J.A.I.L.'s Real Agenda
Our response:
The No-On-E Club concludes "So what's their real agenda? To weaken the judiciary and the government. ... the erosion of our courts and our system of government."
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.
Judicial accountability to the People is the only means by which enforcement of the Constitution can be accomplished. Without enforcement by the People, the Constitution is meaningless and has no force nor effect. The People (now the posterity) owe it to our Forefathers, and to ourselves and our future posterity, to restore the lifeblood of the Constitution and make it accomplish what it was originally designed to do.
This task is not only the right of the People, it is their duty to do so. Government, through the guardian of our rights --the judiciary, must be leashed by the People to keep it in line with constitutional restrictions to protect those rights. Amendment E is that "leash" in South Dakota. Just by having the J.A.I.L. process available to the People will be an incentive for the judiciary to perform that guardianship with honesty and integrity according to remedies already established within the system.
As the U.S. Supreme Court has already ruled years ago "The touchstone of due process is protection of the individual against arbitrary action of government, Dent v. West Virginia, 129 U.S. 114, 123 (1889)" Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539, 558 (1974) cited in Daniels v. Williams, 474 U.S. 327, 331. The People's agenda is to be assured of that protection by the judiciary, by passing Amendment E.
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?