Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Freeper Investigation: Original Intent and Constitutional Jurisprudence
Freeper Research Project | September 19, 2005 | Jean F. Drew

Posted on 09/18/2005 9:30:23 PM PDT by betty boop

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 141-160161-180181-200201-205 next last
To: Alamo-Girl; marron; joanie-f; YHAOS; Amos the Prophet
As I read it, the Constitution puts the power - the determination of guilt/innocence before the law - in the jury, otherwise every trial would be a bench trial.

Exactly! Moreoever, the state may not prosecute a person for a crime unless the grand jury agrees -- the person is shielded from direct action by the state by a panel of his neighbors, and can be tried for a crime only if they agree. And then another jury, the petit jury, will ascertain the facts and law of the case, and determine guilt or innocence. Plus there is a presumption of innocence until/unless guilt has been demonstrated to the jury's satisfaction.

Ours is such an amazing system! I can't imagine a system of justice superior to our own. In most of Europe -- excepting Great Britain, of course -- the defendent is presumed guilty unless/until proven innocent; and judges, not juries, make that determination.

I though it very interesting that Mahatmas Gandhi abolished the jury system -- a fixture of the British Empire -- when India gained her independence back in the late 1940s IIRC. I asked an Indian friend why India decided to shuck the jury system. She told me it had been rife with corruption. I didn't say anything, for I didn't want to be impolite. But speaking for myself, I would rather take my chances with "corrupt" neighbors than "corrupt" judges, any day....

161 posted on 09/27/2005 6:27:05 AM PDT by betty boop (Know thyself. -- Plato)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 160 | View Replies]

To: betty boop
Thank you so much for all the information and insight! I didn't realize that India had abandoned the jury system. How bizarre. It is much easier to corrupt a single person than a "committee" of 12 or so.

Decades ago an attorney friend of mine was laughing about certain laws, regulations and ordinances that were still on the books in Texas - laws which noone in his right mind would try to enforce. And if he did, the jury would no doubt nullify it anyway.

One, he said, made it a crime to wear spike heels (because it could damage city streets). Another had to do with being caught with wire cutters (the suspicion was cattle rustling).

He said there was one little town which really deplored the automobile and passed an ordinance that there would be a speed limit in the town - and that it would not be posted.

But my favorite was a regulation for the railroads that if two trains from opposite directions should approach each other on the same track, that neither could proceed until the other has passed. LOLOL!

162 posted on 09/27/2005 7:41:16 AM PDT by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 161 | View Replies]

To: Alamo-Girl
But my favorite was a regulation for the railroads that if two trains from opposite directions should approach each other on the same track, that neither could proceed until the other has passed. LOLOL!

How sensible -- NOT!!!!! LOLOL!

Thanks for the chuckle, Alamo-Girl! :^)

163 posted on 09/27/2005 9:27:51 AM PDT by betty boop (Know thyself. -- Plato)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 162 | View Replies]

To: Alamo-Girl
...The second [jury nullification] is subtle and would apply to a government which has become irrational or outrageous, such as prosecuting individuals for non-compliance to a repulsive law.

..[For example:]If the parents of a newly born fourth were brought before a jury – though all the facts and the law were established – if the jury believed the law itself to be repulsive, it could acquit thereby nullifying the law.
These are very deep waters. The doctrine of nullification -- whether state or judicial -- is like a shard of glass: it will almost certainly cut the hand that wields it. First of all, if a law is " irrational or outrageous", how did it pass into a law? Who sponsored it? Who backed it? Who voted for it? If this law could be described in one word as "repulsive" why would any one in Congress vote for it? These elected men and women have to face the voters every day - to laud in their approval or tremble under their frown -- either in person, through telephone, email, letters,etc. Surely the representative would think,

"This proposed law is ridiculous. No, worse. It's repulsive. If I vote for this thing the folks back home are going to run me out of town..."

I understand you mean your example as just that -- an example, but while anything is possible, I suspect the passing and signing into being a law that would be considered by a majority of Americans as "repulsive" is very small. No, nine times out of ten nullification is not driven by moral outrage but by friendly juries persuaded to go with the interests of the defense.

And last but not least, let us not overlook the semantic trip wires:

"... a government which has become irrational or outrageous, such as prosecuting individuals for non-compliance to a repulsive law..."

"A" government,i.e. state, or, city, or county, or federal? or "The" government, i.e. every form of government regardless of size and location? Also, in mandating/passing these "repulsive laws" could an elected government -- say, the State -- use a non-elected branch of that government [bureaucrats] as an excuse? Could it use compliance with/for a Federal mandate as an excuse?

Then come the tedious questions of:"How,and who and by what right, are terms "irrational"and "outrageous"? It may seem pettifogging to us but to a hungry, sharp witted lawyer it could mean getting that summer home by the lake.

164 posted on 09/27/2005 4:41:16 PM PDT by yankeedame ("Oh, I can take it but I'd much rather dish it out.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 156 | View Replies]

To: YHAOS
It’s not just the Supreme Court, or all the Court system, which is composed of “bad citizens”; it is the whole of the legal profession....It is their attitude toward the Constitution, just as you say, that makes of them bad citizens.
Call me a cynic or a student of human nature but IMHO what you've just written merely proves the ancient saying: "Opportunity makes a thief."
How so? Read on...

Lawyers from both sides of the bench, have ceased to regard the Constitution as a rock upon which is founded the justice due a free people.
And why have they (as a group) done this? Simple. B/c it no longer pays -- literally and figuratively -- to regard the Constitution as a rock upon which is founded the justice due a free people.

Lawyers have always been (in)famous for "massaging" the law, and in the past, say up to 40 years ago, this massaging failed more times than not (but succeeded just enough time to keep trying). But over time it succeeded more and more, then more times than not; and the payouts became bigger and bigger, with more and more lawyers noticing this. Until it came to a point where any lawyer who still follows the straight-and-narrow, and there are many unknown, unsung that do, was/is considered a patsy, a chump, a fool, or a loser.

As I said before: "Opportunity makes a thief." And if your average lawyer is quick to spot anything --it's an opportunity!

165 posted on 09/27/2005 5:03:03 PM PDT by yankeedame ("Oh, I can take it but I'd much rather dish it out.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 159 | View Replies]

To: yankeedame; betty boop
Thank you for your reply!

If representative governement is working the way it was intended, then it is unlikely there will be "irrational or outrageous" laws. Nevertheless there are representatives who say one thing to their constituents when running for election and re-election and do quite the reverse when they are in D.C.

As I recall, that was the complaint which sank Tom Daschle.

The example I used was whimsical and based largely on the Chinese mandate of only one child per family. It would take a truly extreme left wing government to come up with such a law.

Perhaps a more "real world" example would be the Federal government outlawing private ownership of all kinds of guns. No doubt people could and would be successfully prosecuted in New York, California or Massachusetts where the public would generally agree and/or acquiesce.

However, when it comes to that particular right there are large numbers of people who will not acquiesce. If they are in the majority - such as in most places in Texas, Montana, etc. - then I wouldn't hold my breath for a successful prosecution. In those places the jury pool would likely acquit no matter what the facts or law say.

As betty boop observed, the jury cannot nullify a law across the board - but it can make the law of no effect case by case, time and again, by acquittals.

So far there has not been a law so repulsive that parts of the country would resort to such legal rebellion. But the option is there and the only remedy for the government would be to remove the Constitutional guarantee of a jury trial - and that would put the entire crisis before each and every state to ratify.

166 posted on 09/27/2005 10:00:32 PM PDT by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 164 | View Replies]

To: betty boop
Jean, there are so many exceptional posts on this excellent thread!

I'd like to make one personal comment on your expressed discomfort early on with the Founders’ wording as to the unalienable rights of ‘life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.’

I, too, have always been uncomfortable with the ‘pursuit of happiness’ wording.

I teach our adult Sunday school class at church, which generally consists of between forty and sixty adults, ranging in age from about twenty-five to eighty.

In one of my lessons about three years ago, I brought up the fact that I hold our Founders in deep reverence, but that I do take issue with that portion of their wording in the Declaration.

I explained that, in my own personal experience, any time I ‘pursued’ happiness, I rarely, if ever, achieved my goal. And the happiest times in my life have always occurred simply as a by-product of making ‘right’ choices (as opposed to convenient, self-serving, or popular ones), rather than seeking happiness (a nebulous term, to begin with) as a goal in and of itself.

During that particular Sunday school lesson, my reference to that portion of the Declaration was only intended to be mentioned in passing. But, once that subject was opened to discussion, we spent the entire remainder of the hour focused right there, with many of the class members relating (sometimes very heart-rending) stories of their own that seemed to support the notion that happiness generally cannot be ‘pursued,’ but rather that it is a natural (and sometimes unexpected) result that occurs when we are willing to choose the ‘right’ path in pivotal life situations.

I do wish the Founders had acceded to the ‘right to property’ wording instead, as it appears in several other colonial documents. Under the rights established by the First Continental Congress: Declaration of Colonial Rights (1774), the first ‘right’ established for the English Colonies in North America is that they are entitled to life, liberty, and property, and they have never ceded to any sovereign power whatever a right to dispose of either without their consent. And Boston's 1772 Rights of the Colonists echoed the same: Among the natural rights of the colonists are these: First, a right to life; secondly to liberty; thirdly to property.

I, for one, believe that the Founders’ (albeit small) divergence from Locke’s wording in his magnificent treatises on liberty was, in this particular case, a dilution rather than an improvement.

Again, Jean, many thanks for your superb essay at the head of this thread, and for inviting, and contributing to, the extraordinarily insightful comments that followed!
~ joanie

167 posted on 09/27/2005 10:22:45 PM PDT by joanie-f (If you believe God is your co-pilot, it might be time to switch seats ...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 161 | View Replies]

To: joanie-f; Alamo-Girl; marron; xzins; YHAOS; Amos the Prophet
...in my own personal experience, any time I ‘pursued’ happiness, I rarely, if ever, achieved my goal. And the happiest times in my life have always occurred simply as a by-product of making ‘right’ choices (as opposed to convenient, self-serving, or popular ones), rather than seeking happiness (a nebulous term, to begin with) as a goal in and of itself.

Joanie, my personal experience has been the same as yours. And you put your finger on precisely my own misgivings about the "happiness" language here: It is self-defeating to make it a goal, for then it will most probably elude your grasp. For there can always be imagined a yet greater happiness to pursue. IOW, the goal post keeps moving, ever just beyond our grasp. To me, happiness is indeed a by-product of right choices in life, of "doing the right thing at the right time." To live life in the love of God and neighbor is, to me, the best presciption for happiness in this life.

Within the framework of meaning of the DoI, "property" would probably have been the more suitable term. For property is a man's "substance," the wherewithal that fosters his ability to live in liberty; i.e., so that he is not dependent on others for the maintenance of his life and his freedom.

Thank you so much for sharing your experience regarding the adult Sunday school class you taught. I had a similar experience at the beauty shop (of all places) recently. It is amazing how thoughtful and forthcoming your so-called "average person" can be when provoked by questions that go to fundamental problems of human existence.

Thanks again, joanie, for your beautiful and insightful essay/post!

168 posted on 09/28/2005 6:42:59 AM PDT by betty boop (Know thyself. -- Plato)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 167 | View Replies]

To: betty boop; joanie-f
Thank you both for your excellent essay-posts!

I agree that happiness is loving God absolutely and loving neighbor unconditionally. That is the Judeo/Christian proper state of being (Matthew 22). I do believe it can and should be pursued by walking with the Lord (sanctification).

It is not, however, the point of "happiness" in the DoI. There, the meaning was earthy property at least from the apparant origin of the phrasing.

169 posted on 09/28/2005 7:33:08 AM PDT by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 168 | View Replies]

To: betty boop; Alamo-Girl; Amos the Prophet
The spirit of the people appears to be quite down these days. Indeed, de-spiritualization of the public square seems to be a main ambition of those influential cultural elites who are the ideological descendants of Hegel, Nietzsche, Marx & Co. The mainline churches have been extraordinarily incompetent to counter this attack. Rather, they have sought to compromise with "elite opinion" instead of faithfully proclaiming the truths of God and man.

I say: Let Not Your Heart Be Troubled! [grin]

If ever there was a time to give in to despair, it would have been over thirty years ago. We were faced with an undeniable, though preventable, defeat in Vietnam; Democrats out-numbered Republicans; a Republican President was about to resign in disgrace; our university students were more radicalized than either their faculty or administration; the economy was terrible and promised to become worse (and it did, thanks to a numb-skull Carter Administration); the Supreme Court had just blessed unrestrained abortion; Democrats had complete control of the agenda; it had been ten years since the first clear conservative voice in nearly forty years had suffered a devastating political defeat, and no relief was in sight (does anyone want to claim now that they were certain then that relief was but six years away?); the so-called mainline churches, though beginning their now-obvious decline, were our only powerful spiritual voices and they were determined to turn us all into good little socialists; the Big Three networks and the major newspapers - all Liberal - had a strangle-hold on news reporting; ultra-left advocacy groups were making such a din no other voice could be heard; and Al Gore was years away from inventing the Internet.

“For where two or three are gathered together in my name there am I in the midst of them.”

. . . . . Matthew 18:20

What the elites of our society had not counted on is that, where there is a demand, measures will be taken to satisfy the demand. That is not simply an economic principle, it is a principle of human action (see Ludwig von Mises, et al). It may be that some responsive action turns out to be wrong-headed (you mentioned new-ageism), but that action will be punished, not rewarded, and behavior will again be modified. Or, not; and, this is where it sometimes becomes funny.

For instance; the consternation of Democrats at their inability to retain or regain political power. Apparently they cannot connect their behavior to the results they have obtained. But, Democrats don’t seem to be alone in that. It’s been noted, more and more of late, that Republican office-holders, in increasing numbers, are coming to act very much like Democrats. They’ve seen what happened to Democrats, yet they adopt Democrat behavior. Is it just barely conceivable that it isn’t the party that’s the problem so much as it is the political power? (I think it is the party, but the thirst for political power undeniably plays a deadly role as well)

What’s not funny is the Catholic Church. For years the power elites in the Church knew they had a problem with homosexual priests using the Church as cover to screen themselves from the consequences of their sexual predations, yet nothing was done. Now the curse of the dual loss of membership and of priests has brought the Catholic Church to understand the ends do not justify the means (a priesthood had to learn this?) Not only did bad priests drive away members, just as in money, the bad priests drove out good applicants for the priesthood (again, a priesthood had to learn this? - they didn’t know that good must drive out bad, or the reverse will be the consequence?).

It seems apparent that increasing numbers of Christians have heeded the message of Matthew 18:20 and have opted out of the mainline denominations. It must be just as apparent, that this is an interim action, and not the final step in resolving the problem of an inattentive ministry. Surely, the grand ministerial authorities must know they are losing their flock, even if they cannot yet bring themselves to face the prospect. When they finally come to grips with the fact of their declining power, in effect a profound rejection by the majority of their flock, their reaction may, or may not, have a funny element to it. That remains to be seen.

Personally I think the only way out of this impasse is a major spiritual revival.

Pesonally, I think you’re right.

170 posted on 09/28/2005 2:13:06 PM PDT by YHAOS
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 137 | View Replies]

To: betty boop; Amos the Prophet; marron; joanie-f
WRT jury nullification, it doesn't nullify the egregious law, only its application to the specific defendant.

Having its origins in Medieval England, jury nullification was often used to combat the actions of corrupt or oppressive officials, and was primarily concerned with criminal law, although its use was instrumental in developing the idea that the truth was a proper defense to libel in a civil matter. It was also used to combat laws persecuting Quakers in the 1660s and thereabouts.

It has generally been admitted that jury nullification does not extend to determining the admissibility of evidence; does not include a right to make law, but only to determine existing law as found in the statutes; and, did not include the right to fix punishment for crimes (oddly enough, now a responsibility written into the law in some jurisdictions).

I like the idea because it confounds arrogant officials who are kept guessing about what might happen if they are thinking about corrupt acts, and because it might serve to occasionally abort an obvious injustice. The dark side of the concept includes its use through much of the Twentieth Century to deny justice to blacks in the South, when their predators were white.

171 posted on 09/28/2005 4:23:17 PM PDT by YHAOS
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 158 | View Replies]

To: Alamo-Girl; betty boop
. . . it would surely take something extremely oppressive before people would abandon the stability and security of home to challenge the government. I could only see this happening if the government (typically through a tyrant the likes of a Hitler) were to declare martial law without cause, stopping elections and oppressing the people by military force.

If ever such a thing should happen, it almost assuredly would be at the hands of the blue helmets of the UN, or some mercenary force, and not at the hands of our own military. They would not relish the prospect of victimizing their wives or sweethearts: their mothers and fathers; their brothers and sisters; their neighbors and friends. Our military is a little different than many; they do not swear allegiance to a personage; they swear to preserve and protect the Constitution of the United States of America. As long as we have an officer corps and noncoms who instill that understanding in the hearts and minds of our servicemen and servicewomen, the Republic is safe from that quarter.

This is why Liberals so hate our military. They know they cannot turn it into their own little personal sociological playground, that it is loyal to the Constitution and the Republic, and that it cannot be politicized. If you ever have someone tell you that they hate our military, you must know that you are confronting a budding little petty tyrant, who would become, if given a chance, a very big bloody tyrant. Treat him/her as though you have just encountered a poisonous snake.

172 posted on 09/28/2005 5:33:43 PM PDT by YHAOS
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 156 | View Replies]

To: yankeedame
I see you, I, and Shakespeare are of one mind on this subject.

Until it came to a point where any lawyer who still follows the straight-and-narrow, and there are many unknown, unsung that do, was/is considered a patsy, a chump, a fool, or a loser.

I would convict them for being people of integrity; people such as Thomas and Scalia (and, hopefully, Roberts). Let’s not forget the lower bench; Owens, or Brown, and many another who, as you say, follow the straight-and-narrow, and labor in obscurity.

Lawyers have always been (in)famous for "massaging" the law

Indeed. Nonetheless, I hold the ladies and gentlemen of the bench primarily responsible for our present embarrassment. It is they who are supposed to be possessed of the maturity of mind, the judicial temperament, which obliges them to restrain their more berserk colleagues.

173 posted on 09/28/2005 6:30:35 PM PDT by YHAOS
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 165 | View Replies]

To: betty boop
My goodness, what a thread.

I haven't read every post as closely as I might, but I do have a small issue I wish to raise with you and others.

You and most of the other posters have referenced that old phrase, "original intent" which I look upon as a trap.

Madison, amongst many others, drew the distinction differently.

Madison steadily maintained the standard to uphold was original understanding. And, whose "understanding" was it to which he was referring? The people(s) of the states in ratification.

Why is this thing "intent" a trap?

It refers to a gifted group's (the founders) intent -- albeit a group that elites of any age can liken themselves to and additionally debate intent in a way the is far more flexible than it should be.

Understanding of a general population is, however, very definable from the writings of the time. This was a populace informed on the issues and nuances like no other. They were readers of constant pamphlets on the subject culminating in the Federalist Papers.

Understanding then relates to a people and is discernible. Intent refers to a group (law givers or law bestowers) and is more debate driven and lends itself to issues of rationalist improvement by each age's self-perceived or culturally perceived intellectually elite.

The common soldier, the simple merchant and farmer of that age is who secured my rights. And so, it is up to us to hold them, not government and not even our own keepers of intellectual power and reason.

Take this small coat, Original Understanding, and try it on. Wear it for certain days, when you can, and you will get to like it.

174 posted on 09/28/2005 7:21:32 PM PDT by KC Burke (Men of intemperate minds can never be free....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 168 | View Replies]

To: Dumb_Ox; cornelis

Perhaps you have missed this as I had until this evening. Betty has cast a giant shadow, and I sit here with a pen light and my fingers trying to make a bird with one hand and see it on the nearby wall.


175 posted on 09/28/2005 7:24:09 PM PDT by KC Burke (Men of intemperate minds can never be free....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 174 | View Replies]

To: YHAOS
I agree with your assessment of the U.S. military and the threat of the U.N. peacekeepers. That's why I take the position that no U.S. soldier should ever report to a commander from any other country.

Thank you for your reply!

176 posted on 09/28/2005 9:03:56 PM PDT by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 172 | View Replies]

To: YHAOS; betty boop; Alamo-Girl; marron
I like the idea because it confounds arrogant officials who are kept guessing about what might happen if they are thinking about corrupt acts, and because it might serve to occasionally abort an obvious injustice ... YHAOS

Well said.

And, Jean, I also applaud your, Of course, WRT jury nullification, it doesn't nullify the egregious law, only its application to the specific defendant. But I imagine if nullification happened often enough respecting an egregious law, it would effectively be rendered null and void.

It was for that very reason that jury nullification is a right that was defined and strongly defended by our Founders. They insisted that juries should serve an integral role in determining the 'rightness' of law, and that the enforcement of law should depend, in part, on the positive scrutiny it received in subsequent jury trials.

Another 'grey area' in our history in which juries have employed nullification in order to strike back at what they considered to be morally repugnant laws (in addition to the denial of justice for blacks in the south, as YHAOS has cited) occurred in the late eighteenth/early nineteenth century with many attempted enforcements of the Alien and Sedition Acts. The acts were viewed by many to be blatantly tyrannical and unconstitutional, and ruling 'not guilty' in cases brought to court under those particularly unpopular acts was often considered courageous and honorable.

More recently, jury nullification has been put into practice in cases involving mercy killings, in which jurors sincerely believed that the killer was acting only out of concern for the victim, and believed the law to be too intractible in a specific case.

As Betty has observed, each example of jury nullification is unique to a specific case, and does not affect the law itself, other than to ignore it, to one degree or another, by refusing to enforce punishment in a specific instance.

Personally, I believe the concept is a good one -- especially in this increasingly secular and hedonistic era in which a growing number of laws seem to defy logic, common sense, and the moral/religious consciences of 'good' people ... and in which an increasing number of laws are passed with their explicit purpose being to (generally covertly) expand the power of government and proportionately decrease the freedom of the individual.

At the same time, jurors (the majority, I suspect) who are not aware that they can choose to invoke nullification of a law that they view as unjust or immoral, are not always advised of that prerogative. Indeed, they are often instructed otherwise.

So, as is the case in much of legal/judicial procedure these days, consistency is an apparition, and the futures of many of our fellow countrymen, and our businesses and institutions, depend largely on the 'luck of the draw' -- as regards the informed, or uninformed, nature of the jury, the willingness of the judge and/or attorneys to advise the jurors of their options, and the courage and confidence of each member of the jury in his/her ability to put nullification into practice.

Unfortunately, the acceptance of the practice of jury nullification has waned as the number, and illogic/tyrannical/special interest nature, of laws has increased over the past two centuries. Early in our history, judges made it a practice of informing juries of their nullification rights (and if the judge neglected to do so, the defense attorney would often correct his oversight). Today, most judges not only neglect to do so, but many go so far as to falsely instruct the jury that their only authority is to decide whether a law has been broken, whether or not they believe the law to be moral or just.

In several recent cases, a judge has even seen fit to remove a juror, upon receiving information that that juror intends to deliver a verdict that will nullify the law upon which the case rests.

If a juror accepts as the law that which the judge states, then that juror has accepted the exercise of absolute authority of a government employee and has surrendered a power and right that once was the citizen's safeguard of liberty (1788) ... Bancroft, History of the Constitution.

Perhaps more than any other time in our history, we would be wise to reflect on John Adams' two-plus-centuries-old wise and insightful advice:

It is not only his [a juror's] right but his duty ... to find the verdict according to his own best understanding, judgment, and conscience, though in direct opposition to the direction of the court.

The increasing suppression of the juror's right of nullification represents yet another item in a long, and growing, list that reflects the deadly transformation of this republic's government from one of, by and for the people to something much more toxic and tyrannical.

~ joanie ...

177 posted on 09/28/2005 10:01:47 PM PDT by joanie-f (If you believe God is your co-pilot, it might be time to switch seats ...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 171 | View Replies]

To: joanie-f
Thank you so much for your excellent essay-post!!!

Today, most judges not only neglect to do so, but many go so far as to falsely instruct the jury that their only authority is to decide whether a law has been broken, whether or not they believe the law to be moral or just.

Indeed. This is how the judiciary usurps power. Perhaps someday a dismissed (and deep pocketed) juror will sue all the way up to the Supremes so that this practice can be ended.
178 posted on 09/29/2005 8:09:31 AM PDT by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 177 | View Replies]

To: KC Burke; Alamo-Girl; YHAOS; joanie-f; marron; Amos the Prophet
You and most of the other posters have referenced that old phrase, "original intent" which I look upon as a trap.... Madison, amongst many others, drew the distinction differently.... Madison steadily maintained the standard to uphold was original understanding. And, whose "understanding" was it to which he was referring? The people(s) of the states in ratification.

Great points, KC Burke! I can agree with Madison that the standard ought to be "original understanding" (which is primarily cultural), but do note that the Framers also had an "original intent" (which has to do with the "mechanics" of their construction): To establish a polity based on the rule of law, not of men; one that is based on the consent of the governed, who remain sovereign; and to achieve this end by means of the constitutional separation and balance of powers.

So IMHO it's not an "either/or situation": It's both.

It's so good to see you again, KC! Welcome to this thread, and thank you so much for your excellent insights!

179 posted on 09/29/2005 9:28:18 AM PDT by betty boop (Know thyself. -- Plato)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 174 | View Replies]

To: joanie-f; Alamo-Girl; marron
The increasing suppression of the juror's right of nullification represents yet another item in a long, and growing, list that reflects the deadly transformation of this republic's government from one of, by and for the people to something much more toxic and tyrannical.

Indeed, joanie -- this would be a case of judicial supremacy, indicating that the judge is insensible of the fact that, under the Constitution, the people are "sovereign," not the judges. Not to put too fine a point on it, but the judge who would cite a juror for contempt of court on suspicion that juror might nullify is usurping a retained power of the people and is committing an unconstitutional act.

Thank you ever so much for your insightful (and informative) post/essay!

180 posted on 09/29/2005 9:36:32 AM PDT by betty boop (Know thyself. -- Plato)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 177 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 141-160161-180181-200201-205 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson