No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury .... .”

“In March 1992, Rockwell International pled guilty to five environmental felonies and five misdemeanors connected with its Rocky Flats plant, which manufactured plutonium triggers for nuclear bombs. Prosecutors were elated; the $18.5 million fine was the largest environmental crimes settlement in history. The grand jury, however, had other ideas. The majority of the grand jurors wanted to indict individual officials of both Rockwell and the Department of Energy (DOE), but the prosecutor had resisted individual indictments. So the grand jury, against the prosecutor's will, drew up its own "indictment" and presented it to the judge.2 Its action has confounded legal scholars: what is the status (or even the correct name) of this document? 
The consternation this question has caused is a measure of the confusion surrounding grand jury law. Although grand juries had considerable independence and were a major avenue for popular participation in the early Republic, their powers have dwindled. Courts have clouded the issue by periodically reasserting the grand jury's traditional powers, then suppressing them again. The Supreme Court has largely been silent.” 

Yale Law Journal
Volume 103, Article 4, 1994
Reviving Federal Grand Jury Presentments
Ren~e B. Lettow

The wording in the Bill of Rights could have conveyed a more useful message such as:

Any member of the Public (not found by a Jury to be a criminal incapable of redemption) can accuse any other member of the Public (in or out of Public office) of a capital or infamous crime, and have equal access, on an equal footing, to a common law (The Law of the Land) independent Grand Jury, to then have the accusation investigated by the independent common-law Grand Jury for validity, while the Grand Jury has no power to try the case themselves, the Grand Jury only investigates the validity of the accusation, and the accusation, if validated lawfully by the grand jury members, is then a Lawful Cause of Action, to present the accused with the opportunity for the accused to seek justice before a Trial by the Country, which is a Trial by Jury according to the common law, which is not a trial by Summary Justice in front of a single member of the government.

The point of this present effort is to point out that anyone, anywhere, can have an opinion about the law, and they can even change their mind the next minute, and have the opposite opinion, so to guard against the law moving from the true law to anything anyone may or may not believe to be the law any minute, and then the opposite the next minute (arbitrary), the people who have discovered the law have documented how it actually works, as it works for everyone, as intended, as advertised, despite the variations of opinions everyone has at any given moment in time and place.

Rather than giving up natural moral conscience born into everyone (with some exceptions known as psychopaths) to one person (who may be a psychopath) the power to decide what is a fact, what is law, and what is a just remedy for any conflict, that power was recognized as a power that should be afforded to everyone known to have a working moral conscience. There are a few ways that were invented to facilitate the goal of giving the power of fact finding and moral judgment to everyone. One way is sortition (randomly picking a number of individual members of the whole people: The Public), and the other is for the people to elect among themselves those who are known to be the most honest and discrete, and it is those people who then constitute the members of The Public that are charged with the lawful authority to decide what is or is not factual, and what is or is not the law, and what is or is not a just remedy concerning conflicts between law abiding people (civil conflicts) or conflicts between law abiding people and criminals, such as felons: people at war with society, such as psychopaths.

It was an adaptation to separate these groups of The Public (juries) into large and small, or grand and petit juries. The grand juries were entrusted with gate keeping, to allow or not allow accusations to move from an accusation to the next step in due process, such as an investigation of the allegations made by the accuser, an investigation performed by The People in their independent grand juries.

The other jury, the smaller jury, the petit jury, worked out to be the trial jury, those who hear the facts that matter in the case according to the independent, private, member of the public, the prosecutor, and the opposing facts offered by the defendant. Plaintiff is the prosecutor/accuser, and the defendant seeks justice against a false accusation, both seek justice before the representatives of the whole people, the trial jury, in a trial by the country. The government is represented by a judge whose mind may be warped by faction, and his only duty is to correct any obvious errors made by the public, the prosecutor, the defendant, council on either side, the jury, and anyone else who may wander into the Public Trial.