Posted on 05/16/2002 3:05:12 AM PDT by LibertyRocks
But how many years has it been since any jury in this nation was given complete instructions as to everything they have the Right and the Authority to do ?? ??
Any jury has the Right to 'throw out' any law (and arrest) that, if in their belief, they believe it to have been mis-applied. Every sitting judge is (or should be) aware of that (and much more) but they are unwilling or unable to insruct the jury that sit under them about everything that is available to them. They have become used to "Legislating from the Bench", like their heores in D.C., instead of actually doing their job, as described in the Constitution, and "Intrepreting" the law(s) that are handed down from Congress . . .
Just because some poor-excuse-for-a Judge "Says its So" does NOT "Make IT So" . . .
Just because the United States Supreme Court has consistently held from the very beginning...
Clintonian parsing is no match for historical facts.
"But it is universally understood, it is a part of the history of the day, that the great revolution which established the constitution of the United States, was not effected without immense opposition. Serious fears were extensively entertained that those powers which the patriot statesmen, who then watched over the interests of our country, deemed essential to union, and to the attainment of those invaluable objects for which union was sought, might be exercised in a manner dangerous to liberty. In almost every convention by which the constitution was adopted, amendments to guard against the abuse of power were recommended. These amendments demanded security against the apprehended encroachments of the general government--not against those of the local governments." -- United States Supreme Court, Barron v. Baltimore, 7 Pet. 243 (1833)
To which Roscoe spewed:
"Clintonian parsing is no match for historical facts."
and then pasted in another one of his repetative wastes of FR bandwidth...
There is no "Clintonian parsing" here... you cannot parse what IS NOT THERE!
Supreme Court decisions and historical facts are more valuable than ignorant ranting.
Overturn. In your ear, Roscoe. You don't want to discuss, fine, we're done.
Overturn historical facts? What a triumph of deliberate ignorance that would be.
"But it is universally understood, it is a part of the history of the day, that the great revolution which established the constitution of the United States, was not effected without immense opposition. Serious fears were extensively entertained that those powers which the patriot statesmen, who then watched over the interests of our country, deemed essential to union, and to the attainment of those invaluable objects for which union was sought, might be exercised in a manner dangerous to liberty. In almost every convention by which the constitution was adopted, amendments to guard against the abuse of power were recommended. These amendments demanded security against the apprehended encroachments of the general government--not against those of the local governments.""In compliance with a sentiment thus generally expressed, to quiet fears thus extensively entertained, amendments were proposed by the required majority in congress, and adopted by the states. These amendments contain no expression indicating an intention to apply them to the state governments. This court cannot so apply them."
Barron v. Baltimore 7 Pet. 243 1833
No, SCOTUS overturns when the case warrants: Plessey vs. Ferguson is a good example. The Fourteenth Amendment was in place when the Court decided Plessey, and it was still there when SCOTUS overturned in Brown vs. Board in 1954, overturning not on the law, but on the facts, and on their interpretation of the Equal Protection Clause -- smartass.
Your Hallmark cards aren't contributing a lot here, pal. Not after the third or fourth time. And if what passes on your screen for reasoned, sprightly repartee doesn't get any better than your last one, I suggest you give it up entirely. You post like a jerk, and I don't think you're posting in good faith. I think you're a liberal disruptor sitting there with a left-winger's warm-watermelon quote-file of zippy one-line quotes from here and there, all indexed like Cliff Notes, and just cutting and pasting to be a jerk on someone else's forum.
Adios, jerk, I'm not posting to you any more. You're on filter -- oh, and by the way, I think you also post as "Walt" from "Tennessee" on Civil War threads, pretending to be a Southerner to jerk the Southerners around with the same kind of drivel. If all the rest of us posted like you did, every post would be "No. Wrong." and a confetti post from the Constitution or the Declaration or the Federalist. Which isn't the way to read them.
'Bye, Roscoe. Kiss it.
The NAZIs are here, and they're not from the right!!
Ignorance of the law is a poor position to argue from.
Non-responsive post filtered and ignored.
Ignorance of true justice is a poor way to live your life.
"The people of the United States are the rightful masters of both Congress and the Courts, not to overthrow the Constitution, but to overthrow the men who pervert the Constitution."
--Abraham Lincoln
"The power of eminent domain does not depend for its existence on a specific grant in the Constitution. It is inherent in sovereignty and exists in a sovereign state without any recognition thereof in the Constitution. It is founded on the law of necessity. The provisions found in most of the state Constitutions relating to the taking of property for the public use do not by implication grant the power to the government of the state, but limit a power which would otherwise be without limit."
18 Am. Jur. 635, § 7."Whosoever, therefore, out of a state of Nature unite into a community, must be understood to give up all the power necessary to the ends for which they unite into society to the majority of the community, unless they expressly agreed in any number greater than the majority. And this is done by barely agreeing to unite into one political society, which is all the compact that is, or needs be, between the individuals that enter into or make up a commonwealth. And thus, that which begins and actually constitutes any political society is nothing but the consent of any number of freemen capable of majority, to unite and incorporate into such a society. And this is that, and that only, which did or could give beginning to any lawful government in the world."
-- John Locke
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.