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

To: LibertarianInExile

?


26 posted on 12/14/2004 7:55:23 PM PST by Psycho_Bunny (I know a greag deal about the Middle East because Ive been raising Arabian horses" Patrick Swazey)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies ]


To: Psycho_Bunny

"If I recall correctly, it was Hamilton, defending a loyalist in New York immediately after the Revolutionary War, who first argued that his client's guilt or innocence under the law which he was being charged was irrelevant because the law itself was unjust. Hamilton won the case. And that was several years prior to the Constitution."

All I'm saying is that Hamilton would have made that argument regardless of the law to which he was subject, and he was not for the Constitution so much as a strong federal government, period. I apologize for the confusion regarding your point--for some reason, in my sleep-deprived state I thought you were pointing to Hamilton as some sort of Constitutional advocate, where upon rereading seems you were just pointing out that jury nullification was around pre-Constitution.


29 posted on 12/14/2004 8:24:43 PM PST by LibertarianInExile (NO BLOOD FOR CHOCOLATE! Get the UN-ignoring, unilateralist Frogs out of Ivory Coast!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | 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