Comment: Words

(See in situ)


The history of Switzerland clearly proves that we might be in amicable alliance with those states without adopting this Constitution. Switzerland is a confederacy, consisting of dissimilar governments. This is an example which proves that governments of dissimilar structures may be confederated. That confederate republic has stood upwards of four hundred years; and, although several of the individual republics are democratic, and the rest aristocratic, no evil has resulted from this dissimilarity; for they have braved all the power of France and Germany during that long period. The Swiss spirit, sir, has kept them together; they have encountered and overcome immense difficulties with patience and fortitude. In the vicinity of powerful and ambitious monarchs, they have retained their independence, republican simplicity, and valor.


Second, federalism permits the states to operate as laboratories of democracy-to experiment with various policies and Programs. For example, if Tennessee wanted to provide a state-run health system for its citizens, the other 49 states could observe the effects of this venture on Tennessee's economy, the quality of care provided, and the overall cost of health care. If the plan proved to be efficacious other states might choose to emulate it, or adopt a plan taking into account any problems surfacing in Tennessee. If the plan proved to be a disastrous intervention, the other 49 could decide to leave the provision of medical care to the private sector. With national plans and programs, the national officials simply roll the dice for all 284 million people of the United States and hope they get things right.

Experimentation in policymaking also encourages a healthy competition among units of government and allows the people to vote with their feet should they find a law of policy detrimental to their interests. Using again the state-run health system as an example, if a citizen of Tennessee was unhappy with Tennessee's meddling with the provisions of health care, the citizen could move to a neighboring state. Reallocation to a state like North Carolina, with a similar culture and climate, would not be a dramatic shift and would be a viable option. Moreover, if enough citizens exercised this option, Tennessee would be pressured to abandon its foray into socialized medicine, or else lose much of its tax base. To escape a national health system, a citizen would have to emigrate to a foreign country, an option far less appealing and less likely to be exercised than moving to a neighboring state. Without competition from other units of government,the national government would have much less incentive than Tennessee would to modify the objectionable policy. Clearly, the absence of experimentation and competition hampers the creation of effective programs and makes the modification of failed national programs less likely.

A Federation, something that was in effect between 1776 and 1788 under the Articles of Confederation, the numerous Constitutionally Limited Republics were Voluntarily Joined into a Federation.

A Federation worked, works, and will still work like a free market for investors seeking to invest in Voluntary Government based upon the consent of the governed (voluntary) and they have many products to choose from, ranging from least capable of defending Liberty (voluntary associations), most expensive, on one end, and on the other end of the number of choices the shopper can invest in the most capable of defending Liberty at the least cost to the consumer.

Despots hate it.

Despots steal money and then hire liars to maintain the lies that cover up their crimes.

Where can someone find a good liar when one is desperately needed to cover up the facts about how Trial by Jury worked within a Federation of Constitutionally Limited Republics defending Liberty with their Voluntary Union?

When a Constitutionally Limited Republic was being threatened by a out of control (despotic) Federal Government, as far as the people representing that Republic were concerned, those Employees running that Constitutionally Limited Republic, they could stop investing in the Voluntary Union at will, and therefore stop paying for their membership in the Federation.

Despots and their minions can't tolerate Voluntary Associations whereby the members of the Voluntary Union can choose to pay for, or not pay for, membership in the Voluntary Union, so those despots work diligently to suppress the value of Voluntary Association such as the one that worked well enough between 1776 and 1788, in defense of Liberty, to drive off the largest Criminal Army of Aggression for Profit then on the planet: The Bank of England and their minions.

Trial by Jury, with or without employees hired to keep the sewers running, worked to keep all the Employers and all the Employees checked with that balance of giving everyone capable of reason license to sit on a Jury.

FOR more than six hundred years - that is, since Magna Carta, in 1215 - there has been no clearer principle of English or American constitutional law, than that, in criminal cases, it is not only the right and duty of juries to judge what are the facts, what is the law, and what was the moral intent of the accused; but that it is also their right, and their primary and paramount duty, to judge of the justice of the law, and to hold all laws invalid, that are, in their opinion, unjust or oppressive, and all persons guiltless in violating, or resisting the execution of, such laws.

Unless such be the right and duty of jurors, it is plain that, instead of juries being a "palladium of liberty "- a barrier against the tyranny and oppression of the government - they are really mere tools in its hands, for carrying into execution any injustice and oppression it may desire to have executed.

But for their right to judge of the law, and the justice of the law, juries would be no protection to an accused person, even as to matters of fact; for, if the government can dictate to a jury any law whatever, in a criminal case, it can certainly dictate to them the laws of evidence. That is, it can dictate what evidence is admissible, and what inadmissible, and also what force or weight is to be given to the evidence admitted. And if the government can thus dictate to a jury the laws of evidence, it can not only make it necessary for them to convict on a partial exhibition of the evidence rightfully pertaining to the case, but it can even require them to convict on any evidence whatever that it pleases to offer them.

The reason why that worked so well is understood by people who are capable of reason. Not so much for those who are either insane, or stupid, or feeble minded, or paid to lie well.

The reasoning of why that worked so well was not lost, is not now lost, and if lost in the future, there is a reasonable chance that it will be reinvented and returned to good use in defense of Liberty.

Amendment VII

In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.