The Decision of Property Remains in the Individual, not the Government - Part II (the 5th Amendment)

Part II

The 5th Amendment - Ignored 

The 5th A

When a law is written, it is done so by a very small group of individuals whom do not have to validate the actual legality of the law they propose to pass.  They do not need to do so, because they represent the law itself, therefore anything they pass is automatically the law, regardless of previous versions or points of contention.   That is just the general legalization of a new law and does not even represent the Constitutional ramifications or worse, and more importantly, the requirements to follow Natural Law.  They simply pass their new law and hand it over to the judicial system, as is.  The judicial system doesn't validate it as legal, moral, constitutional or within the rights created by Natural Law, either.  The Judicial system simply enforces it.  This makes for a very weak interpretation of our three branched system of government, because it leaves the courts not as equal, but separate entities, but instead makes them nothing but the authoritative arm of the legislators.   Let me re-iterate this:  If the courts do not act on the the behalf of the Constitution, then they act not as equal entities, assigned power by We The People, but instead simply act as the policing force to those that write the laws.  Meaning, that the courts stop being a function of Justice and instead become the weapon by which tyrants enforce their rule.

This is where the mistake begins, for when a law is passed that violates the most basic ideas of humanity or Natural Law it changes the requirement of due process.  When, for example, a person is convicted of a new crime that limits the number of bullets they may have organized in an easy storage device that fits into the chamber of the firearm, such a law that has not been verified as Constitutional, the burden of proving oneself not guilty of such things now moves from the courts (the 5-6th amendments --which is where the burden of proof should always rest), to the person convicted of the crime.  That is correct: if one is found guilty of an illegal act passed by a branch of legislators, the burden of that man's actual innocence (based on the Constitution) now falls squarely on his own shoulders.  This is why so many unconstitutional laws are allowed to exist, because the cost (the work of proving oneself of something) far exceeds the punishment inflicted by the courts.  By doing this, moving the burden of responsibility to the individual to "prove themselves innocent" the courts clearly violate the 5th (and 6th and again maintained in the 14th) amendment(s).  The 5th amendment requires that a person be allowed Due Process, by shifting the value of guilt to the individual simply by writing a new law that is not constitutional nor even morally legal such lazy legislators pass off their responsibility to We The People to the actual individuals they are targeting with their unconstitutional laws.  This is nothing better than a modern day version of the Star Chamber, where the laws can simply be re-written to create crime where none existed before in hopes to put fetters on those that have a different opinion of the current social structure.

What is worse is by assigning such illegal laws the legislators violate the very spirit of due process established in the Constitution, because they are not applying Due Process to the Constitution itself, for their own laws, that is, by first verifying that the law they are writing is even legal by 'bouncing' it off the Constitution.  To further add insult to injury, the Supreme Court has made the false and frankly Draconian, decision that it alone has the right and responsibility to hear cases about the Constitutionality of a law.  Yet, it openly admits that it doesn't hear all cases, only those that interest the court.  If ever there were a modern day representation of Kingship, the SCOTUS has clearly shown it wears a crown by refusing to be impartial and fair across the board of all ideas both great and small.  Instead they accept, like bored Emperor's whatever that entertains them.  Even if the case merits review because the basic Constitutionality of it is clear or some basic human right is in jeopardy, if the modern day jesters can't present an interesting reason for the nine kings (JRR Tolkien had nine ring wraiths, coincidence?) to hear it, then the value of those harmed by illegal acts remains forever.  What angers me, is these are the same kind of people that say, "if we could just save one life"... Jesus talked about ignoring the forest in one owns eye, these nine people have lost the plot.  Our system, therefore, mandates that the Innocent must fight to prove themselves such, this is a clear tragedy and worse, a heavy and significant violation of the principles of our Constitution. 

No man should be convicted of a crime that has not first been verified as Constitutional.  Before any person is arrested, arranged, convicted and worse, spends their remaining years locked away from their own Life, Liberty and Estate, the law should have already been verified as legal and constitutional by the judicial system.  If the Supreme Court demands the Privilege of this honor (it is not theirs to take by the way, the power of the Constitution lies in us, not them), then it has zero right to not hear cases because it finds them boring.  Such arrogance is poison and should be put a stop too else it will destroy the last vestige of our personal freedoms guarantee by simply being born.