Posted on 05/16/2002 3:05:12 AM PDT by LibertyRocks
And you call Rick Stanley an idiot! Only because you are safe behind your keyboard. Rick Stanley has more courage in the bunion of his big toe than you have in your entire body, pal.
I have NEVER called anyone a name on this website that I was not willing and prepared to tell him to his face, if the invitation were extended. I say you are nothing but words and no action. A name-caller who hides behind his computer screen. Nothing more!
297 posted by lentulusgracchus
Begging the question and completely off point. Wanna try again? - roscoe
Roscoe, reduced to pointless begging.
Well done, Lentulusgracchus! - HAIL!
Are you implying that the Second Amendment was NOT a restriction on government -- that the Executive and Judicial branches could violate "the Peoples" 2nd Amendment Right? Is that what you are saying?
I can't cite the cases off the top of my head, but I remember from law school that the Supreme Court has only "selectively incorporated" the Bill of Rights into the 14th Amendment. Most of the BOR has been applied to the states, but the right to indictment by a grand jury (5th Amendment) has been held not to apply to the states, nor does the 7th amendment (right to jury trial in civil cases).
Jurors would judge the law, not just the facts because they were informed by the judge to judge both the facts and the law in that case.
Non sequitur.
Perhaps you should look up the definition of non sequitur. What I wrote does follow logically. A non sequitur is a statement that doesn't follow logically.
What does that have to do with impartiality?
I already told you in the post you responded to. See for yourself and especially the part in bold...
Are you seriously contending that you're that ignorant or incompetent or both? The answer is glaringly obvious. Answer: Jurors would judge the law, not just the facts because they were informed by the judge to judge both the facts and the law in that case. In other words, a juror could think that the defendant is guilty of breaking a law but that the law is bogus in this case and should not be upheld. A juror becomes more impartial when he or she is informed that their job also entails judging the law in that case. Cut of judging the facts or cut of judging the law and impartiality is lost.
Do you understand? Or should I hazard a well reasoned guess based on reading so many of your posts on various threads that you will continue to feign ignorance and/or incompetence.
I didn't write what I posted (#279). It was a "cut and paste" deal.
If that is what he is implying, it is ludicrous. Why would our Founding Fathers restrict the powers of one Branch of government, while giving Carte Blanche to the other 2 Branches to violate our Rights? That is looney on its face!
And who gives a crap what the opinion is of some appointed Supreme Court Justice -- an AGENT OF THE STATE. We can read the words of the Second Amendment ("...shall not infringe..."). If Roscoe needs a demented old fart on the Supreme Court to tell him what that means, then no wonder he gets most of his stuff wrong.
The 2nd Amendment and the Bill of Rights was a restriction on government - but on the Federal government only. That's why the 1st Amendment says specifically "Congress shall make no law..." and that's why official State religions existed AFTER the ratification of the U.S. Constitution. It's all part of the original plan of sovereign states and competition between the states. If your state is infringing upon your right to keep and bear arms, you wouldn't go to the Federal Government for help (as if they would help - and it isn't their jurisdiction anyway) you would either change the laws in your state, move to a different state, or overthrow the tyrannical government in your state. Unfortunately, the 14th Amendment and its misguided application has thwarted the whole original intent of our Federal form of government.
I agree with Paul Grant's defense except that I feel he should have made that defense based upon the Colorado Constitution, not the U.S. Constitution. I highly respect Grant and Stanley and you - we just disagree on this one point.
Side note: Paul Grant will be defending my Brother-in-law in the near future in what may prove to be another high-profile event in the Denver area. Stay tuned.
I believe that the Founding Fathers listed the Bill of Rights as those that no state nor the federal government could infringe upon. That's why state cases get appealed to the highest court in the land -- the Supreme Court -- the entity that rules on the Supreme Law of the Land. If I'm wrong, I'm willing to listen.
I'm all ears if you want to freepmail me!
Some parts of the Constitution explicitly limit what States can do. (For example, Article I, section 10, says that no state may pass a bill of attainder or ex post facto law). In a decision in 1830, the Supreme Court court said that the Bill of Rights limited the federal government, but not the states. Later cases applied that explicitly to the 2nd Amendment. Then the 14th amendment came along, and said that states could not violate the "privileges and immunities" of their own citizens. Since the 1920s, the Supreme Court, in a long series of cases, has held that the 14th amendment requires states to comply with most, but not quite all, of the Bill of Rights. There has been no case in the Supreme Court since those decisions which has explicitly answered that question as to the 2nd Amendment.
This lawyer is not unlike you. Raising unrelated and irrelvant issues and basically making an ass out of himself. You both belong in the criminal justice system.
Raising issues irrelvant to the court proceeding. Juries make decisions of facts. They don't issue rulings of law.
Sinkspur is a shart wit and more often than no, duels you two to the intellectual death. But like brain dead vampires, you mindless, vapid pair both seem to rise again from the dead.
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.