A Constitutional Convention of the States

With the movement for a Constitutional Convention of the States picking up steam, in spite of being completely ignored by the MSM, this is a topic that is long overdue for discussion. Amazona asked that I re-post her comment from the previous thread outlining the constitutional amendments suggested by Mark Levin in his recent best-seller, “The Liberty Amendments.

“Mark Levin is proposing ten amendments to the Constitution. Each one is written in thoughtful language so as to preclude any ancillary problems:

1) Term Limits: He proposes limiting service in both the House and Senate to 12 years. Yes, we’ve heard all the arguments about elections being the best limit. But the past 100 year has proven that to be false. As someone who works day and night to throw the bums out, I can tell you that is nearly impossible to throw them out with the amount of money they raise – precisely for their abuses of power. Levin also proves that limiting time in office was a highly regarded proposal during the Constitutional Congress.

2) Repealing the 17th Amendment: Levin proposes repealing the 17th amendment and vesting state legislators with the power to elect senators so that the power of states is not diluted, as originally feared by the framers of the Constitution.

3) Restoring the Judiciary to its proper role: The Judiciary was never meant to be an all-powerful institution in which five men in robes have the final say over every major policy battle in the country. In order to end judicial tyranny, Levin proposes limiting service to one 12-year term, and granting both Congress and the state legislatures the authority to overturn court decisions with the vote of three-fifths of both houses of Congress or state legislative bodies.

4) Limiting Taxation and Spending: Levin proposes a balanced budget amendment, limiting spending to 17.5% of GDP and requiring a three-fifths vote to raise the debt ceiling. He also proposes limiting the power to tax to 15% of an individual’s income, prohibiting other forms of taxation, and placing the deadline to file one’s taxes one day before the next federal election.

5) Limiting bureaucracy: He proposes an amendment to limit and sunset federal regulations and subject the existence of all federal departments to stand-alone reauthorization bills every three years.

6) Defining the Commerce Clause: Levin writes an amendment that, while technically unnecessary, is practically an imperative to restoring the original intent of the Commerce Clause. The amendment would make it clear that the commerce clause grants not power to actively regulate and control activity; rather to prevent states from impeding commerce among other states, as Madison originally intended.

7) Limiting Federal power to take private property

8) Allowing State Legislature to Amend the Constitution: Although the Framers intentionally made it difficult to amend the Constitution, they did so to preserve the Republic they created. However, the progressives have illegally altered our Republic through a silent and gradual coup without using the amendment process. If we are going to successfully push the aforementioned amendments, we will need an easier mechanism to force them through. The proposed amendment allows states to bypass Congress and propose an amendment with support of just two-thirds of the states (instead of three-fourths) and without convening a convention.

9) State Authority to Override Congress: A proposed amendment to allow states to override federal statutes by majority vote in two-thirds of state legislatures. The last two proposals are rooted in the idea that the states only agreed to the Constitution on condition that their power would not be diluted and that all federal power is derived from the states.

10) Protecting the Vote: A proposal to require photo ID for all federal elections and limit early voting.

Taken as a whole, there is no doubt that these amendments would restore our Republican form of government. Every proposal is backed up by scholarly analysis of the Framers’ view on the proposal, an overview of what has changed since the founding, and the rationale for why the proposal is necessary. You should read the entire book. As someone who is busy reading all the current news every day, this is the only political book I made time to read all year.”

25 thoughts on “A Constitutional Convention of the States

  1. shawny2011 March 7, 2014 / 1:03 pm

    Repeal the, I think it’s the Continuity of Government law, which allows extraordinary powers to the executive branch and suspends Constitutional rights and protections under a National Emergency.

    Abolish ALL public sector unions. They were once illegal in all 50 states and for good reason. That’s a big part of the current IRS corruption.

    Make it illegal for election vote counting to be contracted anywhere outside of the U.S.

    Just the beginning of my little wish list ; )

    • Amazona March 7, 2014 / 10:20 pm

      We also need to count every vote. As it is, if statistically the uncounted votes will not change the electoral college commitment of a state, they are not counted. Because so many of the absentee ballots are military, our men and women in service to the nation are too often denied the right to vote for a Commander-in-Chief.

  2. Mark Moser March 7, 2014 / 6:12 pm

    Something needs to be done. It’s becoming clear the Republican leadership isn’t interested in reform or even resistance past paying lip service to it. They won’t even go after the administration for egregious violations of the constitution. Why hasn’t Lerner been brought up on contempt charges? Why won’t they try to stop the “changes” being “penned” to Obamacare? The list is long and disgusting.

    The good men in congress are being slandered and marginalized by establishment Republicans. McCain’s attack on Cruz highlights this perfectly and don’t tell me McCain’s always been a RINO. The line between the Rs and Ds is becoming so blurred it hard to tell the player without a scorecard and equally hard to vote for them. November’s coming and I can’t find my clothespin!

  3. Amazona March 8, 2014 / 8:18 pm

    Most of these have been discussed in one form or another, but the two that surprised me are Nos. 8 and 9. I had not thought about amendments giving Congress more power—-at first this seemed counterproductive, given the idiocy of Congress. But taken with the term limits and appointment of Senators by state legislators, they add to the shift of power from the Central Authority to the states, which is not only essential to the return to Constitutional government but the cornerstone of the intent of the Founders.

    I’m not a Mark Levin fan, regarding his radio show. I find his alteration of words to be juvenile and off-putting, such as substituting the word “pubic” for “public”. But he is an excellent writer and evidently quite a good thinker. His “Men in Black” about the Supreme Court was very well written and educational, and his take on the amendments is well thought-out and concise.

    • dbschmidt March 9, 2014 / 3:23 pm

      Originally, I had issues with numbers 8 & 9; however after some more thought–I only dislike number 8. If a second Constitutional Convention were held, everything needed to be done could be without a requirement for more power given anywhere. I tend to err on the side of unintended consequences combined with “power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely”

    • Amazona March 9, 2014 / 4:21 pm

      wikipwedia has a pretty decent article on constitutional conventions, including the information that we have come within 2 state votes of being able to force Congress to call a convention.

      “In December 2013, nearly 100 legislators from 32 states met at Mount Vernon to talk about how to call a convention of states. According to Slate, “The meeting lasted four hours, ending when legislators agreed to meet again in the spring of 2014. That’s the most progress anyone’s made in decades toward a states-first constitutional amendment campaign.”

      Tom Coburn has announced that after his retirement from Congress, he will focus on promoting the Convention of States to state legislatures.”

      It appears that the major point of argument is whether a convention, if called, can be open to many amendments proposed after it is called,or if it has to be limited to the amendment (or amendments) proposed by the states. The first option seems to be the foundation of the concern of a “runaway convention” but if popular support is generated for, for example, the ten amendments proposed by Levin and cited here, then there should be no concern.

      As for your concern, db, how about a compromise—-allowing states to bypass Congress and propose an amendment with support of three-fourths of the state and without convening a convention. This keeps the decision at three-fourths and also eases amendments by not making a convention necessary, limiting the power of Congress over the states but making sure that amendments must have significant support to pass. However, I could give up # 8 given the increased state authority confirmed in the others.

      • dbschmidt March 10, 2014 / 8:43 pm

        I could agree with that.

  4. Amazona March 9, 2014 / 11:04 am

    I am surprised that there is so little interest in amending the Constitution to address the very problems we talk about.

    Well, maybe not so surprised. It’s not nearly as exciting as speculating that Putin is not hoarding ammo in anticipation of incursions into neighboring countries, but is really in secret cahoots with Obama to deprive us of the ability to defend ourselves.

    As I thought of this, I read the following article by Victor Davis Hanson, whose articles should be must-reading.


    Referring to the Satyricon….. “……in our version, what does a $200,000 Ivy League education or a graduate degree really get you any more? In the sophisticated world of our political and highly credentialed elites, there are 57 states. Atlantic Coast cities are said to lie along the Gulf of Mexico; after all, they are down there somewhere in the South. The Malvinas become the Maldives — Ma- with an s at the end seems close enough. Corps-men serve in the military (as zombies?). Medgar Evans was a civil-rights icon, but you know whom we mean. President Roosevelt addressed the nation on television after the stock-market crash in 1929 — well, he would have, had he been president then and if only Americans had had televisions in their homes. And how are we to know that what we read from celebrity authors is not just made up or plagiarized, whether a Maureen Dowd column or a Doris Kearns Goodwin book?”

  5. Retired Spook March 9, 2014 / 12:47 pm

    I doubt you will find a significant number of true Conservatives who disagree with any of Mark Levin’s suggested amendments. The lack of comments on this thread would seem to confirm that. Right now, the Convention of the States is largely a state legislature movement, and it could well be that that will be enough to make it become a reality. I would think it’s a natural extension of what drives the Tea Party, and getting the Tea Party behind it would pretty much ensure that it becomes a reality. Reining in the federal government via constitutional means is the only way, IMO, that we’re going to avoid a complete societal collapse.

    • Amazona March 9, 2014 / 1:54 pm

      ” Reining in the federal government via constitutional means is the only way, IMO, that we’re going to avoid a complete societal collapse.”

      I agree. The Left will put up quite a fight when they see the citizens rebelling in this way, but they will also be in the position of having to strike first in a violent way, if violence is what they want, and although they have done a pretty thorough purge of the upper echelons of the military they have not yet been able to take over the level that actually has the guns and tanks and flies the planes.

      I have heard from some who fear the imposition of martial law to allow the Left to take over the nation completely, but I also heard hair-on-fire Libs fretting that Bush would do the same thing to stay in power, so I am more skeptical of such concerns than many. But, being a firm believer in what I call Preemptive Paranoia, I also think it wise to keep an eye on developments to see if things might be moving in that direction, and the one thing I can see that could be used as a basis for such an action would be full-fledged race riots. So this is what I would watch for —— an escalation of the race-baiting that has marked this administration, and encouragement of violence against non-blacks.

  6. 02casper March 9, 2014 / 5:25 pm

    In addition to term limits, I would suggest that former congressmen and senators not be allowed to lobby their peers for at least 3 years after the end of their last term.

  7. Bill Walker March 9, 2014 / 6:38 pm

    I suggest all who think Mr. Levin’s proposals are the second coming of conservatism take time to read an article I wrote about his book and “his” proposals. http://www.foavc.org/reference/file52.pdf . You’ll discover Mr. Levin did not originate most of “his” proposals and that nearly all were proposed by the states many years ago. He does not give credit in his book to this fact. Nor does he come clean about Robert Natelson who advocates cutting the American people completely out of the loop in the convention process.

    • Amazona March 9, 2014 / 11:08 pm

      Well, I guess that makes the ideas worthless then. I mean, if all he did was take good ideas that had been floating around here and there and organize them into a concise, well-written summary, then evidently that means we should just ignore it all.

      And what do you contend is his relationship with this Robert Natelson? Levin’s book is about limiting the power of Congress to interfere in the authority granted to the states and the people, and it seems that Mr. Natelson, according to you, advocates the opposite. What would “coming clean” mean?

      • M. Noonan March 10, 2014 / 2:30 am

        And I don’t think Levin would want to cut the people out of the process…

      • Amazona March 10, 2014 / 1:46 pm

        I did a little research on Robert Natelson and I found nothing suspicious in my admittedly limited examination of his writings. I didn’t pursue this to a great extent because I found nothing to suggest any opinion of his that would “…cut(ting) the American people completely out of the loop in the convention process.”

        Actually, what I found was the opposite of this. For example there is this quote from a paper of his on Constitutional conventions: (emphasis mine)

        “What Power Does Congress Have When Calling the Convention?

        The central purpose of the state application and convention process—to enable the states to promote amendments without congressional obstruction—is reflected in Article V’s requirement that after two thirds of states have applied, Congress “shall” call a convention.

        The Constitution occasionally bestows authority of a kind normally exercised by one branch on another branch. The President is the chief executive, but he may veto bills, which is essentially a legislative power.

        The Senate is usually a legislative body, but it tries impeachments, a judicial power,
        and approves nominations, an executive power. Congress usually exercises legislative authority, but the Constitution grants it authority to declare war, which previous to Independence had been considered an executive power.

        The Founding-Era record establishes that the role of Congress in calling an amendments convention is to serve as a ministerial agent for the state legislatures.

        In this role, Congress acts in an executive rather than a legislative capacity. Because calling a convention is a mandatory executive duty, it should be enforceable judicially. One potential remedy against a recalcitrant Congress is a declaratory judgment.

        Furthermore, because the duty is “plain, imperative, and entirely ministerial” a writ of mandamus is appropriate.”

        It seems to me that this is a statement of belief that Congress must act in a purely administrative role as an agent of the will of the people, which is hardly the same as “…cutting the American people completely out of the loop in the convention process.”

      • Amazona March 10, 2014 / 1:49 pm

        I also learned that my interpretation of the word “application” was not correct—it is not asking for permission to hold a convention but rather a demand that a convention be held.

  8. J. R. Babcock (@JRBabcock) March 10, 2014 / 4:46 pm

    I also learned that my interpretation of the word “application” was not correct—it is not asking for permission to hold a convention but rather a demand that a convention be held.

    One really has to wonder, though, given the wholesale fashion in which all three branches of the federal government routinely violate the Constitution, whether a “demand” for a convention of the states would have any authority at all. If the Congress tells the state legislatures to piss off, what recourse is there?

    • Amazona March 10, 2014 / 6:18 pm

      From an article from the Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy

      “The Statesʹ Power over the Convention Process

      Exclusive and complete control of the convention process by Congress would be contrary to the language and purpose of the Convention Clause of Article V. The clear meaning of Article V requires State control of the convention process. Article V states that Congress “on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments.” The use of the word “shall” indicates that Congress has no discretion in the matter and is obligated to call a convention.

      Several comments made by those involved in the drafting and ratification of the Constitution confirm this view. In The Federalist Alexander Hamilton stated that, upon the application of two thirds of the States for a convention, Congress was “obliged” to call a convention and that “(t)he words of this article are preemptory. Nothing in this particular is left to discretion.” Similarly, during the ratification debates in North Carolina, James Iredell, who later became the one of the original justices of the United States Surpreme Court, stated that whenever two thirds of the States apply for a convention, Congress is “under the necessity of convening one” and that they have “no option”.
      The purpose of the Convention Clause strengthens the argument that Article V gives control of the convention process to the States. The records of the Constitutional Convention clearly show that the purpose of the Convention Clause was to protect the States against a recalcitrant or corrupt Congress. In the face of congressional inaction, the States could circumvent the national legislature to propose needed amendments.”

      Click to access Vol30_No3_Rogersonline.pdf

      Now, I don’t know the exact procedure for proceeding without the cooperation of Congress, but this opinion indicates that there is legal standing to do so. ” In the face of congressional inaction, the States could circumvent the national legislature to propose needed amendments.”

      • J. R. Babcock (@JRBabcock) March 10, 2014 / 7:49 pm

        That’s re-assuring given the inaction of Congress on a whole host of issues.

  9. Amazona March 11, 2014 / 10:21 am

    Well, if we are pretty much in agreement about these amendments—–now what?
    I would think this would give new energy to statehouse elections, if we want state legislatures that will apply to Congress for a convention.

    It seems that now is the time to pay some serious attention to the long game, regarding elections, and focus on the next step beyond simply getting majorities in statehouses. Time to play chess instead of checkers, perhaps.

    • shawny2011 March 11, 2014 / 12:41 pm

      Amazona, thanks so much for the excellent reference information. I’m sure many more would want to be involved in supporting the process if more were educated on how it works and that the founders meant for the process to empower the people and give them a way besides the ballot to carry out their oversight responsibilities. We must stand squarely behind any state government willing to take on the task.
      I would also add an amendment to reclaim our citizens grand juries as the legal system in country has been usurped at all levels.

      • Amazona March 11, 2014 / 2:00 pm

        Thanks, Shawny. Spook, the Count, db, Mark, all have set the bar pretty high as far as discourse and exchange of ideas go, and I learn a lot from them, so I think I need to try to keep up. You are a great addition to the blog, and I think we have the core of a really good discussion group.

        Explain the “citizen grand juries” you mention. I don’t know much about the grand jury process and your phrasing makes me think maybe I know even less than I think I don’t know.

  10. shawny2011 March 13, 2014 / 6:26 am

    …..So, far from citizens not having the authority to form Grand Juries, and far from citizens not being able to function in a grand jury without the advice of an attorney, we discover that the Grand Jury option is designed to be initiated by citizens and to function free from the influence of governmental attorneys.

    Although the laws may vary from state to state, Grand Juries are viewed the way United States Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia sees them,

    “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.”

    Also, United States Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia ruled in the case of United States vs. Williams, 504 U.S. 36 at 48 (1992):

    “Rooted in long centuries of Anglo-American history, Hannah v. Larche, 363 US 420, 490 (1960) with J. Frankfurter concurring in result, 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 three branches described in the first three Articles. It is a constitutional fixture in its own right.”

    Clearly stated: The Grand Jury is a separate and equal Constitutional power.
    The Grand Jury is not a tool for government to use against its citizens.

    It is what was commonly known as a runaway grand jury which was able to bring charges, evidence, subpoena witnesses, investigate, serve presentments. Our legal system usurped the authority of citizens to call up grand juries. We need to take it back.

    • shawny2011 March 13, 2014 / 6:41 am

      Mark S. McGrew

      The fifth amendment of the US Constitution states: “No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on the presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury”.
      So who or what is a Grand Jury?
      Most Americans, including most Judges, most prosecutors and most lawyers think a Grand Jury is a function of the government, at the whim of the government, under the control and direction of the government. However, this is constitutionally false and always has been.
      Americans are educated to believe that America has three branches of government: The Judicial, The Legislative and the Executive and that is they who decide our lives. This also is false. There is a Constitutional force which has power, authority and dominance over those three branches.
      That is the The Grand Jury of We The People. The Grand Jury was intended to give the people of the United States of America total control over a potentially corrupt government and to enable prosecution of corrupt or criminal government officials, agents and employees, whether they were elected, hired or appointed.
      The Constitution of The United States of America was created and designed to give the individual or collective people of America the power to tell the government what to do. The government, including the President of the country has no Rights to make Americans do anything that is not permitted by or is contrary to our Constitution. The US Constitution especially has no provision for an illegal alien to be our President and pass laws that we do not permit or condone.
      United States Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia ruled in the case of United States vs. Williams, 504 U.S. 36 at 48 (1992):
      “Rooted in long centuries of Anglo-American history, Hannah v. Larche, 363 US 420, 490 (1960) with J. Frankfurter concurring in result, 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 three branches described in the first three Articles. It is a constitutional fixture in its own right.”
      To be crystal clear: The Grand Jury is a Constitutional fixture in its own right.
      The Grand Jury is not a tool of government to use against its citizens.
      Justice Scalia determined further, to reinforce that there is no question as to the purpose of the Grand Jury:
      “In fact, the whole theory of it’s foundation is that it belongs to no branch of the institutional Government, serving as a kind of buffer or referee between Government and the people. Although the Grand Jury normally operates, of course, in the courthouse and under judicial auspices, it’s institutional relationship with the Judicial branch has traditionally been, so to speak, at arm’s length. Judges direct involvement in the Grand Jury has generally been confined to the constitutive one of calling the Grand Jurors together and administering their oath of office”.
      Besides providing for society to charge individual people for crimes, the Grand Jury is a tool for the citizens to use against a criminal government or our government acting against the designs of our Constitution. And it was specifically designed to prosecute the criminal actions of government employees and their lawyers.
      Any judge who tells a jury to “disregard that remark or disregard that evidence” is violating the US Constitution and can and should be indicted by a Common Law Grand Jury.
      Any Congressperson, Senator, Governor or police officer who violates the constitution can and should be indicted by a Common Law Grand Jury, without the advice, consent, permission or interference of any government employee.
      This is why America has always been promoted as a land where no man is above the law, including the President.
      However, in 1946, certain people hijacked the role of our Grand Jury and the courtroom jury and henceforth, embarked on a mission of misinformation, distortions and blatant lies to convince the American people and the entire legal community, that it is the government that determines what is right and what is wrong in the actions of the government or of any elected government officials, employees or agents.
      In an article in the Creighton Law Review, Volume 33. number 4, 1999-2000, Roger Roots, Juris Doctorate wrote:
      “In addition to its traditional role of screening criminal cases for prosecution, common law grand juries had the power to exclude prosecutors from their presence at any time and to investigate public officials without government influence. These fundamental powers allowed grand juries to serve a vital function of oversight upon the government. The function of a grand jury to ferret out government corruption was the primary purpose of the grand jury system in ages past.”
      Judges and prosecutors and attorneys began using the phrase “runaway grand jury” to create ridicule and scorn upon a jury that chose to think for themselves, which is the Constitutional Right of any jury.
      Roger Roots continues, “A runaway grand jury, loosely defined as a grand jury which resists the accusatory choices of a government prosecutor, has been virtually eliminated by modern criminal procedure. Today’s ‘runaway’ grand jury is in fact, the common law grand jury of the past. Prior to the emergence of governmental prosecution as the standard model for American criminal justice, all grand juries were in fact runaways, according to the definition of modern times. They operated as completely independent, self-directing bodies of inquisitors, with power to pursue unlawful conduct to its very source, including the government itself.”
      In 1946, The Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure were adopted. In those procedures, they made a rule to punish runaway grand juries. Rule 6(g): “At any time for cause shown, the court may excuse a juror either temporarily or permanently, and in the latter event the court may impanel another person in place of the juror excused.”
      Now judges could throw anyone off a grand jury, or even dis-impanel a grand jury entirely, merely for exercising its own discretion and not doing what the court or prosecutor tells them to do.
      All laws in America, whether federal, state, county or city must conform to the framework of the United States Constitution. Laws can be illegal, and many laws are illegal. Rules are not even laws and have no authority if attached to a source that is not in line with the US Constitution. Laws, rules, orders, methods of the government that do not conform to the US Constitution are considered “Fruit from the poison tree” and if challenged as such, and proven not to be Constitutional in nature, must be unenforceable.
      Rule 7 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure has an added “Note 4” which directly conflicts with, ignores and willfully violates the fifth amendment of the US Constitution which states clearly: “No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on the presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury”.
      Note 4 of Rule 7 states: “Presentment is not included as an additional type of formal accusation, since presentments as a method of instituting prosecutions are obsolete, at least as concerns the Federal courts”. They rewrote the US Constitution to suit their own purposes.
      There are only two ways that the US Constitution can be changed:
      Method 1: A minimum of two thirds of the US House of Representatives AND a minimum of two thirds of the US Senate must agree on a proposed change to the Constitution, AND then a minimum of three quarters (38 of the current 50) of the state legislatures OR state conventions must agree to every word, comma, and period of the proposed change to the Constitution. Passage in the state legislatures is by simple majority in the state House AND in the state Senate. Passage in the state conventions is also by simple majority. Typically, a time limit of seven years is imposed for ratification, after which the proposal expires, worthless. This is the only method that has been used to date. The requirement for a state convention has been specified only once.
      Method 2: A minimum of two thirds of the state legislatures (34 of the current 50), House AND Senate, must call for a Constitutional Convention. The convention proposes one or more amendments, which must then be approved by simple majority by a minimum of three quarters of the state legislatures (House AND Senate) OR by a minimum of three quarters of the state conventions. This method has never been used.
      Most certainly a bunch of crooked lawyers writing their own rules to corrupt the jury system can not override the US Constitution.
      But they did.
      And, as Susan Brenner wrote in The Voice of the Community: A Case for Jury Independence, “Now, federal grand jurors cannot return charges in the form of an indictment without a prosecutor’s consent.”
      If a grand jury and a courtroom jury have to do only what the judge and prosecutor say, and a prosecutor can refuse to indict and charge a politician or another lawyer, what is the reason to have any jury? Only to perpetuate a myth that Americans live under a system where no man is above the law. There is no other reason.
      As the American Judicial system now operates, judges and prosecutors can pick and choose who they send to prison. And they guarantee that they and their friends can go on with their criminal behavior unmolested.
      The American Juror published a commentary regarding Note 4 of Rule 7: [Retaining the Constitutional Right of grand juries to determine evidence and witnesses] might encourage the use of the run-away grand jury as the grand jury could act from their own knowledge or observation and not only from charges made by the United States Attorney(Prosecutor)”
      So, the American government employees took the bold step to violate the US Constitution on a continuing, repeated basis and gave defendants a “jury of their peers” that would and could, only nod to the prosecutor and judge and say only, “Yes sir. No sir. You’re right sir. Whatever you say sir.”
      This kind of behavior was outlawed in the year 1215 by the English Magna Carta, which the founders of the United States of American adopted as their basis for how Americans were going to live and be treated by the government that they would employ.
      The authors of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure are the true criminals and should have been dragged out of their homes and hanged from the nearest tree.
      Now, 63 years later, the American people are fed up with the treasonous acts of their government employees and their rigged courts. And they have found a way to rid this country of the “domestic enemies” that our Constitution warned us to be prepared for.

      Sorry to take up so much room in explanation but it’s a very, very powerful right citizens have and lawyers and judges and law clerks have usurped.

      • Amazona March 13, 2014 / 9:23 am

        Thanks, Shawny. You are right, that is a lot to process, and I will work on it. I have to admit, I have never paid any attention to the grand jury’s role in American law.

Comments are closed.