Tag: Constitution

Can the Constitution Survive Progressivism?

George Noga

The Constitution is 233 years old Thursday – but will we be able to keep it?

Can the Constitution Survive Progressivism?

By: George Noga – September 13, 2020

Happy Constitution Day Thursday! The Declaration of Independence established the moral foundation of the United States and the unalienable rights of man. It proclaimed that governments are instituted among men to secure those rights. The raison d’etre of the Constitution is to protect those rights which, for 233 years, it has accomplished through an ingenious system of checks, balances and separation of powers.

Liberty is not the natural condition of mankind. Since we quit living in trees, 115 billion homo sapiens have trod this earth, of which fewer than 1% lived lives of liberty. Constant vigilance is needed to protect freedom; Benjamin Franklin recognized this when he warned, “A republic, if you can keep it”. The words of any constitution are only as good as the will of the people to enforce them. Following are excerpts from the constitution of another country – see if you can you guess which one?

  • Article 64: The state shall effectively guarantee genuine democratic rights and liberties as well as the material and cultural well-being of its citizens.

  • Article 66: All citizens age 17 and over have the right to elect and to be elected, irrespective of sex, race, occupation, party affiliation, political views or religion.

  • Article 67: Citizens are guaranteed freedom of speech, of the press, of assembly, demonstration and association and free activity of political parties.

  • Articles 68-70: Citizens have freedom of religious beliefs, are entitled to submit complaints and petitions and have the right to work.

  • Articles 72-79: Citizens are free to engage in scientific, literary and artistic pursuits. They shall have the right to reside in and travel to any place. Citizens are guaranteed inviolability of the person, home and privacy of correspondence.

Liberty is one of the most fragile things ever created by the hand of man and is never more than one generation away from extinction. As President Ronald Reagan said: “We don’t pass (freedom) to our children in the bloodstream. It must be fought for, protected and handed on to them to do the same.” People get just one shot at freedom; those who had it and lost it, are unlikely ever to have it again.

The biggest threat to our liberty today is progressivism. If they gain unchecked power, as they could in 2021, they vow to abolish the filibuster, pack the Supreme Court, admit DC and Puerto Rico as states, abolish the Electoral College and impose national mail in voting combined with vote harvesting. They pledge open borders, citizenship for illegal aliens, gun control and abolition of free speech via hate speech laws. They aim to eviscerate the Constitution to achieve power and to maintain it in perpetuity.

Progressives will abolish 233 years of freedom because they believe they know what’s best for everyone and are willing to shred the Constitution to achieve it. The words of our Constitution, no matter how mellifluous, won’t protect Americans from tyranny any more than the words of the constitution excerpted previously in this post protect the citizens of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, or North Korea.

On September 20th, I reveal my decision whether or not to buy firearms.
More Liberty Less Government – mllg@cfl.rr.com – www.mllg.us

True Liberty Not Found in Democracy

George Noga
The Constitution guarantees Americans “a republican form of government”.
True Liberty Not Found in Democracy
By: George Noga – January 13, 2019

     Later in this post we reveal occult facts about the Constitution, mostly unknown even to the erudite among us. But first – a preview of the MLLG blog for 2019.

     As we begin our 12th year, I am grateful to the tens of thousands of loyal readers who receive our posts directly via email, from forwards, on social media, on our website (110,000 hits), on the internet and through electronic media that republish our posts. We use a large commercial email service and they inform me that our open rate is among the very highest they have experienced. Thanks again to all of you!

     We will continue our mix of politics, economics, philosophy and human interest, posted weekly in 500-700 words and readable in under five minutes. You will see more of our signature issues: the spending crisis, climate change and government failure. You will see more micro postings covering multiple topics and we will reprise Montana Moments this summer. For the first time, we will footnote sources on certain postings; but whether footnoted or not, whatever we present as a fact is a fact.

     Our mission is not to write about the news of the day or to present commentary or perspective you can read elsewhere. We remain dedicated to showcasing, in our own inimitable way, the blessings of liberty and the evils (yes – evils) of government. Above all, we will remain true to our name – more liberty and less government!

The Constitution, Democracies and Republics 

     The USA is a constitutional republic. The word “democracy” appears nowhere in the Declaration of Independence or the Constitution. We don’t pledge our allegiance to the United States of America and to the democracy for which it stands. We don’t sing The Battle Hymn of the Democracy. We don’t have the Statue of Democracy. And Russia could not hack our democracy. We are not a direct democracy, representative democracy, democratic republic or even a constitutional democracy.

     Our founders, extraordinarily well versed in history, had justifiable contempt for democracy, which often is described as two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner. At the constitutional convention, Adams, Hamilton and many others cautioned that true liberty is not found in democracy. Article IV (Section 4) of the Constitution guarantees Americans “a republican form of government“.

     Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and other socialist wunderkinds are poster children for the reason America’s founders had contempt for democracy.  In fact, the strongest case against democracy is the recent behavior of progressive mobs. Imagine what furies would be loosed if they ever achieved unfettered power. Do you know there is one part of the Constitution (described in Article V) that cannot be amended? Clearly, Ocasio-Cortez, Hillary Clinton, and all the other know-nothings advocating for fundamental changes to our republic, are ignorant about Article V of our Constitution!

January 20th – An assessment of the Trump presidency at the halfway mark.
MLLG

Jury Nullification – Closing Argument to Jury

George Noga
By: George Noga – October 10, 2014

      Of all I learned writing this blog, nothing is more crucial to achieving more liberty and less government than the issue of jury nullification, i.e. the idea that juries are sovereign and have the absolute right to vote to acquit for any reason. The right to a jury trial was enshrined in the Constitution and Bill of Rights not solely for the defendant, but for the jury. Nullification is not to be used lightly; but following are 10 specific examples where it may apply.

  1. Laws have proliferated such that honest citizens acting in good faith unknowingly violate laws they never knew, or reasonably should have known, existed or that were so vague as to be meaningless;
  2. The accused never intended to commit a crime and did not have a mens rea – or guilty mind – which formerly was a requirement for charging or convicting citizens;
  3. Victimless crimes;
  4. Laws that shouldn’t exist like Wisconsin’s making it a crime for a farmer to provide raw milk to the owner of the cows he boards even though consuming raw milk is perfectly legal;
  5. Crimes for which the probable sentence (or minimum sentence) is out of proportion;
  6. Disagreement with the law or the way it is being applied; laws only seldom or selectively enforced;
  7. Abuse by police or prosecutors and/or charges that are political in nature;
  8. Overzealous enforcement or profiling – one third of all adults have been arrested as have 40% of males before age 23 – 50% for black males under age 23. This is prima facie unreasonable;
  9. Instances where justice is not being served; and
  10. Matters of conscience.
     Although widely sanctioned and practiced in the early years of our republic, today defense attorneys seldom are permitted to raise jury nullification at a trial. It should be permitted throughout our land. Following is the closing argument I would address to a jury if I were the defense attorney in a case that cried out for jury nullification.
Closing Speech to Jury from Defense Attorney
      Ladies and gentlemen of the jury: Under our Constitution and common law you, when sitting as a jury, are sovereign. This means you can vote to acquit and thereby nullify the charges against my client for any reason or even for no reason and not be held to account or even asked to explain. You have absolute power including the right to ignore your juror’s oath and the judge’s instructions. This is a sacred right with a lengthy and honorable provenance.
      In 1670 William Penn was tried in London for the putative crime of preaching Quakerism. The judge wanted him convicted but the jury refused. The judge then jailed the jury for four days without food, water or toilet facilities; they still refused to convict Penn. Ultimately England’s highest court ruled that a juror’s right to reject law and to vote conscience is traceable to the Magna Carta signed nearly exactly 800 years ago in 1215. Our laws are based on and incorporate English common law which, of course, traces back to Magna Carta and even earlier.
       In America, a juror’s right to vote conscience emanates from the Constitution and Bill of Rights. The Constitution provides five separate sources with effective veto power before any law can be used to punish an offender; these are: (1) house of representatives; (2) senate; (3) president; (4) judiciary; and (5) jury. Even Congress passes a law, the president signs it and the courts allow it, the law will not stand if juries such as this one refuse to convict under it.
       The right of juries to nullify was well understood by our founding fathers. President John Adams said: “It is not only the juror’s right, but his duty, to find the verdict according to his own best understanding, judgment and conscience, though in direct opposition to the direction of the court.” President Thomas Jefferson said: “Trial by jury is the only anchor by which a government can be held to the principles of its constitution.” The first chief justice, John Jay, stated: “The jury has the right to determine both the law and the facts.” I could continue for a long time with other similar quotes from great Americans, but I believe you already understand.

      Jury nullification has a long and glorious history in America; let me tell you about just a few of the many instances where valiant juries have voted their conscience.

  • The Salem witch trials in 1692 ended for one reason and one reason only: jury nullification. Beginning in 1693 there were 52 consecutive hung juries and/or acquittals and prosecutors ceased bringing new cases.
  • In the 1760s juries refused to enforce forfeitures under the Navigation Acts. England then restricted jury trials as part of the Intolerable Acts which led directly to the American Revolution.
  • In the 1850s northern juries began acquitting abolitionists under the Fugitive Slave Laws.
  • In the 1890s corporations began losing jury verdicts in cases involving the organization of labor unions and strikes resulting in workers winning the right to organize.
  • Jury nullification played a big role in ending prohibition in the 1930s.
  • During the Vietnam War, juries acquitted protesters when informed of their sovereign power.
  • Juries refused to convict admitted consensual sex among adult gays under sodomy laws.
  • In 2012 an Iowa jury acquitted an “occupy” protester who admittedly violated curfew and trespass laws to remain on the grounds of the statehouse to peacefully protest. Immediately thereafter, 15 others accused under the same laws demanded jury trials.
      Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, this case cries out for you to nullify an unjust law. Use your independent life experience, concept of justice, wisdom and beliefs; do not mindlessly follow the judge, other jurors or a bad law. You can and must hang a jury, by yourself if necessary, if your conscience so dictates; you must resist all pressure from other jurors to compromise. Ignore the cost of a retrial. It is your right and your duty.
“A majority is one person with courage.”
     History shines upon courageous juries. Remember what your valiant ancestors did for peaceable Quakers, accused witches, fugitive slaves, workers’ rights, war protestors and persecuted homosexuals and do your duty as a sovereign jury. By doing so, other juries will follow suit; even one solitary American citizen voting his or her conscience can overturn an unjust law for a nation of 315 million. Finally, always remember that a majority is one person with courage!

Reviving the Citizen Grand Jury

George Noga
By: George Noga – June 20, 2014
        Grand juries trace their inception back to 12th century England. King Henry had problems with the pope’s ecclesiastical courts which, in Henry’s view, failed to charge or indict to his satisfaction. King Henry therefore instituted a citizens grand jury. Fast forward to the USA. The Bill of Rights (5th Amendment) 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.” The Bill of Rights introduces grand juries although they are never mentioned in the main body of the Constitution. Hence, grand juries are a constitutional construct in their own right. The founders intended them as a fourth branch of government that belongs  solely to the American people and serves as a buffer between the people and the government.
“Any citizen could bring a matter directly before a grand jury.”
       In the decades immediately following ratification of the Constitution, grand juries played a major role in public life. Any citizen or layman could bring a matter directly before a grand jury including complaints about the conduct of public officials. Grand juries then could (and did) conduct their own independent investigations; if they found sufficient evidence to bring charges and if the act was a crime under law, the grand jury would return an indictment. Of course, the grand jury also screened out charges which were unfounded or of malicious inspiration.
“A prosecutor can get a grand jury to indict a ham sandwich.”
       It was not until the second half of the nineteenth century that the current paradigm emerged in which prosecutors control grand juries. Today there is so much abuse of grand juries by prosecutors with an agenda that it has given rise to a now-famous bon mot linking grand juries and ham sandwiches. The origin of this aphorism can be traced to comments made by Supreme Court Justice Robert Jackson in 1940. However, many attribute it to Judge Saul Wachtler who stated: “A prosecutor can get a grand jury to indict a ham sandwich.” Once empanelled however, grand juries have independence and great power; they occasionally go off on their own – thus giving rise to the term “runaway jury“.
Movement to Return Grand Juries to Citizens
       The widespread abuse by politicians of the grand jury system has led to a growing movement to return grand juries to ordinary citizens – much as they functioned in the first half century of our republic. In fact, six states currently allow citizen (or common law) grand juries in one form or another. These function in different ways. In Oklahoma citizens can petition to request a county grand jury to convene. Montana law allows judges to call grand juries. In other states, citizen grand juries can report their findings to prosecutors or to regularly empanelled grand juries.
        Current state laws do not go near far enough for many. There is a powerful movement afoot to revive the citizen grand juries of the 19th century – not under the control of prosecutors. In recent years a  number of such self-styled citizen grand juries have been formed – including at least one in (Ocala) Florida. One case in Gallatin County, Colorado garnered much attention with over 30 law enforcement officers representing 10 agencies on hand for one proceeding. In Montana different groups are forming advisory grand juries to report findings to judges and also to publish them for the record.

       There are a number of organizations competing to revive the common law grand jury in the USA. They range from the serious and well organized to some with marginal (at best) credibility. For the time being however, citizen grand juries are limited to advisory and public relations roles. Although it is unlikely grand juries will return to their 19th century roots anytime soon, it is not hard to discern that some major changes – such as the following – may come in the years ahead.

  • The beauty of our federal system is that there are 50 states and citizen grand juries may need to catch on only in one or two states to spread like wildfire. Also there are over 3,000 counties and since most grand juries operate at the county level, it is possible significant changes could even originate at the county level.
  • The movement could inspire more and more regularly convened grand juries to become runaway juries.
  • Significant marginal changes are possible. At one time ordinary citizens were allowed to pass information directly to a sitting grand jury. Bringing back this feature could really shake up politicians prone to abuse their power.
  • It is easy to foresee rapid growth in citizen grand juries with an advisory role, i.e. they could report their findings to a regular grand jury and/or independently publish their findings – similar to the present situation in Montana.
       At bottom, the movement to resurrect citizen grand juries is a manifestation of a much broader and more significant reaction by a growing number of Americans against the size, power and arrogance of government. As such it is a welcome trend and could play a significant role in bringing about more liberty and less government in America.