If you're new here, you may want to subscribe to my free Email alerts. Thanks for visiting!
THE CONSTITUTION IS ROUTINELY ABROGATED
Editorial by Harry Hunter
(Feb. 4, 2010) — This paper’s readers know that the 2008 presidential campaign was a fraudulent farce. Some guy from Nicaragua had his name on the ballot in a number of states. Hillary Clinton—or, more accurately, Billary Clinton—came within a whisker of success even though returning the Clintons to the White House would clearly violate the two-term limit on presidential power specified in the 22nd Amendment. John McCain was born in Panama—and not on a military base—but the Senate took it upon itself to declare him to be a natural born citizen anyway, in essence annulling a Constitutional eligibility requirement. And of course the mother of all frauds was the nomination and election of Barack Obama, who was born a citizen/subject of Great Britain, as our president and commander-in-chief. Barack Obama is not a natural born citizen of this country as required by the Constitution.
In a republic there are rules by which government is constrained. If the rules are not followed, there is no republic but just a power-sharing arrangement between competing forces, which is America’s present form of government. The prevailing law, then, is the law of the jungle: might makes right.
Many citizens are OK with jungle-law as long as it favors their interests. I know people who have no objection to Barack Hussein Obama being president EVEN IF he is not eligible for the office. He won the election, did he not? So live with it, they say. Bush violated the Constitution, too, one person told me, without specifying how Bush did it, so Obama has a right to do likewise. Two wrongs make a right, don’t you know. These people do not believe in constitutional governance.
Now another form of routine abrogation of the Constitution has come to my attention. In many and probably most of these United States, the grand jury provision of the Fifth Amendment is simply ignored under the cover of state laws that sanction such practice. And sometimes, as in one county in Tennessee, the grand jury concept is so debased that there is an appearance of corruption.
First let us re-read the relevant portion of our Bill of Rights, Amendment 5: “No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury . . . .” (People in actual service in the military or militia are exempt “in time of War or public danger.”) So there it is, a constitutional requirement that no one can be charged with a felony unless first indicted by a grand jury, but my cursory investigation indicates that this requirement is routinely ignored in many and probably most states.
OK, since when do state laws take precedence over the Constitution? I realize that it is much easier, quicker and handier for a prosecutor to just request a preliminary hearing than to take the evidence for every felony before a grand jury, but a republic is supposed to follow the rules it has adopted or change the rules according to the prescribed procedures for rule-changing. The question is, in matters of constitutional governance, do we choose expediency or principle? Look who is in the White House for the answer to that one.
In Monroe County, Tennessee, the principle of expediency—is that an oxymoron?—has been carried to extremes by a judge who for 27 years has been reappointing one Gary D. Pettway as the foreman of a phony, shell grand jury that apparently does not exist. What makes this setup especially pertinent at present is that patriots have been trying for months to present evidence of Barack Obama’s election fraud to a presumed grand jury and were deceived as to the shadowy nature of things in Monroe County.
Details of the Tennessee shenanigans are found in an article by Lt. Commander Walter Fitzpatrick III (“The JAG HUNTER) dated Jan. 25 and entitled “The Third Truth: Monroe County, Tennessee Grand Jury Update.” To quote briefly from Fitzpatrick:
In the first truth we find that Tennessee state law commands all jurors be selected in a way that prohibits the possibility of human intervention.
In the second truth there is Judge Carroll L. Ross’ installment a few weeks ago of Mr. Gary D. Pettway as Foreman to the Monroe County Tennessee Grand Jury for a twenty-seventh consecutive year.
In the collision [of the first two truths] emerged our third truth that Monroe County prosecutors and judges dispensed with the use of grand juries decades ago.
That state of affairs is bad enough, but it becomes even worse when it suppresses the legitimate concerns of citizens about the legitimacy of our government, as is the case here. Fitzpatrick continues thus: “Regarding criminal complaints against SOETORO-OBAMA we were being willfully deceived into believing a legitimate grand jury was considering our pleas. Instead it’s been the operation of the state’s secret machine impeding us, confusing and confounding us all along since August 2009.” For crying out loud.
To delve deeper into the grand jury morass, consider some information the University of Dayton provides at its website “Federal Grand Jury” :
In the federal system and in all but two of the states, grand juries are used to bring charges against persons who are believed to have committed crimes. In the federal system and in some states, they HAVE to be used to bring charges for felonies, which are the more serious crimes that normally carry a prison term for those who are convicted. In other states, they CAN be used to bring charges for felonies (or for other crimes), but don’t have to be used. If a prosecutor doesn’t HAVE to use a grand jury and doesn’t WANT to, he or she can bring charges on their own, using what is called an “information” as the charging document. When a grand jury brings criminal charges, the charges are contained in a charging document that is called an “indictment.”
I surmise that in practice, grand juries are seldom used as required by the Fifth Amendment. An award-winning essay entitled “The Grand Jury” by George J. Edwards, published in 1906, clarifies the applicability of a grand jury on page 33 of Part I, “Its Origin, History and Development”:
This provision [Amendment 5 of the U.S. Constitution] applies solely to offences against the United States and triable in the United States Courts . . . . [Why so? That is not what the Constitution says.] It has, therefore, become usual both in England and the United States to proceed by information [rather than an indictment by a grand jury] where the law gives that right . . . . [What right? Since when does state law trump the Constitution?]
The venerable George Edwards goes on to entertain the possibility of altering our Bill of Rights to eliminate grand juries altogether: “It remains to consider whether or not the grand jury is worthy to be retained among the institutions of a free government in this progressive age.” Well, if the grand jury was outdated in 1906 or is so today, I say let Congress propose a constitutional amendment and see how many states vote to abolish grand juries. Until the Bill of Rights is amended, it would seem necessary to follow the Constitution as written if we wish to claim to be a constitutional republic.
Of most immediate concern to our present situation, it is necessary for Barack Obama to resign or be removed from office in order to restore even the façade of a republic in the United States. Obama/Soetero’s lack of eligibility is explained more fully here.