Posted on 05/16/2002 3:05:12 AM PDT by LibertyRocks
It's like I've been saying -- it's all over! The Constitution is dead! Freedom is dead! And I hope you people who criticize Rick Stanley for asserting his Rights enjoy the police state you support!
He's not guilty. You can't be guilty of violating a law which prohibits acts expressly protected by state & federal Constitutions. Lower laws do not trump higher ones.
This is the most convoluted bunch of nonsense I've read all day. Lying as self-defense, in a courtroom? HAH!
I explained the reasoning. It amounts to if you railroad me I owe you no respect. In this case if a judge abuses a defendant by seating a biased jury the judge deserve no respect and lying may constitute the best self-defense against the judges initiation of force.
You're not impartial if you think the law is unconstitutional.
Who decides what is impartial? A Bible?...The Koran?...The Constitution?
Amendment VI of the Bill Of Rights uses the impartial jury wording to mean that juries will not be compelled to side with the STATE. For more than one-hundred years judges routinely upheld the Sixth Amendment as it was meant. Since 1893 judges have regarded that wording with contempt and have foisted biased jurries on defendants since.
Your intention is to agree with the STATE and judges and invert 180-degrees the 'impartial jury' wording to mean that it is wrong for a citizen/juror to side with the defendant instead of the law.
What will you invert next? That "the people" wording of Amendment II of the Bill Of Rights means the people as a whole/collective or just a STATE militia may keep and bear arms. And that the Second Amendment doesn't apply to an individual ...And does not mean individuals right to keep and bare arms may not be infringed but rather, that the States "right" or militia rights or or the people-collective rights cannot be infringed but the individual's right can be infringed.
Wrong.
So it was with O. J., too -- but thanks for not making a point!
Find even one exception.
So it was with O. J., too
That was a "not guilty' verdict.
Sorry, that's trumped by
14th Amendment Section. 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.If the question remains, we look to Emerson and Haney, which are both pending before SCOTUS.
I probably did say similar of you. It's not because you disagree with me that you are deficient in moral integrity and honesty -- you did that all on your own. Perhaps if you didn't post your thoughts you wouldn't be exposing those deficiencies.
Your moral arrogance knows no bounds. Perhaps if you'd just ignore my posts, we'd both be happier.
I'm plenty happy and I can see that you are having a hard time of it. Basically I've ignored your posts for four years. But today you chose to set yourself up as an example and I took the bait.
On the contrary, it is your intention to agree with the defendant and to invert the "impartial jury" wording to mean that a juror MUST side with the defendant instead of the law.
...and the case is now pending before SCOTUS.
How many jury pools are open to people randomly walking in off of the street?
I'm having fun watching you paint yourself into a corner as an anarchist.
That's precisely why the Founding Fathers penned the 2nd Amendment. Molon Labe.
Wrong again.
"The relevant historical materials have been canvassed by this Court and by legal scholars. These materials demonstrate conclusively that Congress and the members of the legislatures of the ratifying States did not contemplate that the Fourteenth Amendment was a short-hand incorporation of the first eight amendments making them applicable as explicit restrictions upon the States." -- U.S. Supreme Court BARTKUS v. ILLINOIS, 359 U.S. 121 (1959)
Obviously not. Relevance? Especially since the 14th Amendment subjugates state law to federal rights?
If Haney is vindicated by SCOTUS overturning 922(o), then by the 14th Amendment, Stanley's conviction will be overturned.
But are you telling us that Cruikshank and Presser vs. Illinois would stand up for five minutes under reconsideration by SCOTUS today?
The Cruikshank case was an exercise in squid ink (yes, I've read it) that exonerated a group of Klansmen in Louisiana who were arrested while going abroad to beat and kill black voters, to dissuade them from voting. Brought up under the Klan Act, they were convicted of conspiring to violate the rights of several persons. The SC turned them loose on the theory that the black voters of Louisiana were required to look to the State of Louisiana as the palladium of their federal rights. That opinion wouldn't last five seconds today, and yet its subsidiarity argument underpinned Presser, which relied on it when it blessed Illinois's restriction of the Illinois Militia (State Guard, actually) to a roster of 8500 picked men -- who, under the Presser theory, alone were guaranteed the right to keep and bear arms, among all the inhabitants of the State by the Second Amendment.
Try forming a little tree house in your own state and restricting Fourth Amendment rights to tree-house club members, and see what Justice Scalia says about that arrangement.
Presser, Cruikshank, and Miller are all overripe fruit ready to be pulled from the tree and tossed to the pigs. And that's why Alan Dershowitz advised his liberal friends to make sure no Second Amendment case reaches the Supreme Court.
Looks like they're screwed now. Stanley could still be in jail a long time, but he'll be vindicated eventually.
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.