The National Judiciary of the Democratic Republic of America

Laurie Thomas Vass, The Citizens Liberty Party

Part 1. The Judicial Locus of National Sovereignty.

In his transformation of the American constitution from a natural rights republic, based on Jefferson’s Declaration, to the British social class mixed government, Madison had to modify the locus of “sovereignty” from individual citizens to the natural aristocracy of America.

The British “rule of law” is based upon unwritten documents that provide judges with guidance on decisions about sovereignty, based upon a common law tradition.

The British monarchy, and their associated upper crust of British society, obtain a position of privilege in the law from the unwritten common law, beginning with the Magna Carta, created as an exclusive right for the British nobility.

Madison’s vacuous maximand, “more perfect union” provided the 51 elites, who wrote Madison’s unfair rules, a perfectly malleable document for the ensuing generations of Federalist elite judges to skew their decisions about sovereignty to the benefit of America’s upper crust.

Madison’s Constitution, relocated national “sovereignty” by making two changes in the Articles of Confederation.

First, Madison changed the parties to the contract from a confederation of 13 states to a central national government, whose Federal judges had ultimate sovereignty over state courts.

Second. Madison changed the terms of elected representation from a congress of state delegates, who represented the citizens of their respective states, to a centralized congress of representatives who represented their social class financial interests.

Madison’s Constitution creates a government whose judiciary is the ultimate judge of whose sovereign interests are served by the constitutional rules of procedure.

Madison promised that the Federal government would not operate directly upon citizens, and that his branches of the government, legislative, executive and judicial, would check and balance each other.

Madison’s flaw is that the Supreme Court, as a result of Marbury, is the ultimate power of the federal government over the other branches of government. The judicial decisions operate directly upon citizens.

In a dispute between the federal government and the natural rights of citizens, the Federal judges base their decisions on protecting the sovereignty of the natural aristocracy.

Unlike the citizens in England, the U. S. citizens have no way of removing the tyrannical Federal judges.

For decades, after the decision in Marbury, the Federal judges based their rulings about sovereignty on their traditional interpretation of social class interests. Either side could possibly win at the Supreme Court, depending on whether there was a majority of Democrats or Republicans.

Madison’s malleable document can not be interpreted in so-called “strict construction,” because the text hides the fact that the locus of sovereignty resides in the social class interests of America’s natural aristocracy.

John C. Calhoun pointed out, “strict construction is a ‘phantom, a thing ‘good in the abstract, but in practice not worth a farthing. Everybody is for strict construction but in fact, it will ever be found to be the construction of the permanent minority against the permanent majority, and of course of itself valueless.”

Madison’s concept of tyranny was that the common citizens would obtain majority power, and exploit the tiny minority of wealthy Americans.

In the hands of Federalist Republican judges, the Court sanctions the priority of financial and property rights of America’s natural aristocracy, representing the elite corporate interests of the Republican Party.

The decisions by the progeny of the Federalists led to decisions like Dred Scott.

In Dred Scott, Madison’s vacuous document allowed the Federalist judges to manufacture a right of slave-owners to hold property in slaves. A strict construction of the text would not find language about the property rights of the Plantation elites to own slaves, or the legal obligation of states to capture runaway slaves, and return them to their rightful owners.

Taney’s decision was based upon Madison’s concept of tyranny.

The Supreme Court was protecting the property rights of minority slaveholders against the tyranny of a moralistic majority who would deprive the Plantation elite of their property rights.

In the 1896 case of Plessy v. Ferguson, the progeny of the Federalist judges on the Supreme Court manufactured legally sanctioned racial segregation.

Plessy was the case that established “separate but equal” as the Supreme law of the land. The constitutional goal of racial apartheid was to embody and reinforce an ideology of white supremacy.

But, not just any whites.

The goal of white supremacy was to establish the unchecked power of elites, over both blacks and common whites. The text of Madison’s document buries the justification of this outcome in his convoluted rules of procedural justice.

But, racial apartheid is a logical and defensible legal decision flowing from Madison’s rules that relocated sovereignty in the hands of the natural aristocracy.

As Jefferson wrote, “It is a very dangerous doctrine to consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions. It is one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy.”

In the majority hands of progressive Democrats, the Supreme Court has manufactured rights on behalf of the common citizens.

 

In Griswold v. Connecticut, (1965), Justice William O. Douglas wrote for the Democrat majority that the right to abortion was to be found in the “penumbras” and “emanations” of other constitutional protections, such as the self-incrimination clause of the Fifth Amendment.

 

Douglas wrote, “Would we allow the police to search the sacred precincts of marital bedrooms for telltale signs of the use of contraceptives?”

 

By a vote of 7–2, the Democrat majority of the Supreme Court invalidated Connecticut’s abortion law on the grounds that it violated the “right to marital privacy.” The ruling established the constitutional basis for the right to privacy with respect to intimate practices.

 

This decision about protecting sexual behavior, based upon the right to privacy from governmental intrusion, formed the basis of other decisions regarding gay marriage and the rights of gay people to impose on others, the obligation to bake a wedding cake.

 

One of the decisions flowing from Griswold was Justice Harry Blackmun’s decision, 8 years later, in Roe.

 

In Roe, the U. S. Supreme Court overrode the sovereignty of the Texas Court, to forbid abortion.

 

In a subsequent majority decision on abortion, Blackmun expressed his personal opinion. “Few decisions are more personal and intimate, more properly private, or more basic to individual dignity and autonomy, than a woman’s decision – with the guidance of her physician and within the limits specified in Roe – whether to end her pregnancy. A woman’s right to make that choice freely is fundamental.”

 

From a liberal’s personal opinion, Blackmun’s decision in Roe is perfectly logical and defensible. But, it is not based in the text of Madison’s constitution.

 

The fact that the Court can fluctuate between protecting the rights of the elite when Republicans hold the majority, or protecting the rights of common citizens when Democrats are the majority, means that there is no possibility of strict construction of the text.

 

The document means whatever the judges want it to mean. Either side is correct. The goal of the rulings is to subordinate state courts.

 

Up until 2008, when Obama converted the Democrats into a global socialist party, the decisions of the Federal judges were based upon the British two-class, two party political system.

 

Republican judges protected the property rights of the natural aristocracy, now in the form of the corporate elite.

 

Democrat judges protected the rights of common working class citizens.

 

After Obama, the entire justification for Madison’s two class system of checks and balances was rendered meaningless. Rather than protecting the rights of common citizens, the Democrat Federal judges, at every level, based their decisions on the sovereignty of global socialism.

 

In other words, in changing the constitutional logic for the existence of the Democrat party, Obama relocated sovereignty from Madison’s natural aristocracy to a global government sovereignty.

 

Because of Madison’s flaw, the national sovereignty has been replaced by the ideology of globalist socialism.

Part 2. Madison and the Genesis of Judicial Supremacy.

 

The shift in national sovereignty that results from Obama’s conversion of the Democrat Party to a global socialist party is enabled by the class-based ideology of the Federalist elites who wrote the constitution.

 

Their ideology empowered the natural aristocracy to use the judicial system as a weapon to gain their unfair advantages in a legal system that was superior to all other branches of government.

 

Their ideology is a type of totalitarianism that is based upon their notion that the natural aristocracy possessed “virtue.” The moral quality of virtue empowered the elites to eliminate political positions that were contrary to their elite legal privileges.

 

The only additional step the socialists need to take is to gain control of the judicial machinery is to substitute the moral quality of “virtue” with their own ideology of their superior moral quality of “social justice.”

 

The machinery of the centralized judicial elite tyranny would function under either ideology.

 

In just 12 years after the fraudulent ratification of the Constitution, the Federalist attempted to eliminate political opposition with the enactment of the Alien and Sedition Acts.

 

Sedition, in this case, meant statements that were critical of the federalist elites.

 

The privileges of the natural aristocracy were not secure at that point in history, which was the impetus of Marshall to embed judicial supremacy as the ultimate supreme law of the land, in his 1803 decision on Marbury.

 

When Madison implemented the British judicial system, he failed, deliberately, to implement the British check against a judicial tyranny. But, from the perspective of Marshall, the absence of a check against tyrannical judges was not adequate to permanently secure the elite privileges.

 

As noted by Brutus, a natural rights proponent during the ratification debates, “The framers of this constitution appear to have followed that of the British, in rendering the judges  independent,  by granting  them  their  offices  during  good  behaviour,  without  following  the  constitution  of  England,  in  instituting  a  tribunal  in  which  their  errors  may  be  corrected;  and  without adverting to this, that the judicial under this system have a power which is above the legislative, and which indeed transcends any power before given to a judicial by any free government under heaven.”

 

The Federalist ideology created the government machinery for a centralized judicial tyranny, without ever stating the ideological goal of the machinery.

 

That machinery was as effective in the hands of the natural aristocracy, as it was for the Democrats, and eventually for global socialists, who desired to create a “more perfect socialist state.”

 

The machinery for tyranny was created in a series of actions taken by the Federalist that culminated in Marshall’s decision in Marbury, which established the extra-constitutional power of judicial review.

 

The first action by the elites was the Judiciary Act of 1789, passed by the same set of Federalist elites who wrote the Constitution. In the first step, the elites who wrote Madison’s constitution created the framework of judicial procedural rules.

 

Then, in the same year, in the second step, they enacted legislation to empower the elites on the Supreme Court.

 

The 1789 Act established the federal judiciary of the United States, under the authority of Article III, Section 1, which prescribed that the “judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and such inferior Courts” as Congress saw fit to establish.

 

The Act made no provision for the composition or procedures of any of the courts, nor any text on removal of judges, leaving these issues in the hands of the Federalists, who controlled Congress.

 

Senator William Maclay, a natural rights populist from Pennsylvania, wrote his in his journal at the time, “It certainly is a vile law system, calculated for expense and with a design to draw by degrees all law business into the Federal courts.”

 

Maclay’s reference to expense expressed the view that common citizens would not be able to afford to seek justice under this legal system.

 

Brutus reiterated this sentiment. He wrote, “the costs of the supreme court will be so great, as to put it out of the reach of the poor and middling class of citizens to contest a suit in it.”

 

The judicial system, in other words, was designed from the get-go, to be the exclusive province of the wealthy elite, who had the money to pursue justice, and who would subsequently use that power to deprive common citizens of their property, as in the debt-lien system applied against common farmers.

 

During the debates on the Act, Madison cleverly played both sides of the aisle, as he would do with the Bill of Rights, which he opposed, until he did not oppose it, and the Sedition Act, which he supported, until his friend, Jefferson, became a target of the Federalist oppression.

 

Madison wrote, on September 14, 1789, “The Judiciary Act is now under consideration. I view it as you do, as defective both in its general structure, and many of its particular regulations. The attachment of the Eastern members, the difficulty of substituting another plan, with the consent of those who agree in disliking the bill, the defect of time &c, will however prevent any radical alterations.”

 

In other words, Madison acknowledged that the Federalists had political power to enact their defective plan, which Madison had created when he wrote Article III, 2 years earlier.

 

Following Madison, the Federalists feared the “excesses of popular government.”

 

In substituting the British system for Jefferson’s natural rights republic, the Federalists eliminated the rights of citizens to democratically influence in the judicial system.

 

George Mason, a natural rights populist from Virginia, wrote that “the judiciary of the United States is so constructed and extended as to absorb and destroy the judiciaries of the several States.”

 

The intent of the Federalists was to destroy the sovereignty of the states, and replace it with a centralized, consolidated government that had a latent tendency to become a centralized tyranny.

 

As Brutus wrote, “the judiciary under this system will have a power which is above the legislative, and which indeed transcends any power before given to a judicial by any free government under heaven.”

 

From the time of ratification of the Articles of Confederation, a persistent minority of Federalists argued that state courts must be eliminated. Elimination of the state courts was the intent of the Judiciary Act of 1801.

 

In a historical precursor to the anti-Trump movement, the Federalist hoped that their second action would prevent the nomination of Jefferson.

 

They almost succeeded.

 

On the last weekend of March, 1801, the natural rights populists in both Virginia and Pennsylvania called out the state militia, in preparation for a civil war with the Federalists, who were attempting to overthrow Jefferson’s election.

 

Violence was averted at the very last moment, but the debates on the Judiciary Act of 1801 revealed starkly different ideologies between natural rights populists, and the natural aristocracy about the place of the judiciary within a constitutional system of government.

 

Brutus wrote, “But the judges under this constitution will controul the legislature, for the supreme court are authorised in the last resort, to determine what is the extent of the powers of the Congress; they are to give the constitution an explanation, and there is no power above them to set aside their judgment…  In short, they are independent of the people, of the legislature, and of every power under heaven. Men placed in this situation will generally soon feel themselves independent of heaven itself.”

 

It is this machinery of government that the global socialists seek to inherit.

 

The machinery was justified in the minds of the Federalists because they alone possessed the moral quality of virtue.

 

Obtaining total control over government decisions, in the minds of socialists, is justified because they possess a superior mental power to make decisions about citizen welfare, that are better than decisions made by common citizens, about their own welfare.

 

In either case, legitimate authority does not flow from the consent of the governed.

 

Part 3.  Marshall’s Implementation of Permanent Judicial Supremacy.

 

The election of Jefferson, and the debates over the Judicial Act of 1801, demonstrated to Marshall the uncertain status of elite judicial supremacy.

 

Marshall’s decision in Marbury permanently cemented the elite judicial tyranny as the Supreme Law of the Land. However, the power of the Federal Courts’s judicial review is not mentioned in the text of the Constitution.

 

In a precursor to Griswold, (1965), Marshall’s decision in Marbury, (1803), is based upon an emanation that Marshall obtained from reading  the Declaration, which is no where mentioned in Madison’s Constitution.

 

Not only did Marshall’s decision eviscerate the state courts, it set the precedent that subjective, private, idiosyncratic opinions of the Court were sanctioned by whatever ideological majority happened to be sitting on the Court.

 

In the absence of strict construction of the text, opinions like Dred Scott can be

overruled by future courts. Any majority can say “what the law is.”

 

At the time the Court says what the law is, all other agencies and branches of government must obey the Supreme Law of the land. The other branches of government have no recourse against the Court for misapplication of the text.

 

Under a new majority in some future Court, the law of the land is something else.

 

Alexander  Hamilton promised, in  Federalist # 78, that the duty and power of judicial review does not mean the judiciary is supreme over the Constitution.

 

In ignoring Hamilton’s promise, Marshall  wrote  in  Marbury,  “the  framers  of  the  constitution  contemplated  that  the document would establish the  rules  for  the  authority of  the courts,  as  well as of the legislature.

 

Marshall’s core proposition in Marbury is the interpretive independence of the Court over the actions of other branches of government, an authority that Marshall said flowed from Madison’s institutional separation of powers of the various departments.

 

Marshall’s conclusion it is that the legitimate power of courts to refuse to give effect to legislative acts that the courts find to be in violation the rule of law supplied by the Constitution.

 

Marshall ruled that the powers of the legislature are defined and limited. Those limitations are binding, or else “We the People” can not establish limits on the

agents of government.

 

Marshall then draws the conclusion that legislative acts, at both the state and Federal level, which violate the Constitution are void, as determined by the power of judicial review.

 

In a regime of judicial interpretive supremacy, impeachment of justices on the grounds that their decisions are arbitrary, and deliberately violate the Constitution, is not legally possible.

 

Under Marbury, the decisions of the Court are the Constitution. Impeachment of the justices is impossible because the justices are the Constitution. The justices are the Constitution, and the Constitution is the justices.

 

The Federal judicial machinery is deployed against state courts, in protecting the property rights of the natural aristocracy, now evolved to mean America’s corporate elite.

In Lochner v. New York,(1905), the Supreme Court held unconstitutional a New York state law that limited bakers to a ten-hour workday, on the grounds that the law interfered with the baker’s freedom of contract.

The New York state legislature had sought to protect workers against exploitation and abuse by limiting working hours.

The Supreme Court ruled that the New York law violated the clause of the Fourteenth Amendment that forbids any state from depriving anyone of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.

Citing an individual right to “freedom of contract” purportedly implied by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, the justices struck down the law as an unconstitutional interference by the state in private contractual relations between employers and employees.

As the Court did in both Dred Scott and Plessey, the Supreme Court claimed to be protecting the minority rights of the wealthy, against the tyranny of the democratic majority.

In his dissent, Oliver Wendell Holmes said, “The 14th Amendment does not enact Mr. Herbert Spencer’s Social Statics.”

From a strict construction of the text, the Constitution’s commerce clause grants Congress no general control over the economy, nor does the 14th Amendment grant the Supreme Court authority over states, in economic policy.

Because of Marshall’s extra-constitutional ruling in Marbury, Lochner became the Supreme Law of the Land, and citizens in New York had no recourse against the usurpation of their rights.

 

Part 4. Obama’s Marxist Adaptation of Marbury.

 

Socialism, by definition consists of the centralized direction of the economy, with government ownership of the means of production.

 

The centralized decisions of a political elite determine both what will be produced and how the production will be distributed to citizens.

 

The Marxist ideology is based upon mental fantasies that the left constructs about the goodness of social justice and fairness.

 

In their social construction of reality, they create an economic image called, “forces of production.” The “forces of production” produce goods and services, not individuals.

 

According to Marx, in the capitalist economy, the forces of production exploit the value of production produced by the collectivist entity group, “workers.”

 

In all of history, and for all of time, in their mental fantasy, there are only two collectivist groups, the workers and the capitalists. The entire dynamic of economic history is the exploitation of workers by the capitalist class.

 

Marx preached the overthrow of the intricate economy of capitalism because it violated his moral values of fairness.

 

While Marx acknowledged that the capitalist system is the most productive economic system in history, he advocated a fundamental transformation of society that would place all of government decision making about production in the hands of a scientific elite, whose goal was social justice in the distribution of the production.

 

Obama believes exactly the same thing as Marx about the unfairness of the “capitalist” system.

 

Obama adds the moral principle that America is an evil empire because Madison’s Constitution sanctioned slavery.

 

According to Obama, and the Democrat Party socialists, America can never overcome its original sin of slavery.

 

The goal for Obama, just like Marx, is the overthrow of the American capitalist economy, which is based upon private property, to a centralized economy, based upon public ownership of the means of production.

 

Consequently, the first step in overthrowing the economic system is gaining control of the American legal system that protects private property. Obama’s strategy for his attack is based upon a mental fantasy called “critical legal philosophy.”

 

According to critical legal philosophy, America is so evil that it must be put under the yoke of a global economic system, and must not be allowed to continue as an independent sovereign nation.

 

There is nothing in Madison’s judicial framework, or the power of Marshall’s judicial review, that prohibits a socialist, like Obama, from deploying the centralized machinery of government to implement his locus of sovereignty.

 

The end goal of the American judicial system, under Obama, is to replace national sovereignty with allegiance to international legal agencies. American legal and political agencies would enforce multilateral agreements and international law.

 

There is nothing philosophically incompatible between Madison’s two social classes, the natural aristocracy and common citizens, and Marx’s two social classes, the capitalist class and the workers.

 

There is nothing incompatible about global socialism between Obama’s vision of globalism, and the goals of the modern day natural aristocracy of global corporations and global bankers, who manage the operations of “the swamp.”.

 

Under Madison’s Constitution, sovereignty was relocated from the consent of the governed to the financial welfare of the natural aristocracy.

 

Under Obama, sovereignty is relocated from Madison’s capitalist class to a global socialist elite, who manage global economic production and distribution.

 

Madison’s amoral judicial machinery is functional under Obama’s socialism because Marshall’s decision in Marbury establishes a judicial elite tyranny that is not accountable to the consent of the governed.

 

Obama’s two selections of socialist judges on the Supreme Court, continue the Democrat Party’s precedent of substituting racial hatred for the equal application of the law.

 

Justice Sotomayor wrote, in the Michigan Affirmative Action case:

 

“The effect of this ruling is that a white graduate of a public Michigan university who whishes to pass his historical privilege on to his children may freely lobby the board of that university in favor of an expanded legacy admissions policy, whereas a black Michagander who was denied the opportunity to attend that very university cannot lobby the board in favor of a policy that might give his children a chance that he never had and that they might never have absent that policy.”

 

There is nothing in the text of Madison’s Constitution about historical white privilege. But, Sotomayor’s rulings, based upon her critical legal interpretation of America’s racist past, are legitimate opinions, under Marshall’s judicial review.

 

Soyotayor can make up the constitution as she goes along because Soytomayor is the Constitution, and the Constitution is whatever she says it is.

 

Because of Marshall’s ruling, all the socialist Democrats lack for implementing their socially constructed reality of centralized economic planning is the appointment of a socialist majority on the Supreme Court.

Part 5. The National Judicial System of The Liberty States of America.

 

Natural rights are the rights God gives to every human being at his birth. Natural rights are inherent as an American birthright, and remain with the individual during life.

 

In America, an individual’s natural rights can not be separated or eliminated from his nature as a human being.

 

In contrast to God-given American natural rights, in socialism, rights inure to collectivist identity groups, and are granted by the government.

 

In the natural rights republic, individual liberty and justice, as the equal treatment of citizens in the law, are not separate moral values. Individual liberties are the natural rights that secure the sovereignty of the individual.

 

In socialism, justice as fairness in the pursuit of social justice, is more important than the pursuit of individual liberty. Justice, as fairness, is arbitrary and capricious because the judicial decisions are based upon a social construction of a reality that does not exist.

 

Madison’s fundamental flaw is that his constitution did not secure individual liberty, and then, his judicial system allowed judges to pursue their idiosyncratic interpretation of the law, under Marshall’s decision in Marbury.

 

In overcoming Madison’s flaws, the Constitution of the Liberty States of America binds all judges to pursue the purpose of government:

 

“…that the National Government is instituted to allow individual citizens to pursue individual happiness and to limit the arbitrary application of government power over the lives of individuals…”

“…that the National Government is created by this union of states and the National Government shall never usurp the sovereign power or authority of the individual states or the sovereignty of the citizens in each state and that states have an inalienable right to call a convention of the states, without Congressional approval, to modify, amend, or abolish this Constitutional Contract.”

 

Madison’s original flaw was not to incorporate the British system of barriers to tyrannical judges in his constitution. In a two-step sequence of events that compounded Madison’s original flaw, both Judiciary Acts empowered a permanent judicial tyranny that is beyond the consent of the governed to remove judges.

 

Marshall’s ruling in Marbury cemented the tyranny of the judicial system, ultimately leading to the centralized elite tyranny known today as “the swamp.”

 

The Liberty States of America Constitution begins the process of correcting Madison’s flaw by granting citizens a pathway to limit the power of judges.

 

  • All judges shall hold a term of office for six years, and may serve one additional term, if approved by the Senate.
  • No judge may serve more than two terms in a single court system, nor more than 18 years in both courts, in a lifetime.
  • The mandatory retirement age of all National judges is 70 years of age.

 

Madison’s second flaw was to enable the Federal Courts unlimited scope of authority over both Federal law and all state laws. The language in Madison’s Constitution, and the subsequent ruling in Marbury, opened an unlimited scope of authority, while at the same time eviscerating the states as sovereign agents in the so-called “federalist system.”

 

The Liberty States Constitution corrects this flaw with 3 provisions:

 

  • The judicial power of the National District and Supreme Courts extends to cases arising under the Constitution of the Liberty States of America.
  • A decision by the Supreme Court becomes the supreme law of the land for issues pertaining exclusively to the Constitution of the Liberty States of America.
  • This Constitution, and the laws made by the National Congress, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the Liberty States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land for laws and cases exclusively pertaining to the National Government.

 

Madison’s third flaw was his opposition to the Bill of Rights in his constitution because the written rights would ameliorate his intent of establishing unlimited authority of the Federal Government.

 

Madison opposed the Bill of Rights because he feared that the common citizens would oppress the wealthy minority by imposing taxes on the wealthy that could be paid in paper money issued by the states.

 

Madison said during the ratification debates that a Bill of Rights was not needed because the natural aristocracy possessed “virtue” and would never act to deny citizens their British common law rights.

 

Thanks to the radical egalitarian culture in North Carolina, citizens there refused to adopt Madison’s constitution, until it contained a Bill of Rights.

 

The Federalists demonstrated their “virtue” by imposing economic sanctions on North Carolina, to coerce her citizens into joining the Union.

 

As a result of this clash, Madison agreed to incorporate a limited Bill of Rights.

 

The Constitution of the Liberty States corrects Madison’s oversight by detailing a comprehensive set of rights of citizens:

 

  • No citizen in any state shall be seized or imprisoned, or stripped of his rights or possessions, or outlawed or exiled, or deprived of his standing in any other way, nor shall agents of the government proceed with force against him, or send others to do so, except by the lawful judgment of a true bill of indictment by a majority vote of a grand jury of 18 citizens, or by the rules of judicial civil procedure of the National Government.
  • No warrants or judicial orders in any criminal investigation shall be issued by a national court, except upon probable cause, determined in a judicial hearing, supported by an oath or affirmation of the government agent describing the specific items or locations to be searched and a judicial description of the crime being investigated.
  • No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a majority vote of a Grand Jury of 18 citizens who conduct an inquiry into the legitimacy of the government’s allegation of a national crime.
  • No citizen shall 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.
  • That all citizens are due the equal application of justice and that no citizen is entitled to special or unequal treatment of the application of the law.
  • That all citizens are judged innocent until proven guilty in a trial of due process.
  • In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.
  • The right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the Liberty States of America, than according to the rules of the common law then obtaining in the national judiciary.
  • Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted, nor imprisonment for longer than 5 days, in the absence of specific charges and allegation of crime.

 

Madison’s fourth flaw was his deliberate omission of the British check against tyrannical judges. The Constitution of the Liberty States corrects Madison’s mistake with the empowerment of a Citizens Grand Jury that provides citizen oversight on the judicial system.

 

  • “…that a citizens Grand Jury of 18 citizens is impaneled, in each judicial district, for a term of 12 months, to protect and preserve the rights of citizens against the arbitrary application of government power against citizens…”
  • That citizens have a civil right of action against elected representatives or agents of the National Government, for violation of these natural rights, upon a presentation of a motion of grievance to a Grand Jury of 18 citizens, who shall hear the case and determine the outcome and set the penalties for the violation by a majority vote.
  • The a citizens Grand Jury in any State retains the right of initiating a citizen initiative on legislative proposals by a petition to the House of Representatives, which must respond to the petition within 30 days of receipt.

 

Madison’s Constitution relocated national “sovereignty” by making two changes in the Articles of Confederation. These two changes fundamentally altered the machinery of the American government from a natural rights republic to a British social class mixed government.

 

The National Judiciary of the Liberty States of America corrects Madison’s flawed document by re-connecting the judicial system to Jefferson’s Natural Rights Republic, and re-establishes the principle that all legitimate authority flows from the consent of the governed.

Comments are closed, but trackbacks and pingbacks are open.