Can’t Make Chicken Soup Out of Chicken Shit

This morning I awoke with a question tossing and turning in my mind that I would like to ask you. But before I do I need to preface it with something else; so bear with me if I seem to take off on a different course right out of the starting gate.

How many of you know how much importance our Founders placed upon trial by jury? In a letter to Thomas Paine, dated 11 July 1789, Thomas Jefferson wrote, “I consider [trial by jury] as the only anchor, ever yet imagined by man, by which a government can be held to the principles of its constitution.”

Those are some pretty strong words; the ONLY anchor ever imagined by man? C’mon, isn’t voting important? Not according to Jefferson, who felt that trial by jury was the only means of tying government down by the restrictions placed upon it by written constitutions.

The Kings refusal to allow for trials by a jury of their peers was one of the reasons listed in the Declaration of Independence as why the Colonists sought to separate themselves from England, “For depriving us in many cases, of the benefit of Trial by Jury.”

How can a body of 12 people wield so much power against the might of the government, or the criminal justice system? I wonder, have you ever heard the phrase jury nullification? Probably not, as it is not something they teach in school, and judges certainly are not going to tell you about it if you are ever called into service as a juror.

Yet jury nullification is not only your right, it is your duty. Jury nullification, and I am paraphrasing here, is simply the fact that if a juror, or group of jurors, decide that a written law violates a person’s unalienable rights, or was written in regards to areas in which the government is not allowed to legislated upon, a jury is not required to convict a defendant…even if the evidence clearly proves that the accused violated the law as written.

Yeah, that’s right; if you are on a jury and you feel the law violates a person’s rights, you are not required to render a guilty verdict…even when the evidence proves that the person violated the law as written. In short, as a juror you have the power and authority to render laws null and void.

In 1789, John Jay, the very first Chief Justice of the Supreme Court stated, “The Jury has a right to judge both the law as well as the fact in controversy.” What he means is that you, as a juror, have the right to judge the lawfulness of the law.

This wasn’t a one time off the cuff statement by John Jay either. Harlan Stone, who served as the 12th Chief Justice of the Supreme Court reaffirmed those sentiments when he said, “If a juror feels that the statute involved in any criminal offence is unfair, or that it infringes upon the defendant’s natural god-given unalienable or constitutional rights, then it is his duty to affirm that the offending statute is really no law at all and the violation of it is no crime at all, for no one is bound to obey an unjust law.”

Judges won’t tell you this; their job is to see that the laws, as written, are upheld in their courtrooms. That does not mean your right to nullify the laws they are sworn to uphold diminishes in the least. As recently as 1969 the concept of jury nullification was upheld.

In United States v. Moylan, the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled, “If the jury feels the law is unjust, we recognize the undisputed power of the jury to acquit, even if its verdict is contrary to the law as given by a judge, and contrary to the evidence‚Ķ If the jury feels that the law under which the defendant is accused is unjust, or that exigent circumstances justified the actions of the accused, or for any reason which appeals to their logic or passion, the jury has the power to acquit, and the courts must abide by that decision.”

So, you are on a jury and someone is accused of murdering someone who had broken into their home. If you feel that it is a person’s God-given right to defend their home and property, even if the written law says that they are guilty of murder, you have the power and authority to render a not guilty verdict. The same can be said for persons brought on charges from a whole manner of crimes for which you feel the written law violates an individual’s rights, or exceeds the powers given government by the Constitution.

Now do you see why Jefferson thought that trial by jury was the BEST and ONLY anchor devised by man to hold government to the principles contained within a constitution?

Now, as to that question that was in my head as I awoke this morning; if we believe that we are entitled to a fair and impartial trial by a jury of our peers, how can we expect such a trial when the average person knows so little about the principles upon which our Constitution and Bill of Rights rest?

How can we as a nation keep our government to the few specifically enumerated powers granted them in Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution if we don’t even know what those powers are? How can we protect our rights from violation by government when we do not know the reasons for which those specific rights were chosen to be protected by Constitutional Amendment? How can we prevent abuses of power in government when we cry and bemoan the abuses of power by one presidential administration, but turn blind eyes to the crimes of those who enact laws which we agree with due to party loyalty?

People today tell me that I have lost my right to complain about the problems this country faces because I choose not to participate in the fraud of choosing which criminal will obtain a particular office within the criminal organization you call government. You going to the polls and voting is like you trying to legitimize the Mafia by holding democratic elections to determine which man will lead a particular crime family.

What good is voting when the entire entity that is government routinely violates the law which binds its power and authority? What good has voting done to preserve and protect your rights? Yet you tell me that I’M the one who is screwing up because I do not choose to participate in choosing who will be my master for the next 4-8 years? You see, I value my vote; it is not something I give to another unless they have met certain qualifications. I will not cast it simply out of partisan loyalty; whether a criminal chooses to play for the Elephants or the Donkeys. If you want my vote you are going to have to prove that you are worthy of it; that you WILL uphold the Constitution; no matter how much you come under attack for doing so.

That is why this quote from John Quincy Adams means so much to me; “Always vote for principle, though you may vote alone, and you may cherish the sweetest reflection that your vote is never lost.” I do not cast my vote for political parties, or for the lesser of two evils; I vote for principle, and if there are no candidates who have any principle, I will not vote. It’s that simple.

I listen to people talk a lot more than they realize. I may choose not to engage in their conversations; but I hear what they are saying; and what they are saying, more often than not, proves to me that they have absolutely no understanding of how our system was designed to work; the purposes for which it was established, and the things it was established to safeguard for us.

I hold the educational system somewhat to blame for this; as they have not done the job of teaching our children the truth. But then again in this modern day of internet access; where information is at their fingertips, I hold the people of this country accountable for being willfully ignorant. I blame them for choosing to stick to things they have been conditioned to accept as truths, when the real truth is within their grasp, but they choose to reject it when confronted with it.

If you cannot see that government as an entity is corrupt and that voting one or two bad apples out every couple of years is like trying to make drinking water out of arsenic by adding a drop or two of distilled water, then you are part of the problem.

If you hold up on pedestals those who enforce the laws written by this band of criminals; calling them heroes, while they, and our criminal justice system routinely deprive people of their lives and their liberty for things which NEVER should have been made a crime, I hold you accountable as part of the problem.

I had an interesting conversation the other day with a friend of mine, which, in a way, continued again early this morning. We were discussing how people are able to deny the facts when they are right there, ‘in their faces’, as my friend said.

I can’t see any solution to the problems this country faces when they still hold out all this hope that the solution lies in selecting just the right batch of people to positions within government. For our country to have any hope, and even then it is doubtful, government would have to all but shut down to fix all the damage that has been done to our Constitution. Even then, there is the little issue of the loss of State sovereignty that occurred around the mid 1800’s; with the final nail in the coffin being the ratification of the 17th Amendment. Without the States as co-equal players, alongside the American people, government will still be a centralized entity with all power and authority over our lives.

Even were that problem to be ratified, the people of this country would still remain loyal to their respective political parties, and their ideologies; rendering the State Legislatures prone to the same partisan control that infects our nation’s capital.

Change, and effective change, will only come when the people, in large numbers, return to constitutional principles, and demand that government pass no law which oversteps the power given them, nor pass any law which violates a single unalienable right. Anything other than that is an exercise in futility, a continuation of business as usual.

If you can’t see that, then I don’t know what else I can say to convince you. Then again, I never held out much hope of changing your minds in the first place. I’ve been in enough arguments over these issues to have come to the realization that you don’t want to hear the truth; you would rather accept a comfortable lie; because accepting the truth would also entail accepting part of the blame for what is wrong in this country.

So you choose to go on putting your faith in a broken system and hoping that by changing out one criminal for another you are going to fix what is wrong.

That is why I ask if we can ever obtain a fair and unbiased trial when the people are so reluctant to hear truths that conflict with their existing beliefs.

My friend also told me one thing, and it is something I have come to accept as an unfortunate reality. We were discussing how unable both of us have been in getting people to see the truths we write about, and my friend said, “You can’t make chicken soup out of chicken shit.” If a person’s brain is unwilling to accept ideas which conflict with existing beliefs, if a person is unwilling to accept the truth when it is presented to them with undeniable evidence; then what good is arguing with people like that? If their minds are made of mush, there is no fixing that.

I know I’ve been told not to insult my readers as it causes them to disregard what I say; so I’m sorry if I’ve offended you.

I take that back, I’m not sorry, I’m angry that I’m surrounded by people who chose to believe lies rather than the truth. I’m angry that people still trust in a system that is entirely corrupt. I’m angry that people would willingly obey laws which violate their most sacred rights.

People today call people like me radicals, and that we pose a danger to society because our ideas as they pertain to government are, how’s the best way to say this? Revolutionary? Damn, weren’t our nation’s founders just as radical in their beliefs and in the things they did to obtain their independence from a tyrant.

Why is it that people are so willing to condemn tyranny and oppression when they hear about it in other countries, but refuse to turn that microscopic glance inwards and look at their own government?

So yeah, I’m angry…real angry. I see the country I love going to hell in a handbasket and all people care about is their Reality TV, their sporting events, their Facebook likes, and which crook gets to sit in the Oval Office for 4 years.

So in closing, if you can tell me who won the last 4 Superbowls, but not who our first 4 Presidents were, YOU are part of the problem. If you can tell me who won the Academy Award for best picture last year, but not what Article 5 of the Constitution says, YOU are part of the problem. If you can name all the Kardashian sisters but not tell me what rights the 4th Amendment protects, YOU are part of the problem.

Oh, if you’re interested, the first 4 presidents were; Washington, Adams, Jefferson and Madison; Article 5 outlines the process by which our Constitution shall be amended; and the 4th Amendment protects our right to privacy and to not have our persons, personal effects and belongings searched without a warrant issued stating probable cause.

And I didn’t have to look any of that up…

About Br'er Rabbit

I'm just one person out of millions of others. The only thing different about me is that I don't walk around with my head up my ass.
This entry was posted in General. Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.