Constitutional right to privacy a figment of imagination

Houston Chronicle ^ | January 15, 2005 | JUDGE HAROLD R. DEMOSS JR.

[don asmussen]

It's obvious from that post roscoe, - you can't even read the Constitution.

[Mojave]

"Article III, Sec. 2 requires that federal criminal cases be tried by jury in the State and district in which the offense was committed, but much criticism arose over the absence of any guarantee that the jury be drawn from the ''vicinage'' or neighborhood of the crime. Madison's efforts to write into the Bill of Rights an express vicinage provision were rebuffed by the Senate, and the present language was adopted as a compromise. The provisions limit the Federal Government only."

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment06/

[jwalsh07]

"The defendant's counsel rely, principally, on the 5th article of the amendments to the constitution of the United States, which contains this provision: "Nor shall any person be subject for the same offence, to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb." It has been urged by the prisoner's counsel, that this constitutional provision operates upon state courts proprio vigore. This has been denied on the other side. I do not consider it material whether this provision be considered as extending to the state tribunals or not; the principle is a sound and fundamental one of the common law, that no man shall be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb for the same offence. I am, however, inclined to the opinion, that the article in question does extend to all judicial tribunals in the United States, whether constituted by the Congress of the United States, or the states individually. The provision is general in its nature, and unrestricted in its terms; and the sixth article of the constitution declares, that that constitution shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, any thing in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding. These general and comprehensive expressions extend the provisions of the constitution of the United States to every article which is not confined, by the subject matter, to the national government, and is equally applicable to the states. Be this as it may, the principle is undeniable, that no person can be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb, for the same offence." CJ Spencer

Read a case.

[mrsmith]

Ah but Justice Thomas and I are in agreement- it is those who reject Barron that must "rag on" him.

[Mojave]

I do not consider it material whether this provision be considered as extending to the state tribunals or not; the principle is a sound and fundamental one of the common law, that no man shall be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb for the same offence.

What does double jeopardy have to do with federal jury requirements?

Read your post.

[Mojave]

Ah but Justice Thomas and I are in agreement- it is those who reject Barron that must "rag on" him.

Bingo.

[dirtboy]

But you didn't include that disclaimer in every sentence that you wrote.

Were you born this big of a ninny, or did you have to work at it?

You're adding nothing but a sour tone to this debate.

[Mojave]

Your standard. A double standard from the looks of it.

[mrsmith]

"unless you'd like to explain to me why "the people" would cede their rights to the states I'd say we should conclude our discussion. "

They "ceded" their rights to their states before the Constitution- before the Articles of Confederation.

The question is why would they cede them to the new government they had no experience of?

If they were not happy with their state constitutions there would have been calls for a federal BOR so they could "cede" their rights to the new government.

But there were none. Instead they unanimously called for a BOR to protect them and their states from the feds.

[jwalsh07]

Why don;t you tell me what word appears in the 6th Amendment that is nowhere to be found in Article Three Section 2 or, for that matter, any other part of the main body of the constitution.

And then you tell me why "the people" chose to limit the federal governments power to abridge that right but decided to allow the states to do just that.

Try viewing the document from the perspective of the people, since it is the peoples document, not the federaists nor the anti federalists. We don't even have to divine their intent, it is declaratory.

[dirtboy]

Your standard. A double standard from the looks of it.

Only to you. Any non-anal-retentive person would realize I was stating my opinion.

[jwalsh07]

Ah but Justice Thomas and I are in agreement- it is those who reject Barron that must "rag on" him.

Maybe, maybe not. We'll see.

[Mojave]

Any non-anal-retentive person would realize I was stating my opinion.

Any non-anal-retentive person would realize that the Bill of Rights doesn't have to include the word "Congress" in every sentence.

[jwalsh07]

What does double jeopardy have to do with federal jury requirements?

Simple, they are both rights declared by the people. I know that's a tough one for you, people having inalienable rights. But do your best.

[Not A Snowbird]

Just a Figment...

[Mojave]

And then you tell me why "the people" chose to limit the federal governments power to abridge that right but decided to allow the states to do just that.

States have state Constitutions. Read a book.

[dirtboy]

Any non-anal-retentive person would realize that the Bill of Rights doesn't have to include the word "Congress" in every sentence.

Anyone who believes that words should have a specific meaning would ask why that isn't the case.

[Mojave]

Simple, they are both rights declared by the people.

Yep. The requirement for federal juries is declared in the federal Constitution.

[Mojave]

The Bill of Rights was a set of declaratory restrictions on the powers delegated to the federal government by the states. It was universally understood.

[jwalsh07]

They "ceded" their rights to their states before the Constitution- before the Articles of Confederation.

Was there a ceremony?

The question is why would they cede them to the new government they had no experience of?

They wouldn't and they didn't. The people declared certain of their rights in the BOR's and made sure to declare that doing so was not an admission that these were there only rights. The declarations in the BOR's are just that, declarations by the people. They can be read no other way because the preamble is clear it is "We the people" writing the document.

"From these conventions the constitution derives its whole authority. The government proceeds directly from the people; is "ordained and established" in the name of the people; and is declared to be ordained, "in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, ensure domestic tranquility, and secure the blessings of liberty to themselves and to their posterity." The assent of the States, in their sovereign capacity, is implied in calling a convention, and thus submitting that instrument to the people. But the people were at perfect liberty to accept or reject it; and their act was final. It required not the affirmance, and could not be negatived, by the State governments. The constitution, when thus adopted, was of complete obligation, and bound the State sovereignties. . . ."

If they were not happy with their state constitutions there would have been calls for a federal BOR so they could "cede" their rights to the new government.

Absurd argument. Why do you insist the people cede their rights to governmental power? Or worse to the courts?

But there were none. Instead they unanimously called for a BOR to protect them and their states from the feds

The BOR's is a series of declaratory staements using the word rights which appears nowhere else in the Constitution excpet the BOR's. It tells the feds and the states, hands off these are ours.

Do you think the common man in 1792 could look at the second amendment and understand that the state he lived in could take his property, his guns and his liberty if the majority so ruled? I can't believ you do but I learn something new here every time I post.