = About 6 months.

I've been a libertarian since Ron Paul ran for president in 88 and I'm still a libertarian. We need some sort of government. Anarchy doesn't cut it.

[Ares]

I've been a libertarian since Ron Paul ran for president in 88 and I'm still a libertarian. We need some sort of government. Anarchy doesn't cut it.

Anarchy is just without rulers, not WITHOUT RULES. Learn the difference. What gives anyone in government the right to rule you? Libertarian or not you can't objectively look at a government and honestly say to yourself, they know what's best for you, can you?

I would much rather have a voluntary form of government. You know actually pay for services that I might actually use, and if I don't pay I don't get the benefit. None of this bullshit of paying for property taxes to fund schools and other bullshit I'd never use or agree with, yet have a gun pointed at my head if I refuse to pay.

We DO NOT NEED A GOVERNMENT. Governments are only for those who refuse, or are unable to rule themselves. So when you say we need some sort of government you're really saying is you're not capable of ruling yourself.

[Bigjon]

Anarchy is just without rulers, not WITHOUT RULES. Learn the difference. What gives anyone in government the right to rule you? Libertarian or not you can't objectively look at a government and honestly say to yourself, they know what's best for you, can you?

I would much rather have a voluntary form of government. You know actually pay for services that I might actually use, and if I don't pay I don't get the benefit. None of this bullshit of paying for property taxes to fund schools and other bullshit I'd never use or agree with, yet have a gun pointed at my head if I refuse to pay.

We DO NOT NEED A GOVERNMENT. Governments are only for those who refuse, or are unable to rule themselves. So when you say we need some sort of government you're really saying is you're not capable of ruling yourself.

In order to accomplish your goals you anarchists will have to get together and form a stronger force to get your way...

Kind of antithetical to your stated objectives. I think want you want is a nice sentiment, but reality is in your way.

[Carl]

Philosophies are individual, ideologies are group.

Libertarianism is an ideology, it is grouped political force.

Ideologies, by their very political coercive nature, are not conducive to life in liberty.

[Carl]

You have to understand, Libertarians are fighting for their Ideology, they are not fighting for liberty or freedom.

In this regard, they are absolutely no different from the fascist/socialist they are attempting to displace.

[Bigjon]

Philosophies are individual, ideologies are group.

Libertarianism is an ideology, it is grouped political force.

Ideologies, by their very political coercive nature, are not conducive to life in liberty.

Pissing into the wind will get you wet.

[Carl]

Pissing into the wind will get you wet.
I agree with that sentiment.

You can't reason with an ideologue because they've already got it all figured out.

[Ares]

I agree with that sentiment.

You can't reason with an ideologue because they've already got it all figured out.

I know enough to know that I don't know everything. I just know systems of government have been used by a few to subjugate the masses time and time again for their own nefarious reasons. A Libertarian government will absolutely be no different. Given enough time, it too will turn into a tyrant. American government is a prime example of Libertarian government in action, and given enough time to be infiltrated and taken over.


As the saying goes, if you build it they will come. If there is no government to rule, is there a place for sociopaths to occupy and enslave their fellow man? I've studied volunteerism quite a bit in the past year or so. I'm far from knowing everything there is to know, but I do appreciate the concept of a society by consent rather than by decree.

[Bigjon]

I agree with that sentiment.

You can't reason with an ideologue because they've already got it all figured out.

It's not my problem carl, it's your problem, you want something you can't have without doing all those things you say you are against.

Organization always trumps individuals, the Jews are supremely organized and have us in a box. Most of our fellow travelers are not even aware of the box.

[Bigjon]

I know enough to know that I don't know everything. I just know systems of government have been used by a few to subjugate the masses time and time again for their own nefarious reasons. A Libertarian government will absolutely be no different. Given enough time, it too will turn into a tyrant. American government is a prime example of Libertarian government in action, and given enough time to be infiltrated and taken over.


As the saying goes, if you build it they will come. If there is no government to rule, is there a place for sociopaths to occupy and enslave their fellow man? I've studied volunteerism quite a bit in the past year or so. I'm far from knowing everything there is to know, but I do appreciate the concept of a society by consent rather than by decree.

Like I said it is a noble idea, but you have to organize to get it. What are you going to call your non organization?

[Ares]

Like I said it is a noble idea, but you have to organize to get it. What are you going to call your non origination?

No where does it say in Anarchy that you can't organize. The whole premise of Anarchy is individual freedom, but at a local level organize for mutual benefit. You have a government of consent rather than by degree subject to jurisdiction. Say for example, I move to location and there is a mutual farming organization. They tax the land to grow the food. I decide not to join, I don't get taxed, but I also don't get the benefit of the food. I have to grow my own and hope that I know enough to farm it correctly so that I can eat in the winter. Same could go for mutual defense, I don't get the benefit of protection if I don't voluntarily give money and or time for that protection. Anarchy is nothing more than Libertarianism without government.

[Carl]

A good (least intrusive) government is a product of its construction. That it should be founded upon beliefs held in common (individual philosophies espoused to similar ideals without the presumption that anyone's or some group's interpretation of any particular ideal is better than anyone else's) and not upon an ideology that expresses sociopolitical goals.

For instance, I believe in unalienable, intrinsic rights of which the right to life, liberty and property are protected and codified in law.

The primary difference between my beliefs and Libertarian Ideology, is that I don't presume to define and dictate what constitutes Liberty for others.

[Carl]

It's not my problem carl, it's your problem, you want something you can't have without doing all those things you say you are against.

Organization always trumps individuals, the Jews are supremely organized and have us in a box. Most of our fellow travelers are not even aware of the box.
You are organizing for the wrong reasons. You are organizing to install a system of beliefs, not to protect or defend a way of life.

*And this: "you want something you can't have without doing all those things you say you are against", is nonsensical.

The only thing I've expressed as a 'political want', is the reconstruction of government to one that is more conducive towards people regaining their right to live in liberty.

[Carl]

.....Anarchy is nothing more than Libertarianism without government. No, anarchy is a willingness to commit suicide with the determination to take everyone with it.

[Ares]

No, anarchy is a willingness to commit suicide with the determination to take everyone with it.

You base that on what?

[Carl]

You base that on what? Its fervent, near pathological, desire to assume that everyone believes and will act as they believe and act.

[Ares]

Its fervent, near pathological, desire to assume that everyone believes and will act as they believe and act.

As opposed to a government that will force you to believe as they believe? Which one is suicide again? I fail to see the justification to have "rulers".

Has history not shown you that you cannot have a government and freedom at the same time? How can you have a ruler, yet be free when a government will remove your freedom whenever it damn well feels like it?

Mankind CANNOT BE TRUSTED to rule over their fellow man, so get rid of this tired, FAILED model called government. It doesn't work. It's genocidal past has shown that it's a miserable failure, and the most oppressive of all human en-slavers the world over.

This is what government gets you:

http://s2.quickmeme.com/img/11/110a83dd7bc7060ee55511ddd24223f959a49fb14d81b2d48e c290b8ff214c9d.jpg

Every SINGLE TIME, without failure. Those who refuse to recognize their GOD GIVEN rights to govern themselves and find it too difficult to do so end up with the above..

[Carl]

As opposed to a government that will force you to believe as they believe? Which one is suicide again? I fail to see the justification to have "rulers". I can understand your willingness to assume that government exists as a function that determines how others must live their lives, you've had 100 years worth of example to back that position. But to assume that all government is as such, ergo, all government must be removed, is sociopolitical suicide, which would end as only anarchy could, violent death.

[Ares]

I can understand your willingness to assume that government exists as a function that determines how others must live their lives, you've had 100 years worth of example to back that assumption. But to assume that all government is as such, ergo, all government must be removed, is sociopolitical suicide, which would end as only anarchy could, violent death.

There is more than 100 years backing that assumption. Try 2,000+ years of government. Mankind has been using this model of representation 2 millennia now. How come after 2,000 years we still do not have a government that actually works the way it was founded and intended?

There is no cause or basis to claim Anarchy is suicidal, when the opposite is true. Governments the world over have enslaved, tortured, murdered, and performed Democide whenever the ends justify whatever means they are wanting to accomplish. Always having willing participants pull the trigger, hang the noose, or pull the guillotine under color of "government authority" whenever said person has done something that upsets their "masters".

No, anarchy is not suicide. Having a government is suicide. I have the numbers, history and facts to back that, you have an untried assumption.

[Carl]

There is more than 100 years backing that assumption. Try 2,000+ years of government. Mankind has been using this model of representation 2 millennia now. How come after 2,000 years we still do not have a government that actually works the way it was founded and intended?....Finally, a relevant observation. The reason, my friend, is the same reason anarchy will never work, PEOPLE.

Not all governments were coercive, there are sporadic instances where government actually worked rather well, until it was corrupted from the inside or overthrown.

The Constitution designs a Democratic Republic that expresses no sociopolitical aims other than securing the individual's right to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness and peaceful commerce with all, entangling alliances with none. What happened to it? PEOPLE.

[Ares]

Finally, a relevant observation. The reason, my friend, is the same reason anarchy will never work, PEOPLE.

Not all governments were coercive, there are sporadic instances where government actually worked rather well, until it was corrupted from the inside or overthrown.

The Constitution designs a Democratic Republic that expresses no sociopolitical aims other than securing the individual's right to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness and peaceful commerce with all, entangling alliances with none. What happened to it? PEOPLE.

Correct, which is why I said mankind cannot be trusted to govern. :) You just proved (at least to me) why governments don't work. Even a government that was as well constructed as ours can be corrupted and turned into an even larger oppressive tyrant than the one America initially broke free of. The only factor is time. Given enough time any government can be infiltrated and used to enslave its people.

If Government doesn't work, and to you Anarchy won't work. What will? I'm asking a serious question. I don't have all the answers. So I'm curious what do you think will work for the betterment of all?

[Carl]

I'm not concerned with the "betterment of all", I'm concerned with restoring our Republican form of government so that each individual is left in a state of liberty where they can decide for themselves what constitutes their own personal betterment. We had a government that was not ideology based, it was liberty based and it would've survived that megalomaniacal, mass murdering Lincoln if the Constitution and its Republican form of governance hadn't been corrupted and overthrown by the progressive 17th non-amendment. I'm even willing to contend that if it weren't for the progressive 17th non-amendment, the Fed, along with the 16th amendment, would've died in 1930 along with the economy they killed.

The corrupting agent in all governments is Ideology. So, building a government that can withstand ideologically driven forces is a must. The Constitution is the closest humankind has ever come to achieving that goal.

[Ares]

I'm not concerned with the "betterment of all", I'm concerned with restoring our Republican form of government so that each individual is left in a state of liberty where they can decide for themselves what constitutes their own personal betterment. We had a government that was not ideology based, it was liberty based and it would've survived that megalomaniacal, mass murdering Lincoln if the Constitution and its Republican form of governance hadn't been corrupted and overthrown by the progressive 17th non-amendment. I'm even willing to contend that if it weren't for the progressive 17th non-amendment, the Fed, along with the 16th amendment, would've died in 1930 along with the economy they killed.

The corrupting agent in all governments is Ideology. So, building a government that can withstand ideologically driven forces is a must. The Constitution is the closest humankind has ever come to achieving that goal.

Government allows for that type of corruption. Government is ideology. It's whose ideology you agree, or don't agree with that gets shoved down everyone's collective throats. To a communist a Republican form of government like the former U.S. Constitution is an abomination and should be removed. To a Libertarian it is the pinnacle of how a government should be run. Is that not ideology? Just because you agree with the Constitution doesn't mean everyone will. I don't because it allows for an apparatus to be used, to enslave it's people if not kept in check. It's only kept in check by an educated and ready to fight for that IDEA populace. Unfortunately mankind does not work that way, or the Roman empire would still be around today, as it too was a Republican form of government. It too was also corrupted, Julius Caesar started the process by claiming powers he was never intended to have.

Our country died the day Lincoln said the south didn't have the right to leave the union. We all know that they did, as the federal government derives its power from the consent of the governed. The south withdrew consent, plain and simple. He didn't like that idea, and forced them back into the union at the barrel of a gun. This bloated, overbearing, restrictive, oppressive piece of shit government is now what we have to deal with.

A Republican form of government isn't the answer either. We'll (well our children's children children) have to deal with the same damn thing we are fighting against now later on down the road after enough time has passed to turn it into another bloated, overbearing, restrictive, oppressive piece of shit government.. The weapons that could be used against us at this junction are for more destructive than what any of our ancestors have ever faced before. If we don't get rid of it now, what type of government will we leave our children? What kind of oppressive enslavement awaits them? Is government even an answer at this point given history to show that it hasn't worked in over 2,000 years?

[Carl]

And, we're right back where we started....can't reason with an ideologue.

OK Pol Pot, design your "government free" utopia as you please.....I'm sure people will be dying to join it.

[Carl]

Ares, let me clear something up for you; governments have existed from the time human beings first congregated and they will continue to exist for as long as human beings walk this planet.

There is no escape from it as it is a natural consequence of human nature. The strong will always dominate the weak. As logical, rational human beings we know this to be true so as such, we attempt to design a governmental system that affords us a sense of safety and marginal utility while maintaining our individual sovereignty. And if you had actually read history instead of someone's ideological driven rendition of history, you would know this.

[Ares]

And, we're right back where we started....can't reason with an ideologue.

OK Pol Pot, design your "government free" utopia as you please.....I'm sure people will be dying to join it.

Kind of like how governments are circular huh? From good intentioned to oppressive tyrant in the matter of a century..

[Carl]

individuals are fine but people are evil fuks........

[Ares]

Ares, let me clear something up for you; governments have existed from the time human beings first congregated and they will continue to exist for as long as human beings walk this planet.

There is no escape from it as it is a natural consequence of human nature. The strong will always dominate the weak. As logical, rational human beings we know this to be true so as such, we attempt to design a governmental system that affords us a sense of safety and marginal utility while maintaining our individual sovereignty. And if you had actually read history instead of someone's ideological driven rendition of history, you would know this.

I have read history, I've studied it immensely as I try to draw from the lessons it has to teach. You should know by now if you weren't so stuck in your ideology of government that it's absolutely impossible to have a framework or government that cannot be corrupted and used for oppression.

I'm not an "ideologue". I've had this discussion with you before and have told you I'm not delusional enough to think that people are mature enough to have a completely voluntary government. But you need to realize that government is a time tested proven failure. But if it helps you sleep at night thinking someone should be there to rule over you, then have at it. Who am I to tell you any differently?

[Bigjon]

This obsessive belief in this constitution, is irrational, as the document is a study in how to write law as leaky as a straw boat. There are so many holes in the constitution, we could not succeed as a nation. Reading the constitution as Dr. Eduardo M. Rivera (http://organiclaws.org/) has done and pointing out all its flaws, can only lead to one conclusion, that the constitution was a con game for a gullible public.


There are at least 3 different presidents of different duties over different governing bodies. The whole document is a study in vagueness with ideas thrown in, but never elaborated to make them useful as functions of governance. Like the Grand Jury gets a mention, but really needs to be fleshed out as to what the role of a Grand Jury is. There are supposed to be 3 different independent bodies of government, but in reality there is only the executive with a dictator in chief called the president.

[Carl]

I have read history, I've studied it immensely as I try to draw from the lessons it has to teach. You should know by now if you weren't so stuck in your ideology of government that it's absolutely impossible to have a framework or government that cannot be corrupted and used for oppression. True enough, it's human nature. The best we can hope for is that, we leave a less repressive system than we inherited for the next generation and they, in turn, do the same until one day, there will be no system at all.


I'm not an "ideologue". I've had this discussion with you before and have told you I'm not delusional enough to think that people are mature enough to have a completely voluntary government. But you need to realize that government is a time tested proven failure. But if it helps you sleep at night thinking someone should be there to rule over you, then have at it. Who am I to tell you any differently?

Wow. So, people are too immature to govern themselves and government is a 'proven' failure. What the fuk does that leave, the status quo?

Well, I suppose we can assume that you're arguing just for the sake of argument?

[Ares]

Wow. So, people are too immature to govern themselves and government is a 'proven' failure. What the fuk does that leave, the status quo?

Well, I suppose we can assume that you're arguing just for the sake of argument?

Just speaking truthfully. It's a maturity issue, and most people don't want to take the responsibility to govern themselves.

Yes representative government is a proven failure. What would you call a 2,000+ year track record of good intentioned to oppressive in a matter of time? A success??

It leaves the people having to go to war to reclaim their stolen rights back from a government. Re-institute new government and in a matter of time doing it all over again. Is that human nature? Or is a hidden hand that controls it all? If so whose?

[Carl]

This obsessive belief in this constitution, is irrational, as the document is a study in how to write law as leaky as a straw boat. There are so many holes in the constitution, we could not succeed as a nation. Reading the constitution as Dr. Eduardo M. Rivera (http://organiclaws.org/) has done and pointing out all its flaws, can only lead to one conclusion, that the constitution was a con game for a gullible public. I would expect no less from a lawyer educated in the art of lying to find in any document what he intent upon finding. I don't want to study law, and no one should be forced into the study of law just to gain a few advantages out of a corrupted system.



There are at least 3 different presidents of different duties over different governing bodies. The whole document is a study in vagueness with ideas thrown in, but never elaborated to make them useful as functions of governance. Like the Grand Jury gets a mention, but really needs to be fleshed out as to what the role of a Grand Jury is. There are supposed to be 3 different independent bodies of government, but in reality there is only the executive with a dictator in chief called the president. There were three independent bodies, now there are two linked as one via ideology, fueled by campaign bribery.

I don't know what to say. You want to bitch about the system, and you want to join the system under its terms. And you want chastise me for wanting to fix it so that you won't have to join it....

[Carl]

........It leaves the people having to go to war to reclaim their stolen rights back from a government. Re-institute new government and in a matter of time doing it all over again. Is that human nature? Or is a hidden hand that controls it all? If so whose? As I said: The best we can hope for is that, we leave a less repressive system than we inherited for the next generation and they, in turn, do the same until one day, there will be no system at all.

[Dogman]

Just speaking truthfully. It's a maturity issue, and most people don't want to take the responsibility to govern themselves.

Yes representative government is a proven failure. What would you call a 2,000+ year track record of good intentioned to oppressive in a matter of time? A success??

It leaves the people having to go to war to reclaim their stolen rights back from a government. Re-institute new government and in a matter of time doing it all over again. Is that human nature? Or is a hidden hand that controls it all? If so whose?

And in that 2000 years I would bet all forms of gov has been tried many times, and no gov has stood the test of time!

Been there and done that.

History has proven it.

Over all this experiment the USA is doing , is still better than any other being used in the world, bar none today, compared to other country's at this time.

Will it crash as other gov's have done in the past, probably in time as all before it has, and for the same reasons that others have failed.

Once I see people fleeing, instead of wanting to get here, I will be worried. For now more want to come here, instead of staying in their country's. More from other country's want to come here, than stay where they are.

Why is that?

What is better? That has not been tried before?

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Forum Runner

[Bigjon]

I would expect no less from a lawyer educated in the art of lying to find in any document what he intent upon finding. I don't want to study law, and no one should be forced into the study of law just to gain a few advantages out of a corrupted system.


There were three independent bodies, now there are two linked as one via ideology, fueled by campaign bribery.

I don't know what to say. You want to bitch about the system, and you want to join the system under its terms. And you want chastise me for wanting to fix it so that you won't have to join it....

You really should point out the lies before you call someone a liar.

There never were 3 independent bodies, only the fairy tale history you have read talks about them. The judiciary has always been under the executive wing of the government. There is no evidence that the constitution that goes by the name "this constitution" has ever been adopted as no president has taken the oath required for it's adoption.

[Twisted Titan]

How do unincorperated towns make it?

The only form of gubbermint that works is local gubberminnt

Where the people still have the abilty to use a rope and pitchforks if coercion is foisted on them.

[Carl]

You really should point out the lies before you call someone a liar.

There never were 3 independent bodies, only the fairy tale history you have read talks about them. The judiciary has always been under the executive wing of the government. There is no evidence that the constitution that goes by the name "this constitution" has ever been adopted as no president has taken the oath required for it's adoption.

You want to tangle yourself up it the web of internet spawned lies and deceit, of rumors, myths and conspiracies, have at it.....I understand.

[Bigjon]

You want to tangle yourself up it the web of internet spawned lies and deceit, of rumors, myths and conspiracies, have at it.....I understand.

Another cop-out Carl, the paper trail is there for anyone to follow, enough evidence has made it into the law dictionaries to see for yourself what really happened.

Or are you just another liar?

[Carl]

Another cop-out Carl, the paper trail is there for anyone to follow, enough evidence has made it into the law dictionaries to see for yourself what really happened.

Or are you just another liar? I'm not gonna sling mud with you, if you want to believe word crafted bullshit, then believe word crafted bullshit.

I'll just say, that's not how it works unless we allow it to work that way.

And there are no liars in this discussion....

[Bigjon]

I'm not gonna sling mud with you, if you want to believe word crafted bullshit, then believe word crafted bullshit.

I'll just say, that's not how it works unless we allow it to work that way.

And there are no liars in this discussion....

So you are saying I'm full of bullshit, but you are not slinging mud at me. lol your new name is cop out Carl.

[Carl]

So you are saying I'm full of bullshit, but you are not slinging mud at me. lol your new name is cop out Carl. I'm not saying any such thing, I'm saying the information you are relying upon as the basis of your argument is bullshit, whether you choose to believe it's so or not. And I'm not the one copping out, I'm not making excuses.

[Bigjon]

I'm not saying any such thing, I'm saying the information you are relying upon as the basis of your argument is bullshit, whether you choose to believe it's so or not. And I'm not the one copping out, I'm not making excuses.

Point out what is bullshit, Carl. Just saying it's bullshit without any specific criticism is bullshit in its most pure form.

[Carl]

Point out what is bullshit, Carl. Just saying it's bullshit without any specific criticism is bullshit in its most pure form.

Dr. Eduardo M. Rivera (http://organiclaws.org/)

It's the source of your information. Do you have any evidence that supports his claims?

[Carl]

Oh and Ares FYI; the assertion that "Government is Ideology" is nonsensical and idiotic.

[Bigjon]

Dr. Eduardo M. Rivera (http://organiclaws.org/)

It's the source of your information. Do you have any evidence that supports his claims?

Sure Carl, everything he says in his webpages are supported by the record. The constitution called "This Constitution for the United States of America requires that an oath be taken to support this constitution and no president has ever uttered those words during his swearing in ceremony.

A careful reading of This Constitution following the rules of English grammar leads one to believe there are 3 different presidents with different duties over different legislative bodies. It is crafted in a manner that someone not versed in law and strict grammatical rules could construe or read in meanings that are not spelled out by the words. I think this is intentional and we see this in many places all through the laws we call our law, like take the 14th amendment and try to make sense of it.

This Constitution mentions Grand juries, but thats it nothing specific, no rules to follow, just that we should have one.

Reading This Constitution critically will show a large number of vague references that can be construed to mean anything a devious government would want it to mean.

[Carl]

Sure Carl, everything he says in his webpages are supported by the record.... No, it's supported by his interpretation of the record, his opinion.

What's being lost is the fact that it means what we are willing to insist it to mean. It doesn't take much to understand it, it's written plain English, all we have to do is apply it. They had their way, now it's our turn...

[Bigjon]

No, it's supported by his interpretation of the record, his opinion.

What's being lost is the fact that it means what we are willing to insist it to mean. It doesn't take much to understand it, it's written plain English, all we have to do is apply it. They had their way, now it's our turn...

If This Constitution were written in a more concise manner much of what Ed and I claim could not be questioned, but it is not concise, it is vague.

Law is specific and must follow specific rules, we have courts who interpret what is written and as the record stands This Constitution is open for many interpretations.

If you want to insist on a meaning you have to write it down so all can agree, the writers of This Constitution left many holes to be filled in by being vague.

At the time of the writing of This Constitution Grand Juries were convened to protect the public from over zealous government prosecutions, but as time wore on this sort of impediment to "our" gov was lobbied out by an active press that wrote articles critical of "run-away" Grand Juries that needed to be reigned in and reign them in is what happened. Now days a Grand Jury is a rubber stamp for the prosecutors to put away anyone they deem a threat to government.

If This Constitution were concise in its language on Grand Juries we would know today what they knew 200 years ago, but they were NOT concise.

[mick silver]

now it's our turn... i like that part carl but this will take force to make it happen they will not give up easy and without a fight

[Carl]

Tenth Amendment: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

We the people are the final arbiter in determining what the Constitution means. It's not the Supreme Court's job to interpret the Constitution, it is their job to insure that the laws passed by congress conform to the Supreme Law of the Land. If there are any ambiguities in the Supreme Law of the Land then that's a matter that should be taken up with the Contractors in the Agreement, not the functionaries created by, and under, the agreement.

[Carl]

now it's our turn... i like that part carl but this will take force to make it happen they will not give up easy and without a fight

My idea is to have the states' legislators fight for it for us. All we have to do is to convince them to take back their Senate.

[monty]

My idea is to have the states' legislators fight for it for us. All we have to do is to convince them to take back their Senate.

A very good point.

Sent from my iPad using Forum Runner

[Bigjon]

Tenth Amendment: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

We the people are the final arbiter in determining what the Constitution means. It's not the Supreme Court's job to interpret the Constitution, it is their job to insure that the laws passed by congress conform to the Supreme Law of the Land. If there are any ambiguities in the Supreme Law of the Land then that's a matter that should be taken up with the Contractors in the Agreement, not the functionaries created by, and under, the agreement.

The Supreme Law of the Land has a nice ring to it, sort of like propaganda for This Constitution, but those are hollow words without any teeth to back them up as This Constitution can be interpreted any way they want to.

If This Constitution were written in a concise fashion, we would know the founders intentions, but it is not concise and open for discussion and disagreement. What mechanism will you use to claim your 10th amendment rights? I don't think This Constitution will tell you what procedures to follow to claim them.

[Bigjon]

My idea is to have the states' legislators fight for it for us. All we have to do is to convince them to take back their Senate.

A good constitution would not leave it up to Carl to decide.

[Carl]

If This Constitution were written in a concise fashion, we would know the founders intentions, but it is not concise and open for discussion and disagreement. What mechanism will you use to claim your 10th amendment rights? I don't think This Constitution will tell you what procedures to follow to claim them. The founder's intent is a matter of public record. The tenth amendment doesn't delegate a right, it specifies a limit. We determine that limit. I don't know about you but I'm fed up with their bullshit.

Our number one priority should be the reestablishment of our Republic and for that we need the states to recognize that the 17th non-amendment is a violation of their Article 5 protected right to equal suffrage in their Senate.

[Bigjon]

The founder's intent is a matter of public record. The tenth amendment doesn't delegate a right, it specifies a limit. We determine that limit. I don't know about you but I'm fed up with their bullshit.

Our number one priority should be the reestablishment of our Republic and for that we need the states to recognize that the 17th non-amendment is a violation of their Article 5 protected right to equal suffrage in their Senate.

Where in the public record can we read their intent, it is not in This Constitution. You might find it in the federalist papers or their private letters, but you will not find it in This Constitution.

I agree that I too am fed up with "our" government and its total disregard for the people, but to look to This Constitution for a guide leaves us guessing at the founders intents.

When I was a boy my teacher expressed her view that the people who worked for the Federal Government should not be allowed to vote and it was the founders intent because the District of Columbia had no elected government. This Constitution leaves that view an open question.

One more little detail we are not using the original This Constitution "for" the United States, it is gathering dust in the archives and we are now using This Constitution "of" the United States a statute passed by congress.

[Carl]

Where in the public record can we read their intent, it is not in This Constitution. You might find it in the federalist papers or their private letters, but you will not find it in This Constitution.

I agree that I too am fed up with "our" government and its total disregard for the people, but to look to This Constitution for a guide leaves us guessing at the founders intents.

When I was a boy my teacher expressed her view that the people who worked for the Federal Government should not be allowed to vote and it was the founders intent because the District of Columbia had no elected government. This Constitution leaves that view an open question. Why do you continue to insist upon making it more complicated than it is? I agree with you, no one receiving compensation from a government or it's agency should be allowed to vote because they hold a vested interest in the outcome. I also believe that no one in government, or spin-off agencies, should get paid more than the national median income, that should be the top limit. But that's just my wish list....

What we can do is deal with the situation in the most expedient manner possible and that comes back to convincing the states' legislators to take back their Senate.


*Here's another one:
*Lawyers are barred from holding public office.

[Bigjon]

Why do you continue to insist upon making it more complicated than it is? I agree with you, no one receiving compensation from a government or it's agency should be allowed to vote because they hold a vested interest in the outcome. I also believe that no one in government, or spin-off agencies, should get paid more than the national median income, that should be the top limit. But that's just my wish list....

What we can do is deal with the situation in the most expedient manner possible and that comes back to convincing the states' legislators to take back their Senate.


*Here's another one:
*Lawyers are barred from holding public office.

I am not the one who is making it more complicated than it really is. The reason things are complicated is because This Constitution was vague from the beginning allowing all sorts of loopholes for the unscrupulous to take advantage whenever they found it to their benefit.

Our schools filled us with all sorts of ideas about how things are supposed to run, but a look into This Constitution will not find them explicitly defined, instead we have to look to supreme court decisions about how the law is supposed to work. Lawyers found a way to get to the front of the parade and legislate the Law according to their own dictates and the dictates of the men behind the scenes like the Banksters.


We are sold on a regular basis about what the law is and how it should work, but it won't be found in This Constitution. It may get a passing mention, but rarely is there specific instructions.

[Carl]

Bigjon, it's not complicated, they overreached and it falls upon us to put them back in line. The ambiguity you see is a product of the courts and the legislators, not the Constitution.

[Bigjon]

Bigjon, it's not complicated, they overreached and it falls upon us to put them back in line. The ambiguity you see is a product of the courts and the legislators, not the Constitution.

JeezLouize, I put it in writing and showed you in black and white, just one of the many failings of This Constitution. Grand Juries. There are many more examples and you have NOT shown one example where This Constitution spells out what it means other than your vague (as This Constitution) it's right there all you have to do is use common sense. My common sense and your common sense have a wide gap.

If This Constitution were written in a concise manner the courts would NOT have been able to muck it up with their legalese Bullshit.

[Carl]

JeezLouize, I put it in writing and showed you in black and white, just one of the many failings of This Constitution. Grand Juries. There are many more examples and you have NOT shown one example where This Constitution spells out what it means other than your vague (as This Constitution) it's right there all you have to do is use common sense. My common sense and your common sense have a wide gap. What is your hang-up on this?

fifth amendment: an overview (http://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/fifth_amendment)

The Fifth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution provides, "No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."

The clauses incorporated within the Fifth Amendment outline basic constitutional limits on police procedure. The Framers derived the Grand Juries Clause and the Due Process Clause from the Magna Carta, dating back to 1215. Scholars consider the Fifth Amendment as capable of breaking down into the following five distinct constitutional rights: grand juries for capital crimes, a prohibition on double jeopardy, a prohibition against required self-incrimination, a guarantee that all criminal defendants will have a fair trial, and a promise that the government will not seize private property without paying market value. While the Fifth Amendment originally only applied to federal courts, the U.S. Supreme Court has interpreted the Fifth Amendment's provisions as now applying to the states through the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

Grand Juries

Grand juries are a holdover from hundreds of years ago, originating during Britain's early history. Deeply-rooted in the Anglo-American tradition, the grand jury originally served to protect the accused from overly-zealous prosecutions by the English monarchy.

Congressional statutes outline the means by which a grand jury shall be impaneled. Ordinarily, the grand jurors are selected from the pool of prospective jurors who potentially could serve on a given day in any juror capacity. At common-law, a grand jury consists of between 12 and 23 members. Because the Grand jury was derived from the common-law, courts use the common-law as a means of interpreting the Grand Jury Clause. While state legislatures may set the statutory number of grand jurors anywhere within the common-law requirement of 12 to 23, statutes setting the number outside of this range violate the Fifth Amendment. Federal law has set the federal grand jury number as falling between 16 and 23.

A person being charged with a crime that warrants a grand jury has the right to challenge members of the grand juror for partiality or bias, but these challenges differ from peremptory challenges, which a defendant has when choosing a trial jury. When a defendant makes a peremptory challenge, the judge must remove the juror without making any proof, but in the case of a grand juror challenge, the challenger must establish the cause of the challenge by meeting the same burden of proof as the establishment of any other fact would require. Grand juries possess broad authority to investigate suspected crimes. They may not, however, conduct "fishing expeditions" or hire individuals not already employed by the government to locate testimony or documents. Ultimately, grand juries may make a presentment. During a presentment the grand jury informs the court that they have a reasonable suspicion that the suspect committed a crime.

Where's the ambiguity?

[Bigjon]

What is your hang-up on this?

fifth amendment: an overview (http://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/fifth_amendment)

The Fifth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution provides, "No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."

The clauses incorporated within the Fifth Amendment outline basic constitutional limits on police procedure. The Framers derived the Grand Juries Clause and the Due Process Clause from the Magna Carta, dating back to 1215. Scholars consider the Fifth Amendment as capable of breaking down into the following five distinct constitutional rights: grand juries for capital crimes, a prohibition on double jeopardy, a prohibition against required self-incrimination, a guarantee that all criminal defendants will have a fair trial, and a promise that the government will not seize private property without paying market value. While the Fifth Amendment originally only applied to federal courts, the U.S. Supreme Court has interpreted the Fifth Amendment's provisions as now applying to the states through the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

Grand Juries

Grand juries are a holdover from hundreds of years ago, originating during Britain's early history. Deeply-rooted in the Anglo-American tradition, the grand jury originally served to protect the accused from overly-zealous prosecutions by the English monarchy.

Congressional statutes outline the means by which a grand jury shall be impaneled. Ordinarily, the grand jurors are selected from the pool of prospective jurors who potentially could serve on a given day in any juror capacity. At common-law, a grand jury consists of between 12 and 23 members. Because the Grand jury was derived from the common-law, courts use the common-law as a means of interpreting the Grand Jury Clause. While state legislatures may set the statutory number of grand jurors anywhere within the common-law requirement of 12 to 23, statutes setting the number outside of this range violate the Fifth Amendment. Federal law has set the federal grand jury number as falling between 16 and 23.

A person being charged with a crime that warrants a grand jury has the right to challenge members of the grand juror for partiality or bias, but these challenges differ from peremptory challenges, which a defendant has when choosing a trial jury. When a defendant makes a peremptory challenge, the judge must remove the juror without making any proof, but in the case of a grand juror challenge, the challenger must establish the cause of the challenge by meeting the same burden of proof as the establishment of any other fact would require. Grand juries possess broad authority to investigate suspected crimes. They may not, however, conduct "fishing expeditions" or hire individuals not already employed by the government to locate testimony or documents. Ultimately, grand juries may make a presentment. During a presentment the grand jury informs the court that they have a reasonable suspicion that the suspect committed a crime.

Where's the ambiguity?

Here is the text of the amendment in its entirety.


[Amendment V]

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.



It does not specify what a Grand Jury consists of, how it is put together, who controls it, what a presentment is, and an indictment. All these things are left to the courts to decide and they have decided that the prosecutors control the Grand Jury and that only lawyers can issue presentments and indictments. The citizen is left entirely out of the process.

All the verbiage you display comes from a source outside This Constitution.

[Carl]

Here is the text of the amendment in its entirety.

It does not specify what a Grand Jury consists of, how it is put together, who controls it, what a presentment is, and an indictment. All these things are left to the courts to decide and they have decided that the prosecutors control the Grand Jury and that only lawyers can issue presentments and indictments. The citizen is left entirely out of the process.

All the verbiage you display comes from a source outside This Constitution. Yes, congress and states' legislators (people we elect) write the laws that govern grand juries. Nothing nefarious in that. What are looking for grand juries to do that would require an amendment?

[Bigjon]

Yes, congress and states' legislators (people we elect) write the laws that govern grand juries. Nothing nefarious in that. What are looking for grand juries to do that would require an amendment?

The legislature had nothing to do with the interpretation of how Grand Juries are implemented and the rules which govern them, the lawyers decided how they would use them.

The point that you are avoiding is IF This Constitution were written in a concise manner explicitly defining the terms of Grand Juries those lawyers would not have been able to sideline a very important tool the citizens could be using to keep our government under control.

[Carl]

The legislature had nothing to do with the interpretation of how Grand Juries are implemented and the rules which govern them, the lawyers decided how they would use them.

The point that you are avoiding is IF This Constitution were written in a concise manner explicitly defining the terms of Grand Juries those lawyers would not have been able to sideline a very important tool the citizens could be using to keep our government under control.

TITLE 18 App. > FEDERAL > TITLE > Rule 6

Rule 6. The Grand Jury (http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode18a/usc_sec_18a_03000006----000-.html)

Grand Juries are defined by legislation and that legislation must conform to the Constitution.

*Grand Juries aren't a tool to be use as a political instrument by the people to get rid of politicians they don't like, and that's exactly what you're asking them to be turned into.

[mick silver]

all the courts in this country area f...ing joke . they are not for the people nor have they been for the people in some time . just one more added ruler for us all

[Bigjon]

TITLE 18 App. > FEDERAL > TITLE > Rule 6

Rule 6. The Grand Jury (http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode18a/usc_sec_18a_03000006----000-.html)

Grand Juries are defined by legislation and that legislation must conform to the Constitution.

*Grand Juries aren't a tool to be use as a political instrument by the people to get rid of politicians they don't like, and that's exactly what you're asking them to be turned into.

Eric Holder comes to mind, giving guns to outlaws and being able to duck and cover is good in your opinion??

Grand Juries were a tool that the citizen's could use to bring any member of the government involved in criminal activities before a court of law (petit jury). Grand Juries were to be run by those placed on the Grand Jury
Those are the rules the legislature passed, but the implementation is governed under the rules for court procedure which was first passed in 1947. I will have to go find them.


http://www.constitution.org/lrev/roots/runaway.htm

IF IT'S NOT A RUNAWAY, IT'S NOT A REAL GRAND JURY

ROGER ROOTS†



From the ratification of the Bill of Rights in 1789, up until and to some extent beyond its codification in the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, a Federal grand jury practice went for the most part unregulated by statute.[82] This was due to the limited constitutional jurisdiction of the federal government, and to the scarcity of federal statutes governing criminal justice, a domain traditionally reserved to the states.[83] In its traditional form, the citizen grand jury had come to be seen as an inefficient, unnecessary and possibly dangerous phenomenon.[84] Ultimately, a combination of judicial activism, executive contempt and legislative apathy left the federal grand jury weakened and contained before it had a chance to truly roam free.[85]

1946 ENACTMENT OF THE FEDERAL RULES

In 1946, the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure were adopted, codifying what had previously been a vastly divergent set of common law procedural rules and regional customs.[86] In general, an effort was made to conform the rules to the contemporary state of federal criminal practice.[87] In the area of federal grand jury practice, however, a remarkable exception was allowed. The drafters of Rules 6 and 7, which loosely govern federal grand juries, denied future generations of what had been the well-recognized powers of common law grand juries: powers of unrestrained investigation and of independent declaration of findings. The committee that drafted the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure provided no outlet for any document other than a prosecutor-signed indictment. In so doing, the drafters at least tacitly, if not affirmatively, opted to ignore explicit constitutional language.[88]

IV. THE LOST PRESENTMENT POWER OF THE GRAND JURY

The Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution requires that no person shall be held to answer for a capital or otherwise infamous crime except by a presentment or indictment of a grand jury.[89]

What all authorities recognize as a "presentment," however, has been written out of the law and is no longer recognized by the federal judiciary.[90]

A presentment is a grand jury communication to the public concerning the grand jury's investigation. It has traditionally been an avenue for expressing grievances of the people against government.[91 ] In early American common law, the presentment was a customary way for grand juries to accuse public employees or officials of misconduct.[92] While an "indictment" was normally thought to be invalid without the signature of a government prosecutor, a presentment required no formal assent of any entity outside the grand jury. In early America, a presentment was thought to be an indictment without a prosecutor's signature and a mandate to a district attorney to initiate a prosecution.[93]

According to Professor Lester B. Orfield, who served as a member of the Advisory Committee on Rules of Criminal Procedure, the drafters of Rule 6 consciously decided that the term "presentment" should not be used in the Rules — even though the term appears in the Constitution.[94] "Retention," wrote Orfield, "might encourage the use of the 'run-away' grand jury as the grand jury could act from their own knowledge or observation and not only from charges made by the United States attorney."[95]

A presentment is generally drafted from the knowledge and findings of the jurors themselves, rather than a prosecutor, and signed individually by each juror who agrees with it. A presentment at common law stood public with or without approval of a prosecutor or court. In the early days of the Republic, the Attorney General hinted that a federal prosecutor was obliged to indict upon the presentment by the grand jury.[96] Thus, Rule 6 represented a monumental — and deliberate — change of grand jury practice.[97] Orfield's peculiar use of the term "runaway" grand jury in the committee notes may mark both the advent of this term into the legal lexicon[98] and the loss to history of true grand jury independence.[99]

With the Federal Rules, the grand jury was drastically altered, in what can only be seen as an immense assault on the grand jury as an institution, if not an absolute coup d'etat upon it. The rule drafters deliberately pigeonholed the citizen grand jury into a minor role of either approving or disapproving of a prosecutor's actions. With the enactment of Rule 6, the federal government's undeclared war on the grand jury was almost won. What remained of the federal grand jury as a free institution was left to the federal courts to whittle away even further.

The federal courts were quick to uphold the federal rules when it came to deciding matters relating to the grand jury. In almost cyclical logic, the federal courts have claimed in near unison that presentments accusing unindicted persons of crime cannot be allowed, absent judge or prosecutor approval, "past unchallenged practice" notwithstanding.[100] Thus, hundreds of years of grand jury jurisprudence was overthrown by codification.[101]

Justification for hobbling grand juries in this manner was based on the argument that those who are accused in grand jury documents are denied due process rights that the courts have a duty to protect.[102 ] It was argued that allowing the continuance of common law grand jury powers would expose countless persons — many of them government agents — to unanswerable accusations in the public eye.[103] Protecting public officials from public scorn thus won out over upholding the traditional powers of federal grand juries. Numerous avenues for innocent persons to fight such accusations are available.[104] Nevertheless, courts during the latter twentieth century have appeared to uniformly adopt the "protect people from grand jury accusations" rationale for barring the federal grand juries from issuing presentments.[105]

Another aspect of the grand jury's lost powers that has received little consideration in the legal literature is that of grand jury's loss of power to turn on the government and publicly exonerate a suspect. With curtailment of the grand jury's power to accuse without prosecutorial sanction also came curtailment of the grand jury's power to formally and publicly exonerate. This loss of power also serves the interests of modern government by allowing a prosecutor to resubmit a matter to a new grand jury, a practice which almost always can produce a true bill eventually — even against a ham sandwich.[106]

One principle example in American history of a political persecution that was exposed by the presentments of grand juries is the almost unbelievable story of Aaron Burr.[107] After what can only be described as a bizarre political career,[108] Burr found himself disliked by both the Federalists and the Republicans.[109] The United States Attorney for Kentucky, a staunch Federalist aligned with his own party's strongest rival President Jefferson, moved that a grand jury be summoned to consider charges against Burr for his alleged attempt to involve the United States in a war with Spain.[110] This grand jury from Republican-dominated Kentucky returned an "ignoramus bill," declining to indict Burr on the evidence.[111] Going even further, the grand jury issued a written declaration directed to the court in which they declared that Burr failed to exhibit "any design inimical to the peace and well-being of the country."[112]

A second grand jury was indubitably spurred by Jefferson himself.[113] The second proceeding convened in Mississippi Territory to consider similar treason charges against Burr relating to his expedition down the Mississippi River.[114] It was alleged that Burr intended to capture New Orleans, a city of nine thousand people protected by a thousand United States soldiers, using sixty unarmed men in ten boats.[115] The Mississippi grand jury not only declined to indict Burr in the affair, but returned presentments which clearly labeled the government's attempted charges as a vindictive prosecution.[116] The presentment concluded that "Aaron Burr has not been guilty of any crime or misdemeanor against the laws of the United States or of this Territory."[117] Furthermore, the grand jury declared that the arrests of Burr and his co-travelers had been made "without warrant, and . . . without other lawful authority,"[118] and represented a "grievance destructive of personal liberty."[119] In resounding condemnation, the grand jury pronounced its regret that "the enemies of our glorious Constitution" had rejoiced at the attempted persecution of Aaron Burr and expressed the opinion that such prosecutorial misconduct "must sap the vitals of our political existence, and crumble this glorious fabric in the dust."[120]

The grand jury's presentment power was thus used not only to accuse wrongdoers when government prosecutors refuse to do so, but to publicly declare the innocence of a targeted suspect in the very face of opposition by the prosecution. Ironically, the Mississippi grand jury was a "runaway" by today's standards. Nevertheless, a grand jury acting in such way offered preciously the type of protection envisioned by the Framers when they included the institution in the Bill of Rights as a check on the power of the government.[121]

Even more enlightening in comparison with the canons of modern criminal procedure, the Mississippi grand jury's presentment included a bold attack on the prosecution itself — an occurrence scarcely imaginable today. It was thus the grand jury's power over its presentments, rather than its indictments, that made it so fearsome. The effectiveness of early American grand juries in ferreting out the shortcomings of public officials "can be gauged from the long lists of grand jury presentments" of early America.[122] "Very little escaped the attention of the grand jurymen,"[123] which even took notice of the failures of town councils to provide stocks or a whipping post to punish offenders.[124]

V. CONCLUSION

The enactment in 1946 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure has greatly decreased the power of federal grand juries. While widely thought of as a gift to defense attorneys at the time,[125] the codification of grand jury practice into Rule 6 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure has largely confined the grand jury to its present state of impotence and has done little to protect defendants from the modern "runaway" federal government. Present federal grand jury practice, which forbids grand jurors from issuing presentments without consent of a federal prosecutor, is unconstitutional and violative of the historical principles on which the creation of the grand jury was premised.



If your beloved This Constitution were concise we would have the tools we need to keep our Republic.

[Carl]

Interesting side issue, just one in a plethora of wrongs to be righted.

However, I'm more interested in tossing the biggest monkey wrench I can find into the grinding gears of central government, we can sweat the other stuff after...

[Bigjon]

Interesting side issue, just one in a plethora of wrongs to be righted.

However, I'm more interested in tossing the biggest monkey wrench I can find into the grinding gears central government, we can sweat the other stuff after...

Me too.

I could be wrong, The Constitution of India is the longest in the world and it's government is no bastion of freedom and tranquility.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution_of_India