The Club argues:
Not Accountable, No Checks or Balances
The Special Grand Jury "shall exist independent of statutes governing county Grand Juries." In other words, it's not accountable to any statute, nor is it held in check by any statute, branch of government or voter.
Furthermore, the Special Grand Jury is protected in a way that contradicts the entire premise of Amendment E in the first place.
It may be shocking to learn, despite their attack on judicial immunity, the amendment's authors actually grant immunity to this Special Grand Jury. It's more than ironic that the authors want to give this contrived new jury the very evil they claim they're fighting. So what's their real agenda? To weaken the judiciary and the government.
And this reveals the authors' true agenda - not accountability, but the erosion of the courts and our system of government.
The arguments above are repetitious and have already been responded to in previous arguments. However, in review, we repeat here, in part, what we already said to these repeated arguments:
In response to "immunity" for the Special Grand Jury argument, we stated: "Judges are our servants, they raise their right hand and swear by an oath to obey the instrument we the People have ordained for them, to wit, the Constitution. Judges are our employed public servants - Grand Juries are not our public servants, they are us. "Immunity" does not apply to us, the Special Grand Jury. We do not have to swear by an oath to obey our own mandates we direct toward our public servants. The boss makes the rules for his servants, and his rules may be changed only by himself. Likewise, only we can amend our own Constitution, not the government. We do not leave the power to our public servants to amend our rules governing their conduct. Is this principle too hard for judges and government bureaucrats to understand? If they can't understand this, then they just do not understand Freedom and Liberty, for "Where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty." II Cor. 3:17. J.A.I.L. will bring Liberty to this country! We'll start with Amendment E in South Dakota!"
In response to the true agenda argument: "As stated many times, the People's real agenda, through J.A.I.L. (Amendment E) is to enforce the Constitution by means of holding judges accountable to the People for honoring its principles. A full explanation of J.A.I.L.'s agenda is given in our J.A.I.L. News Journal referred to in the foregoing link. We urge you to read it thoroughly for a better understanding of the real agenda for Amendment E."
In response to the "weaken judiciary" argument, in light of our real agenda, we said "How can that [our real agenda] be interpreted as "To weaken the judiciary and the government. ... the erosion of our courts and our system of government"? The answer depends on what is considered to be the purpose of the judiciary and government: is it (a) to protect the unalienable rights of the People, or (b) to reduce them under absolute despotism? Which one has the judiciary and government been doing for the last 200+ years? Whatever they have done, has it been FOR the People, or TO the People? Then ask, should it be "weakened" or "eroded" --or even thrown off?"