"These United States Of America . . . Are Not a Democracy!"
by James Kraft-Lorenz
Introduction
The United States of America was founded as a federation of Republics whose sole purpose was to protect persons and their property. Without regulations, subsidies and other privileges, individuals and businesses co-evolved in a competitive environment to be the most inventive and efficient on earth. Democracy—rule by the majority; disregard for individual rights—has perverted what was once a symbiotic relationship among individuals and businesses into a parasitic relationship. Even our massive deficit spending can no longer hide our decline.
This nation was never intended to be a democracy. The framers and ratifiers meant to impose the stable rule of law and not the rule of men, motivated, at the instant, by whim and passion. Democracy is the antithesis of the rule of law, for it is precisely the rule of the voters: that is, rule without limits, obtaining its power from 50%, plus 1, regardless of the established law. Under demos (populace) kratos (master), from the Greek, the mere whim of the majority, right, wrong or indifferent, becomes the law. A lynch mob is democratic within this definition.
Look at the Internal Revenue Service or the DEA—do they not violate the Law guaranteed by the Bill of Rights? Aren't they a product of the legislative democracy, outside the rule of the ratified Law? Yes, but they are certainly democratic. The voters in the States elected the whole Congress. The majority in Congress voted to empower these agents beyond the powers given to Congress by the People. Both votes, the direct election of Senators and the Congress's vote to bestow powers they do not Lawfully have, are contra to the Constitution as Lawfully ratified.
Consensus facit legem is an incontrovertible rule of law which means 'consent makes law.' How does a minority in the right oppose a majority in the wrong, without resort to a fixed rule of law? It cannot. Without a republican form of government a peaceful defense of rights may not be possible.
In short, the operative word is republican. (Not to be confused with the modern Republican party.) Article IV Section 4 of the Constitution states: "The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence." A serious and potentially damaging bit of misinformation usually follows this line: "Our Treasured Basic Freedoms . . . the historical basic documents that laid the foundation for our democracy, etc." The author of this mistake is usually innocent. He or she is not aware of the real foundation of our federated government.
The closest American dictionary to the ratification period is Noah Webster's "An American Dictionary of the English Language," printed in 1828. Noah Webster says in part:
REPUB'LIC, n. [L. respublica; res and publica; public affairs.]
A commonwealth; a state in which the exercise of the sovereign power is lodged in representatives elected by the people. In modern usage, it differs from a democracy or democratic state, in which the people exercise the powers of sovereignty in person.
REPUBLICAN, a.
Pertaining to a republic; consisting of a commonwealth; as a republican constitution or government.
Seems pretty clear, for the then commonly understood definition of 'republican.'
The Declaration of Independence (the Primary statute), along with the Constitution (the Organic Law), as properly ratified, by two- thirds of the states' votes, is the total and perfect definition of the American republic. The only external interpretation is the intent of the framers and ratifiers.1
Our nation is, properly, a limited constitutional federal republic, formed of limited constitutional state republics, all using majority rule to fill certain elective offices and decide certain matters. With the ratification of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, the People reserved only four direct (majority) votes:
1. Direct election of Representatives to Congress;
2. Direct election of Presidential Electors;
3. Direct votes as Jurors;
4. Direct votes as Grand Jurors.
We are democratic to the extent of these direct votes of the People. Our government's model is republican in form.
The Fully Informed Jury
What is to keep the Republic just and free? Who watches the watchers? Fully informed jurors are the palladium of liberty.2 Statutes are formed by the various legislatures, and must be confirmed by fully informed Juries of the People, who have no tenure to earn, no election to win, no office to save but one: a safe home protected by peace and justice.
What is the Common Law? It is the law of common sense. It is the pursuit of justice tempered with mercy. It is the final barrier to overzealous legislation and enforcement. If there is no injury, there is no crime. No one can be arrested without probable cause. No ex post facto tricks; Habeas Corpus; no entry or search without a valid warrant. No life, liberty or property can be taken absent a judgment of peers, with all due process.
Grand Juries are required to return True Bills of indictment, or no trial may begin. Juries know of their right, power and duty to judge the statutes, the law and the facts, and the application of all to the case in question. This is the Law of which no competent adult can plead ignorance. It is based on the presumption that all are innocent persons of goodwill until conviction on charges of a crime that has caused injury.
What did Noah Webster say on the subject of the jury?
JU'RY, n. [Fr. juré , sworn, L. juro, to swear.]
A number of freeholders, selected in the manner prescribed by law, empannelled and sworn to inquire into and try any matter of fact, and to declare the truth on the evidence given them in the case. Grand juries consist usually of twenty four freeholders at least, and are summoned to try matters alledged in indictments. Petty juries, consisting of twelve men, attend courts to try matters of fact in civil causes, and to decide both the law and the fact in criminal prosecutions. The decision of a petty jury is called a verdict.
It is on the authority of the People that the Constitutions for the States and for these United States of America exist in the first place. When an American Jury renders a verdict, they have spoken, as WE THE PEOPLE, resuming their delegation of legislative, executive and judicial authority, limited to the circumstances in the instant case. The verdicts of fully informed American Juries are not subject to rebuke or censure: they are the in-person voice of the true Sovereigns. The government can create any 'law' by statute, rule or regulation, but as long as the Jury stands between the accused and the accuser, neither life, liberty nor property can be taken without the knowing consent of twelve other potential victims of the same bad law. This right to trial by Jury is the glory of our English legal heritage and the cornerstone of our Republic.
American Juries are limited by due process and the common law, preventing legal murder. Juries have no power to create legislation, only to veto the statute before them. Juries have no power to execute law that is not already in existence, but they can refuse to act on it. Juries cannot judge the conduct of the defendant beyond the scope of the indicting charges, but they can refuse to convict. Juries of the People are, comparably to the Supreme Court, not bound by any precedent. If a legislated 'crime' is no longer seen as such by Juries, they can and do ignore the statute, acquitting in the face of the law and the facts.
This was the trend in the Fugitive Slave Law cases and in the Volstead Act cases during alcohol prohibition.
All action to legislate, to execute, and adjudicate, was delegated by the people, under the Constitution (the rule of Law), to the States and the threemajor branches of the National Government. All officers of State and National Government swear or affirm to protect and defend the appropriate constitutions. But Jurors do not take that oath, for they are not bound as servants: here, they are masters in their own house. This is the essence of res publica (affairs of the public).
Republic: Loss and Restoration
In our current society the word 'democracy' is used to signify a move away from the limited, enumerated constitutional powers. Away from the specific grants of power, delegated by the people, that are required to exist within our republican form. It is important to remember that what has been delegated can be resumed by the lawful holder of the power ...
Read more ...
http://www.banned-books.com/truth-seeker/1994archive/121_3/ts213d.html
-----
Sunday, July 1, 2007
Bush's Mexico-domiciled trucks plan flunks safety rules
Bush's Mexico-domiciled trucks plan flunks safety rules
6/20/07
The Bush administration is continuing to ignore the law and failing to
protect the public as it barrels ahead with a pilot project allowing
trucks from Mexico to travel throughout the United States, even though
the public disapproves of the plan, according to new data released today
by safety advocates.
Organizations representing highway and truck safety groups, labor, and
independent truck drivers joined members of Congress today to criticize
the Bush administration for ignoring federal safety laws concerning the
implementation of a pilot program allowing trucks from Mexico to travel
throughout the United States.
The groups – including Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety, the
International Brotherhood of Teamsters, the Owner-Operator Independent
Drivers Association, Public Citizen and the Truck Safety Coalition –
released an analysis of the U.S. Department of Transportation’s (DOT)
program showing the agency failing to comply with federal law. They also
released a recent opinion poll revealing the public’s opposition to the
plan. Overall, the groups conclude, the Department of Transportation
receives a failing grade on the pilot program.
About the “Pilot Program”
In February, the administration announced plans to conduct a “pilot
program” allowing up to 1,000 Mexico-domiciled trucks to travel beyond
the current border zones. In 2001, Congress required the
administration to put a premium on upgrading inspection facilities,
computer databases, and other safety-related requirements before opening
the southern border for long-haul trucks. The Bush administration has
still not finished implementing the safety requirements in that law, but
decided this year to rush ahead with the pilot program in an attempt to
open the border.
Hearings in the U.S. House and Senate, featuring testimony from
Advocates and Public Citizen, identified serious safety problems with
the program. On May 24, Congress approved provisions in a supplemental
Iraq War funding bill to ensure that any pilot program to allow
Mexico-domiciled trucks full access to the nation’s highways would not
circumvent safety standards or congressional oversight. The provisions
ordered the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), which
is responsible for implementing the administration’s cross-border pilot
program, to obey a number of requirements that the agency is still
ignoring.
These provisions, signed into law by the president, require:
* the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) to follow all
applicable rules and regulations concerning the formulation of pilot
programs and cross-border trucking;
* Mexico-based trucking companies and trucks to comply with all
applicable U.S. laws; and
* the administration to ensure that the operation of these trucks
within the United States would not have a negative impact on safety.
The groups today accused the administration of brazenly pressing forward
without meeting many of the safety provisions directed by Congress. Less
than three weeks after the legislation was signed into law, FMCSA
published a notice in the Federal Register on June 8 that in effect
declared that the agency had met all of the congressionally mandated
safety requirements to open the southern border.
New Report: Continuing Failure to Protect the Public
The report released today, however, identified every provision of law
that FMCSA has failed to comply with, including:
* failure to provide sufficient opportunity for public notice and
comments;
* failure to provide the public with information about the pilot
project;
* failure to comply with the requirements of §350 of the FY2002 DOT
Appropriations Act on the safety of cross-border trucking;
* failure to comply with requirements of the pilot program law to
test innovative approaches and alternative regulations under 49 USC
§31315(c);
* failure of FMCSA to keep its promise to check every truck every
time for compliance; and
* failure to establish criteria that are subject to monitoring
during the pilot program.
The report was released alongside a new poll conducted by the
nonpartisan Lake Research Partners, which found:
* A majority of Americans (56 percent) believe the Bush
administration’s plan to allow Mexico-domiciled trucks to travel outside
the current commercial zone and throughout the United States is
dangerous.
* Majority agreement that this is dangerous for U.S. drivers
transcends gender, age, political identification and region.
* Notably, self-identified independents (60 percent) are most likely
to agree that the Bush proposal is dangerous, though majorities of
Democrats (54 percent) and Republicans (58 percent) concur.
Bipartisan legislation included in Section 6901 of the Iraq War
supplemental appropriations bill directs the DOT Office of Inspector
General to report to Congress on whether or not the federal government
is in full compliance with the truck safety law enacted in 2001.
Unfortunately, the DOT continues to select parts of that law it wants to
obey and those it chooses to ignore.
These include provisions prohibiting cross-border trucking to occur
unless the U.S. and Mexico have reached an agreement on hazardous
materials, unless there are adequate inspection facilities available for
passenger buses and unless there are cures for deficiencies in data
systems used to monitor driving violations and convictions of
Mexico-domiciled commercial operators.
NOTE: report is from AHAS
PDF: 12 pages:
www.saferoads.org/press/press2007/Pilot%20ProgramSec6901Compliance062007
.pdf
6/20/07
The Bush administration is continuing to ignore the law and failing to
protect the public as it barrels ahead with a pilot project allowing
trucks from Mexico to travel throughout the United States, even though
the public disapproves of the plan, according to new data released today
by safety advocates.
Organizations representing highway and truck safety groups, labor, and
independent truck drivers joined members of Congress today to criticize
the Bush administration for ignoring federal safety laws concerning the
implementation of a pilot program allowing trucks from Mexico to travel
throughout the United States.
The groups – including Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety, the
International Brotherhood of Teamsters, the Owner-Operator Independent
Drivers Association, Public Citizen and the Truck Safety Coalition –
released an analysis of the U.S. Department of Transportation’s (DOT)
program showing the agency failing to comply with federal law. They also
released a recent opinion poll revealing the public’s opposition to the
plan. Overall, the groups conclude, the Department of Transportation
receives a failing grade on the pilot program.
About the “Pilot Program”
In February, the administration announced plans to conduct a “pilot
program” allowing up to 1,000 Mexico-domiciled trucks to travel beyond
the current border zones. In 2001, Congress required the
administration to put a premium on upgrading inspection facilities,
computer databases, and other safety-related requirements before opening
the southern border for long-haul trucks. The Bush administration has
still not finished implementing the safety requirements in that law, but
decided this year to rush ahead with the pilot program in an attempt to
open the border.
Hearings in the U.S. House and Senate, featuring testimony from
Advocates and Public Citizen, identified serious safety problems with
the program. On May 24, Congress approved provisions in a supplemental
Iraq War funding bill to ensure that any pilot program to allow
Mexico-domiciled trucks full access to the nation’s highways would not
circumvent safety standards or congressional oversight. The provisions
ordered the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), which
is responsible for implementing the administration’s cross-border pilot
program, to obey a number of requirements that the agency is still
ignoring.
These provisions, signed into law by the president, require:
* the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) to follow all
applicable rules and regulations concerning the formulation of pilot
programs and cross-border trucking;
* Mexico-based trucking companies and trucks to comply with all
applicable U.S. laws; and
* the administration to ensure that the operation of these trucks
within the United States would not have a negative impact on safety.
The groups today accused the administration of brazenly pressing forward
without meeting many of the safety provisions directed by Congress. Less
than three weeks after the legislation was signed into law, FMCSA
published a notice in the Federal Register on June 8 that in effect
declared that the agency had met all of the congressionally mandated
safety requirements to open the southern border.
New Report: Continuing Failure to Protect the Public
The report released today, however, identified every provision of law
that FMCSA has failed to comply with, including:
* failure to provide sufficient opportunity for public notice and
comments;
* failure to provide the public with information about the pilot
project;
* failure to comply with the requirements of §350 of the FY2002 DOT
Appropriations Act on the safety of cross-border trucking;
* failure to comply with requirements of the pilot program law to
test innovative approaches and alternative regulations under 49 USC
§31315(c);
* failure of FMCSA to keep its promise to check every truck every
time for compliance; and
* failure to establish criteria that are subject to monitoring
during the pilot program.
The report was released alongside a new poll conducted by the
nonpartisan Lake Research Partners, which found:
* A majority of Americans (56 percent) believe the Bush
administration’s plan to allow Mexico-domiciled trucks to travel outside
the current commercial zone and throughout the United States is
dangerous.
* Majority agreement that this is dangerous for U.S. drivers
transcends gender, age, political identification and region.
* Notably, self-identified independents (60 percent) are most likely
to agree that the Bush proposal is dangerous, though majorities of
Democrats (54 percent) and Republicans (58 percent) concur.
Bipartisan legislation included in Section 6901 of the Iraq War
supplemental appropriations bill directs the DOT Office of Inspector
General to report to Congress on whether or not the federal government
is in full compliance with the truck safety law enacted in 2001.
Unfortunately, the DOT continues to select parts of that law it wants to
obey and those it chooses to ignore.
These include provisions prohibiting cross-border trucking to occur
unless the U.S. and Mexico have reached an agreement on hazardous
materials, unless there are adequate inspection facilities available for
passenger buses and unless there are cures for deficiencies in data
systems used to monitor driving violations and convictions of
Mexico-domiciled commercial operators.
NOTE: report is from AHAS
PDF: 12 pages:
www.saferoads.org/press/press2007/Pilot%20ProgramSec6901Compliance062007
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)