The powers of these Citizens' Oversight Grand Juries would be seven in number:
First, the grand juries would be able to investigate, with full subpoena power, not just the possibility that elected officials may have failed to live up to their oaths of office, but, as well, investigate and criticize any aspect of governmental service or corporate activity that problematically impinges on the rights, powers, liberties, privileges and immunities of the people;
Secondly, in the case of the National Grand Jury, the grand jury would be able to issue indictments calling for the issuing of articles of impeachment by the House of Representatives, and in the case of state grand juries they would be able to issue an indictment that would be forwarded to whatever state judicial authorities had jurisdiction in such matters;
Thirdly, such grand juries would be able to conduct citizen impact studies on all proposed legislation -- similar in character to environmental impact studies but focusing on the rights, liberties, and powers of the people -- and either prohibit legislation going forward prior to its being voted on by either Congress or state legislative assemblies (although subsequent to such legislation having been discussed and put in its final pre-vote form), or the grand jury could modify the nature of the legislation so that it did not undermine, compromise, diminish, exploit, or abolish the rights, powers, liberties, privileges and immunities of the people – for example, through the elimination of all riders to a bill which had nothing to do with the stated purpose of the bill … Congress may have exclusive right to pass laws, but the Constitution does not specify that they are the only ones who may have a hand in shaping the form of the proposed statute which gets voted upon;
Fourthly, the federal and state grand juries would have the power to subpoena Supreme Court justices – on either the state or federal level respectively – to explain their decisions and to demonstrate how their judicial opinions did not violate, diminish, undermine, compromise, weaken, or harm the rights and powers of the people in arbitrary ways which cannot be reconciled with the provisions of an amended Constitution as have been outlined in Part 1 of this essay, and if they could not do this to the satisfaction of two thirds of the National Grand Jury and two-thirds of the State Grand Juries, then, the ruling of the Supreme Court would be declared unconstitutional;
Fifthly, the National Grand Jury, in conjunction with the State Grand Juries, would have the right to decertify a war (Congress only has the right to declare war) that had been sanctioned by Congress provided that two-thirds of a sitting National Grand Jury and two-thirds of the sitting State Grand Juries voted in favor of such a decertification. In effect, this would mean that, among other things, Congress could no longer be entitled to fund any war which it had declared;
Sixthly, the grand juries would have the power to investigate the use of tax revenues to ensure that issues such as poverty, hunger, homelessness, health care (both mental and physical), education, and infrastructure are looked after prior to the demands of the Defense Department and Homeland Security. The very best way to establish and realize the principles of the Preamble -- such as: justice, domestic tranquility, common defense, the general welfare, and liberty for ourselves and our posterity -- is to ensure that the people are well looked after and that their rights, powers, privileges, immunities, and liberties are properly secured, protected, and advanced. If this is done, the people on their own will be committed to struggle to ensure that no enemy, foreign or domestic, will be able to abolish, and they will do so in a way that neither the Defense Department nor Homeland Security will be, or has been, able to accomplish, as well as at a cost that will be hundreds of billions dollars less that what is required by the aforementioned government agencies to pursue their ends … often in totally dysfunctional ways;
Seventhly, the proposed grand juries would have the right to effectively decertify whatever presidential signing statements or executive orders have been issued by the Executive Branch that are considered not to be in the interests of the people or which threaten the rights, powers, liberties, privileges, and immunities of the people. This would be accomplished through a two-thirds vote of the National Grand Jury and a two-thirds vote of the respective State Grand Juries.
The proposed Citizens' Oversight Grand Jury Amendment gives expression to a thoroughly republican form of self-governance which does not depend on elected representatives, campaigns, financial corruption of the election process, poll-driven campaigns, the potential for various kinds of election fraud, or the possibility that once elected, representatives often go about their own ideologically and financially driven agendas which end in partisan gridlock and ineffective elective representation. The proposed Citizens' Oversight Grand Jury Amendment gives expression to an effective and powerful way for the rights, liberties, powers, privileges, immunities and aspirations of the people to be secured, protected, and asserted over against the machinations of governments that often are engaged in activities that seek, openly or clandestinely, to oppress and enslave people against their individual or collective will. The proposed Citizens' Oversight Grand Jury will ensure the accountability of all government officials – both elected and appointed.
--------------------------
According to Article V of the Constitution:
"The Congress, whenever two thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution, or, on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments, which, in either case, shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the several states, or by conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the Congress."
However, the Constitution also guarantees a republican form of government to the various states. Consequently, although the provisions of Article V do indicate two ways in which the Congress may bring about amendments to the Constitution, these ways are not necessarily either expressly reserved for Congress nor are they exhaustive of possibilities concerning how the democratic process might make possible a truly republican mode for adding amendments to the Constitution.
The provisions of Article V are not exhaustively or expressly reserved for Congress because it is not possible for the people to have truly republican forms of self-governance if it is left to government to dictate what rights the people do, and do not, have. The whole idea of the Bill of Rights is to prevent government from seeking to oppress the people in this and similar manners.
Under the Ninth and Tenth Amendments, the people have the right to establish constitutional conventions which are directed toward considering amendments to the constitution that protect the rights of the people over against government. Congress, the Executive Branch, the Supreme Court, and state governments all have a conflict of interest in seeking to deny the people their Ninth and Tenth Amendment rights to establish constitutional conventions for purposes of amending the Constitution to protect against government encroachment upon the rights, liberties, and powers of the people.
Just as the Declaration of Independence gave the people of early America the right to assemble among themselves to seek to work out arrangements of self-governance, so too, does the Declaration of Independence, the Preamble to the Constitution, the constitutional guarantee of republican self-governance to the people of the respective states, the Ninth and Tenth Amendments, the 'involuntary servitude' clause of the Thirteenth Amendment along with Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment give the people today the same right to establish their own constitutional conventions for considering the introduction of whatever additional amendments to the Constitution as may be deemed necessary. However, the conventions which may be called in our times to explore such possibilities must be more reflective of the cross-section of the peoples who exist in America than was the case when the ones who were delegates to the constitutional conventions in the early days of this Republic tended to appoint themselves in a very undemocratic way.
Town Hall government and the jury system are the purest forms of democracy. People assemble among themselves and negotiate their form of self-governance.
Surely, constitutional conventions can come together in each state for the same purpose. In the case of the possible conventions, people could gather among themselves and vote on a set of delegates who are inclusive and representative of different categories and classes of people. These delegates would then come together to discuss the proposed amendment and formalize some statement which gives expression to such an amendment.
These formalized statements could be shared with other state conventions to try to fashion some sort of unified, final statement which could be agreed upon by two-thirds of the participants. Once such a document existed, the various state constitutional conventions could vote yea or nay to the proposal, and if two-thirds of these constitutional conventions voted in favor of the proposed amendment, then it would be incumbent upon the government to accept the will of the people on this matter.
Of course, Congress or the Executive Branch might rebuff such a vote, or, alternatively, the Supreme Court could, on the basis of completely arbitrary and indefensible grounds, try to rule that such a vote is unconstitutional. However, if the government pursued either avenue, it would precipitate a constitutional crisis from which America might never recover and, in the process, clearly demonstrate to everyone that governments only wish to have control over people and have no sincere interest in granting the people their fundamental rights, principles, liberties, powers, privileges, immunities, guarantees, and protections which are contained in the amended Constitution of the United States.
--------------------------
There may be some who might wish to argue that having average, unelected individuals play such a formative role in democratic governance is a mistake. Yet, the members of a grand jury or a trial jury are unelected, average individuals who play a fundamental role in the process of democratic governance which helps, in substantial ways, to improve the quality of life across the country.
In addition, I think that I might be more inclined to place my trust in honest, moral, hardworking, concerned, sincere, average individuals who use common sense and have a healthy skepticism toward government of any kind than I would be inclined to place my trust in people who considered themselves to be 'leaders' and are often arrogant, condescending, and indifferent to how average people look at the process of democracy. I believe that in many, but not necessarily all cases, average people see life a lot more clearly, insightfully, and compassionately than do many elected and appointed government officials.
Furthermore, one quality of many average people is that they seem to have a natural kind of resistance toward trying to tell other people how to live their lives. On the other hand, those who consider themselves to be leaders have a finely honed sense of entitlement concerning their presumed right to find ways to compel, manipulate, or induce others to act in accordance with the so-called 'leader's' agenda.
--------------------------
The oaths to which people attest when they begin serving on a regular grand jury vary from state to state. However, they all tend – each in its own way -- to give expression to the seriousness of the responsibility and the integrity with which a grand juror must seek to fulfill her or his duties of care in relation to grand jury deliberations. The following is just one example and indicates how the duties of being a grand juror are often spelled out in more detail and somberness of purpose than is the case with respect to the oath of office that is taken by the President, Vice President, a Senator, or a Representative.
"Do you, and each of you, solemnly, sincerely, and truly declare and affirm that as members of the grand jury of the State of ______________, for ___________ County, you will diligently inquire and true presentment make of all matters and things as shall be given you in charge, or otherwise come to your knowledge, touching this present service, and do you further swear (or affirm) that the counsel of the State, your fellows, and your own, you shall keep secret, and that you shall present no person for envy, hatred, or malice, nor shall you leave any person unpresented because of fear, favor, affection, reward, or the hope of reward, and do you further swear (or affirm) that you shall present all things truly as they come to your knowledge, according to the best of your understanding, do you so affirm?"
--------------------------
The foregoing analysis and proposals are intended to generate discussion. What has been said here is not assumed to be definitive, and many people who may come to read this document are likely to have ideas of their own to throw into the mix.
This is a good thing, but the time for discussion and emendations must not go on indefinitely. At some point, before it is too late, people are going to have to act in order to secure, protect, and assert their legitimate rights, liberties, and powers … for, to paraphrase someone else, evils are able to perpetuate themselves to the extent that good people do nothing.
This document provides a peaceful way to seek a transition to a new mode of constitutional arrangement between the people and government. I believe that what is being proposed here would benefit both governments and the people. I believe that what is being proposed here is thoroughly democratic. I believe that what is being proposed here is thoroughly republican. I believe that what is being proposed here is completely consistent with the amended Constitution, and I believe that many readers will find resonance with much which has been given expression through the foregoing essay.
As previously noted, Wendell Phillips declared in 1852 that: "Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty." The proposed Citizens' Oversight Grand Jury Amendment could help all Americans to maintain such vigilance in a peaceful, democratic, republican fashion.
| Part 1 | Part 2 | Part 3 | Part 4 | Part 5 |
| Part 6 | Part 7 | Part 8 | Part 9 | Next |
If you would like to download the whole 115 page document as a free PDF file, please right click on the link below:
The New/Old Common Sense And The Rights of Human Beings
|
