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

To: TChris

and if the law is Un-Constitutional? you still would vote to convict??? Just becuase the legislature votes for it does not make it constitutinal.

seems like you are giving up a lot of power of teh people and giving it BLINDLY to judges and politicians. YOU have the JURY power to stop conviction of folks for bad laws.

just wait until we get more obama type Un-constitutional laws. you might change your tune.


41 posted on 05/06/2009 9:34:22 AM PDT by dhm914
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies ]


To: dhm914
and if the law is Un-Constitutional?

You write as though it's a simple thing to judge a law unconstitutional. If it was that simple and obvious when a law was unconstitutional, we wouldn't really need the Supreme Court, would we?

you still would vote to convict???

I would vote according to the law and the evidence presented at trial. That's what jurors are sworn to do, and I would do my best to keep that oath.

Could you kindly show my in the Constitution where a juror is given the authority to do anything else? ...or where a juror is granted authority to disregard or effectively modify the law?

seems like you are giving up a lot of power of teh people and giving it BLINDLY to judges and politicians.

If that power is a bad thing, then you have a problem with the Constitution. The people GRANT that power to "judges and politicians" because that's what the Constitution has established.

YOU have the JURY power to stop conviction of folks for bad laws.

Bad laws, according to WHOM? There's no universal definition of "bad law". That's exactly the problem!

If EVERYONE agrees that it's a "bad law", then getting it changed in the legislature should be at least possible, even if difficult.

just wait until we get more obama type Un-constitutional laws. you might change your tune.

I can hate the laws without trashing the process.

We all agree that congress creates a lot of junk. But we DON'T all agree on which ones ARE junk.

A juror has the sworn, moral duty to apply the law to the evidence and reach a decision. If he ignores the law of the land, substituting his OWN law, then he has violated his sacred oath and is no better than a judge who substitutes HIS own law.

43 posted on 05/06/2009 10:53:59 AM PDT by TChris (There is no freedom without the possibility of failure.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies ]

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