-Caveat Lector- <A HREF="http://www.ctrl.org/"> </A> -Cui Bono?- Forwarded intact, credit where credit is due. -----Original Message----- From: "Gene Karl"<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: THE BILL OF RIGHTS IS SEPARATE AND SUPREME > >American Patriot Pamphlet #5 > >THE BILL OF RIGHTS IS SEPARATE AND SUPREME >by Ralph Boryszewski > >Copyright 1996 >All Rights Reserved >permission was granted by Ralph Boryszewski >http://www.frontiernet.net/~ralphb1/ >to Gene Karl >The Anti-Federalist Society >http://www.no-debts.com/anti- federalist/index.html >to place this information on the internet. >THE BILL OF RIGHTS IS SEPARATE AND SUPREME > > A basic precept to remember is that the Bill of Rights is separate >from and supreme over the Constitution and is the final check over the >Constitution and its officers. This Bill of Rights check is administered >directly by people on Grand and Trial Juries. The following are examples >why the Bill of Rights is supreme. > Article 1 of the Bill of Rights places a limitation (or check) on >the law making power of Congress. "Congress shall make no law... abridging >the freedom of speech, or the press..." > Article 4 of the Bill of Rights places a limitation (or check) on >the executive power commanded by the President and those who assist him. >"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and >effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures shall not be violated." > Article 7 of the Bill of Rights places a limitation (or check) on >the judicial power in that "... no fact tried by a jury shall be otherwise >re-examined in any court of the United States." > The Bill of Rights places direct checks on the members of the >legislative, executive and judicial departments of government. The >legislative, executive and judicial departments are without the authority >to place checks on the people's Bill of Rights. At the Constitutional >Convention a motion was made and seconded that a Bill of Rights be adopted. >The lawyers unanimously rejected the Bill of Rights. At the ratification >conventions, the people insisted that the Constitution be rejected unless a >Bill of Rights was delivered. > The lawyers at the Convention placed the supremacy provision in >Clause 2 of Article VI: "This Constitution and the laws of the United >States which shall be made in pursuance thereof... shall be the supreme law >of the land." The Constitution and the laws of the United States can not be >"the supreme law of the land" if they can be set aside by the people on >Grand and Trial Juries for not being in conformity with the people's Bill >of Rights. > In using this power over the federal government the people can >easily negate the authenticity of the claim made in Clause 2 of Article VI. >A law enacted by Congress cannot "be the supreme law of the land" if the >people on a Bill of Rights Jury refuse to convict the person who was >charged with breaking that law. Under the Bill of Rights, twelve people >have more power than the Congress and the President who enacted and signed >the law. A law enacted by Congress must be taken off the books if the >people on a Jury repeatedly nullify it. "The senators and >representatives... and the members of the several State legislatures, and >all executive and judicial officers, both of the United States and of the >several States" should have been challenged to stop them from taking an >oath to support the Constitution as "the supreme law of the land," once the >Bill of Rights became the people's direct and independent check on the >Constitution. Both the Constitution and the laws of the United States "made >in pursuance thereof" could no longer be claimed to "be the supreme law of >the land." That is why Madison and his fellow lawyers, who dominated the >Philadelphia Convention, unanimously rejected the proposition that the >Constitution be prefaced with a Bill of Rights. > The Bill of Rights did not amend the Constitution. The Bill of >Rights should have been listed and returned to the recalled state ratifying >conventions for their immediate approval as a separate document. The people >who had attended the ratifying conventions were not sure they would enjoy >life, liberty, and property without a written guarantee to protect them >from encroachments of the federal government. To this end, one hundred >twenty-four amendments were proposed by the seven conventions which >demanded protections from abuses that might arise under the Constitution. >The Bill of Rights should have been prefaced to the Constitution with a >message somewhat like Virginia's Bill of Rights, and should have been >stated as follows: > >A Declaration of Rights made by the people [of the United States] in the >exercise of their sovereign powers, which rights are inherent and >inalienable and pertain to the people and their posterity, as the basis and >foundation of government. > > The people in the state conventions would have been more familiar >with the Bill of Rights they had previously sent to the First Congress and >could have re-examined it along with any proposed amendments. The people >would have responded quickly. However, James Madison in the House along >with Oliver Ellsworth in the Senate and their fellow lawyers did not want >an immediate response. They needed time. So they sent the Bill of Rights to >the state legislatures for ratification. In those state legislatures there >were many Federalists who delayed action on the Bill of Rights for more >than twenty-seven months before granting approval. This gave President >Washington ample time to appoint justices to the Supreme and inferior >Courts as well as an Attorney General, clerks, marshals and attorneys for >the United States whom the Senate could quickly approve. During this time >the First Congress hastily established the salaries of the various >officials who would then draw Grand and Trial Juries into their judicial >vortex. > When the Bill of Rights was finally ratified on December 15, 1791, >the federal courts had already taken the first step in reducing the Bill of >Rights from being an effective independent check on all three departments >of government. This was accomplished because the people were not aware of >the fact that when the Bill of Rights was ratified, the people on Grand and >Trial Juries were empowered to check the laws of Congress or acts of the >President and his underlings that infringe on the basic rights of the >people and decisions of the Supreme and inferior Courts that infringe on >the proceedings and actions of Grand and Trial Juries. > >SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND: THE CONSTITUTION OR THE BILL OF RIGHTS? > > The founding fathers left provisions in the Constitution that were >in direct conflict with the Bill of Rights because they planned to use the >courts to get decisions favorable to themselves. The judges could do this >only by upholding the claim that the Constitution was "the supreme law of >the land," and of course that any questions coming before the courts would >be decided by them. To make sure that the people on Grand and Trial Juries >would not have the final say and that the Constitution would rule, the >lawyers wrote in Article III Section 2 Clause 2 that "... the Supreme Court >shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and to fact" (my >emphasis). However, the inherent power to judge both the law and fact was >established by the Trial Jury which rescued John Peter Zenger in 1735 from >unlawful persecution by the courts fifty- two years before the >Constitutional Convention met in Philadelphia. That jury's decision was >fundamental in establishing freedom of the press in America. Without a free >press the colonists would never have been able to publish the Declaration >of Independence or to keep the people aroused until they won their war for >liberty. > The people are sovereign and so are their Juries. Judges are >granted limited powers in dealing with the Constitution. The courts cannot >second guess the Jury's decision on the law with its "appellate >jurisdiction," because Juries can refuse to honor laws that are unjust or >infringe upon basic rights. The public needs to know more on Jury >nullification powers. > It is claimed that Madison wanted to incorporate the Bill of Rights >into the text of the Constitution but the House decided to propose it as >supplementary. It could be neither. The Bill of Rights had to be ratified >as a separate document because it directly contradicts many provisions of >the Constitution. How then could these two contradictory documents be as >one? > For example, the Constitution in Article III section 1 states: "The >judicial power of the United States shall be vested in one supreme >court..." Section 2 clause 1 of the same article states: "The judicial >power shall extend to all cases in law and equity arising under this >Constitution, the laws of the United States and treaties made..." Section 2 >clause 2 of the same article states, "... the supreme court shall have >appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and to fact." However, Article 6 of >the Bill of Rights states: "In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall >enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury..." The >judicial power therefore is vested in a jury of people that judges both the >law and fact. Article 7 of the Bill of Rights states that in civil cases >"...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 United States..." > In September 1787, the delegates to the Convention unanimously >voted down a motion that a Bill of Rights be adopted. They knew that if a >Bill of Rights was adopted the Constitution would also have to be amended, >for the judicial power would have to be recognized as belonging to juries. >The judicial power would have to be shared. The courts could judge only >cases "arising under this Constitution and the laws made in pursuance >thereof." The court could not sit in judgment of Bill of Rights matters or >laws conflicting with it. This was reserved to the judgment of the people >serving on juries. ................................................................................. iWon.com http://www.iwon.com why wouldn't you? ................................................................................. <A HREF="http://www.ctrl.org/">www.ctrl.org</A> DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER ========== CTRL is a discussion & informational exchange list. Proselytizing propagandic screeds are not allowed. Substance—not soap-boxing! These are sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory'—with its many half-truths, misdirections and outright frauds—is used politically by different groups with major and minor effects spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought. That being said, CTRL gives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and always suggests to readers; be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no credence to Holocaust denial and nazi's need not apply. Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector. ======================================================================== Archives Available at: http://home.ease.lsoft.com/archives/CTRL.html http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/ ======================================================================== To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Om
