Skip to comments.
New ways to break the law! (are you a criminal? Probably)
http://www.theadvocates.org ^
| Bill Winter
Posted on 02/18/2006 1:46:55 PM PST by freepatriot32
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 61-80, 81-100, 101-120 ... 181-198 next last
To: null and void
81
posted on
02/18/2006 6:00:10 PM PST
by
null and void
(before the darkness there's a moment of light, when everything seems so clear)
To: Gordongekko909
Yep. Juries don't get to decide questions of law. They get to decide questions of fact. And they may determine that the accused did not commit the crime with which he is charged.
######
Thats what statist judges want people to think. However, the truth is the jury has the power and the duty to judge of both the law as well as the fact in controversy.
82
posted on
02/18/2006 6:05:54 PM PST
by
SUSSA
To: SUSSA
Thats what statist judges want people to think. However, the truth is the jury has the power and the duty to judge of both the law as well as the fact in controversy. Except... no. If the jury does anything aside from act as a trier of fact, they have to do it under the radar. It's the legislature's job to make laws, and judges' job to interpret them. Any duty that a jury has to make judgments of law comes from some "higher law" source, not from anything you'll actually find in a statute.
83
posted on
02/18/2006 6:08:48 PM PST
by
Gordongekko909
(I know. Let's cut his WHOLE BODY off.)
To: Richard Kimball
While a juror might decide on his own that he would vote not guilty because he did not agree with the law, that does not mean the jury has the legal right to challenge the validity of the law.
####
The Supreme Court has ruled otherwise.
In fact, the instructions to the jury in the first jury trial before the Supreme Court of the United States illustrate the true power of the jury. Chief Justice John Jay said: "It is presumed, that juries are the best judges of facts; it is, on the other hand, presumed that courts are the best judges of law. But still both objects are within your power of decision." "...you have a right to take it upon yourselves to judge of both, and to determine the law as well as the fact in controversy".
84
posted on
02/18/2006 6:12:21 PM PST
by
SUSSA
To: BenLurkin
"Legislators need to be paid for taking laws off the books."
Legislators need to be beaten with large sticks from time to time.
85
posted on
02/18/2006 6:15:33 PM PST
by
dljordan
To: SUSSA
'Course that is soooooo 19th century.
We have a Living Constitution and Living Gods in black robes now...
86
posted on
02/18/2006 6:17:14 PM PST
by
null and void
(before the darkness there's a moment of light, when everything seems so clear)
To: IronJack
I think about that every day... Unfortunately, the system is a joke.
87
posted on
02/18/2006 6:18:52 PM PST
by
abner
(Looking for a new tagline- Next outrage please!- Got it! PRIVATE PROPERTY RIGHTS LOST IN THE USA!)
To: Gordongekko909
They have to act under the radar because judges abuse their power. They have the right and duty to judge both but must get past the judges who abuse their office.
88
posted on
02/18/2006 6:20:05 PM PST
by
SUSSA
To: SUSSA
89
posted on
02/18/2006 6:21:27 PM PST
by
Gordongekko909
(I know. Let's cut his WHOLE BODY off.)
To: shezza
My son got a ticket in Athens Ohio (Ohio University) on a weekend visit for "walking while intoxicated" Go figure
90
posted on
02/18/2006 6:21:48 PM PST
by
estrogen
(I)
To: null and void
Our responsibility is to find ways to get around those judges and do our duty.
91
posted on
02/18/2006 6:25:14 PM PST
by
SUSSA
To: freepatriot32
Born criminals are some of the most danagerious types of people there are because they have no guilt in being criminals because the government deemed them criminals for simply existing.
To: SUSSA
93
posted on
02/18/2006 6:27:10 PM PST
by
null and void
(before the darkness there's a moment of light, when everything seems so clear)
To: Gordongekko909
State of Georgia vs. Brailsford (3 Dall 1). February 1794
94
posted on
02/18/2006 6:27:10 PM PST
by
SUSSA
To: SUSSA
When was the last jury trial before SCOTUS?
95
posted on
02/18/2006 6:30:29 PM PST
by
BenLurkin
(O beautiful for patriot dream - that sees beyond the years)
To: null and void
Alcohol prohibition was repealed in large part because juries stopped convicting bootleggers for just possession and sale. If juries stopped convicting on seatbelt laws, etc. they would soon be repealed.
96
posted on
02/18/2006 6:30:47 PM PST
by
SUSSA
To: SUSSA
Juries have a de facto *ability* to do that. They have no *right*, let alone a *duty*, based in law.
Sparf v. US, 156 U.S. 51 (1895).
Any *right* or *duty* to engage in jury nullification arises from a "higher law" analysis, not in the laws of man.
97
posted on
02/18/2006 6:32:12 PM PST
by
Gordongekko909
(I know. Let's cut his WHOLE BODY off.)
To: Gordongekko909
"In order to graduate from law school, you have to shed every ounce of common sense you have and think in a very mechanical way."It is less than that . . . and more.
98
posted on
02/18/2006 6:32:33 PM PST
by
BenLurkin
(O beautiful for patriot dream - that sees beyond the years)
To: BenLurkin
99
posted on
02/18/2006 6:32:40 PM PST
by
SUSSA
To: SUSSA
ummmm, that was sooooo
18th century...
Yeah, that's what I meant, that's the ticket...
100
posted on
02/18/2006 6:34:47 PM PST
by
null and void
(before the darkness there's a moment of light, when everything seems so clear)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 61-80, 81-100, 101-120 ... 181-198 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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson