Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Libertarian Billy Graham
Indeed it is. To what passage in the opinion do you refer?
23 posted on 10/22/2002 12:35:53 AM PDT by Psycho Francis
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies ]


To: Psycho Francis
A dissenting judge in Sparf v. Hansen quoted Elliot's Debates, 94; 2 Bancroft's History of the Constitution, p.267:

"The people themselves have it in their power effectually to resist usurpation, [the wrongful seizure of authority] without being driven to an appeal to arms. An act of usurpation is not obligatory; it is not law; and any man may be justified in his resistance. Let him be considered as a criminal by the general government, yet only his fellow citizens can convict him; they are his jury, and if they pronounce him innocent, not all the powers of Congress can hurt him; and innocent they certainly will pronounce him, if the supposed law he resisted was an act of usurpation."

But I don't have the weasily language in the majority opinion handy that they now use to relegate jury nullification to a "secret rogue power."

24 posted on 10/22/2002 12:44:36 AM PDT by Libertarian Billy Graham
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies ]

To: Psycho Francis
Here's a link
25 posted on 10/22/2002 12:48:37 AM PDT by Libertarian Billy Graham
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson