Freedom4um

Status: Not Logged In; Sign In

Miscellaneous
See other Miscellaneous Articles

Title: Scalia Defends The Constitution, Questions The 17th Amendment
Source: WJ
URL Source: http://www.westernjournalism.com/sc ... -questions-the-17th-amendment/
Published: May 13, 2015
Author: Randy DeSoto
Post Date: 2015-05-14 19:24:59 by X-15
Keywords: Scalia, Reagan
Views: 1968
Comments: 64

Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia reaffirmed his commitment to defending the Constitution while speaking to the Federalist Society in his home state of New Jersey on Friday.

Scalia, the preeminent conservative firebrand of the court, told the audience it is the structure of the government under the Constitution and not the liberties guaranteed under the Bill of Rights that makes us free.

As reported by The Daily Signal: “Every tin horn dictator in the world today, every president for life, has a Bill of Rights,” said Scalia, author of the 2012 book Reading Law: The Interpretation of Legal Texts. “That’s not what makes us free; if it did, you would rather live in Zimbabwe. But you wouldn’t want to live in most countries in the world that have a Bill of Rights. What has made us free is our Constitution. Think of the word ‘constitution’; it means structure.”

Congress passed the first ten amendments to the Constitution, which became known as the Bill of Rights, during the opening months of its first session in 1789, largely following those proposed by the “Father of the Constitution,” James Madison. They were ratified by the states and became the law of the land in 1791.

Scalia argued that without the division of power created by the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, which guarantees freedom of speech and religion, the right to bear arms, protection against unlawful search and seizures, and trial by jury of one’s peers among other rights, would just be paper promises with no mechanism to enforce them.

“The genius of the American constitutional system is the dispersal of power,” he said. “Once power is centralized in one person, or one part [of government], a Bill of Rights is just words on paper.”

Scalia stands on firm ground with his observation. James Madison wrote in Federalist 51 that the best bulwark against government tyranny is structuring a system where “ambition must be made to counteract ambition.”

He observed: “In…the republic of America, the power surrendered by the people is first divided between two distinct governments [federal and state], and then the portion allotted to each subdivided among distinct and separate departments [legislative, executive, judicial]. Hence a double security arises to the rights of the people. The different governments will control each other, at the same time that each will be controlled by itself.”

Scalia noted that the most profound departure from the dispersal-of-power structure established under the Constitution was passage of the ratification of the 17th Amendment in 1913, which changed the method of the election of U.S. senators to the popular vote rather than by the state legislatures.

The Founders intended the House of Representatives to be the “people’s house” with elections every two years, while senators served for six year terms–their constituency being the state legislature. This ensured that senators would have no incentive to trample on the state government’s authority through federal action.

The Constitution created a federal government with certain enumerated powers, leaving all the remaining authority to the states and the people. Scalia and many other critics believe the federal government has usurped broad authority in powers left primarily to the states.

“What a difference that makes,” Scalia said. “When you have a bill that says states will not receive federal highway funds unless they raise the drinking age to 21, that bill would not pass. The states that had lower drinking ages would tell their senators, ‘You vote for that and you are out of there.’”

Repeal of the 17th Amendment is one of the proposals in radio talk show host Mark Levin’s bestselling book Liberty Amendments.

Regarding interpretation of the Constitution overall, Justice Scalia is an originalist. In other words, he believes that it is not up to courts to re-interpret the nation’s governing document, but follow what the Founders’ intended. If the Constitution or laws generally need revision, it is up to the legislative branch to do so. “When we read Shakespeare, we have a glossary. We don’t think the words have changed there, so why do we think they have changed in the Constitution?” the justice has told audiences in the past.

Justice Scalia is currently the longest serving member on the Supreme Court, having been appointed by Ronald Reagan in 1986. Anthony Kennedy is the only other Reagan appointee still serving on the high bench.

Post Comment   Private Reply   Ignore Thread  


TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest

Comments (1-17) not displayed.
      .
      .
      .

#18. To: NeoconsNailed (#15)

If I wanted to just grumble and argue with virtual firewalls against Constitutionality and enforcement of our Constitution, I'd be posting at a "Liberal" forum instead of here. Why aren't you?

-------

"They're on our left, they're on our right, they're in front of us, they're behind us...they can't get away this time." -- Col. Puller, USMC

GreyLmist  posted on  2015-06-03   11:19:32 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#19. To: All (#14)

Reposting for emphasis:

“The grand jury ‘can investigate merely on suspicion that the law is being violated, or even because it wants assurance that it is not.’ It need not identify the offender it suspects, or even “the precise nature of the offense” it is investigating. The grand jury requires no authorization from its constituting court to initiate an investigation, nor does the prosecutor require leave of court to seek a grand jury indictment. And in its day-to-day functioning, the grand jury generally operates without the interference of a presiding judge. It swears in its own witnesses and deliberates in total secrecy.”

“Recognizing this tradition of independence, we have said the 5th Amendment’s constitutional guarantee presupposes an investigative body ‘acting independently of either prosecuting attorney or judge”

-------

"They're on our left, they're on our right, they're in front of us, they're behind us...they can't get away this time." -- Col. Puller, USMC

GreyLmist  posted on  2015-06-03   11:34:57 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#20. To: GreyLmist (#19) (Edited)

Apparently Scalia, who was a District Court judge and who thus had the direct power to empanel a Grand Jury as well as exercise oversight of Grand Juries, was, and is, unaware of Title III Section 6 of Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure which, among other things, a) grants a federal judge power to order a Grand Jury to be impaneled and b) have that Grand Jury report directly to him.

The fact is, as is made clear in this rule, any act of a Grand Jury - even the seating of a particular Grand Juror - can be challenged or appealed directly to the presiding judge.

So much for *independence*...

--Perfecting Obscurity Since 1958...

war  posted on  2015-06-03   12:03:54 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#21. To: GreyLmist (#18)

grumble and argue with virtual firewalls against Constitutionality and enforcement of our Constitution

I think you may have misread me by 180 degrees.

NeoconsNailed  posted on  2015-06-03   12:12:48 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#22. To: GreyLmist (#19)

BTW, if a Citizen's Grand Jury tried to subpoena me or otherwise compel me, I'd tell them to stuff it...

--Perfecting Obscurity Since 1958...

war  posted on  2015-06-03   12:20:26 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#23. To: war (#20)

--Perfecting Obscurity Since 1958...

So it seems.

-------

"They're on our left, they're on our right, they're in front of us, they're behind us...they can't get away this time." -- Col. Puller, USMC

GreyLmist  posted on  2015-06-03   12:34:05 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#24. To: war (#22)

That sounds like you (why are you back here) but you might one day find you can't sell your car or house because they've been liened. Your commie friends at ADL and SPLC habitually scoff at the validity of CGJs while on the same page whining about how successful they are in gumming up lawless judges' personal affairs.

NeoconsNailed  posted on  2015-06-03   12:38:23 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#25. To: NeoconsNailed (#24)

That sounds like you (why are you back here) but you might one day find you can't sell your car or house because they've been liened 9sic).

A lien requires an order from a judge or a government agency. Even something as mundane as a Mechanic's Lien requires a public records filing and is subject to review. This type of lien, btw, is a legislated right. You won't find any law that has created or legitimized a Citizen's Grand Jury...

But, one of my neighbors is kind of hot...should I convene a 1 person CGJ and put a lien on her house so that if my wife should somehow be out of the picture, I can keep the neighbor from moving?

--Perfecting Obscurity Since 1958...

war  posted on  2015-06-03   12:49:07 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#26. To: NeoconsNailed (#24)

Your commie friends at ADL and SPLC habitually scoff at the validity of CGJs

Royce Lamberth is hardly a Communist...

Your constitutional argument is specious too. Under the English system of law, which the US adopted, Grand Juries were a part of the Throne's Bench...

--Perfecting Obscurity Since 1958...

war  posted on  2015-06-03   12:52:30 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#27. To: NeoconsNailed, war, 4 (#24)

Interesting. I haven't heard the merits of "paper terrorism" (sorry for the term) since the early 90s.

Jethro Tull  posted on  2015-06-03   12:55:13 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#28. To: war (#26) (Edited)

The liens get filed and honored, as they properly should since in most or all cases its when some "real" judge has refused to give justice. You always side with the establishment at a time when the establishment is the curse of the whole world!

Lots of judges ARE unreal, because they don't have a properly sworn oath or bond. When "the law" goes lawless, citizens have to take whatever action is available to them. These people are not shooting up the judges like others are, you and the Jew thought police should be thrilled with them. But you and the JTP don't care about justice, only shoring up the system.

Are you Jew, by the way?

NeoconsNailed  posted on  2015-06-03   13:01:53 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#29. To: Jethro Tull (#27)

Very astute since paper terrorism is only the enemy term for it, typically lumping the bad in with the good.

NeoconsNailed  posted on  2015-06-03   13:02:59 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#30. To: NeoconsNailed (#28)

The liens get filed and honored

What liens?

--Perfecting Obscurity Since 1958...

war  posted on  2015-06-03   13:06:14 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#31. To: NeoconsNailed (#29)

I agree.

Jethro Tull  posted on  2015-06-03   13:06:26 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#32. To: war (#22)

BTW, if a Citizen's Grand Jury tried to subpoena me or otherwise compel me, I'd tell them to stuff it...

I'm not going to argue against your 1st Amendment right to Freedom of Speech defiance ventings about it and I doubt they would either. Currently, you'd probably have little to no problem finding a court in this country unconcerned with enforcing our Constitution against those who defy it and that's why Grand Juries of Constitution oriented citizens are a necessity.

-------

"They're on our left, they're on our right, they're in front of us, they're behind us...they can't get away this time." -- Col. Puller, USMC

GreyLmist  posted on  2015-06-03   13:07:01 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#33. To: war (#30)

Lots. Royce should be happy to guide you.

NeoconsNailed  posted on  2015-06-03   13:07:10 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#34. To: NeoconsNailed (#33)

Lots.

Name one.

Royce should be happy to guide you.

He's not here right now; is he?

--Perfecting Obscurity Since 1958...

war  posted on  2015-06-03   13:08:24 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#35. To: war (#26)

Under the English system of law, which the US adopted, Grand Juries were a part of the Throne's Bench...

Criminy! FYI: The British still don't have a Constitution, as we do.

-------

"They're on our left, they're on our right, they're in front of us, they're behind us...they can't get away this time." -- Col. Puller, USMC

GreyLmist  posted on  2015-06-03   13:10:06 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#36. To: war (#34)

He's your friend, ask him -- or just search the SPLC's sensitive, caring site.

NeoconsNailed  posted on  2015-06-03   13:12:15 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#37. To: GreyLmist (#32)

Currently, you'd probably have little to no problem finding a court in this country unconcerned with enforcing our Constitution against those who defy it and that's why Grand Juries of Constitution oriented citizens are a necessity.

Be that as it may, there is no such thing as a Citizen's Grand Jury that is recognized as having any kind of legal power.

--Perfecting Obscurity Since 1958...

war  posted on  2015-06-03   13:12:20 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#38. To: GreyLmist (#35)

The British still don't have a Constitution, as we do.

Why would that matter?

They have a body of law that not only predates ours by 600 years but is, effectively, ours when it comes to the Common Law...

--Perfecting Obscurity Since 1958...

war  posted on  2015-06-03   13:15:02 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#39. To: NeoconsNailed (#21)

I think you may have misread me by 180 degrees.

Objection noted for consideration.

-------

"They're on our left, they're on our right, they're in front of us, they're behind us...they can't get away this time." -- Col. Puller, USMC

GreyLmist  posted on  2015-06-03   13:16:52 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#40. To: NeoconsNailed (#36)

He's your friend, ask him -- or just search the SPLC's sensitive, caring site.

Anyone can file a lien.

Can you please point to a time whenever one from a CGJ was actually enforced?

--Perfecting Obscurity Since 1958...

war  posted on  2015-06-03   13:17:18 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#41. To: war (#40)

I didn't say they're enforced and I've had enough of your liberal silliness on this subject.

NeoconsNailed  posted on  2015-06-03   13:19:57 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#42. To: NeoconsNailed (#41)

I didn't say they're enforced

Okay...thus the context of the paper terrorism...

and I've had enough of your liberal silliness on this subject.

What's next...baseball?

The designated hitter and pitch count killed the sport...

--Perfecting Obscurity Since 1958...

war  posted on  2015-06-03   13:31:01 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#43. To: war (#42)

What's next is for you to go hang with some liberals. You're totally worthless here.

NeoconsNailed  posted on  2015-06-03   13:39:43 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#44. To: NeoconsNailed (#43)

What's next is for you to go hang with some liberals. You're totally worthless here.

I'm here for as long as Christine allows me to be and I thank her for every moment.

Other than that, I don't know what else to *tell* you...

--Perfecting Obscurity Since 1958...

war  posted on  2015-06-03   13:56:53 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#45. To: war (#44)

Yes, but it's worthless. Your stuff.

NeoconsNailed  posted on  2015-06-03   14:15:47 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#46. To: NeoconsNailed (#45)

Yes, but it's worthless. Your stuff.

As opposed to the *worth* of someone analyzing Obama's birth certificate?

--Perfecting Obscurity Since 1958...

war  posted on  2015-06-03   14:20:22 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#47. To: war (#46)

Definitely. The BC is an important matter, but your contributions here are nothing but attempts to obscure such. Like you don't have an agenda? Uh-huh!

Thus are you worthless, totally worthless, to the forum at best.

NeoconsNailed  posted on  2015-06-03   14:25:48 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#48. To: NeoconsNailed (#47)

...but your contributions here are nothing but attempts to obscure such.

Barack Sr. would not have referred to himself as a Negro...

--Perfecting Obscurity Since 1958...

war  posted on  2015-06-03   14:38:21 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#49. To: X-15 (#0)

B T T T

U.S. Constitution - Article IV, Section 4: NO BORDERS + NO LAWS = NO COUNTRY

HAPPY2BME-4UM  posted on  2015-06-03   14:40:23 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#50. To: war (#38) (Edited)

From Scalia's statements posted at #14 and #19: "we have said the 5th Amendment’s constitutional guarantee presupposes an investigative body ‘acting independently of either prosecuting attorney or judge”

war at #20: Apparently Scalia, who was a District Court judge and who thus had the direct power to empanel a Grand Jury as well as exercise oversight of Grand Juries, was, and is, unaware of Title III Section 6 of Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure which, among other things, a) grants a federal judge power to order a Grand Jury to be impaneled and b) have that Grand Jury report directly to him. The fact is, as is made clear in this rule, any act of a Grand Jury - even the seating of a particular Grand Juror - can be challenged or appealed directly to the presiding judge.

war at #26: Under the English system of law, which the US adopted, Grand Juries were a part of the Throne's Bench...

Me at #35: The British still don't have a Constitution, as we do.

war at #38: Why would that matter? They have a body of law that not only predates ours by 600 years but is, effectively, ours when it comes to the Common Law...

war at #37: there is no such thing as a Citizen's Grand Jury that is recognized as having any kind of legal power.

The Constitution isn't overwritable by Title III Section 6 "Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure" verbiages of non-Amendment, nor are Grand Juries Federal and Criminal case-restricted. While a District Judge might move to have a Grand Jury empaneled as required for a capital or otherwise infamous crime, nothing in the Constitution says that it is the only way they can be empaneled, nor that they must be subject to judicial control. Moreover, "the Throne's Bench" is absolutely not an instructional model anywhere in our Constitution. Grand Juries predate the English system of law all the way back to Athens and the English system of law used torture for forced confessions, for example. If our nation's forefathers had intended for America to continue being governed by the English system of law, there most likely would have been no War of Independence. Interesting, though, that you've read all of your claims on this issue as implicit in the Constitution when that isn't so but have been skewing the clear distinction they made in Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 requiring natural born citizenship only for the Presidency.

-------

"They're on our left, they're on our right, they're in front of us, they're behind us...they can't get away this time." -- Col. Puller, USMC

GreyLmist  posted on  2015-06-08   21:57:04 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#51. To: All (#14) (Edited)

Reference Grand Jury info at Post #14: Justice Antonin Scalia writing for the majority said In the Supreme Court case of United States v. Williams, 112 S.Ct. 1735, 504 U.S. 36, 118 L.Ed.2d 352 (1992)

Excerpts:

"The grand jury is mentioned in the Bill of Rights, but not in the body of the Constitution. It has not been textually assigned, therefore, to any of the branches described in the first three Articles. It is a constitutional fixture in its own right. In fact the whole theory of its function is that it belongs to no branch of the institutional government, serving as a kind of buffer or referee between the Government and the people”.

“Thus, citizens have the unbridled right to empanel their own grand juries and present “True Bills” of indictment to a court, which is then required to commence a criminal proceeding. Our Founding Fathers presciently thereby created a “buffer” the people may rely upon for justice, when public officials, including judges, criminally violate the law.”


Archiving a Montana example:


INTRODUCTION Advisory Grand Jury - YouTube [2.25 minutes]

Published on Apr 23, 2014

Introducing the Advisory Grand Jury of Gallatin county, Montana.
The group is assembled under the Common Law to empanel a citizens grand jury.


Document # 5 PUBLIC NOTICE - YouTube [2 minutes]

Published on May 22, 2014 by Advisory Grand Jury of Gallatin county, Montana.


More at YouTube Channel: Advisory Grand Jury of Gallatin county, Montana

-------

"They're on our left, they're on our right, they're in front of us, they're behind us...they can't get away this time." -- Col. Puller, USMC

GreyLmist  posted on  2015-06-08   23:41:29 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#52. To: All (#51) (Edited)

Reference Grand Jury info at Post #14: Justice Antonin Scalia writing for the majority said In the Supreme Court case of United States v. Williams, 112 S.Ct. 1735, 504 U.S. 36, 118 L.Ed.2d 352 (1992)

Excerpts:

in its day-to-day functioning, the grand jury generally operates without the interference of a presiding judge. It swears in its own witnesses and deliberates in total secrecy.”

“Recognizing this tradition of independence, we have said the 5th Amendment’s constitutional guarantee presupposes an investigative body ‘acting independently of either prosecuting attorney or judge”

This proposed legislation might mean well regarding investigations of misconduct and the use of deadly force by law enforcement/Police officers being opened to public scrutiny but (aside from how those evaluations might jeopardize the fairness of trials or not) the wording doesn't state clearly enough that it would be unconstitutional to proceed from a preliminary public hearing directly to a trial by supposed "prosecutorial discretion", rather than by the Grand Jury determination and indictment process, in any such cases suspected to be a capital or otherwise infamous crime:

WSB-TV: Grand Jury Reform Act 2015 - YouTube [less than 1.5 minutes]

Published on Jan 23, 2015 by RepHankJohnson

Rep. Johnson discusses his Grand Jury Reform Act with WSB-TV's Justin Gray.


Reference The Library of Congress at thomas.loc.gov/home/thomas.php for Legislation in Current Congress by selecting the Bill Number option and inserting H.R.429 as the Searchbox criteria:

Bill Summary & Status
114th Congress (2015 - 2016)
H.R.429 [Latest Title: Grand Jury Reform Act of 2015]

Page links to:
All Information (except text) -- including a Summary and list of the Cosponsors (28)
Also links to: Text of Legislation

Excerpts from the Text of H.R.429.IH -- Grand Jury Reform Act of 2015 (Introduced in House - IH):

To provide that in the case of a law enforcement officer who uses deadly force against a person, and thereby causes the death of that person, a hearing shall be conducted before a judge to determine whether there is probable cause for the State to bring criminal charges against the law enforcement officer relating to the death of the person, and for other purposes. [...] a public preliminary hearing [...] the court shall remain open to the public, and upon scheduling the hearing the judge shall provide notice to the public of the date, time, and location of the hearing. [...] After the conclusion of the hearing described in subsection (c), the elected prosecutor of the locality in which the death occurred shall retain prosecutorial discretion as to whether to bring charges against the law enforcement officer, including whether to hold a grand jury proceeding in the appropriate court.
From the text of the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution:

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger;

Since criminal statistics are indicative of public danger to the extent of funding and staffing counter-forces, a Constitutional alternative to the Grand Jury Reform Act of 2015 presentment might be for the Militias of the States, comprised of their citizenry ranks and deployed rotationally, to act as policing law enforcement officials in accordance with Military codes and adjudications; instead of employing conventional Police and law enforcement personnel as if the Privileges and Immunities Clause of the Constitution means nearly no accountability or convictability of them.

-------

"They're on our left, they're on our right, they're in front of us, they're behind us...they can't get away this time." -- Col. Puller, USMC

GreyLmist  posted on  2015-06-09   6:39:56 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#53. To: GreyLmist (#50) (Edited)

The Constitution isn't (over-writable) by Title III Section 6 "Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure"...

The Constitution clearly establishes the Judiciary as a separate branch of government. As was pointed out, in the English system, where the Judiciary was part of the monarchy/executive, Grand Juries were under that authority. Since the USCON explicitly recognizes the role of the Grand Jury in criminal matters, it's not a leap of extra-constitutional logic to determine that the Grand Jury, as it was in England, was part of the Judicial system.

Moreover, "the Throne's Bench" is absolutely not an instructional model anywhere in our Constitution.

Well, that's just not a factual recitation of history. Do you believe that there was no judiciary between 1776 and 1788? What courts were in effect prior to 1776?

The idea that judges may serve during times of "good behavior" tracks directly to the English system. The fact that different courts may be created to hear specific aspects of law - maritime, tax, civil - is modeled on England. The Writ of Habeas Corpus, a judicial power under the English system, is explicitly recognized in the USCON.

Then you have Story waxing eloquently how England provided the model for the judiciary...

www.constitution.org/js/js_338. htm

If our nation's forefathers had intended for America to continue being governed by the English system of law...

You're confusing system of law, e.g. common law, criminal law, with system of government...Blackstone, an Englishman, is still cited as a legal authority in US courts.

requiring natural born citizenship only for the Presidency...

Can you point to where the USCON defines *natural born*?

--Perfecting Obscurity Since 1958...

war  posted on  2015-06-09   7:25:57 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#54. To: All (#51)

Reference Grand Jury info at Post #14: Justice Antonin Scalia writing for the majority said In the Supreme Court case of United States v. Williams, 112 S.Ct. 1735, 504 U.S. 36, 118 L.Ed.2d 352 (1992)

Excerpts:

"The grand jury is mentioned in the Bill of Rights, but not in the body of the Constitution. It has not been textually assigned, therefore, to any of the branches described in the first three Articles. It is a constitutional fixture in its own right. In fact the whole theory of its function is that it belongs to no branch of the institutional government, serving as a kind of buffer or referee between the Government and the people”.

“Thus, citizens have the unbridled right to empanel their own grand juries and present “True Bills” of indictment to a court, which is then required to commence a criminal proceeding. Our Founding Fathers presciently thereby created a “buffer” the people may rely upon for justice, when public officials, including judges, criminally violate the law.”

[Archived Montana-example videos and more at YouTube Channel: Advisory Grand Jury of Gallatin county, Montana]

In addition to United States v. Williams, other Supreme Court cases also reinforce Scalia's quoted statements on Grand Juries.

The commentary in this video explains how they could be implemented for citizens to secure Constitutionality of government, etc. Scalia's commentary is mentioned in this 2.25 minute segment: 27:00-29:17

Rodger Dowdell - Greater Orlando Tea Party - 7/15/2014 - YouTube [40 minutes]

Published on Jul 21, 2014

Common Law Grand Jury, the tool the Founders intended to be used to remove elected officials who become corrupt and ignore our laws.

It was the people who were meant to have the final say about their government.

-------

"They're on our left, they're on our right, they're in front of us, they're behind us...they can't get away this time." -- Col. Puller, USMC

GreyLmist  posted on  2015-06-10   10:52:59 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#55. To: GreyLmist (#54)

Excellent information, thanks.

“The most dangerous man to any government is the man who is able to think things out... without regard to the prevailing superstitions and taboos. Almost inevitably he comes to the conclusion that the government he lives under is dishonest, insane, intolerable.” ~ H. L. Mencken

Lod  posted on  2015-06-10   11:08:49 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#56. To: war (#53) (Edited)

requiring natural born citizenship only for the Presidency...

Can you point to where the USCON defines *natural born*?

I've already pointed out numerous times that it is distinquished as a higher standard than basic citizenship in Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 of the Constitution. It was a recommendation made by John Jay, who became America's first Supreme Court Chief Justice, to guard the Presidency from divided allegiance and foreign obligation. Emmerich de Vattel's Law of Nations might have been a contemporaneous source consulted by our Founders for their determination of it as singularity of loyalty and jurisdiction by birth here to parents who are both Americans only, which is the only condition of citizenship automatically acquired by natural right here rather than statutory issuances. You can be sure that the much later 14th Amendment had no bearing whatsoever on our Founders' intent at the time, nor any modernist misinterpretive manglements as if they nonsensically intended to internationalize the Executive office.

Pointing to your topsy-turvy definition:

-------

"They're on our left, they're on our right, they're in front of us, they're behind us...they can't get away this time." -- Col. Puller, USMC

GreyLmist  posted on  2015-06-10   11:46:22 ET  (1 image) Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#57. To: GreyLmist (#56) (Edited)

It was a recommendation made by John Jay...

It was a recommendation by Hamilton as well...

Emmerich de Vattel's Law of Nations might have been a contemporaneous source consulted by our Founders for their determination of it as singularity of loyalty and jurisdiction by birth here to parents who are both Americans only...

Why would the Framers *consult* Vattel when they had their own English legal compatriot in Blackstone? In fact, the very first citizen acts were modeled on Blackstone and not Vattel.

But, that said, the fact is, you are referring to an *understanding* that the Framers may have had in penning that phrase rather than directing me to a definition of the phrase in the USCON. I made that same argument in regard to Grand Juries and you rejected it.

Here's one such *understanding* as penned by Judge Zephaniah Swift who served in the 3rd or 4th Congress. I made the URL tiny because Google Books links are a zillion lines long.

It is an established maxim, received by all political writers, that every person owes a natural allegiance to the government of that country in which he is born. Allegiance is defined to be a tie, that binds the subject to the state, and in consequence of his obedience, he is entitled to protection…

The children of aliens, born in this state, are considered as natural born subjects, and have the same rights with the rest of the citizens.

http://tinyurl.com/pphbxxg

--Perfecting Obscurity Since 1958...

war  posted on  2015-06-10   12:19:38 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#58. To: GreyLmist (#56)

You can be sure that the much later 14th Amendment had no bearing whatsoever on our Founders' intent at the time, nor any modernist misinterpretive manglements as if they nonsensically intended to internationalize the Executive office.

Agree...

--Perfecting Obscurity Since 1958...

war  posted on  2015-06-10   12:22:20 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  



      .
      .
      .

Comments (59 - 64) not displayed.

TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest