Career Perjurers

A DAY OR TWO AGO, I heard an erstwhile U.S. attorney repeatedly describe himself as a “career prosecutor.” Presumably, this man had sworn an oath to uphold the Constitution, which guarantees to the States a republican form of government: how, then, can anyone hold any appointment beyond the next election?

Next question, what can he find to do? The only crimes Congress is authorized to punish are treason, piracy, and counterfeiting the current coin (counterfeiting numismatic coins does not threaten all of the States.) Is there enough piracy, enough counterfeiting, to provide even one attorney with a career? Or has Congress discovered some other crimes that threaten every State?

Further question, where does he go to court? The Constitution requires that any criminal trial be held in the State where the crime was committed – obviously, this means in a State court (one can hardly imagine there being enough piracy in, for instance, Pennsylvania to keep a court busy.)

Even more to the point, just whom does he prosecute? The grand jury hears only the prosecutor’s case. If the prosecutor has a case that sounds good beyond a reasonable doubt to the petit jury, even after it has heard the prosecution witnesses cross-examined and the defense witnesses give testimony, then that case must sound good beyond any imaginable doubt to the grand jury: why, then, should U.S. attorneys be allowed to assemble more than twelve jurors on their grand juries?

Another interesting question: the Constitution requires that any property forfeited by a criminal be restored upon hir death; are the U.S. attorneys monitoring all this property, to ensure that it is indeed restored? HELL, NO!

If, then, we are agreed that U. S. attorneys are public enemies, flagrantly robbing the public purse, what do we do about it? What we do not do, for certain, is complain to the Congress; Congress is avidly eager to usurp the powers of the States, for instance by pretending to admit immigrants (the Congress has power to prohibit immigration, and to naturalize immigrants, but to admit immigrants requires judgment, and is therefore reserved to the States.)

Rather, we complain to our several States; they created the Congress, the president, the courts, expressly to defend them, and if their creature rebels, it is for them to restore order. We should be demanding that, whenever anyone is prosecuted by the U. S. for any crime that does not affect the citizens of each and every State, then that person must be defended by the attorney general of the State where the crime has been alleged. For what else does the State collect taxes – by the use of the criminal law? The very function of the State is to defend the citizens: and if there is any force, more than another, from which the States are bound to defend them, it is the force that the States themselves created, the U. S. If, instead, the taxes are being used to furnish schools or parks or drinking water, then the State should sue in the civil court, just as does any other provider of services.