CHAPTER 3
THE "REAL" KU KLUX KLAN LAW

The late Bertrand Russell (1872-1970), the modern philosopher, historian, and mathematician of the 20th century, wrote that the doctrine of separation of powers between the legislative, executive, and judicial functions of government is a characteristic of liberalism, having first arisen in England during the course of resistance to the oppressive reign of the Stuart monarchy which had first established itself on the throne of England under King James I. (This is the same King James under whose authority and support the Authorized Version of the English Holy Bible was prepared commencing in 1604 C.E.) Until the revolution in England in the 17th century, the king could and often did dismiss judges at any moment; consequently, judges, who were all appointees and often struggling to keep their status and nearness to the throne, were wont to condemn the king's enemies and acquit the king's friends. After the revolution, however, judges were made irremovable except by an Address (e.g. a formal request addressed to the executive for the removal of judges deemed to be unworthy) from both Houses of Parliament, i.e., the Houses of Lords and Commons. The founders of this revolutionary judicial arrangement believed the modification of removing the judiciary out from under the auspices of the executive would result in fair and equitable legal decisions free of prejudice and bias. The sad truth and undeniable fact is that the change had merely substituted the prejudices, biases and self-interests of the judges themselves in place of those of the king or executive.

The same state of affairs has proved true in America where the founding fathers wrote similar illusions into the highly touted Constitution, including the one that makes it appear the President and Congress are wholly independent of the other and that the Supreme Court is independent of both. Beyond the veil of deception lies the truth which informs us that the original drafters of America's organizing document made the Supreme Court a branch of the legislature, for nothing is a law in the United States, regardless of what Congress says, if the Supreme Court says it is not. Some, if not all, of the writers of the Constitution - many of them known to have acquired high degrees of adeptness in parliamentary procedures - had to have known this indubitable fact all along. The notion that the Court's powers are, nominally, only interpretive, is itself another illusion, serving the main function of actually increasing the Court's lawmaking powers, i.e., it is constitutionally difficult to politically criticize what are often presumed to be purely objective legal decisions. The false perception before the people is that the Justices of the Supreme Court have not taken part in the political debates that are before them, and that their legal opinions are, therefore, free from partiality. History has shown, however, that nothing could be further from the truth. The bottom line reality is that the Supreme Court sits as an unelected super-legislature consisting of nine persons appointed for life. In the author's opinion, no one has been able to explain this reality better than did a person by the name of Bishop Hoadly when he succinctly and laconically delivered a sermon before the King of England on March 31, 1717:

"Whoever hath an absolute authority to interpret any written or spoken laws, it is he who is truly the lawgiver, to all intents and purposes, and not the person who first spoke or wrote them."

Almost two hundred years later, on May 3, 1907, in the United States of America, Charles Evans Hughes made practically the same observation:

"We are under a Constitution, but the Constitution is what the judges say it is."

Since the Court also has powers to execute its orders, it literally sits as a potential omnipotent dictatorial branch of government anytime it "chooses" to assume jurisdiction over a matter. The same constitution that provides for the "undemocratic" appointment of the Justices also provides for the "undemocratic" election of the President by a Number of Electors who are merely appointees themselves. Clearly, the concept of democracy that the United States holds up as a beacon light to the rest of the unsuspecting world and which has been and still is the cause for division, especially among the non-white third world peoples, is nowhere to be found written into the U.S. Constitution.

In any given legal court action, whether criminal or civil, the federal, state, or local judge has lawmaking powers similar to the Supreme Court's, limited only by the remote possibility that a higher judge will overrule his "brother," and possibly causing him professional and personal embarrassment. Combined with the historical and ongoing officially condoned racial disparities in America, the judicial system has to be perceived as the domestic bastion of white supremacism. (The U.S. military has been traditionally granted international jurisdiction.) The justices, magistrates, prosecutors, and the other law enforcement officers who constitute the system are its "white knights," the ones who have assumed the burden of personally imposing the official state notion of white supremacy over the lives and destinies of black people. If this was not so, black Americans would have enjoyed their full citizenship rights over a hundred years ago, immediately after the adoption of the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments and the enactment of the Reconstruction civil rights statutes. If this was not so, Blacks in America would be enjoying their full citizenship rights now.

1. The Origin of the "Christian Knights"

The Ku Klux Klan was founded by Judge Thomas M. Jones along with six Confederate Army veterans in 1865 or 1866 in Pulaski, Tennessee. In forming the Klan, Judge Jones and his henchmen chose mystical titles, rituals, and secrecy, elements that were common to Freemasonry and other Freemasonic-type organizations. In their search for titles and names, the Klan founders corrupted the Greek word "kuklos," translated as "circle" in English, and chose Ku Klux. It is said the word "klan" was subsequently added to give the name an appealing alliterative sound. The purposes of the Klan were simple: 1) to terrorize the black population, 2) to keep Blacks in their places at the bottom of society, and 3) to maintain the supremacy of the white race. Membership in the Klan was limited, of course, to those white males who opposed economic, social, and political equality for Blacks. The civil rights movement for the Reconstruction statutes served as a stimulus for Klan growth because its secrecy mandates became a convenient way to practice unlawful violence, prejudice, and discrimination against Blacks and sympathetic Whites with impunity. Although the Klan would later be identified with