Posted on 08/20/2013 9:46:36 AM PDT by South40
Do you have a problem with noncitizens serving on juries as long as they are legal residents?
(Excerpt) Read more at utsandiego.com ...
I do.
Interesting question. I think I would like the distinction to be made that our Constitution is their to protect CITIZENS of the US. That said, since it was ratified, I think it has applied to all legal folks in this country.
What has changed is the blurred lines about who is considered legal, interpretively speaking, of course.
As long as their paying taxes, I’m okay if they’re here in a legal status.
They are not our peers. Unconstitutional.
it seems to me that one would have to be a legal citizen before one can be a legal resident - therefor i do indeed have a problem with it
Right now if you are a registered voter or and CA driver’s license or ID holder you can be called for jury duty. I just served and nowhere in the process do you need to show and ID. They just assume you are the person holding the summons to duty. So right now anyone can serve.
Yes - not citizens = no vote, no jury, no free housing, no foodstamps, no welfare.
It’s common sense, actually.
my peers can at least speak Englisa.
Being a peer means being a fellow citizen - as in citizen of the United States of America.
86% Yes 13% No
Only citizens should serve on juries. We have removed, one at a time, all the benefits of citizenship.
Also, jury-members during their service become active members of the government, and that should apply to only citizens, as it does with every other office.
I for one, do not want to be adjudged by someone who is not a fellow-citizen.
I just voted in the poll. I’m glad I’m with the 87%.
I do. The are not a jury of your peers in the purest sense of that term. They cannot be your peers if they are not citizens like you. I’d even have a problem with it if the accused is not a citizen. It is a PROCESS that is emplaced to effect the law and carry out justice. It is subverted when a foreigner is introduced into that process.
Yes.
How about being operated on by a person that’s not a doctor... Is that OK?
True story :)
My husband had a green card for years (Canada.) And then in 2001 decided to become a Naturalized American Citizen.
Once he was a citizen, he was glad he could vote...not just try to tell me who to vote for :)
But he really was excited to be able to be eligible for jury duty (maybe one too many John Grisham novels.) He was “hankering” to be on a jury. He’s actually been called 3, or 4 times, for jury duty and each times he “flunks” out. While a lot of folks are trying to get out of jury duty, it’s something he wants to do, but can’t seem to make the cut.
In what way would it be unconstitutional?
As far as I can tell, the word “peer” does not appear anywhere in The Constitution of the United States.
I do not think it is a good idea.
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.