 |
PM |  | |
Quote | | |
Reply | | |
Full Topic | |
| Joined: | Mon Nov 21st, 2005 |
| Location: | California USA |
| Posts: | 6399 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: |    |
And, we should stop here and consider that term: constitutional.
A key purpose of the symbolic trials could be to introduce the notion that certain undesirable actions should be deemed unconstitutional and a criminal offense under the law. The test of an action being unconstitutional is whether the public interest has been violated. For example, the Koch brothers, owners of Koch Industries, a firm that grew out of the petroleum industry, have, to-date, donated a total of $196 million to free market and advocacy groups, as well as to political campaigns. In particular, their considerable donations to Scott Walker’s campaign for governor of Wisconsin, which called for an “austerity program” directed broadly at the Wisconsin public and included the elimination of union collective bargaining, was seen by some members of the public as an assault on American democracy and an intentional effort to build up a national program of the same sort to be directed at the American public as a whole. There was considerable public anger and resistance over the ability of very wealthy donors to have unfair advantage in influencing legislation that tends to obstruct the democratic process and violates the public interest. The symbolic trials could bring this issue to the American public, repeatedly, to show the virtue of a new law that calls to account individuals and corporations that commit unconstitutional actions and, therefore, are charged with criminal violations of the law. If this law had been in effect in the early 1900s, the massive grant-giving, used by the Carnegie, Rockefeller and Guggenheim foundations, to take over and sabotage American education would have been deemed unconstitutional and stopped in its tracks.
The Constitution of 1789 was unconstitutional. That is well researched and explained here:
http://unionstatesassembly.info/index.html
In the original (true) federal record are these clarifications:
http://teachingamericanhistory.org/ratification/elliot/vol1/approaches/
On the same day, Congress unanimously resolved, “that the respective colonies are entitled to the common law of England, and more especially to the great and inestimable privilege of being tried by their peers of the vicinage according to the course of that law.” They further resolved, “that they were entitled to the benefit of such of the English statutes as existed at the time of their colonization, and which they have, by experience, respectively found to be applicable to their several and local circumstances.” They also resolved, that their ancestors, at the time of their immigration, were “entitled to all the rights, liberties, and immunities, of free and natural-born subjects within the realms of England.”
That establishes what is the law of the land; and how due process works.
Same link, same original (organic, grass roots, mother of invention being the necessity of defense against the largest criminal army perpetrating the crime of war of aggression) is the following explanation of what is, or is not, a federation:
That the question was not whether, by a declaration of independence, we should make ourselves what we are not; but whether we should declare a fact which already exists:
That, as to the people or Parliament of England, we had always been independent of them, their restraints on our trade deriving efficacy from our acquiescence only, and not from any rights they possessed of imposing them; and that, so far, our connection had been federal only, and was now dissolved by the commencement of hostilities:
That, as to the king, we had been bound to him by allegiance, but that this bond was now dissolved by his assent to the late act of Parliament, by which he declares us out of his protection, and by his levying war on usa fact which had long ago proved us out of his protection, it being a certain position in law, that allegiance and protection are reciprocal, the one ceasing when the other is withdrawn:
Moving to the actual constitution of the actual federation before the criminal (false) federalist party members turned the voluntary mutual defense association (federation) into a despotic tyranny whereby they claim that they are immune - above - the law.
Articles of Confederation clearly state:
http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/artconf.asp
Freedom of speech and debate in Congress shall not be impeached or questioned in any court or place out of Congress, and the members of Congress shall be protected in their persons from arrests or imprisonments, during the time of their going to and from, and attendence on Congress, except for treason, felony, or breach of the peace.
In a federation, where the people support their individual, independent, Nation States (countries), such as Maryland, New Jersey, Texas, California, etc., the jurisdiction concerning charges of felony, or breach of the peace, falls upon the Justices of the Peace, and their county sheriffs, who command civil and criminal common law powers such as subpoena, indictment, arrest, and trial.
Why would anyone need a show trial? Either everyone is subject to the same law, or it is rule by criminal means.