The original intent of the founding fathers was for the sovereign citizens of the republic to have complete control over the law. The jury was given the responsibility of not only deciding whether a person was guilty, but whether the law was valid. We have all heard of jury nullification in the context of protecting our brethren from the results of illegal prosecution for 2nd Amendment violations. Were you, reader, aware that the courts took to themselves the sole authority of deciding if laws were legal and constitutional, contravening the intent of the Founding Fathers? Did you know that they took from the people, beginning in 1803, the very foundation of the republic, the jury system? Were you aware that the reason Jefferson made so many threats about regaining liberty was his horror at what destruction had been accomplished so quickly after the ratification of the Constitution?
Here are some quotes of the true intent of our Founders:
It would be an absurdity for jurors to be required to accept the
judge's view of the law, against their own opinion, judgment, and
conscience. --JOHN ADAMS
Juries are taken, by lot or by suffrage, from the mass of
the people, and no man can be condemned of life or limb
or property or reputation without the concurrence of the
voice of the people. . . . Whenever a general verdict is
found, it assuredly determines both the fact and the law.
It was never yet disputed or doubted that a general ver-dict,
given under the direction of the court in point of
law, was a legal determination of the issue. Therefore,
the jury have a power of deciding an issue upon a gen-eral
verdict. And, if they have, is it not an absurdity to
suppose that the law would oblige them to find a verdict
according to the direction of the court, against their own
opinion, judgment, and conscience? . . . Should the mel-ancholy
case arise that the judges should give their opin-ions
to the jury against . . . fundamental principles, is a
juror obliged to give his verdict generally, according to
this direction, or even to find the fact specially, and sub-mit
the law to the court? Every man, of any feeling or
conscience, will answer, "No." It is not only his right,
but his duty, in that case, to find the verdict according to
his own best understanding, judgment, and conscience,
though in direct opposition to the direction of the court.
John Adams, "The Works of John Adams, Second President of the United States," quoted in Sparf v United States, 156 US 51, 143-44.
And John Jay, the first Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court, said: "The jury has a right to judge both the law as well as the fact in controversy." Georgia v. Brailsford, 1794.
Enter "Stare Decisis," the totally abused method of law searches that falls back on previous decisions to save work. One can not enter
a court and claim the right as quoted by John Jay (or other Constitutional rights), because the judge will say he or she has to go by the decisions of the previous courts. I think we are all well aware of the statement in the Stanley case where the judge would not even entertain the MENTION of the Constitution in his court.
If you do NOT believe that takes place, click on THIS icon:
Rather than try to explain the whole thing to you here, we have prepared essays and links to other essays you might use to educate yourself about the horrible loss we suffered over the past 200 years that made possible our shiny new POLICE STATE.
