To those interested:
Below are excerpts from two notable U.S. Supreme Court cases, one of which has direct bearing on the ongoing threat to the Second Amendment, and the other upon the Grand Jury issue. Margy and I read these cases a long time ago and recently briefly revisited and scanned some of the major points of interest to us and, hopefully, to the American People. Neither of us has any admiration for the Supreme Court of the United States, which we consider a treasonous court by its own rulings and actions in contradiction to the Constitution. As you know, no Justice has the constitutional authority to defy and oppose the document to which he swore or affirmed his/her oath. If the Supreme Court were truly a constitutional court, then, all decisions would be 9 - 0 in favor of all constitutional positions.
However, from time to time, the court does rule correctly on constitutional matters and offers opinions on matters that confirm constitutionally secured rights. In Printz & Mack v. U.S., below, decided in 1997, Justice Antonin Scalia read the majority opinion, the resultant decision of which is included below. The bottom line of this decision is that the federal government has no authority to compel the states to administer or enforce a federal regulatory program, despite policy.
Again, this was decided in 1997, and here we are in 2013 - 16 years later - and this decision has essentially died on the vine, because no one that we know of in this nation is enforcing it upon the unconstitutional government. One would think with the Second Amendment issue being so prominent across this nation that the essential, primary ruling from this case would be used in arguments against governments' regulations, policies and legislation attempting to shred the Second Amendment!
For those of you observing those theoretically arguing in support of the Second Amendment, the use of this case is a no-brainer and its non-use should call into question the legitimacy of the arguments being advocated by them and, ultimately, their true objective. Concentration and direct focus on the specific constitutional positions and arguments must be paramount in any serious effort. Precedents such as these that uphold rights guaranteed in the Constitution must be used to demonstrate that the Supreme Court both upholds secured rights and limits the power of encroaching, overreaching, excessive government- at least in these cases.
Off-point, distracting, secondary issues and arguments, microscopically dissecting statutes, ad nauseum, serve the duty of the judges and the pocketbooks of the attorneys, only. Please remember that public officers, executives, and legislators have no constitutional authority to oppose, deny and defy the very document to which they swore their oaths. Therefore, it is plainly evident that they have no constitutional authority to create statutes which directly oppose and violate mandates of the Constitution. Those who theoretically argue for the people and the Second Amendment seem to forget the word "authority" and also seem to forget, on purpose, that constitutional authority does NOT exist for government to violate the Constitution(s), as a normal course of business. Beware of your "leaders", people, because if history repeats itself, as it always seems to do, they will lead you down the path of destruction, yet, in that effort advance their own agenda, purposes and power.
In the U.S. v. Williams case, below the Printz & Mack case excerpt, Scalia, again, read the majority opinion of the court, and in so doing, made monumental statements about the INDEPENDENCE, AUTONOMY AND FREEDOM POSSESSED BY THE GRAND JURY. It is well worth your time to read this case, if you wish, because this case cites other good case precedents that uphold this position.
Scalia made a point of saying that the grand jury is cited in the Bill of Rights, is a fixture in its own right, belongs to the people, is independent of the judicial, executive and legislative branches, and cannot be controlled or influenced by the prosecutor and the court. This opinion was rendered in 1992 - 21 years ago. Despite this fact and despite other rulings that uphold this opinion, governments all over this nation - at all levels and in all forms - have ignored this key ruling and essentially deep-sixed it.
Where are the advocates for the people who want independence and freedom for the grand jury in pursuit of justice, per constitutional guarantees? Those who have attempted to form grand juries may have had good intent, but they have failed miserably, because they did not use the power of this and other rulings to empower the constitutional authority of their own grand juries, principally because they do not have enough constitutional understanding to enforce constitutional requirements upon treasonous governments.
Those Americans who are serious about forming constitutionally empowered grand juries must use the power of the Constitution(s) to do so, and must demand that their so-called "public servants" abide by their oaths and uphold all constitutional provisions and guarantees. These positions are paramount, because without them, nothing but failure will occur. Remember, Power uses its power ruthlessly against the powerless to expand its all-encompassing power and bring everyone and everything under that power. If serious Americans do not use their own inherent political power and lawfully compel their public SERVANTS - federal, state and local - to recognize and obey the independent authority of the grand jury and, further, demand that they support and prosecute based upon its findings, this effort will be futile. If only a few Americans try to do this, they will get nowhere. It will take many millions of Americans across this nation, with serious intent, persistent focused expertise, and real courage to accomplish this worthwhile and absolutely necessary constitutional objective.
In the American Revolution, approximately 3% of the people participated, although some have said 5%, which is not correct. A little over half of that 3% actually fought the battles, while the rest acted in support, supply and logistical positions. Today, 3% of the American population is slightly more than 9 million people. The type of action Jack and I are suggesting to take back our country from the tyrants and criminals running her into the ground is lawful, constitutional action, and one of the best ways to accomplish this is by and through free and independent grand juries of the people. We do not support, nor encourage, any type of action other than lawful, constitutional action. The question is: Are there 9 or more million Americans across this nation willing to support the Supreme Law of the Land and lawfully enforce their inherent rights, guaranteed therein, by embarking upon a constitutional crusade to establish truly independent, autonomous grand juries throughout this nation? This effort must demand that public officers not only support the grand juries, but also fully accept, honor and respect their independence, their power to conduct investigations and make presentments against errant public officers and other suspected criminals, and most critically, prosecute upon their findings, pursuant to constitutional requirements.
Margy and I have spent over 50 years teaching not only the Constitutions, but also how people can apply them upon reluctant governments throughout the nation. Jack just suffered a serious illness and nearly died. This gave him a lot of time to think and reflect and realize that at this stage of our lives, it is necessary for us to end the ongoing enormous stress and anxiety we have endured all these years in our efforts to help America and her people. Nearly two years ago we announced our retirement, but many people across the nation have not taken that seriously, and the demands upon us are still too high. If many people across the nation take this email seriously and want to form independent grand juries and/or pursue efforts to protect the Second Amendment correctly, we will be happy to offer guidance, only, in such efforts, but not lead them.
Best regards,
Jack and Margy
www.CitizensoftheAmericanConstitution.net
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nos. 95-1478 and 95-1503
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
JAY PRINTZ, SHERIFF/CORONER, RAVALLI COUNTY, MONTANA, PETITIONER 95-1478 v. UNITED STATES RICHARD MACK, PETITIONER 95-1503
on writs of certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the ninth circuit
[June 27, 1997]
Justice Scalia delivered the opinion of the Court.
The question presented in these cases is whether certain interim provisions of the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act, Pub. L. 103-159, 107 Stat. 1536, commanding state and local law enforcement officers to conduct background checks on prospective handgun purchasers and to perform certain related tasks, violate the Constitution.
We held in New York that Congress cannot compel the States to enact or enforce a federal regulatory program. Today we hold that Congress cannot circumvent that prohibition by conscripting the State's officers directly. The Federal Government may neither issue directives requiring the States to address particular problems, nor command the States' officers, or those of their political subdivisions, to administer or enforce a federal regulatory program. It matters not whether policy making is involved, and no case by case weighing of the burdens or benefits is necessary; such commands are fundamentally incompatible with our constitutional system of dual sovereignty. Accordingly, the judgment of the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit is reversed.
It is so ordered.
*******************************************************************************
112 S.Ct. 1735
504 U.S. 36
118 L.Ed.2d 352
UNITED STATES, Petitioner
v.
John H. WILLIAMS, Jr.
No. 90-1972.
Argued Jan. 22, 1992.
Decided May 4, 1992.
In a stunning 6 to 3 decision Justice Antonin Scalia, writing for the majority, confirmed that the American grand jury is neither part of the judicial, executive nor legislative branches of government, but instead belongs to the people. It is in effect a fourth branch of government "governed" and administered to directly by and on behalf of the American people, and its authority emanates from the Bill of Rights.
We the people have been providentially provided legal recourse to address the criminal conduct
of persons themselves entrusted to dispense justice.
In the Supreme Court case of United States v. Williams, 112 S.Ct. 1735, 504 U.S. 36, 118 L.Ed.
2d 352 (1992), Justice Antonin Scalia,writing for the majority, confirmed that the American grand jury is neither part of the judicial, executive nor legislative branches of government, but instead belongs to the people. It is in effect a fourth branch of government "governed" and administered to directly by and on behalf of the American people, and its authority emanates from the Bill of Rights.
Thus, citizens have the unbridled right to empanel their own grand juries and present "True Bills" of indictment to a court, which is then required to commence a criminal proceeding. OurFounding Fathers presciently thereby created a "buffer" the people may rely upon for justice,
when public officials, including judges, criminally
violate the law.
112 S.Ct. 1735
504 U.S. 36
118 L.Ed.2d 352
UNITED STATES, Petitioner
v.
John H. WILLIAMS, Jr.
No. 90-1972.
Argued Jan. 22, 1992.
Decided May 4, 1992.
Justice Antonin Scalia, writing for the majority:
Because the grand jury is an institution separate from the courts, over whose functioning the courts do not preside, we think it clear that, as a general matter at least, no such "supervisory" judicial authority exists, and that the disclosure rule applied here exceeded the Tenth Circuit's authority.
A.
"[R]ooted in long centuries of Anglo-American history," Hannah v. Larche, 363 U.S. 420,490, 80 S.Ct. 1502, 1544, 4 L.Ed.2d 1307 (1960) (Frankfurter, J., concurring in result), the grand jury is mentioned in the Bill of Rights, but not in the body of the Constitution. It has not been textually assigned, therefore, to any of the branches described in the first three Articles. It " 'is a constitutional fixture in its own right.' "United States v. Chanen, 549 F.2d 1306, 1312 (CA91977)
(quotingNixon v. Sirica, 159 U.S.App.D.C. 58, 70, n. 54, 487 F.2d 700, 712, n. 54(1973)), cert. denied, 434 U.S. 825, 98 S.Ct. 72, 5 4 L.Ed.2d 83 (1977). In fact the whole theory of its function is that it belongs to no branch ofthe institutional government, serving as a kind of buffer or referee between the Government and the people. Stirone v. United States, 361 U.S. 212,218, 80 S.Ct. 270, 273, 4 L.Ed.2d 252 (1960); Hale v. Henkel, 201 U.S. 43, 61, 26 S.Ct. 370,373, 50 L.Ed. 652 (1906)
; G. Edwards, The Grand Jury 28-32 (1906). Although the grand jury normally operates, of course, in the courthouse and under judicial auspices, its institutional relationship with the judicial branch has traditionally been, so to speak, at arm's length. Judges' direct involvement in the functioning of the grand jury has generally been confined to the constitutive one of calling the grand jurors togeth
er and administering their oaths of office. United States v. Calandra, 414 U.S. 338, 343, 94 S.Ct. 613, 617, 38 L.Ed.2d 561 (1974) Fed.Rule Crim.Proc. 6(a).
Page 48
The grand jury's functional independence from the judicial branch is evident both in the scope of its power to investigate criminal wrongdoing, and in the manner in which that power is exercised. "Unlike [a] [c]ourt, whose jurisdiction is predicated upon a specific case or controversy, the grand jury 'can investigate merely on suspicion that the law is being violated, or even because it wants assurance that it is not.' "United States v. R. Enterprises, 498 U.S. ----, ----, 111 S.Ct. 722, 726, 112 L.Ed.2d 795 (1991) (quoting United States v. Morton Salt Co., 338 U.S. 632, 642-643, 70 S.Ct. 357, 364, 94 L.Ed. 401 (1950) ). It need not identify the offender it suspects, or even "the precise nature of the offense" it is investigating. Blair v. United States, 250 U.S. 273, 282, 39 S.Ct. 468, 471, 63 L.Ed. 979 (1919). The grand jury requires no authorization from its constituting court to initiate an investigation, see Hale, supra, 201 U.S., at 59-60, 65, 26 S.Ct., at 373, 375, nor does the prosecutor require leave of court to seek a grand jury indictment. And in its day-to-day functioning, the grand jury generally operates without the interference of a presiding judge. See Calandra, supra,
414 U.S., at 343, 94 S.Ct., at 617. It swears in its own witnesses, Fed.Rule Crim.Proc. 6(c), and deliberate s in total secrecy, see United States v. Sells Engineering, Inc., 463 U.S., at 424-425, 103 S.Ct., at 3138. True, the grand jury cannot compel the appearance of witnesses and the production of evidence, and must appeal to the court when such compulsion is required. See, e.g., Brown v.
United States, 359 U.S. 41, 49, 79 S.Ct. 539, 545, 3 L.Ed.2d 609 (1959). And the court will refuse to lend its assistance when the compulsion the grand jury seeks would override rights accorded by the Constitution, see, e.g., Gravel v. United States, 408 U.S. 606, 92 S.Ct. 2614, 33L.Ed.2d 583 (1972) (grand jury subpoena effectively qualified by order limiting questioning so as to preserve Speech or Debate Clause immunity), or even testimonial privileges recognized by the common law,
In re Grand Jury Investigation of Hugle, 754 F.2d 863 (CA9 1985)(same with respect to privilege for confidential marital communications) (opinion of Kennedy, J.). Even in this setting, however, we have insisted that the grand jury remain "free to pursue its investi-
Page 49
gations unhindered by external influence or supervision so long as it does not trench upon the
legitimate rights of any witness called before it." United States v. Dionisio, 410 U.S. 1, 17-18, 93
S.Ct. 764, 773, 35 L.Ed.2d 67 (1973). Recognizing this tradition of independence, we have said
that the Fifth Amendment's "constitutional guarantee presupposes an investigative body 'acting
independently of either prosecuting attorney or judge '. . . ."Id., at 16, 93 S.Ct., at 773 (emphasis
added) (quoting Stirone, supra, 361 U.S., at 218, 80 S.Ct., at 273). No doubt in view of the grand jury proceeding's status as other than a constituent element of a "criminal prosecutio[n]," U.S. Const., Amdt. VI, we have said that certain constitutional protections afforded defendants in criminal proceedings have no application before that body. The Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment does not bar a grand jury from returning an indictment when a prior grand jury has refused to do so. See Ex parte United States, 287 U.S.241, 250-251, 53 S.Ct. 129, 132, 77 L.Ed. 283 (1932); United States v. Thompson, 251 U.S. 407,413-415, 40 S.Ct. 289, 292, 64 L.Ed. 333 (1920).
Replies