Cenocracy: A New Government Perspective
(a New Government)

The word "Cenocracy" is being used to describe a new form of government that many people think is needed not only in the U.S., but in all countries of the world. However, since the present author is based in the U.S. let me speak towards the desire of many U.S. Americans having adopted the view that the present standard of government is outdated and that there is need for a Constitutional Convention not solely governed by the views of those in the U.S. Congress who think themselves adequate to the singular task; without need for discussion with or ratification by the People.

The idea of a "Cenocracy" is based on the idea that since the legal system is suited for depending on a Jury Trial system frequently qualified by the seriousness of the crime, it should be rather obvious that making laws for the Nation is a very serious business and that the People should have a standing presence for active participation by way of a "Peoples Legislative Branch". Yet, for those unfamiliar with the idea of a Jury duty and its lawful usage in a court of law, let us review some definitions thereof:

The right to trial by jury in a criminal case resides in both Article III, Section 2 of the federal Constitution ("The Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment, shall be by Jury") and the Sixth Amendment ("In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury"). But the right isn't as broad as those texts might suggest, meaning that many defendants have to settle for judge trials, where the court decides whether the defendant is guilty. (The Right to Trial by Jury by Micah Schwartzbach, Attorney)


The right to a jury trial is one of the most important rights that a criminal defendant has in the United States. Because a jury trial can differ vastly from a trial where a judge presides over the case, having the option for a jury trial can be a real advantage for a defendant. This fundamental right is guaranteed by two separate provisions of the U.S. Constitution: Article III, section 2, and the Sixth Amendment.

Constitutional Protection for Jury Trials

Specifically, Article III, section 2 states, "The trial for all crimes shall be by jury and such trial shall be held in the state where the said crimes have been committed." The Sixth Amendment, which is part of the Bill of Rights guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution, provides the following: "In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed."

After understanding the origins of jury trial rights, it's important to understand what the right to a jury trial actually guarantees and when it applies.

Limitations to the Right to a Jury Trial

The right to a jury trial isn't absolute and it has its restrictions. For instance, the U.S. Supreme Court has held that juveniles aren't afforded this right as juvenile cases are civil proceedings.

While the Sixth Amendment states that the accused has a right to a jury trial in "all criminal proceedings", the Supreme Court has interpreted that the trial by jury right only applies to serious offenses, not petty offenses. The distinction between a "petty" offense and a "serious" one depends on the maximum punishment available for the offense or by the nature of the offense.

A serious offense is an offense that has a possible sentence of more than 6 months of incarceration. However, a defendant doesn't get the benefit of the right to a jury trial by being prosecuted for multiple petty offenses in one proceeding.

State Criminal Cases and Jury Trial Rights

Although the Bill of Rights only provides for a jury trial for defendants in federal courts, the right to a jury trial is so important and fundamental that it couldn't remain solely applicable in the federal courts. That's why this Sixth Amendment right was extended to the states through the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

All defendants in state criminal cases are entitled to jury trials according to the federal standard for "serious penalties" used by the Supreme Court. However, if the offense carries a sentence of 6 months or less, then a jury trial isn't mandated and the state can decide whether to provide a jury trial.

Many states take this option and their state constitutions grant jury trials to criminal defendants facing charges of lesser crimes. However, there are several examples when the state doesn't provide for a jury trial. For instance, in the 1970s, the New York Legislature decided that individuals facing less than 6 months in jail would have their cases decided by a single judge.

While the move by the legislature helped to advance the agenda of judicial efficiency in New York, the law resulted in a negative impact for members of the immigrant population who were denied jury trials for charges like prostitution, which could lead to deportation, if convicted.

However, this changed in 2018, when New York's highest court held that non-citizens are entitled to jury trials for deportable offenses under the Sixth Amendment guarantee for a right to a jury trial.

Discuss Your Right to a Jury Trial With an Attorney

The right to a jury trial is a significant right for anyone accused of a crime, as well as to the community as a whole which plays an important role in the criminal justice system.


Sixth Amendment:

(Current Doctrine)

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.

The Sixth Amendment is phrased in terms of all criminal prosecutions, but the Court has always excluded petty offenses from the guarantee to a jury trial in federal courts, defining the line between petty and serious offenses either by the maximum punishment available1 or by the nature of the offense.2 This line has been adhered to in the application of the Sixth Amendment to the states,3 and the Court has now held that no offense can be deemed ‘petty’ for purposes of the right to trial by jury where imprisonment for more than six months is authorized.4 A defendant who is prosecuted in a single proceeding for multiple petty offenses, however, does not have a constitutional right to a jury trial, even if the aggregate of sentences authorized for the offense exceeds six months.

With respect to the adoption of a "Peoples Legislative Branch", it can not be a mirror-image reproduction of the practice seen in the Justice system. Clearly such a Branch will have to be a more mature model of activity not subject to the whims of Lawyers in the selection process nor Judges in what can or cannot be included in one's analysis of facts and truth. In the selection process for example, we at Cenocracy.org presently think that fairness can be exercise by using the model in which one man, one woman and one worker can be randomly selected from self-nominated lists of interested individuals, with a severe penalty applied to those who would think to make a joke of or practice anything other than a respectful Representative-of-the-people activity. Payment and benefits could be commensurate with other legislators, but term limits would be enforced and that a person (male or female) could apply for selection based on the "worker" eligibility after their term is over and after waiting one cycle of representation, so that there would not be any back-to-back selectivity possible.

The Peoples Legislative Branch, by way of an instituted National Referendum process, would be able to enforce any change of law if the will of the public so ruled it, even if the President, Congress and Supreme court was against it. A government Of, By and For the people is a huge government, and its majority view should be upheld, despite standards of any government office, cultural practice, or pre-written document. The Peoples Legislative Branch would be able to institute any change according to the will of the people as declared by a National Referendum whose process of application and usage can be created to fit the type of accelerated communications systems being practiced electronically.

Needless to say, many people feel the justice system is rigged because it is part of a designed rigging evident in the larger government whose standards are a hold-over from past ages whose leaderships could not imagine the rate of change or degree of complexity nor depth of consequential seriousness peoples of the future would come to experience with a compounded knowledge of multiple subjects where the world has become a singular global village with overlapping effects. For example, when the people have a right to petition their government, the so-called definition of "government" is relegated to the office of the President whose staff determine whether or not the complaint of a petition warrants any intervention other than some response amounting to an acknowledgement and sleight-of-hand placement of obstacles. The people do not have the right to petition the whole government (interpreted as those who make and interpret laws), only a small segment thereof. It is a Constitutional problem which needs to be addressed along with multiple other recurring issues such as Term limits for all government workers, multiple deficiencies in the legal system (not presently itemized), and the fact that the populace at large no longer believes in the illusion that the U.S. is practicing an actual Democracy.

Let's take for example the illusion that the U.S. Military is an institution representing the ideals and practices of a so-called Democracy. A democracy in which the standard practice is for the people to vote in their leadership, but that no enlisted personnel ever get to vote in their leaders. Indeed, if we take a look at a list of military practices, it is obvious that the U.S. military more closely resembles the practice of a Socialism and/or Communism (both in the positive perspective and not by taking examples from history where radical views are exploited as expressions of those with dictatorial leanings):

The Socialist practices of a so-called Democratic Military

Date of Origination: Tuesday, 6th September 2022... 9:00 AM
Date of Initial Posting: Tuesday, 6th September 2022... 10:18 AM, MST, Albuquerque, NM