Analysis and Commentary

Given the amount of research involved, I must apologize for my delay in posting my analysis and commentary. For the time being, I will use this page to discuss things which should be considered for implementation into the Illinois Constitution. I will offer website links to the organizations and associations which have developed and promote these ideas, and will only touch on my rationale for including such ideas in the general discussion for their inclusion in the Constitution.

Power of Jury Nullification - Please visit the Fully Informed Jury Association at fija.org for more information.

The power of juries goes back centuries. For the purposes of the new constitution, I will focus on the relevance beginning with the common law of England to modern times. Jury nullification is the doctrine which holds that a trial conducted before an empanelled jury of the peers of the accused has the right to judge the facts of the case, as well as the law itself. What this means is, if the government passes a law which imposes a penalty for a particular act, or for failing to act in a particular way, the jury may examine the law; its application in the particular case facing the accused, and notwithstanding the facts of whether or not the accused did in-fact commit the deed or fail to act as prescribed by law, the jury can find the accused not guilty solely on the basis of their finding the law onerous, unjust, overly punitive, contrary to liberty, or for any reason they  may deem sufficient, without any accounting to any government actor.

For example, the law may specify that a person found guilty of an offense, and who has also been convicted twice for similar offenses before, shall be subject to the "three strikes rule" and have a mandatory sentence consisting of a minimum of 15 years in prison with no parole. Now, a man who has been convicted twice before for an offense, let's say misdemeanor theft, finds himself having to steal something for his child to eat. It has been 10 years since he has committed a crime, but dire circumstances cause the man to act out of necessity. The two prior instances showed the man pleading guilty in hopes of leniency, thereby waiving his right to a trial by jury. So now the man faces a mandatory 15 years in prison for a non-violent misdemeanor in trying to feed his child. What is a jury to do? The judge will tell the jury that if the facts show the man did commit the act, the jury MUST find him guilty. There will be no latitude in the prescribed sentence, and the judge will determine what the law says; in this case, that the man must go to prison for 15 years.

A juror who exercises their conscience may find themselves in an awkward situation. The judge said that HE will determine the law, and if the jury finds the facts true, then they have no choice but to find the accused guilty. I beg to differ, but juries ALWAYS have a choice. Maybe a juror will take the circumstances into consideration and opt to not send the man to jail for such an offense. Maybe the man has offered to make amends to the store and pay back what he took. Can the juror approach the judge and ask for leniency? No. The law is strict and absolute. It may also be unjust, overly punitive, and immoral. The conscientious juror may decide that he has no alternative, but more appropriately the absolute power, to find the accused not guilty. The accused may be guilty of transgressing upon a unjust law, but he may not be guilty of causing harm to someone who cannot be made whole through some sort of retribution. The juror, or jury, can disregard the judge's orders and find the accused not guilty for any reason they feel is just. They are not accountable to anyone for their reasoning, and their decision is final, binding, and not subject to review by anyone.

You may ask yourselves, what does this have to do with the constitution? Government has acknowledged that this power of jury nullification exists. They also do not believe that jurors must be informed of this power when they are chosen to serve. Why? Government presumes the People to already know of this power, so they deem it redundant and unnecessary to inform them of a power they should already be aware of. How's that for perverted rationale?  Unfortunately, many jurors, having been brought up in the ranks of our government indoctrination camps, called public schools, do not know of or understand this power. Some feel it illegal or disrespectful to disobey a judges orders to only judge the facts. Look at it this way. If the government can permit juries to only determine if someone did in-fact commit a deed, and the government has control over the application of the law, then of what purpose is the jury? Whether someone violates an unjust law is of no consequence to the government. The validity of the law is never brought to question. This means that government can pass such laws and only give the accused the chance to challenge the facts, which can be manipulated by the government, and thus subject the accused to a trial by the government because the jury is a puppet to the judge.

The Illinois Constitution must acknowledge the power of juries to nullify ANY law they find unjust, immoral, overly punitive, or otherwise invalid, and to see to it that People are notified of this power through their education in public schools, and upon being chosen to serve as jurors. Jurors must be guaranteed total and complete immunity for their actions and findings, and be guaranteed no retaliation or inspection by government for their performance. A standard voir dire question should inquire about the prospective jurors knowledge, and understanding of, jury nullification; and any juror who does not meet a standard of understanding and knowledge should be dismissed from service.

The Judicial Accountability Initiative Law J.A.I.L. - The Judicial Accountability Initiative Law, J.A.I.L., is a single-issue national grassroots organization designed to end the rampant and pervasive judicial corruption in the legal system of the United States. J.A.I.L. recognizes this can be achieved only through making the Judicial Branch of government answerable and accountable to an entity other than itself. At this time it isn't, resulting in the judiciary's arbitrary abuse of the doctrine of judicial immunity, leaving the People without recourse when their inherent rights are violated by judges.

Restoration of Constitutional Rights for Felons

Believe it or not, there is no provision in the Constitution that forces felons to relinquish their rights. There are, however, provisions in the statutes that deny the privileges, also knows as "constitutional rights" of felons. Just because someone has been convicted of a felony doesn't mean their rights no longer exist. Nothing can take your rights away. You are born with them and they are as much a part of you as is your genetic makeup. However, United States citizens do not have such rights. They have civil liberties, privileges, constitutional rights. Unalienable rights come from your Creator. Constitutional rights, privileges, civil liberties... come from.....whom? Government, as it may so define from its interpretation of the Constitution. You should NEVER claim to have a constitutional right. You may have constitutional protections; government may have constitutional powers, but unless you were created by the Constitution how can you have any rights derived therein? Where am I going with this? This is basically an essay for the discussion of what rights apply to, not only felons, but ALL people who have abandoned their unalienable rights in favor of U.S. citizenship. I do believe that felons deserve the right to vote. Voting now is a privilege. It is not hard to transgress against government, even in an non-violent manner, and become a felon. Prisons produce more criminals; destroys more families; spends more money, than almost other governmental industry. Why should the victims of this corrupt system be denied a voice in voting to remedy these inequities? I attempted to be provocative here, but the issue is who can take your rights away in the first place when they come from your Creator? Why shouldn't felons have a voice in voting to correct a system that does more harm than those who it pretends to punish?

Concealed/Open Carry - First, I fully support the efforts of ICARRY.org, and will do whatever I can to help them get the word out to Citizens who seek to exercise their unalienable right to possess the protection they see fit for the defense of themselves and others. To my chagrin, I realize that I should have addressed this much earlier. My only excuse is that this is so obvious I didn't need to speak specifically to the issue. Let me be clear. I am in favor of, not the second amendment, but the inherent, unalienable right to defend ones' self, their loved ones, neighbors, and citizens. The second amendment, although a good idea, us often used as an excuse by government to weasel around the amendment's intent, and instead use the courts to interpret the meaning as it applies to the issues of the day. Yes, this means having the right to have, on your person, a firearm, be it concealed or not. I also believe that the use of a weapon against another in an act of aggression should be a dealt with harshly and swiftly. Without belaboring this obviously fundamental right, I feel it necessary to outline what I would do to protect this right; to remedy any injustice befalling those who exercise this right; and what to do to further safeguard this right. First, I will issue an executive order that prohibits any arrest or prosecution of anyone who is merely in the possession of a firearm and not engaged in a crime where that firearm is used in the commission thereof. Next, I would pardon anyone presently serving time, probation, or having such punishment on their record for a non-offensive use and carrying of a firearm. Lastly, I would push for a REAL constitutional amendment that allows the carrying of concealed or open weapons. Does this mean that we will have more armed people within the public-at-large? I don't know. We don't know how many armed people are out there now. There is no way to tell. There are probably plenty of armed bad guys, but again, no accounting of their numbers. The Illinois Constitution does not make it illegal to carry a concealed weapon. It states that "subject to the police power..." The police power does not mean the police have the right to say who can, or can't, carry a weapon. The police power primarily deals with commercial activities. It is not necessarily constitutional power. Police power does not apply to Citizens who are acting within their Sovereign state Citizenship. It pertains to United States citizens who derive from, and owe their privileges and immunities to, the federal government. If you are an American Citizen, then the police power does not touch you. Here is more information in police power, it's uses, and limitations.