Posted on 05/18/2009 9:41:14 AM PDT by fightinbluhen51
OK, but I feel some "convenient" slack on your side coming...
Per Amendment V, it is unlawful for the government to deliberately endanger or damage a person's life or property in any fashion that is not reasonably necessary to carry out its prescribed duties. The government and agents thereof thus have a legal duty to minimize any such risk or damage when carrying out their duties. This duty would apply to searches and seizures as well as anything else the government does.
THERE IT IS! (I knew it was coming.)
I am to IGNORE any ruling by a court, but proceed with YOUR interpretation of the Constitution instead.
Could such a set-up POSSIBLY cause a problem with fairness and objectivity?
Give me a break...
Such a claim is false, and judges have no authority to make it.
LOL!
According to... wait for it.... YOU!
Everything would be so much simpler if we just put YOU in charge, eh? :-)
Judicial authority isn't a matter of opinion, FRiend. It's CERTAINLY not a matter of whether or not someone agrees with them, least of all you and I.
I have yet to see anything presented on this subject which leads me to view jury nullification as anything other than EXACTLY the behavior we condemn in "activist" judges, only applied in the deliberation chambers by those who haven't been to law school.
It comes down to a few people overriding the Constitutionally established process of creating law, because they are CERTAIN that the law is wrong, for whatever reason. To a liberal, laws are wrong and deserve to be overridden if they're "unfair", or disadvantage minorities, or any other of a million reasons. To a conservative or libertarian, the reasons will be different, but the end result will be the same: trample the law because we don't like it.
The right of jury trial and the double-jeopardy rule imply that if a jury acquits someone, its ruling is final. BTW, you ignored my baseball analogy which I think is quite relevant: if officials start ignoring the rules of the game, sportsmanship demands after a certain point that people cease to regard those officials' rulings as legitimate.
You seem to suggest that the Constitution does not say the things I claim it does. Can you be more precise as to your points of disagreement? Are you implying that the government is allowed to endanger or damage people's lives or property, even when such endangerment or damage is not necessary to carrying out the government's duties, or that government agents are allowed to act with wanton disregard for people's lives or property? Are you implying that cops' wanton disregard for people's lives or property constitutes "due process of law", or something else?
It comes down to a few people overriding the Constitutionally established process of creating law, because they are CERTAIN that the law is wrong, for whatever reason.
If Congress were to pass a bill requiring that anyone who has ever posted under the name "TChris" spend 8 hours per day giving personal service to Obama, and if Obama were to sign such a bill and the Supreme Court were to uphold it, would you regard it as law? If not, why not?
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.