I can only be impartial as to whether or not a person is guilty or not guilty of violating a law, according to the facts, if I am not also judging the law at the same time. Judging the law is entirely separate from judging the facts.
At least you made it abundantly clear that you stand with the STATE and stand against the people.
Where did I say that? Your anarchist bent causes you to ASSUME that, but, as I said before, if I disagree with a law (and thus stand against the state), I will make that abundantly clear up front. It is not for me to take that prejudice into the jury box with me.
Not that this will matter to a statist like you but nonetheless, when a court process works towards seating a biased jury the court process has initiated force, so to speak. Thus, should a potential juror chose to lie about agreement with the law it is an act of defense on behalf of the defendant.
This is the most convoluted bunch of nonsense I've read all day. Lying as self-defense, in a courtroom? HAH!
If it's an agenda the agenda is to ensure that the defendant in fact does get an impartial jury.
You're not impartial if you think the law is unconstitutional.
I've enjoyed this dialogue with you, but we're just going over the same ground. We're not going to agree, but good luck at getting on a jury. I do everything I can to avoid jury service.
So what is the judge, if he refuses to allow an argument to be heard?
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.
Your anarchist bent causes you to ASSUME that
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.