I am proud to say that I allowed King County Superior Court to violate my Constitutionally-protected rights this week. I accepted jury duty.
Washington State’s jury duty law is in direct contradiction of Article XIII of the U.S. Constitution.
But what’s a little slavery among friends? I’m happy to be considered as a potential adjudicating peer of any accused grand thief, murderer, or driver with an Breathalyzer reading that is allegedly over the legally allowable statistic. And the experience gave me the opportunity to hear portions of the case of David A. Johnson, the black entrepreneur who had the misfortune of running into Silas Potter, head of the Seattle Public School district’s Regional Small Business Development Program [whose much-celebrated purpose, illegal on its face, was to give small businesses aid based on racial and gender preferences]. Potter, in turn, worked for or with: a) the Seattle Schools Superintendent, b) its Chief Financial and Operations Officer and directly under c) the now-awesome Fred Stephens.
Their collective political enterprise came apart.
- Johnson, the bottom rung, is facing prison.
- Potter, next above him, has accepted a plea agreement.
- Maria Goodloe-Johnson, Seattle School Superintendent, and
- Chief Financial and Operations Officer, Don Kennedy, were merely fired
- Fred Stephens, the man to whom Potter answered, is now a U.S. Department of Commerce under-secretary working for the St. Obama administration…
But while a person is involuntarily and unconstitutionally impaneled for jury duty (Washington’s constitution provides for trial by jury in Article I, Section 21 ~ nowhere does it say the legislature may provide for juries by force) the way I have been, undergoing the kind of cursory inquisition that ensues when one is being considered for a high and exalted jury position, King County assures us, that person’s right to keep and bear arms is also entirely abridged.
The only one allowed arms to defend himself in King County Superior Court (should some defense be necessary) is the judge. That is, unless there is some police officer there on duty. Police officers and judges are the exception to the “no armed defense” rule. And the reason for this is clear.
The only ones we can really trust in the County of King, in the State of Washington, in the United States of America are the agents of government. THEY can be trusted with guns (or other arms, or things that might be construed as arms, pocket knives, letter openers, aerosol cans, (or cameras, in my case) and such like). And that subtle difference – between who can be trusted and who can’t – accrues to the benefit of the prosecution in every case.
The PROSECUTION, mind you, is all government agents, trust-able people. The DEFENSE is made up of people from that other group, the ones who cannot even be allowed in the room with a nail file in their possession.
[Tuesday, literally while questioning prospective jurors, "Bottum-rung" Johnson appeared to break down emotionally... and the proceeding was recessed. Wednesday, he disappeared altogether and the jury pool for his case was disbanded. No word on whether Johnson made a run to escape the government that employed and instructed him or sleeps with the fishes.]
Last Saturday I had learned the reason the Republican Party does not object to the specific eradications of our Constitutional “guarantees” embodied in conscripted, disarmed juries. On June 22, at the “PCO training” offered by the Republican Liberty Caucus of Washington and taught by Dani Bolyard, it became clear. The Republican Party, according to Dani, does NOT stand for the original-intent interpretation of the Constitution at all, but for the “closest interpretation practicable.” Big difference.
As Michael Medved (and many others in the habit of supporting abridgements of the Constitution) is fond of saying, “The Constitution is not a suicide pact.” In short, it means that the government (they ARE the trusted voice of the people, you know) can ignore that cobwebbed document when it seems really important for their current project. It means the Constitution is more of a general suggestion than real law. The Republican Party intends government to follow the Constitution as long as it is “feasible, operable, possible, practical, viable, AND workable.” How would we get jurors to work for $10 a day if they weren’t forced? It’s not practicable.
The Liberty movement must simply learn to adjust to following their Republican Leadership; learn to lower their expectations, to become more realistic. And the RLC, with Dani’s leadership, is just the organization to help them make that adjustment.
American politicians wouldn’t violate our rights unless they felt it was necessary.