Posted on 05/16/2002 3:05:12 AM PDT by LibertyRocks
Is justice done when a person is convicted under an unjust law? The intent of our courts is to ensure that justice is done. Everyone in the court - the judge, jury, and attorneys - has the overriding concern that justice is done. Sadly, that idea is lost under mounds and mounds of laws, precedent, corrupt judges and prosecutors, lazy or crooked lawyers, and we the people can no longer find justice. The juror doesn't necessarily decide the constitutionality of a law, he decides among all other things he must consider whether the law being applied is just, whether it is right, and whether justice will be done in the particular situation before him.
This is illogical on its face, but you don't see it, which is not surprising.
If I disagree with a law, it is highly unlikely I would even be on the jury, as I would make certain the court was so informed.
The Constitution protects us from the abuse of our rights perpetrated by the Federal government. State Constitutions protect us from the abuse of our rights by state and local governments. If our rights are abused, and upon appeal our State Supreme Court rules incorrectly, we appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court to look at our State laws and Constitution and to correct the State Supreme Court if they ruled incorrectly or did not afford us the rights guaranteed under our State Constitution.
In cases where agents of the Federal Government, or Federal Courts have denied us our rights, then we cite the U.S. Constitution when the case appears before the Supreme Court.
That is what was intended. Of course, that isn't how it is being applied today. And that is one of the core reasons our rights are so routinely being abused. We've morphed from the intended Federal system into a National system. That surely was not the intent of the Founding Fathers.
Obviously, I disagree. This is a pre-election year stunt which Stanley knew would come to trial about now.
It's red meat for you guys.
After reading the turgid rationales of the profiteers of human misery on this thread it's not hard to understand the bloodthirstiness of the Roman mobs during the Social Wars.
The betrayal of the sacrifices made by one's ancestors to produce a just polity angers the population as nothing else can. The obvious operation of the res publica to the private advantage of the 'establishment' is odious to the general public.
Once they see it that way. And they will.
Headsonpikes' fearless prediction: The obscure Constitutional reference to 'bills of attainder' will no longer be obscure when such bills are passed to exact revenge on the socialist statists who have corrupted America and her institutions.
Guess what? Ventura declined the challenge. Just like you did. So I guess I'll just have to wait to see you call Rick Stanley, "an idiot" to his face, macho-man!
Then we all shook our heads and wondered how close to the end of time we were...pretty scary if true: "you will not mention the consitution" - IN A COURTROOM FOR CHRIST SAKE?
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.
Wrong. The juror must be informed that he has the option of judging the law -- jury nullification. That in no way implies that the juror must side with the defendant. The wording in the constitution means to protect the defendant from the seating of a biased jury in favor of the STATE.
The logical conclusion is that you think the constitutional meaning is that the STATE must be protected from an impartial jury being seated in the defendant's favor. But more so you imply the constitutional meaning is to protect the STATE from jurors ensuring above all else that honest/equal justice is upheld.
As I said in my previous post:
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.
Eminent domain. Asset forfeiture. Choose your poison.
Jury nullification is a bulwark against such abuse.
You can vote for the people who will impeach those judges and replace them with those more in line with your beliefs. If that's too much like work for your taste, I understand.
Were you not removed from jury service then I have to conclude you would find for the state provided the prosecution proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant had in fact violated Jim Crow.
What would you say to the other jurors in the deliberation room? Would you voice your objection to Jim Crow or keep your mouth shut and vote guilty?
Didn't Jesus warn the Pharisees about laying a heavy burden of laws on the people and being more concerned with appearances than righteousness ?---That could be applied to our lawmakers today.
This thread has certainly illustrated who believes in statism v. constitutional republicanism.
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.