A significant change to our bylaws has taken place. You can see them on our “About” page. Basically if you are registered to vote with your county Board of Elections as a “Libertarian” you are now a general member of the GRLP and have voting rights at our annual convention to select our officers. Welcome to our roughly 300 new members!
Below is a video of two of our activists addressing City Council about the proposed “Drug Free Zones” legislation.
The Affordable Care Act is Bad for Millennials
A recent Gallup poll showed that 51% of respondents ages 18-29 approve of the ACA, while only 44% disapprove. The 18-29 year old category was the only age group that had a greater approval than disapproval rating. Overall, President Obama’s approval rating among 18-29 year olds has remained higher than other age groups, so that might explain part of the polling data. However, ACA approval may not be partisan: many young adults have given the ACA credit for lowering rates of uninsured among the 18-29 year demographic. Part of the reason may be that people can now stay on their parents plan up to age 26. But “Expanded” insurance coverage does not help everyone:
If you’re a millennial and your parents or your parent’s employer pay for your continued health coverage, then Obamacare seems fantastic.
Unfortunately, not everyone is so lucky. Some people don’t have parents with health insurance plans to cover their children. Sometimes parents expect their adult children to pay for the cost of insurance themselves. Or you could be in one of the millions of families who are losing their insurance because of the Affordable Care Act. Remember, ‘If you like your insurance plan, you can keep it?’ Well that turned out to be a lie. The Obama administration knew when passing the law that 40%-67% of plans could terminate.
Either way, young adults now have to shell out several hundred more dollars per year on health insurance. Normally, the “young invincibles” would opt out of buying insurance all together because they calculate that they’ll pay more in premium than they would for any out of pocket medical expenses. Premiums are expensive and forgoing insurance seems like a wise economic choice. (Whether it is or not is none of the government’s business.) However, you no longer have that economic choice. The state has made it for you.
Now, every American MUST purchase insurance or pay a “tax.” Either you’re forced to give your money to an insurance company (crony capitalism!) or give your money to the government. Forcing poor people to buy something, even if it were good for them does not necessarily make them better off nor does it solve the root problem. Here’s a great argument for why an individual mandate would have terrible consequences. (Spoiler! It’s Barack Obama!)
The individual mandate is in the ACA for the sole purpose of forcing young healthy people to buy insurance. Without it, the system would collapse in a premium “death spiral.” Young people need to pay higher premiums that subsidize the care of older and sicker Americans. According to Time, 2.7 million people between the ages of 18-35 will have to sign up for the exchanges to be solvent. Just like out national debt, it’s another generational wealth transfer.
Here’s a great propaganda video from Healthcare.gov explaining the importance of health insurance. It isn’t completely wrong; insurance has its benefits. Especially covering people for catastrophic, expensive events. However, our insurance based healthcare system is not without its adverse effects.
Insurance masks the cost of medical care, which eliminates free market checks on rising medical prices. Patients have a co-pay or a deductible that doesn’t cover the full cost of procedures and there is little negotiation for service. The American Medical Association fixes the prices of medical procedures and insurance companies pass along the increased costs of these procedures to consumers in the form of higher premiums. The higher costs are dispersed, so they’re hard to notice.
Sure, you could get a catastrophic plan if you’re under 30, but even so, health insurance premiums are going up because of increased coverage requirements for basic plans.
Under the ACA, the government forces insurance plans to cover more medical procedures and sometimes provides lower out of pocket expenses if something goes wrong. But you will pay for it in higher premiums. With the exception of only five states, buying health insurance coverage on the individual market will go up under this law. (New York is one of the states where premiums go down, but we still have one of the highest rates in the nation.)
The ACA talking point in response to this has been “nearly 5 in 10 young people will qualify for insurance as little as $50 per month,” Just as bragging about the number of people covered by food stamps is a double edged sword, this is a pyrrhic victory for progressives.
One interesting article on the millennial driven news site, PolicyMic, bragged “In states that are expanding Medicaid coverage under the ACA, 84% of uninsured young adults could pay less than $100 a month for health insurance premiums.” Translation: 84% of young adults are suffering so much in this economy that most make less than $15,000 a year (the new Medicaid eligibility threshold); luckily the government is there to rescue them. Source. $7.1 million Millenials are living near the poverty line. They may be eligible for coverage, but that figure is indicative of far greater systematic problems with the welfare state. The Affordable Care Act only aggravates these issues.
Although the Obama administration has chosen to exempt many businesses with over 50 employees from covering all of their full time workers, the draconian law has still impacted the ability of young people to find full time work. The Healthcare law incentivizes employers to hire only part time workers for which they are not required to provide health coverage. Driving up the costs of hiring full time employees makes employers hesitant to take on new staff, especially unproven recent college grads with little experience. I know it’s cliché, but Obamacare is a job killer and it will hurt millenials the most.
The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act is the worst of the excesses of our profit based insurance system and government controlled healthcare. Obamacare is crony capitalism at its finest. Young people are forced at the point of a gun to give their money to healthcare insurance companies whether they want to or not. Millennials will pay more into this system than they would under normal market conditions to subsidize the care of older, less healthy Americans. It also hurts our job prospects as employers are incentivized to take on part-time workers while at the same time entrenching the outdated employer based health system.
Only a truly Free Market Solution will solve our health care problems. The Libertarian Party needs to lead the charge to repeal this foolish law. It’s time we started electing quality free market candidates that challenge laws like the ACA at every level of government. You can do your part by donating to or volunteering for the GRLP today!
Protecting the Protectors
Nobody enjoys going through airport security checkpoints. For many people, including those on the No-Fly list and members of the We Won’t Fly group on Facebook, the prospect of having their bodily integrity violated by government stooges with authority complexes is enough to have them simply refuse to fly on commercial airlines. The Transportation Security Agency (TSA) is one of the many symptoms of an overwhelming lack of freedom maintained in the United States in this post 9-11 world, but as recent events show, the TSA may make us less safe.
When I was a kid, I used to watch superheroes on the television. It always seemed odd to me that Superman and Batman were mostly fighting criminals that were committing crimes in order to get the protagonists to “show themselves”, or to lure them into a trap. Somehow, it seemed to me that Metropolis might actually be better off without the Man of Steel drawing so much attention to it, and that perhaps Gotham wouldn’t constantly be under threat by super-villains if there weren’t the Dark Knight hanging out on roofs there.
As we all know, a 23 year old man named Paul Anthony Ciancia targeted TSA agents in a shooting committed at Los Angeles International. Would this event have happened if the TSA did not exist? Unlike Superman or Batman, the TSA cannot secure themselves, provide no security to anyone else, and cost Americans billions every year.
According to USA Today, the union representing the TSA (The American Federation of Government Employees) has released a statement requesting armed officers at all TSA checkpoints. It is very telling that the government response to a school shooting where large amounts of children were killed is to take away guns. However, when there is a shooting that targets government employees, the government advocates adding more guns to the situation. Apparently, someone needs to secure the security. This is akin to Superman needing to hire a bodyguard, and demonstrates that the TSA does not provide any level of real security now.
The term “Security Theater” is very appropriate when discussing the TSA. Almost everyone knows a friend who accidentally sneaked a knife or some other “not allowed” implement through security (I’ve heard of one case of a man discovering an inert training grenade in his bag after going through security on leave from military service), and their scanners are not effective at detecting objects stored on the sides of peoples bodies.
The TSA has a terrible track record of preventing potential terrorist attacks, both from incompetence and lack of actual terrorist threats. One might recall on Christmas of 2009, the TSA never inspected Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, the infamous Underwear Bomber. The TSA doesn’t inspect inbound flights until after they land, thus if any would-be underwear bomber wanted to attempt a similar attack, they would simply need to try the same thing, but ensure the wiring was better. Thankfully, the underwear bomb failed in this instance, and the bomber was arrested upon landing.
According to Politifact, air travel is the safest form of travel. This being the case, one might ask why we need the TSA at all. Most evidence suggest that, at the very least, they’re an expensive waste that provides no security aspect, and at worse makes us less safe. The shooting at LAX, though tragic, should never have really been unexpected. We live in the real world, and there is no Superman to protect our airports, and no Batman to ward off terrorists. We only have regular humans.
A Uniform Libertarian Image
Mark E. Glogowski, Ph.D.
On the Quinn and Rose talk radio show, Quinn discussed the failures of congress and commented on the Republican and Democratic parties’ failures and ineffectiveness. He stated very adamantly that he believed America needs a strong, vibrant third political party. After talking about how the Tea Party was not a political party and discussed several other third parties as undesirable options, he lamented over the Libertarian party. In his view the Libertarian party will never be a major third party because when you get 10 Libertarians in a room you will hear 10 different opinions concerning any one issue. His point was clear: The Libertarian party does not have uniform principles. If it has some, it certainly is not clear to any one what they are because Libertarians never seem to agree on anything!
Our foes have continually repeated this damaging accusation of Libertarians. But Libertarians can only blame ourselves for perpetuating the notion that we do not have consistent principles and it is one of the reasons the Libertarian party is not growing 10 fold or more every year. However, there are some solutions to this problem.
First let’s recognize what it is that makes us Libertarians and not Democrats or Republicans. The Libertarian Worldview is that people are responsible for themselves and that people are basically good and should be empowered. The Libertarian Worldview differs from Republicans who believe that people are responsible for themselves, but also that people are evil, or tend to be evil, and therefore government must create controls using rules, regulations, zoning codes, and regulatory agencies. The Worldview of the Democrats is that the government is responsible for the welfare of its citizens even if each citizen is basically good. After all, aren’t there socially redeeming values even in the criminal elements of our society? And, the Libertarian Worldview is not the Worldview of the Green (or Reform) party who believe government is responsible for all of society and because of the evil tendencies of each individual, people have to be strictly controlled and government solutions should be implemented whether people want them or not.
If we inspected every argument Libertarians put on the table, Libertarian solutions would advocate that individuals should make their own decisions and that they should be empowered, not restricted, to implement their own solutions – as long as they do no harm to others! This simple message is a unifying banner all Libertarians can get behind.
Next, one of the most powerful messages Libertarians can send is to register with the Board of Elections with the Libertarian Party. By doing so, individuals made a public statement concerning their political beliefs as well as what political philosophy they want our elected officials and government to embrace. The Libertarian Party’s recognition of them should be in the form of a by-law change that will make registered Libertarians a part of the Libertarian Party. Of course, this will come sometime in the future when we get 50,000 votes for governor, but why wait?
Finally, let’s recognize that political ‘Moderates’ are individuals who theoretically embrace one Worldview but have publicly stated, through their party affiliation when they registered at the Board of Elections, that they have embraced a different Worldview and are fully supportive of that other party’s Worldview structure of our society. I believe the Libertarian Party should never place these individuals in positions of power in our party until they make their public statement with their registration at the Board of Elections. Otherwise all we are doing is perpetuating and reinforcing the image that Libertarians have no common political beliefs. People like Ron Paul and other ‘libertarian leaning’ individuals in other political parties are not Libertarians. They are political ‘Moderates’, of which I hold a very low opinion because Moderates claim they embrace one political philosophy but publicly make a contradictory statement.
In politics, image is everything. Let’s do a better job and clean up ours.
Remember the Non-Aggression Principle?
Libertarianism seems to be a hot word in the media and on the Internet these days, and many people are starting to describe themselves as such, either by calling themselves “Libertarians” or “Libertarian-Republicans.” Because many former Republicans are interested in Libertarianism lately, I think we should talk more about what to me is the most fundamental tenet of any Libertarian philosophy; the Non-Aggression Principle (or NAP).
It is a simple axiom. Wikipedia sums it up pretty well by stating that it is a moral stance which asserts that aggression is inherently illegitimate. This doesn’t really get into the finer details, but overall, it states the following:
-You should not ever initiate force on another person,
-Other people are obligated to not initiate force against you,
-You don’t have to tolerate others initiating force against you.
You can easily navigate most situations with the NAP. If you want to throw any political situation against it, it can easily show the answer. Should gays be allowed to marry? Yes, because you haven’t any right to stop them. Should I be able to smoke in a bar? Yes, so long as the owner doesn’t mind you smoking in his bar. Should I be able to throw knives at children? No.
Some people, when debating the NAP, like to invent difficult situations and finding how the NAP applies to it gets tricky. For example, imagine two row-boats passing each other in a large lake. One of them has a leak, and the man in that boat asks the man in the other boat to let him on so he doesn’t drown.
The man in the good boat is obviously obligated to avoid smacking the drowning man with his paddle. One can ask, however, is he obligated to let him on?
I would argue that no, he isn’t; however most people probably would let him on, and if they do, the man they save should be very thankful.
One might also ask if the drowning man would be violating the NAP if he simply climbed aboard uninvited. This is an interesting question, because forcing your way onto a row-boat in any other circumstance would clearly be an NAP violation. Ayn Rand (the founder of the philosophy of Objectivism, which is occasionally likened to Libertarian philosophy, despite Ayn Rand not liking the Libertarians of her day) would say that this falls under “Emergency Ethics”, in which case the world has conspired against you and you have the right to defend yourself, even if it hurts others in the process, to defend yourself against a cruel and ironic fate at the hands of nature.
This may sound like a crazy hypothetical, but one must consider these when in a position of drafting or supporting any government policy. It is my firm belief that, before one makes any rule or value into a law, one should consider what the punishment should be for an offense, and go to the extremes.
Let’s say hypothetically that you are the Supreme Dictator of All Policy, and as this dictator, you decide that sky-diving should be made illegal. It is a health hazard, and you think that for the safety of your constituents, this activity should never be undertaken by anyone. You should think before you sign it into law as to whether or not it should be a crime which should be punished by throwing a violator into a cage.
You may decide that this is too much punishment for the crime, and think that a fine would be preferable. If you choose to do so, realize that if one refuses to pay that fine, your only recourse is to send him a larger fine. You can try seizing the money in any bank accounts he may have, but that would make you a thief. You could also try sending police over to throw him in a cage, but that would make you a kidnapper. You could also a variety of other things, but each would make you a worse person than the one who committed the crime. There is no way to enforce any such law without violating the NAP, for if you don’t violate the NAP, then you cannot force the sky-diver to pay your fine.
This leaves you in a pickle; if you cannot enforce your laws, then how can they be considered laws? The answer is obviously they can’t. The only time force should ever be used is in response to the force that someone else initiated.
The NAP is one of the cornerstones of Libertarianism. A country that respects the NAP would also, by default, respect free-market capitalism, free ownership and use of weapons, freedom of businesses to hire and fire whomever they choose, and any other freedom that our current government stifles.
Lords of the Land
By Daniel Cole
You own your property, right? WRONG.
The Federal Government has the power justified by the Fifth Amendment to seize a private individual’s land for “public use” as long as it provides “just compensation”. This practice, termed eminent domain, is enshrined in our Constitution… but is it libertarian? Traditionally eminent domain was used for unambiguous public use such as courthouses, roads, and schools; but since the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in 1954 (Berman v. Parker) that has all changed for the worse. The State now claims the power to take property away from citizens for “public purpose” (later changed by some states to “public benefits”), broadening the definition, and resulting in a massive power transfer from the people to the government ripe for abuse.
Is eminent domain ever justified? Yes, but only if there was prior consent or all parties agree to the conditions set. Imagine a scenario where you join a neighborhood association with the knowledge that certain decisions would be determined by a majority of homeowners. Now imagine that one of these powers agreed upon by joining was the power to determine the width of your driveway or the color of your house. This example demonstrates prior consent and a contractual obligation from belonging to the neighborhood association. This is reasonable and justifiable eminent domain. But this is hardly the eminent domain employed by the government today. First, the idea of prior consent has not been agreed upon. The rules were determined many years ago without your approval or input and there is no way to opt-out of the system, it is inherently coercive and forced on you. Resistance to having your property stolen is met with force, further property seizure, and jail time. Furthermore secession is not a possibility. Secondly, if you agree that your property can be taken for “public use” (e.g. courthouses and schools) this idea has been perverted well beyond it’s original intent. Take for example the seizure of land for oil companies (Keystone XL pipeline),fracking companies, underwater mortgage holders, housing developments, and bus companies right here in Rochester (RGRTA). The power that was once meant to be used in an extremely limited manner has now become the norm for well-connected and powerful industries to take desirable property. The idea that these projects are beneficial and for public use is arguable and often doubtful. Nevertheless your input is not considered, the authority is exercised by the whims of those with power for those with power.
Sure, eminent domain can be bad sometimes, but does it really effect people? The real-world effects of eminent domain abuse are some of the more convincing reasons to oppose it. The Institute for Justice reports, 58% of the population effected includes minority residents, their median income is less than $19,000 per year, 25% live at or below the poverty line, and a greater percentage of residents have less than a high school diploma compared to residents of surrounding neighborhoods. In other words those effected are minorities, low income, in poverty, and uneducated. Supporters of liberty and civil rights must oppose this grievous abuse of power.
The Greater Rochester Libertarian Party is taking a stand against eminent domain. The Rochester-Genesee Regional Transportation Authority is attempting to seize the property of 21 home and business-owners to expand it’s bus garages and parking lots. The GRLP can’t stand by and witness the exploitation of the people by an overreaching government partnered with a pseudo-public for-profit company. Help us defend the Chamberlain and Hayward community and volunteer for the GRLP today!
“…whenever the legislators endeavor to take away, and destroy the property of the people, or to reduce them to slavery under arbitrary power, they put themselves into a state of war with the people, who are thereupon absolved from any further obedience, and are left to the common refuge, which God hath provided for all men, against force and violence.” – John Locke (Second Treatise of Government)
By Jeff Magee
There is a movement on the rise in the country, a movement older then the Magna Carta, where its roots were first written, and as new as September 23rd this year.
The movement is called the Common Law (or Citizens) Grand Jury and was guaranteed in the Fifth Amendment and reaffirmed in the Supreme Court ruling of US v Williams in 1992 where Judge Antonin Scalia writing for the 6-3 majority confirmed that indeed the American grand jury was not part of the three branches of government, but a separate fourth branch wholly owned and administered by the People.
The present day Grand Juries are created from a Bar Association approved, State run jury pool selected lottery style. The number of jurists has been set to 23 persons. The purpose of the jury is to make a decision as to whether there is enough evidence to move forward to indict or dismiss a case at hand. Just enough evidence is presented to attempt to sway the jury to indict based on the law as it is dictated by the prosecutor; remember this is a State run jury! It can only act on cases it is presented and has no power other than stopping or allowing the State’s case to go forward. Hardly seems to be owned and operated by the People, does it?
The Common Law Grand Jury differs in that it is comprised of volunteers who have come together to sit as a jury. Common Law Grand Juries consist of 25 people whose oath swears to honor, justice and mercy as dictated by the Magna Carta. Though it can determine the validity of a case presented by the State, through the use of presentment it can also initiate investigations and issue indictments without the dictate of the court and prosecutor. It is a jury based on the principles of Common Law, the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution and the Bill of Rights rather than the law as handed to it by the State.
Imagine the ‘Stop & Frisk’ actions being used throughout the state in violation of the Fourth Amendment or the intense persecution of the recreational drug user. These cases being presented to a Common Law Grand Jury would be judged on the core founding documents first and case law after. It basically takes the control of the grand jury from the State and places in properly into the hands of the People. In a day of wide spread government corruption this power must be used carefully and wisely as it will surely startle many of the corrupt in high places, limiting the powers of a police state mentality.
On September 23rd, 2013, an election was held in Monroe County to join with the other 17 counties in New York State that have elected to form a Common Law Grand Jury. With 62 counties in the state, there is work to be done to tackle state-wide issues but once formed can act to return freedoms taken under color of law.
There are presently 46 states involved in this effort to wrest control from a corrupt judicial system and patriots working to fill these juries in every county in the country, but more are needed. The jury pool of 25 is not a permanent placement, no public service was ever meant to be, so jurors will serve for a period and others must replace them. Yes, it means giving of your time; studying and debating on the merits of an issue with little or no monetary compensation. But it also means a return to common sense and real fairness in the system with the People taking an active role in governing rather than having Big Brother making all the rules and running your life.
This old idea of self-governance now being renewed will not be without its detractors, but a recent statement by one county organizer filing the necessary paperwork said it all: resistance has been feeble. If you would like to learn more about the movement and brush up on Common Law in general, visit the National Liberty Alliance to learn more and if so inclined, register to become a jurist.
The Immigration Problem – A libertarian’s Solution
Mark E. Glogowski, Ph.D.
When foreigners step across the US border without ‘official’ permission they enter the bizarre world of a special class of privileged outcasts – criminals called ‘illegal immigrants’. This distinct class of migrants are pursued by government agencies, taken advantage of by unscrupulous ‘business’ people, denied police protection, recruited into the armies of drug lords and despised by the American citizens they admire and wanted to become part of. If they accept a job and begin earning a living, they are still despised criminals, but now their employer is a criminal too. In some states, good Samaritans who offer help become instant criminals themselves. On the other hand, help and encouragement in their criminal act is readily provided to these foreigners by many states in the form of driver’s licenses, welfare, food stamps, an education for their kids, medical care, and loans – that they can’t afford to repay – to buy a house! Bizarre!
This situation is the product of the current immigration policy that was structured by Democrats’ and Republicans’ according to their Worldview. It doesn’t work! The policy has pitted states against states and states against the US Government. It has criminalized descent people, both foreigners and citizens. It is completely illogical.
There is a rational libertarian Worldview solution to the immigration problem based on the belief that every individual is responsible for their own welfare and that every person has the right to be treated with respect. If we change the law, seven simple steps could resolve nearly all of the immigration problems in the US today.
One: Stop calling illegal immigrants ‘illegal’ and Stop calling them ‘immigrants’. They are neither. They are free people that crossed an imaginary line.
Two: Acknowledge that foreigners in our country are guests: They should be treated that way. They are either:
2) Tourists with work papers, or
Three: Insure that individuals do not become immediate wayfarersii. This can be done quickly with a policy that allows foreigners to enter the country as tourists for a variable period of time, the length of which would be determined by the individual’s ability to financially provide for their welfare and to support those traveling with them.
Four: Require a ‘transportation’ deposit be left at the border, to be used for transportation back home should the individual(s) at any time find him or herself destitute, i.e., a wayfarer.
Five: If the tourist finds a job during their stay and becomes a productive member of society, they should immediately be given work papers without hesitation and also the opportunity to apply for citizenship.
Six: The tourist should be required to return home if:
1) At any time prior to the end of their initially allotted time they no longer have the funds to support him or herself, and
2) They reached the end of their permitted stay and have failed to secure a job.
When a tourist runs out of funds and becomes a wayfarer, the tourist should be entitled to go to any government agency or office (local, state, or federal) and receive a bus or train ticket back to the border crossing they entered at.
I ask the reader to suppress establishing the knee jerk expectation “They won’t leave and they will become “illegal immigrants”: The seventh and eighth steps provide a reason the ‘tourist’ will voluntarily comply with the requirement to return home and not become an illegal traveler.
Seven: At the end of their allowed stay, require the traveler to document that
1) They have a job (thus entitled to have work papers and an opportunity to become a citizen), or
2) That they have already returned home, or
3) That they need, and are waiting for, transportation back home.
Eight: Make their ability to have another opportunity return to the US in the future, with the potential of obtaining work papers if they find a job, dependent on their having complied with step seven. If they complied, they are entitled return and to try again – step three.
Consider the possibilities. The structure of our society would surely change. An expanded tourist industry, with foreigners entering as tourists, treated with dignity as welcomed guests, welcomed to stay when they demonstrate they can make a positive contribution to our society! The economic and social impact of the proposed libertarian immigration policy on society could be phenomenally positive – especially in states like California that are being bankrupted by the current immigration policy.
i A wayfarer is an individual in a country, other than their homeland, with no means to support him or herself and no money to get home
ii Special separate programs can be, and have been, established for indigent and persecuted individuals.
One of our members was involved in the planning of this effort independent of the GRLP, but we thought we would share it anyway.
THIS IS A PUBLIC NOTICE
OF A PUBLIC ELECTION FOR THE REINSTATEMENT
OF A MONROE COUNTY COMMON LAW GRAND JURY
“Whenever people are well-informed they can be trusted with their own government”
PLEASE BE ADVISED THAT –
We the People will be holding an election to reinstate the Common Law Grand Jury here
in Monroe County at the Penfield Public Library, Ruth Braman meeting room,
1985 Baird Rd., Penfield New York 14625 on Monday, September 23, 2013 at
There will be a 35 min Presentation starting at 7:00 PM and a vote by showing of hands will be at 7:35
PM. All participants will then be invited to register for the Common Law Grand Jury.
This event is not sponsored by or affiliated with the public library.
Contact: David Paul
CONSTITUTION OF A COMMON LAW GRAND JURY -Inasmuch as for the sake of God, for the bettering of our sovereignty,
and for the more ready healing of the discord which has arisen between us and our civil servants, wishing to establish
justice, insure domestic tranquility, and secure the blessings of liberty to enjoy forever in its entirety. The people may select
at their pleasure twenty five + people from the sovereignty, who ought, with all their strength, to observe, maintain; and
cause to be observed, the peace and unalienable rights. If any of our civil servants shall have transgressed against any of the
people in any respect and they shall ask us to cause that error to be amended without delay, or shall have broken some one
of the articles of peace or security, and their transgression shall have been shown to four Jurors of the aforesaid twenty five
and if those four Jurors are unable to settle the transgression they shall come to the twenty-five, showing to the Grand Jury
the error which shall be enforced by the law of the land. [MAGNA CARTA, JUNE 15, A.D. 1215, 61.]
DUTY OF THE GRAND JURY – If anyone’s unalienable rights have been violated, or removed, without a legal sentence of
their peers, from their lands, home, liberties or lawful right, we [the twenty-five] shall straightway restore them. And if a
dispute shall arise concerning this matter it shall be settled according to the judgment of the twenty-five Grand Jurors, the
sureties of the peace. [MAGNA CARTA, JUNE 15, A.D. 1215, 52.]