Posted on 05/16/2002 3:05:12 AM PDT by LibertyRocks
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 just an amateur at this, and you know we're not supposed to try this at home, but I believe that the only time State matters are to be brought to the Supreme Court is for the Supreme Court to rule upon whether the existing laws were applied properly, due process was followed, and court procedures were proper. I mean, the Supreme Court does not rule upon whether a person is guilty but upon whether the State conducted the trial properly in which the person was found guilty. Right? Sometimes I have a hard time conveying my point - I hope you understand what I'm getting at here.
The Constitution is the Supreme Law of the Land, as we're a Republic (Rule of Law). But that doesn't mean that everything in the Constitution applies to the states. The Constitution sets the terms and conditions for Congress to meet and be elected, but it doesn't set those terms and conditions for the State Legislatures, does it? If a State wanted a State Senator to only serve 4 years in the State Legislature, then would you say that the conditions in Article I for a 6-year term for Senators supersede the State's desires? No.
Certainly not during jury selection. Are you another dunce on this thread?
In fact, odds are you're posting from just such a facility.
Upon what do you base such an attack on Mr. Grant? Please be specific.
Raising issues irrelvant to the court proceeding. Juries make decisions of facts. They don't issue rulings of law.
You failed the class that taught the definition of 'specific', right... or do you just not know how to use a dictionary? Raising issues?? By gosh those issues, whatever they are sure does specify them -- NOT! And 'irrelevant', what was irrelevant? The issues were irrelevant is what you're saying. What issues and why do you call them irrelevant? You responded in general but tried to pass it off as being specific. Just like a politician not answering the question and weasel-wording around it.
You are the only person that I have read on this thread that seems to think Grant sought the jury to issue a ruling of law. So you base your attack in part on your own mind-spun fabrication. Not to worry, I've come to expect the worst from you.
Do you tell your kids you walked to school ten miles in the snow when you were young?
Sinkspur is a shart wit and more often than no, duels you two to the intellectual death.
I've long suspected that you just feigned the JBT image and were in reality just a young teenager whose parents are unaware of your keyboard antics.. Your above unintelligible sentence has me thinking that you not even that old but probably of elementary school age.
This is all true, however it is also the responsibility of SCOTUS to occasionally rule on whether state laws are in fact legal. Remember back two years ago when the state of Nebraska tried to pass a law banning certain types of partial birth abortion? The law was immediately brought to SCOTUS and struck down. We apparently have the inalienable right to kill babies at the moment of birth, but not to carry a gun.
LOL Even Paine understood my typo. That doesn't say much for your brain cells when he gets it and you dont. :)
typoS is more than one. You had more than one. See, you can't even do a competent edit after your errors have been pointed out to you. You are a hoot!
Not at all. I was arguing with someone who thinks he ought to be able to decide Constitutionality of a law along with the guilt or innocence of a defendant.
I don't agree with that position, which is why I told him to approach jury duty his way, I'll approach it in my way.
Yes, but these Supreme Court rulings are misapplication of the 14th Amendment. A state law can't be unconstitutional, to the U.S. Constitution, unless is violates specific language in the Constitution referring to the states. See also the 10th Amendment.
Yes, and wouldn't the denial of a defendant's Constitutional Right, and denial of arguments asserting those Rights bring into question whether or not the trial was conducted properly -- whether due process was followed? What more egregious act could a court emit than to deny a protected Right? What and whom is the U.S. Constitution protecting, then, if a state or city judge can do this?
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.