Posted on 05/16/2002 3:05:12 AM PDT by LibertyRocks
I'd like to read something besides a story from a libertarian web site before I form an opinion.
Asking jurors to interpret the Constitution is not what one is asked to do in a courtroom.
Jurors are asked to decide whether someone is guilty or not guilty of breaking THE LAW.
Actually, this is a sickening but unfortunate part of the judicial process, yes the Constitution can be excluded. You as a defendent & your attorney cannot read the law/statute as it is printed on the books to the jury, you cannot read or refer to the Constitution as it is written, you as a juror cannot go out and research the case and any associated laws or discover anything on your own. The judge can taylor & restrict the testimony & instuctions to the jury in any manner they see fit, to how ever it serves their agenda or their supporters agenda the best. This is true in all courts. It is digusting and revolting more so than any crime, the justice system is a criminal entity within itself, serving itself, to perpetuate itself.
Asking jurors to interpret the Constitution is not what one is asked to do in a courtroom.
Jurors are asked to decide whether someone is guilty or not guilty of breaking THE LAW.
Up until 1893, judges routinely instructed jurors that they are to judge both the facts of the case and the law as it may or may not apply to the case. Jury nullification. Obviously you side with the parasitical elite government officials, mainstream media and many tenured professors and not with the people whom are the ultimate guardian of their laws.
From post #59, Zon wrote: It seems clear that the judge wants to stifle the case to a simple question of, "did Stanley break the law as it is written?". In other words, the law is the law and that's the end of that issue. ...Now the only question that matters is: did Stanley break the law?
I'd like to read something besides a story from a libertarian web site before I form an opinion.
Yep, you want to make sure you get the appropriate spin and talking points to tow the line.
Judge: "When I want you to have rights, I'll give them to you"
Mainstream media reporter or journalist to the reader/listener/viewer: When we want your opinion we'll give it to you.
Exactly. I don't want some hayseed from Penelope, Texas who can barely read to decide on the Constitutionality of Laws. That's the jurisdiction of courts.
Then I am left to conclude this lawyer and his client are hysterical.
That IS the proper right and DUTY of juries, as the famous and precedent setting William Penn trial in London showed.
Uh, no. Are we now operating under British law?
I don't understand. I conclude that the lawyer is trying to obfuscate his client's guilt (his client ADMITS he's guilty) by raising "Constitutional issues," which have nothing to do with the case.
Jurors decide on the law, not whether the law is Constitutional or not.
In Germany it was THE LAW to turn in Jews and it was THE LAW not to give aide and shelter to Jews. Would you say these LAWs should have been obeyed? And, juries should find people guilty and punished for violating these LAWs?
I firmly believe in Jury Nullification, a jury must judge the law as well as the facts of the case.
A jury is entitled to judge not only the case but the law itself, and they can throw out the case if they judge the law is a bad one. But most Americans are never apprised of that right.
Zon wrote in post #59 and #63: In other words, the law is the law and that's the end of that issue. ...Now the only question that matters is: did Stanley break the law?
sinkspur wrote in post #68: Exactly. I don't want some hayseed from Penelope, Texas who can barely read to decide on the Constitutionality of Laws. That's the jurisdiction of courts.
sinkspur curiously avoided this part of the post #63 he/she(?) responded to: "Up until 1893, judges routinely instructed jurors that they are to judge both the facts of the case and the law as it may or may not apply to the case. Jury nullification. Obviously you side with the parasitical elite government officials, mainstream media and many tenured professors and not with the people whom are the ultimate guardian of their laws." Emphasis added.
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.