for the People to do so
by Barbie, ACIC National J.A.I.L. Administration
The Fatal Omission
Law is only as effective as it
can be enforced. Without enforceability, what good is it?
Likewise, the Constitution --the
Supreme Law of the Land-- is only as effective as
IT can be enforced. Without
enforceability, WHAT GOOD IS IT?
Is it any wonder that the Constitution is routinely ignored by
the powers-that-be, and has been impotent since its inception?
Can there be any doubt that the
omission of an enforcement provision in the Constitution when it
was framed is, and has been for over 200 years,
fatal to the enjoyment of our life and liberty? to
the acquisition, possession and defending of property? to the
pursuit of happiness, safety, and privacy? Can there be any
doubt that the natural course leading to the fulfillment of
these unalienable rights has been literally blocked
through the usurpation of power by an evil and
despotic occupying force in this country under color of law,
fraudulently pretending to be "the government"?
Does it seem strange to you that
what we read in the Declaration of Independence and in the U.S.
Constitution reads like a fairy tale, (for instance:
"...deriving their just powers from the consent of the
governed...") and does not match the reality of what we are
experiencing in this country today, nor even throughout our
lifetimes? and that it is growing even stranger
and further removed from reality at an
ever-increasing pace as time goes on? And does it
seem strange to you that the more we
hear about peace, health, and
SAFETY, the less of it we actually have?
Do you really feel safer today than you did yesterday?
And most provocative-- do you
feel helpless to be able to do anything about it?
Well folks, it's NOT going to get any better!
J.A.I.L. is needed regardless
of all else
Although we have often said that
the objective of J.A.I.L. is judicial accountability -i.e.,
We the People holding judges accountable to themselves under the
standards set forth in the United States Constitution-we have,
over time, become more enlightened to the fact that the
ultimate objective is To Enforce
The Constitution by
holding judges accountable to the People under its standards.
And to drive home the fact that "J.A.I.L. is the ONLY answer" to
accomplishing that objective, J.A.I.L. is the ONLY proposal
available providing a detailed, spelled-out method and process
designed for the People to do so.
More and more people are
realizing that the objective must be the enforcement of the
Constitution by the People, however no one beyond J.A.I.L. has
come up with the specific means by which to accomplish that
task. Despite all other ideas, none offers an alternative to J.A.I.L.
No, not one! Regardless of what others have
suggested as a solution, all are inherently dependent upon the
implementation of J.A.I.L. to stand guard
in keeping government within the
bounds it was designed to function. Yes, government must be
leashed by the People, and that leash must be held firmly by
the People on an instant and permanent
basis to maintain our Constitutional
Republic. Only J.A.I.L. provides such leash!
That's not to say that the People
aren't free to pursue whatever project they deem appropriate.
However it's vital to our ultimate freedom to choose our
priorities-- to first put our resources
into the cause that will best and most efficiently bring
real security by the People to the People on a
permanent basis. Only
J.A.I.L. provides such security! Government cannot,
and will not, provide it on its own.
J.A.I.L. is rooted in the
Declaration of Independence, the Founding Document of this
country and the most logical place to begin in correcting the
tyranny that has overtaken us. ("...to provide new guards
for their future security.") We must go back to Square One
which, for purposes of J.A.I.L., consists of two parts:
first, the Declaration (the foundation);
second, the U.S. Constitution read
in light of the Declaration (the ground floor).
It is imperative that
everything that has occurred since the ratification of the
Constitution be cleared from your thinking --the slate must be
wiped clean-- otherwise you will be distracted by the myriad of
irrelevant events that have taken place since that ratification,
inasmuch as they are in violation of the Constitution, and
hence, null and void.
So forget them (I realize it's
easier said than done) --but do so, at least
for purposes of focusing on what we must now do to "get
it right" albeit some 200-plus years later. All that the passage
of time has done is allow the dung heap created by the
powers-that-be (hereinafter "PTB") to pile higher and deeper and
at a faster rate with each passing year, until the heap has
gotten so huge over the past two centuries, that it is
doubtfully even possible to clean up at this point. But knowing
that it is waste (wholly void) --not in compliance with
the Constitution-- we have to by-pass it and start over at
Square One in rebuilding our Constitutional Republic that has
been stolen from us by this usurping, foreign, occupying force
operating under color of law, the PTB.
Volume 16, American Jurisprudence, 177, we find the
following: "The general rule is that an unconstitutional
statute, though having the form and name of law, is in reality
no law, but is wholly void, and ineffective for any purpose;
since unconstitutionality dates from the time of its enactment,
and not merely from the date of the decision so branding it. An
unconstitutional law, in legal contemplation, is as inoperative
as if it had never been passed. Such a statute leaves the
question that it purports to settle just as it would be had the
statute not been enacted.
"Since an unconstitutional law is
void, the general principles follow that it imposes no duties,
confers no rights, creates no office, bestows no power or
authority on anyone, affords no protection, and justifies no
acts performed under it. . . .
A void act cannot be legally
consistent with a valid one. An unconstitutional law cannot
operate to supersede any existing valid law. Indeed, insofar as
a statute runs counter to the fundamental law of the land, it is
No one is bound to obey an
unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to enforce it."
Our American Common Law
by Howard Fisher and Dale Pond.
J.A.I.L.'s Reliance on the
Declaration of Independence: (the
The Declaration of Independence
(hereinafter "Declaration") describes government as the body of
men (mankind) created by the governed (The People) for the
purpose of protecting the rights of The People-- thusly:
...That to secure these rights, governments are
instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the
consent of the governed...
When government ceases to function in that
assigned capacity as the protector of the People's
rights, it ceases to be government.
This principle is ably taught by John
Locke, prior to the Declaration, in
Of the Dissolution of
Government by John Locke
This is demonstratively to reduce all to anarchy, and so
effectually to dissolve the government: for laws not being made
for themselves, but to be, by their execution, the bonds of the
society, to keep every part of the body politic in its due place
and function; when that totally ceases, the government visibly
ceases, and the people become a confused multitude, without
order or connexion. Where there is no longer the administration
of justice, for the securing of men's rights, nor any remaining
power within the community to direct the force, or provide for
the necessities of the public, there certainly is no government
left. Where the laws cannot be executed, it is all one as if
there were no laws; and a government without laws is, I suppose,
a mystery in politics, unconceivable to human capacity, and
inconsistent with human society.
Fisher and Pond, supra,
If any agency of the Federal, State or County
government, including the court, would act as if it were
Principal, and Freeman, against its true Principal, the People,
this would be an inversion of the legal principle of Sovereignty
of the People. By so acting, any agency of the government,
including the court, would be a pretender to the power,
and as a pretender, its acts would be a nullity and would not
exist, at Law; that is to say, that it would be null and void,
and of no force and effect, at Law. That, in fact, it would not
be government at all, but would be a private, criminal
operation, imposing a rule of force, fraudulently
pretending to be government, since, in this country, the only
legitimate function of government is to protect the
and freedoms of the People. Such acts are not unlike the
privately owned and operated Mafia who demands our
(taxes, fees, etc.) in exchange for them not committing violence
against us or our property.
So, we can see that we do not have a
legitimate, lawful government in power, and haven't had since
shortly after the Constitution was ratified more than 200 years
ago. Thus, instead of living under the Rule of Law by
government, we are surviving as best we can under the rule of
force imposed by the PTB. Although Frederic Bastiat says that
"Law is Force," it must be a legitimate Force authorized
by Law-- not an arbitrary power.
(All Law is Force-- if it is enforceable,
but not all Force is Law).
Whosoever uses force without right, as every one does in
society, who does it without law, puts himself into a state of
war with those against whom he so uses it; and in that state all
former ties are cancelled, all other rights cease, and every one
has a right to defend himself, and to resist the aggressor.
Along the same line, John Locke further
states, when people's property is destroyed under arbitrary
power of the PTB, the PTB are at war with the People
who are absolved from further obedience:
The reason why men enter into society, is the
preservation of their property; and the end why they chuse
and authorize a legislative, is, that there may be laws
made, and rules set, as guards and fences to the properties
of all the members of the society, to limit the power, and
moderate the dominion, of every part and member of the
society: for since it can never be supposed to be the will
of the society, that the legislative should have a power to
destroy that which every one designs to secure, by entering
into society, and for which the people submitted themselves
to legislators of their own making; whenever the legislators
endeavour to take away, and destroy the property of the
people, or to reduce them to slavery under arbitrary power,
they put themselves into a state of war with the people, who
are thereupon absolved from any farther obedience... ...
...by this breach of trust they forfeit the power the
people had put into their hands for quite contrary ends, and
it devolves to the people, who have a right to resume their
original liberty, and, by the establishment of a new
legislative, (such as they shall think fit) provide for
their own safety and security, which is the end for which
they are in society.
Id. (Although the above
relates to "the legislative," it has full application to
government in general, as the Declaration indicates.)
We have been told that we cannot rely
upon the Declaration today because it applied only to the
Thirteen Colonies when written. Well, J.A.I.L.
wholly relies on the Declaration because it is
based on the Law of Nature which is universal and
ubiquitous. It applies as much today as it did then, and
will apply throughout the future of human existence. As Dr.
Alan Keyes stated:
believe it can only be made rational to respect the original
intention of the Framers if that intention somehow respects a
permanent and transcendent principle of justice which was true
then, and is true now, which applied then, and which applies
now.... [I]f we accept that understanding, we are still part of
a community with them. We still are part, as it were, of the
same society, because we live in a universe governed by the same
moral principles.... There is no common ground between us and
our Founders if there are no transcendent principles of justice
which allow us to understand that their painstaking effort to
establish a government based upon consent was in fact a
requirement of justice.
Presidents' Day lecture
by Dr. Alan Keyes, Thomas Aquinas College, February 21, 1997.
While the Declaration contains
wording that is superfluous to some, when taken to its lowest
common denominator --based entirely on Nature-- it is certainly
a document that can be relied upon by all people, just as
J.A.I.L. is for all people in this country.
Critique of the Declaration of Independence-
"Laws of Nature"
being entirely sufficient since nature - reality - is all that
exists. [T]hey meant that all men have equal "rights"... They
are unalienable specifically because they are a necessary
consequence of the reality of the nature of human beings - i.e.
a part of existence. They are essential and logically
unalienable because their not being true would be contradictory
to the immutable structure of reality. Nor, being true of
reality, can valid rights ever be removed. All that can be done
is to "break" them - i.e. to not allow them to take their
natural course and to be fulfilled. Many people take "life"
to include property and logically this has merit. [The pursuit
of happiness] is logically derivable from the rights of Life,
Liberty and Property. [Happiness] can rightly only be made by
the individual himself under the circumstances of full freedom
of life, liberty and property.
The Virginia Declaration
(a more accurate statement): That all men are by nature equally
free and independent, and have certain inherent rights, of
which, when they enter into a state of society, they cannot, by
any compact, deprive or divest their posterity; namely, the
enjoyment of life and liberty, with the means of acquiring and
possessing property, and pursuing and obtaining happiness and
The California Constitution
begins with, after the Preamble:
All people are by nature free
and independent and have inalienable rights. Among these are
enjoying and defending life and liberty, acquiring,
possessing, and protecting property, and pursuing and
obtaining safety, happiness, and privacy.
Art. I, Sec.1
In discussing the various schools of thought
regarding the interpretation of the Declaration, the
following site states, near the end of the article, the
method to be used in evaluating the Declaration in terms of
the universal laws of nature:
(On Interpreting the
In the interest of
efficiency, people should choose the school of thought that
is most likely to answer their questions. For example, a
person wanting to evaluate the Declaration's place in
guiding principles for human life would look to universalism
in history or to liberal originalism in political theory.
J.A.I.L.'s Reliance on
the U.S. Constitution: (the ground floor)
We the People of the United
- The Framers were an
elite group - among the best and brightest America had to
offer at the time. But they knew that they were trying to
forge a nation made up not of an elite, but of the common
man. Without the approval of the common man, they feared
revolution. This first part of the Preamble speaks to the
common man. It puts into writing, as clear as day, the
notion that the people were creating this Constitution. It
was not handed down by a god or by a king - it was created
by the people.
the general Welfare -
This, and the next part of the
Preamble, are the culmination of everything that came before
it - the whole point of having tranquility, justice, and
defense was to promote the general welfare - to allow every
state and every citizen of those states to benefit from what
the government could provide. The Framers looked forward to
the expansion of land holdings, industry, and investment,
and they knew that a strong national government would be the
beginning of that.
and secure the Blessings of
Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity -Hand
in hand with the general welfare, the Framers looked forward
to the blessings of liberty - something they had all fought
hard for just a decade before. They were very concerned that
they were creating a nation that would resemble something of
a paradise for liberty, as opposed to the tyranny of a
monarchy, where citizens could look forward to being free as
opposed to looking out for the interests of a king. And more
than for themselves, they wanted to be sure that the future
generations of Americans would enjoy the same.
do ordain and establish this
Constitution for the United States -
The final clause of the Preamble is
almost anti-climatic, but it is important for a few reasons
- it finishes the "We, the people" thought, saying what we
the people are actually doing; it gives us a name for this
document, and it restates the name of the nation adopting
the Constitution. That the Constitution is "ordained"
reminds us of the higher power involved here - not just of a
single person or of a king, but of the people themselves.
That is it "established" reminds us that it replaces that
which came before - the United States under the Articles (a
point lost on us today, but quite relevant at the time).
[A]nother view states that the
Constitution was ratified by "the authoritative voice of the
process knowingly chose constitutional conventions instead
of State legislatures as the authoritative voice of the
people, the "we" of the Constitution.
The goal was to allow the Constitution
to rest on the people and not be at the mercy of the States.
Thus, the text became the embodiment of the people. The
Declaration announced and created the people, and the
Constitution cataphorically embodied or instantiated them.
Though differences in the people can be identified during
the process, one self-referential people began and
consummated a creative act. The Constitution refers to the
twelfth year of independence and links itself to the
performative moment of the Declaration. The reference
indicates the continuity of the "we" in both documents.
On Interpreting the Declaration,
It is the position of J.A.I.L. that the
Constitution must be read and understood in light of
the universal principles set forth in the Declaration. As the
above citation shows, the Constitution is intended to put into
practice what the Declaration sets forth in fact. Stated more
succinctly, the Constitution is the fulfillment
of the Declaration. That is why I state that "Square One"
consists of two parts: (1) the Declaration as the
foundation, and (2) the Constitution as the ground floor (based
upon the foundation). The two must go together --be connected as
Thomas Paine, upon whose thoughts Thomas
Jefferson greatly relied when authoring the Declaration, stated
there must be some intermediate authority between
the governed (the People) and the governors (the government) by
which the law must be established. In fulfillment of the
Declaration, the Constitution became that "intermediate
there is a peculiar delicacy, from whom, or in what manner,
this business must first arise, and as it seems most
agreeable and consistent, that it should come from some
intermediate body between the governed and the governors,
that is between the Congress and the people. ... [T]hat a
charter is to be understood as a bond of solemn obligation
[between the governed and the governors],
which the whole enters into, to
support the right of every separate part, whether of
religion, personal freedom, or property... The members of
Congress, Assemblies, or Conventions, by having had
experience in national concerns, will be able and useful
counsellors, and the whole, being empowered by the people
will have a truly legal authority. ... A
government of our own is our natural right: [emphasis
ours] And when a man
seriously reflects on the precariousness of human affairs,
he will become convinced, that it is infinitely wiser and
safer, to form a constitution of our own in a cool
deliberate manner, while we have it in our power, than to
trust such an interesting event to time and chance. ...
First, they had a king, and then a form of government;
whereas, the articles or charter of government, should be
formed first, and men delegated to execute them
afterwards... [man existed before kings
and would be the creator of government, by nature] Common
Sense by Thomas Paine (1776)
Only the People can
Enforce the Constitution
There is no other mechanism in
existence that can adequately and consistently protect our
rights. Power quickly leads to corruption, and the power to
protect the rights of the people can be trusted nowhere but with
the people themselves. Therefore it is the responsibility of the
citizens themselves to look after their own rights.
To say that
our rights are protected by the Constitution is to rely on a
piece of paper if we ignore the control of the powers of
government exerted by the people. It is the people who are the
ultimate guardians of the Constitution and the rights it
A constitution alone cannot
control government without republican forms, i.e., mechanisms
that keep control of their representatives in the people's
hands. Constitutions are not self-enforcing.... [W]ithout a
sovereign people in control determining what shall be the
constitution and the form of government functioning thereunder,
that determination is made by the governors themselves. They
function as a higher power, and that higher power then becomes
the sovereign, dictating government and its policies to all
The only check upon arbitrary power is
It is the law, and the law
only, which can successfully resist the encroachments of
despotism. In the absence of defined laws, and an
independent judiciary to enforce them, the only check upon
arbitrary power is popular insurrection;...
If there is a lesson in
all of this it is that our Constitution is neither a
self-actuating nor a self-correcting document. It
requires the constant attention and devotion of all
It's the People
who must be the ultimate judge of constitutional behavior of
We need to emphasize the
Principle of Nuremberg: that every individual has the
responsibility to make an independent determination of the
constitutionality of every law and official act, to support
those that are constitutional and resist those that are not,
and never to try to delegate that responsibility to public
officials or superiors. Not even the Supreme Court.
--Constitution Society, San
And it's the People
who must provide the means required to enforce the
must be explained to people that many of the
unconstitutional assumptions of power are in response to the
demands from people to do something about real problems, but
that they need to refrain from making such demands unless
the Constitution is first amended to make such measures
legal, and if they still insist that such action is needed,
then involve them in proposing the
constitutional amendments that might provide the necessary
for an oppressed people:
people then always lay themselves open to the
cruelty and rage of tyranny? Must they see their
cities pillaged, and laid in ashes, their wives and
children exposed to the tyrant's lust and fury, and
themselves and families reduced by their king to
ruin, and all the miseries of want and oppression,
and yet sit still? Must men alone be debarred the
common privilege of opposing force with force, which
nature allows so freely to all other creatures for
their preservation from injury? I answer: Self-defence
is a part of the law of nature; nor can it be denied
the community, even against the king himself...
* * *