These are just maxims of common law that regulate courts. They were written in Latin and translated into English. Evidently Latin is a more precise language for legal matters. 
Posted on 05/16/2002 3:05:12 AM PDT by LibertyRocks
These are just maxims of common law that regulate courts. They were written in Latin and translated into English. Evidently Latin is a more precise language for legal matters.
Roscoe writes: What does this case have to do with the "Constitution of the United States"?
"...the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."Sound familiar?
Let me guess what line of response will be akin to... I didn't inhale... I didn't have sexual relations with that woman... or, I didn't know it was an aspirin factory.
Because your assertion was unsupported by law or facts.
You guessed wrong.
"The Second Amendment declares that it shall not be infringed, but this, as has been seen, means no more than that it shall not be infringed by Congress." -- US Supreme Court, U.S. v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542 (1875), Presser v. State of Illinois, 116 U.S. 252 (1886)
There was no cause. Removing city employees from jury pools simply because they work for the city that is enforcing the law through a lawsuit sounds loony.
Confessed to what -- exercising his 2nd Amendment Right? That does not constitute a confession!
Why don't you take me up on my offer. You can freepmail me and give me your address. I'll arrange for you, me, and Rick Stanley to meet face-to-face so that you can tell him to his face that he's an idiot. How's that sound?
Wrong.
I'm having fun watching you paint yourself into a corner as an anarchist.
Anarchist HA! I'm 100 percent for honest/equal justice and the upholding of individual-property rights. What you propose is anarchy and is demonstrated by the millions of innocents convicted of breaking political agenda laws. That facilitates anarchy because those innocents would be productive members of society producing marketable values for citizens instead of costing taxpayers to have them produce nothing.
THIS would seem to support that assertion.
[You] Cite an exception.
Well, Roscoe, try this:
Sec. 242. - Deprivation of rights under color of law
Whoever, under color of any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom, willfully subjects any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or to different punishments, pains, or penalties, on account of such person being an alien, or by reason of his color, or race, than are prescribed for the punishment of citizens, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both; and if bodily injury results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include the use, attempted use, or threatened use of a dangerous weapon, explosives, or fire, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, shall be fined under this title, or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death.
This section of USC clearly shows that the rights of United States citizens are protected by the the laws of the United States, not by the laws and governments of the several States as per Cruikshank.
That exceptional enough for you, Roscoe?
Begging the question and completely off point.
Wanna try again?
Please cite and quote (in extenso, please) relevant authority showing that ctdonath2 is wrong in his opinion.
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.