My friend Elias Alias responded to Michael Becker's blog entry in a very statesmanlike manner. To read Becker's blog article, go to: http://www.news.hypercrit.net/2014/01/09/more-on-so-called-common-law-gr....
Elias Writes:
Michael Becker,
I applaud your notion to look more deeply into background on stories you may cover for your job as a reporter. I would also like to suggest to you that attacking the character of a person in focus in a story must be carefully done. The topic here was the "common law grand jury". Looking hard to see what side of the political aisle the advocates for common law grand juries chance to be on is risky journalism, imo.
You have quoted a bit of Scalia, which is good. But I would encourage you to dig deeper and look for other Supreme Court pronouncements regarding the common law grand jury. There are actually a number of such cases, cases in which the Supreme Court recognizes what Scalia reiterated - that the Grand Jury belongs to the People and is not subject to the three Federal branches of government. In your conclusion above, you note that the common law grand jury is "illegal". That may prove to be a precocious pronouncement, Amigo. If you continue to dig deeper, you'll come to see this for yourself.
Please allow me to inject a meme into your mindset which could possibly help you in your search for the greater truth on this topic. We look often at the Tenth Amendment. The Tenth Amendment states that any powers not delegated by the States to the General (Federal) government are reserved to the States OR to the People. It does not say "AND to the people." It says "OR" to the People. Why would our Founders use the word "or" instead of "and"? Students of the Constitution come to understand that "We The People" are the ultimate source for authority and legitimacy in all government. The People, acting in concert, rebelled against the British government while yet Colonists of Great Britain. They then constituted themselves into States, with sovereignty and international standing, with their respective laws and other infrastructural components common to any nation-state. As independent States, they convened to create a compact called the Articles of Confederation, which elected U.S. Presidents during the period before our Constitution was created and ratified. During that time each State was a republic, was autonomous, and retained autonomous sovereignty as a nation. When they convened again to improve upon the Articles of Confederation, their convention turned into a Constitutional convention, owing to the labors of James Madison, who is generally known as the "Father of the Constitution". One of our fine rivers here is named after him, yes? While just how it happened is a never-ending debate, the convention to modify and alter or improve the Articles of Confederation morphed into a convention which produced our present-day Constitution. Before the States would ratify it, they demanded that the Bill of Rights be in place as the first Ten Amendments, which we yet today refer to as the Bill of Rights. Of course you know all that already. But I'm reminding your readers of that, here, to set the stage for introducing a grand thought which is relative to your concern about common law grand juries. One final hint:
In his Ft. Hill Address of the 1830s, John C. Calhoun gave us one sentence which cuts to the chase in many arguments since he uttered this:
"The error is in the assumption that the General government was party to the compact."
You see, Michael, the States, each of them being at that time an independent, sovereign nation-state republic, signed the compact which created the General (Federal) government. If you look below the Constitution you will find their signatories - but - you will find no signature on behalf of the Federal government on that document.
That is because the General (Federal) government did not exist until the States signed that compact among themselves, with each party-State owning a co-equal status in that compact with every other State in compact. The States created the General (Federal) government.
And the States themselves derived their authority and autonomy and sovereignty from.....whom? From We The People, which is why those three words are the first three words in the document. We _ The _ People. That is why the Tenth Amendment uses the word "OR" instead of the word "AND" in its qualifier phrase, "...to the States or to the People".
One can begin to realize the genius in that perspective when one recalls that our Founders specified a higher authority than the government they created. They did that with the term "unalienable rights", which they said derive from Nature or Nature's God. (Natural rights, which is the basis of "Common Law", which is a totally different form of law from "statutory law". This nation's founders wrote the Constitution to preserve our unalienable rights under Natural (Common) Law. If you look at the Constitution, you'll notice that it is a document limiting the authorities and powers of the General (Federal) government. Article 1, Section 8, tells the government what it should do. The Bill of Rights tells the General government what it cannot infringe upon - which is our unalienable rights. And the Tenth Amendment tells the General government that if it is not listed in Article 1, Section 8, it is reserved to the States or to the People.
Our Constitution is neither "left" nor "right". It is *above* the political fray of factions or "political partiers", which our Founders, especially George Washington, abhorred. (George Washington did not want to see political parties in this country.) For your investigation to focus on political philosophies of involved and named characters in your story in the Chronicle is a bit of a short-coming on your part, but one which is easily understandable to me.
To bring up John Darash's membership in Oath Keepers serves what purpose, if not to fragment the overall presentation of otherwise-facts, by defining his philosophy as a Constitutionalist? That is what Oath Keepers is - an educational group with outreach to police and military and firefighters and Veterans, whom we approach with materials showing the history of the Constitution which they are required to swear or affirm an Oath to before assuming their duties in service to America or the State or the County or the Township. Our membership consists of all walks of American life, both left and right, both centrist and non-opinionated. Like the Constitution itself, Oath Keepers embraces all Americans as co-equal in rights and the protections of the state (government). Contrary to what the SPLC will tell people, Oath Keepers is not a "far-right" organization. Additionally, Oath Keepers has not made any formal policy statement regarding the Grand Jury phenomenon, not at this time, but our Board of Directors, of which I am a member, is now beginning to look into the matter. We are interested in Constitutional questions about this, and we are open-minded about it. If you chance to want to share your own research with me, please use this method to contact me.
1 - Go to http://www.oathkeepers.org/
2 - look under our site's banner and click on "Contact"
3 - Address your contact info to "For Elias"
4 - leave me your email address in that fashion and I'll send you my personal contact info.
That said, perhaps you would like to talk further with me about Constitutional issues, or about Oath Keepers. I am not an authority on Grand Juries, but I am authorized to speak with you publicly or in print about Oath Keepers.
Thanks for your time.
Salute!
Elias Alias, Montana Oath Keepers, Oath Keepers national website editor, member Oath Keepers Board of Directors, Honorably discharged US Marine and Veteran, Vietnam War, Three Forks, Montana
