The2ndAmendment
Gold Member
This letter was written by the Aegis of Liberty, nine copies were made and mailed to each Justice of the Supreme Court. The author, Edward Solomon, is the only publicly known member of the Aegis of Liberty. The Aegis of Liberty is primarily composed of people who are neither lawyers nor politicians. The Aegis of Liberty does not identify itself to the Supreme Court, for we fear that even they cannot be trusted after Citizens United.
Edward Solomon
P.O. Box 181
Ronkonkoma, New York, 11779
March 22, 2013
John Paul Stevens
Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States
1, First Street, NE
Washington, DC, 20543
Dear Justice Kennedy,
My name is Edward Solomon, I am a mathematics major at Stony Brook University, and my occupation is a waiter at the Watermill Catering Center in Smithtown, New York. Given the current circumstances concerning our Bill of Rights, with the controversies concerning the Patriot Act, the NDAA, and the struggle to retain our Second Amendment Rights, I consider being an ordinary citizen a blessing, as it allows me to view the Constitution through a lens of innocence uncorrupted by a myriad legal theories, of professors of vastly differing opinions, and contradictory precedents.
It is my wish that you will consider the arguments presented, and perhaps, during your spare time, discuss them with the other Justices. It is my wish that the discourse concerning the Third and Ninth Amendments in this letter will Guide the Court in how to proceed in Cases that shall arise in the near future.
I fear that there is a dangerous rhetoric in this nation; coming from both the left and the right, that the Government manufactures rights, and thus the Government also has the ability to deny or disparage the rights that it claims to create. These philosophies, which are rooted in Statism, are repugnant to the libertarian (Classical Liberal) ideology upon which our Constitution was founded.
I consider these times to be perilous, when ordinary citizens like myself, are all talking privately among each other and agreeing with one another, regardless of party, that our entire Bill of Rights is under siege; while the extremists who lead both parties consolidate and centralize more power to the Federal Government.
It may seem strange that I believe each amendment in the Bill of Rights to be under siege, but I do in fact believe each and every Amendment is being violated, including the Third and Ninth Amendments. I also find it disturbing that such tyranny can be imposed upon the citizens so regularly, that they accept it as common practice; however, I will save this concern for later.
I believe that it is best to start with the Ninth Amendment, because the Ninth Amendment cements the Libertarian foundation of our Constitution and facilitates the reading of our Constitution. After careful consideration, I have determined that the Ninth Amendment has four primary functions:
I. It functions as an instructional and educational tool, whose information cannot be hidden from the public.
II. It functions to prevent government from invalidating a Guilty verdict by a jury through a strict interpretation of the Bill of Rights. This is not be construed to infer that it bans non obstante veredicto under all circumstances.
III. It functions to define Judicial Tyranny, limiting the power of judicial review (in conjunction with the 10th Amendment).
IV. To define and encourage Judicial Activism, assuming it does not fall under the category of Judicial Tyranny (in conjunction with the Tenth Amendment)
I. The first function of the Ninth Amendment is to serve as an instructional and educational amendment, in order to inform the citizens of the United States that our rights, especially those that are enumerated, are bestowed upon us at birth not by government; that government can only work oppression and abuse that government is both vice and punisher that the government can only enforce its rule via the denial or disparagement of our rights; that the government at its very best is but a necessary evil.
This particular function has no meaning in a judicial process, it simply serves as a reminder to all citizens that any politician that preaches or espouses the idea of Government created rights (privileges), or other Statist philosophies, is a politician who is rotten to the core.
II. The second function of the Ninth Amendment prevents a higher level of authority from invalidating a decision by a jury through a strict interpretation of the Bill of Rights.
For instance, suppose that a factory was producing massive amounts of toxic air pollution, and the laws were relatively difficult to enforce because they were poorly written, then the jury could rule against the factory by this justification:
"Every man has the right of Life, and as such, the right to breathe. We have determined that the air toxicity has infringed upon the people's right to breathe, and thus their right to life. This is in accordance and in the spirit of the Ninth Amendment of the United States Constitution."
Thus the judge would be unable to invoke a "Judgment notwithstanding the verdict," to acquit the factory (unless he can prove the evidence for air toxicity was extremely faulty), forming a bulwark against both laws there were intentionally poor written (to favor someone) and corrupted judges.
III. Although the Constitution allows judicial review via Jury Nullification or through a decision made by a judge (or judges), the practice of judicial review is restrained by the combination of Ninth Amendment and Tenth Amendment, which come together to define the practice of Judicial Tyranny.
Judicial Tyranny is defined as any ruling by either a judge(s) or jury that:
1. Limits the rights of citizens.
2. Limits the rights of States vs the Federal Government.
3. Expands the power of the federal government over the States or citizens.
4. Expands the powers of the State government over the citizens.
5. Serves to legislate Common Law (the combination of legislative and judicial powers)
The only way our Constitution allows the rights of citizens to be curtailed, or of States, or of the Federal government; or an expansion of State power over the citizens, or an expansion of Federal power, is by Amending the Constitution in adherence to Article V of the Constitution.
IV. The final function is to establish under which circumstances that Judicial Review can act as positive force, and what exactly are the boundaries and jurisdiction of the Judicial Review process, we will call this positive form of Judicial Review to be Judicial Activism.
Judicial Activism is defined as any ruling by either a judge(s) or jury that:
1. Is not an act of Judicial Tyranny.
2. Expands the rights of citizens without abridging or nullifying the enumerated powers of either the State or Federal governments.
3. Expands the rights of States, without abridging or nullifying the enumerated powers of the Federal Government.
4. Does not serve to legislate Common Law.
Although I would not expect you to readily adopt such a powerful and well defined view of a historically neglected amendment, I would ask you instead to challenge these assertions in order to arrive at an absurdity (ignoring precedent).
On the issue of the Third Amendment, in Griswold vs Connecticut, the word Solider was interpreted to mean any agent of the state. With this definition in mind, it would not be absurd to consider drones to be an agent of the state.
If we refer to the historical context that surrounded the Third Amendment, we discover that the Third Amendment was a deterrent to a Police State by standing armies. However, through technological advances, Armies have evolved, such that a swarm of unarmed spy drones (that can be equipped with non-lethal weaponry) can function to oppress entire cities and towns, by invading both privacy and acting as mobile General Search Warrants, and having the capability to forcibly disperse a peaceful assembly of citizens (via tear gas or some other type of non-lethal weaponry).
Thus, if a horde of spy drones (agents of the government) are imposing a police state upon the citizens (against their Consent), then it is fair to say that the Government is acting in violation of the Third Amendment, the Tenantable Clause (quartered) notwithstanding.
Suppose that an officer entered a home with a warrant, with express orders to search the suspects computer. While the agent is there, he is mandated by Law to install a piece of undeletable software within the computer that monitors all of the computers activities. Can we consider the software to be an agent of the state?
After all, an agent is defined as any Thing which acts on another things behalf, thus by analogy, it would be no different than assigning a group of police officers (taking turns in shifts) to observe your computer twenty-four hours a day, seven days a week.
Lo! If the latter scenario is absurd, than it would be a contradiction to admit the former scenario is not! For it achieves the same end via he same means!
Means:
1. There is an agent of the state.
2. The agent is located on or within your property.
3. The agent will remain indefinitely.
Ends:
1. To acquire specific information (4th Amendment)
As demonstrated, when one takes the entire historical context surrounding the Third Amendment, it serves to solve many problems that the Courts seem to be unable to resolve. Each time that the issue of drones are brought up, it seems that everyone discusses Due Process and Privacy, (bear in mind that the right to privacy was partially derived from the Third Amendment), but they ignore the Third Amendment. I do not believe that they willingly ignore the Third Amendment, but the fact that the Third Amendment is so rarely thought about to begin with, so severely neglected in our Law, that the thought never comes to pass.
Finally, the Third Amendment can be construed to nullify all arguments made by Gun Control Advocates in their assault upon the Second Amendment, consider this excerpt, and pay special attention to the part in bold print (irrelevant verbiage removed):
No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.
Third Amendment to the United States Constitution
Most discussions about the Second Amendment dont involve the Third Amendment. In fact, most people consider the Third Amendment virtually irrelevant.
However, the Third Amendment is the best argument for the Second Amendment. Whereas the Second Amendment can be massaged, the Third cannot. Consider that the right to bear arms has been defined ad absurdum. What is an arm? What is it to bear arms? Who are the militia and who are the people? What does infringed mean?
Oh sure, we know exactly what the Second Amendment means. Concisely, it is the right of the people to defend themselves against tyranny and fascism, but this cannot be so readily discerned from the Second Amendment itself.
But when the anti-gun crowd speaks of the Second Amendment, they cleverly twist it. To them, an arm is a musket, because thats what the framers shot. To them, an arm is a six-shooter, because well, because they say so. To them, to bear arms is to hunt. To them, militia applies only to military or police. They think themselves quite logical, even brilliant, though the historical contexts surrounding it say otherwise (Lexington and Concord).
Whether gun controllers are liars or simply uninformed, they are passionate to control, and sometimes they even get away with legislating against certain types of guns. Bill Clinton was able to get gun control legislation passed in 1994.
However, the Third Amendment isnt so easy to twist or diminish, and the Third Amendment makes a great case for more guns, and more modern weapons. For if a soldier demands to be quartered in your home, how do you respond? To object to the quartering, you can hold up the Constitution as garlic against a vampire. But in that situation your Constitution is likely to be shredded. You might try yelling for help, but where will that get you? You might try calling the police, but will you make it to the telephone?
To uphold the Third Amendment requires enforcement. To enforce your private property rights you will need some firepower. Thats where your right to bear arms comes into play.
For if a soldier demands to be quartered, your objection must have teeth. At such time, a semi-automatic or automatic weapon makes a good deterrent. It will be an unwise soldier who demands rather than requests quartering in that house.
But, the anti-gun crowd says, you are no match for a soldier.
Perhaps, perhaps not. But you are certainly more of a match with a weapon than without a weapon. Even if you cant win against a soldier, weaponry betters your odds. A soldier who wont take no for an answer will likely respect the sound of an AR.
But, the anti-gun crowd sputters, a soldier will be wearing armor anyway.
Well, that makes a good case for ownership of armor-piercing bullets, doesnt it? To repel a modern soldier requires modern weaponry. The more advanced a soldiers technology, the more necessity for equal technology!
But, the anti-gun crowd adds, you cant fight government tanks and bazookas.
If our government uses tanks on us, the Third Amendment is the least of our worries. Some might argue, Why not just let the soldier be quartered?
First, because we dont have to. The Third Amendment protects our private property rights. Strangers, even soldiers, may be denied access to your home, as it should be. It doesnt matter if the soldier is rogue or was commanded to take over your house. A homeowner has the right to use force against governmental home invasions.
We have a right to defend our homes against our own military, yes, our own military, because theres no need for an Amendment vs. foreign invaders. There is no argument which can defeat this truth. Therefore the Second Amendment is indeed meant to supplement the Third Amendment as a deterrent against Government Tyranny.
Furthermore, the Third Amendment makes clear that arms equals arms adequate to repel soldiers. The Third Amendment is a fascinating anti-fascist statement.
Our founders are truly to be admired. Remember the Battle of Athens, Tennessee, 1946!
The argument made here is quite compelling, for the Third Amendment could only be realistically enforced by an armed citizenry. It also assumes parity of arms (strange and unusual weapons notwithstanding), as I doubt the colonists would have traded their muskets for bows and arrows.
Finally, I would like to conclude with what I consider to be the Great Evils, those things that have distorted the Rule of Law in America, the land where the Law is King.
Without a doubt, the very first of these is Sovereign Immunity. The inability of citizens to sue their government in Court is a direct violation of the First Amendment, as it prohibits citizens the right to petition the Government a redress of grievances (through the courts), giving the State an unfair advantage, as only the State can press charges.
The State will only prosecute when it believes it will win, and it will never consent to be sued when it believes it will lose; thus it is no surprise that power has been transferred away from the people to the Government over time.
The second of these evils is the Federal Reserve. First, the Constitution does not allow the Congress to delegate its power to make currency to any agency, private or public. This means that the Federal Reserve, and every piece of worthless paper it prints, is an illegal currency.
Andrew Jackson did this nation a tremendous service when he defeated the Second Bank of the United States, he was the first President to pay off the debt, and the only President to pay off the Debt. I do recommend that you research the ill effects that private banking and interest have upon this country.
The best way in which I can see the Supreme Court nullifying the Federal Reserve, is by declaring that a State must pay its Debt in Gold and Silver, in adherence to Article I, Section 10 of the United States Constitution; that paying their Debt with anything but Gold or Silver is unconstitutional, including any type of paper currency, be that currency legal or illegal.
This ruling would force the Federal Government to mint its own Interest Free coins of gold and silver, so that the States may eventually acquire them to pay their Debts. In the event that Fort Knox is empty, silver is still very plentiful in America.
Once the Federal Government was forced to do this, it wouldnt take too long for Congress to abolish the Federal Reserve, and establish its own interest free reserve bank.
The Third Evil, is that Jurors are not informed of their right to Jury Nullification, which was the primary purpose of the system when it originated in Old England.
The best body to decide the meaning of the Constitution, are the people (the jury) themselves; and if the people deliver a terribly unjust Guilty verdict, the Judge always retains the power to overrule the jury.
Hopefully you have taken at least a few things Ive written into consideration, even just a few of these things will make great progress in restoring our liberties, our Republic and perhaps even Federalism.
Sincerely Yours,
Edward Solomon
Edward Solomon
P.O. Box 181
Ronkonkoma, New York, 11779
March 22, 2013
John Paul Stevens
Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States
1, First Street, NE
Washington, DC, 20543
Dear Justice Kennedy,
My name is Edward Solomon, I am a mathematics major at Stony Brook University, and my occupation is a waiter at the Watermill Catering Center in Smithtown, New York. Given the current circumstances concerning our Bill of Rights, with the controversies concerning the Patriot Act, the NDAA, and the struggle to retain our Second Amendment Rights, I consider being an ordinary citizen a blessing, as it allows me to view the Constitution through a lens of innocence uncorrupted by a myriad legal theories, of professors of vastly differing opinions, and contradictory precedents.
It is my wish that you will consider the arguments presented, and perhaps, during your spare time, discuss them with the other Justices. It is my wish that the discourse concerning the Third and Ninth Amendments in this letter will Guide the Court in how to proceed in Cases that shall arise in the near future.
I fear that there is a dangerous rhetoric in this nation; coming from both the left and the right, that the Government manufactures rights, and thus the Government also has the ability to deny or disparage the rights that it claims to create. These philosophies, which are rooted in Statism, are repugnant to the libertarian (Classical Liberal) ideology upon which our Constitution was founded.
I consider these times to be perilous, when ordinary citizens like myself, are all talking privately among each other and agreeing with one another, regardless of party, that our entire Bill of Rights is under siege; while the extremists who lead both parties consolidate and centralize more power to the Federal Government.
It may seem strange that I believe each amendment in the Bill of Rights to be under siege, but I do in fact believe each and every Amendment is being violated, including the Third and Ninth Amendments. I also find it disturbing that such tyranny can be imposed upon the citizens so regularly, that they accept it as common practice; however, I will save this concern for later.
I believe that it is best to start with the Ninth Amendment, because the Ninth Amendment cements the Libertarian foundation of our Constitution and facilitates the reading of our Constitution. After careful consideration, I have determined that the Ninth Amendment has four primary functions:
I. It functions as an instructional and educational tool, whose information cannot be hidden from the public.
II. It functions to prevent government from invalidating a Guilty verdict by a jury through a strict interpretation of the Bill of Rights. This is not be construed to infer that it bans non obstante veredicto under all circumstances.
III. It functions to define Judicial Tyranny, limiting the power of judicial review (in conjunction with the 10th Amendment).
IV. To define and encourage Judicial Activism, assuming it does not fall under the category of Judicial Tyranny (in conjunction with the Tenth Amendment)
I. The first function of the Ninth Amendment is to serve as an instructional and educational amendment, in order to inform the citizens of the United States that our rights, especially those that are enumerated, are bestowed upon us at birth not by government; that government can only work oppression and abuse that government is both vice and punisher that the government can only enforce its rule via the denial or disparagement of our rights; that the government at its very best is but a necessary evil.
This particular function has no meaning in a judicial process, it simply serves as a reminder to all citizens that any politician that preaches or espouses the idea of Government created rights (privileges), or other Statist philosophies, is a politician who is rotten to the core.
II. The second function of the Ninth Amendment prevents a higher level of authority from invalidating a decision by a jury through a strict interpretation of the Bill of Rights.
For instance, suppose that a factory was producing massive amounts of toxic air pollution, and the laws were relatively difficult to enforce because they were poorly written, then the jury could rule against the factory by this justification:
"Every man has the right of Life, and as such, the right to breathe. We have determined that the air toxicity has infringed upon the people's right to breathe, and thus their right to life. This is in accordance and in the spirit of the Ninth Amendment of the United States Constitution."
Thus the judge would be unable to invoke a "Judgment notwithstanding the verdict," to acquit the factory (unless he can prove the evidence for air toxicity was extremely faulty), forming a bulwark against both laws there were intentionally poor written (to favor someone) and corrupted judges.
III. Although the Constitution allows judicial review via Jury Nullification or through a decision made by a judge (or judges), the practice of judicial review is restrained by the combination of Ninth Amendment and Tenth Amendment, which come together to define the practice of Judicial Tyranny.
Judicial Tyranny is defined as any ruling by either a judge(s) or jury that:
1. Limits the rights of citizens.
2. Limits the rights of States vs the Federal Government.
3. Expands the power of the federal government over the States or citizens.
4. Expands the powers of the State government over the citizens.
5. Serves to legislate Common Law (the combination of legislative and judicial powers)
The only way our Constitution allows the rights of citizens to be curtailed, or of States, or of the Federal government; or an expansion of State power over the citizens, or an expansion of Federal power, is by Amending the Constitution in adherence to Article V of the Constitution.
IV. The final function is to establish under which circumstances that Judicial Review can act as positive force, and what exactly are the boundaries and jurisdiction of the Judicial Review process, we will call this positive form of Judicial Review to be Judicial Activism.
Judicial Activism is defined as any ruling by either a judge(s) or jury that:
1. Is not an act of Judicial Tyranny.
2. Expands the rights of citizens without abridging or nullifying the enumerated powers of either the State or Federal governments.
3. Expands the rights of States, without abridging or nullifying the enumerated powers of the Federal Government.
4. Does not serve to legislate Common Law.
Although I would not expect you to readily adopt such a powerful and well defined view of a historically neglected amendment, I would ask you instead to challenge these assertions in order to arrive at an absurdity (ignoring precedent).
On the issue of the Third Amendment, in Griswold vs Connecticut, the word Solider was interpreted to mean any agent of the state. With this definition in mind, it would not be absurd to consider drones to be an agent of the state.
If we refer to the historical context that surrounded the Third Amendment, we discover that the Third Amendment was a deterrent to a Police State by standing armies. However, through technological advances, Armies have evolved, such that a swarm of unarmed spy drones (that can be equipped with non-lethal weaponry) can function to oppress entire cities and towns, by invading both privacy and acting as mobile General Search Warrants, and having the capability to forcibly disperse a peaceful assembly of citizens (via tear gas or some other type of non-lethal weaponry).
Thus, if a horde of spy drones (agents of the government) are imposing a police state upon the citizens (against their Consent), then it is fair to say that the Government is acting in violation of the Third Amendment, the Tenantable Clause (quartered) notwithstanding.
Suppose that an officer entered a home with a warrant, with express orders to search the suspects computer. While the agent is there, he is mandated by Law to install a piece of undeletable software within the computer that monitors all of the computers activities. Can we consider the software to be an agent of the state?
After all, an agent is defined as any Thing which acts on another things behalf, thus by analogy, it would be no different than assigning a group of police officers (taking turns in shifts) to observe your computer twenty-four hours a day, seven days a week.
Lo! If the latter scenario is absurd, than it would be a contradiction to admit the former scenario is not! For it achieves the same end via he same means!
Means:
1. There is an agent of the state.
2. The agent is located on or within your property.
3. The agent will remain indefinitely.
Ends:
1. To acquire specific information (4th Amendment)
As demonstrated, when one takes the entire historical context surrounding the Third Amendment, it serves to solve many problems that the Courts seem to be unable to resolve. Each time that the issue of drones are brought up, it seems that everyone discusses Due Process and Privacy, (bear in mind that the right to privacy was partially derived from the Third Amendment), but they ignore the Third Amendment. I do not believe that they willingly ignore the Third Amendment, but the fact that the Third Amendment is so rarely thought about to begin with, so severely neglected in our Law, that the thought never comes to pass.
Finally, the Third Amendment can be construed to nullify all arguments made by Gun Control Advocates in their assault upon the Second Amendment, consider this excerpt, and pay special attention to the part in bold print (irrelevant verbiage removed):
No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.
Third Amendment to the United States Constitution
Most discussions about the Second Amendment dont involve the Third Amendment. In fact, most people consider the Third Amendment virtually irrelevant.
However, the Third Amendment is the best argument for the Second Amendment. Whereas the Second Amendment can be massaged, the Third cannot. Consider that the right to bear arms has been defined ad absurdum. What is an arm? What is it to bear arms? Who are the militia and who are the people? What does infringed mean?
Oh sure, we know exactly what the Second Amendment means. Concisely, it is the right of the people to defend themselves against tyranny and fascism, but this cannot be so readily discerned from the Second Amendment itself.
But when the anti-gun crowd speaks of the Second Amendment, they cleverly twist it. To them, an arm is a musket, because thats what the framers shot. To them, an arm is a six-shooter, because well, because they say so. To them, to bear arms is to hunt. To them, militia applies only to military or police. They think themselves quite logical, even brilliant, though the historical contexts surrounding it say otherwise (Lexington and Concord).
Whether gun controllers are liars or simply uninformed, they are passionate to control, and sometimes they even get away with legislating against certain types of guns. Bill Clinton was able to get gun control legislation passed in 1994.
However, the Third Amendment isnt so easy to twist or diminish, and the Third Amendment makes a great case for more guns, and more modern weapons. For if a soldier demands to be quartered in your home, how do you respond? To object to the quartering, you can hold up the Constitution as garlic against a vampire. But in that situation your Constitution is likely to be shredded. You might try yelling for help, but where will that get you? You might try calling the police, but will you make it to the telephone?
To uphold the Third Amendment requires enforcement. To enforce your private property rights you will need some firepower. Thats where your right to bear arms comes into play.
For if a soldier demands to be quartered, your objection must have teeth. At such time, a semi-automatic or automatic weapon makes a good deterrent. It will be an unwise soldier who demands rather than requests quartering in that house.
But, the anti-gun crowd says, you are no match for a soldier.
Perhaps, perhaps not. But you are certainly more of a match with a weapon than without a weapon. Even if you cant win against a soldier, weaponry betters your odds. A soldier who wont take no for an answer will likely respect the sound of an AR.
But, the anti-gun crowd sputters, a soldier will be wearing armor anyway.
Well, that makes a good case for ownership of armor-piercing bullets, doesnt it? To repel a modern soldier requires modern weaponry. The more advanced a soldiers technology, the more necessity for equal technology!
But, the anti-gun crowd adds, you cant fight government tanks and bazookas.
If our government uses tanks on us, the Third Amendment is the least of our worries. Some might argue, Why not just let the soldier be quartered?
First, because we dont have to. The Third Amendment protects our private property rights. Strangers, even soldiers, may be denied access to your home, as it should be. It doesnt matter if the soldier is rogue or was commanded to take over your house. A homeowner has the right to use force against governmental home invasions.
We have a right to defend our homes against our own military, yes, our own military, because theres no need for an Amendment vs. foreign invaders. There is no argument which can defeat this truth. Therefore the Second Amendment is indeed meant to supplement the Third Amendment as a deterrent against Government Tyranny.
Furthermore, the Third Amendment makes clear that arms equals arms adequate to repel soldiers. The Third Amendment is a fascinating anti-fascist statement.
Our founders are truly to be admired. Remember the Battle of Athens, Tennessee, 1946!
The argument made here is quite compelling, for the Third Amendment could only be realistically enforced by an armed citizenry. It also assumes parity of arms (strange and unusual weapons notwithstanding), as I doubt the colonists would have traded their muskets for bows and arrows.
Finally, I would like to conclude with what I consider to be the Great Evils, those things that have distorted the Rule of Law in America, the land where the Law is King.
Without a doubt, the very first of these is Sovereign Immunity. The inability of citizens to sue their government in Court is a direct violation of the First Amendment, as it prohibits citizens the right to petition the Government a redress of grievances (through the courts), giving the State an unfair advantage, as only the State can press charges.
The State will only prosecute when it believes it will win, and it will never consent to be sued when it believes it will lose; thus it is no surprise that power has been transferred away from the people to the Government over time.
The second of these evils is the Federal Reserve. First, the Constitution does not allow the Congress to delegate its power to make currency to any agency, private or public. This means that the Federal Reserve, and every piece of worthless paper it prints, is an illegal currency.
Andrew Jackson did this nation a tremendous service when he defeated the Second Bank of the United States, he was the first President to pay off the debt, and the only President to pay off the Debt. I do recommend that you research the ill effects that private banking and interest have upon this country.
The best way in which I can see the Supreme Court nullifying the Federal Reserve, is by declaring that a State must pay its Debt in Gold and Silver, in adherence to Article I, Section 10 of the United States Constitution; that paying their Debt with anything but Gold or Silver is unconstitutional, including any type of paper currency, be that currency legal or illegal.
This ruling would force the Federal Government to mint its own Interest Free coins of gold and silver, so that the States may eventually acquire them to pay their Debts. In the event that Fort Knox is empty, silver is still very plentiful in America.
Once the Federal Government was forced to do this, it wouldnt take too long for Congress to abolish the Federal Reserve, and establish its own interest free reserve bank.
The Third Evil, is that Jurors are not informed of their right to Jury Nullification, which was the primary purpose of the system when it originated in Old England.
The best body to decide the meaning of the Constitution, are the people (the jury) themselves; and if the people deliver a terribly unjust Guilty verdict, the Judge always retains the power to overrule the jury.
Hopefully you have taken at least a few things Ive written into consideration, even just a few of these things will make great progress in restoring our liberties, our Republic and perhaps even Federalism.
Sincerely Yours,
Edward Solomon
