Posted on 05/16/2012 3:48:55 AM PDT by Kaslin
Not surprised, because gun sales have gone up through the roof.
That is why I go with the teaching of Jesus, to render unto God what is God’s.
There is.
Judging by the complacency over 1.3 million state sanctioned murders every year, I’d say no.
Take confort, there is hope.
I go by, love God first, others second, myself third.
That's a darn good question. My tentative answer is no, there aren't enough non-sheep. The American people seem to accept what there are told to do in ridiculous laws. The TSA bullcrap that goes on every day is proof of that.
The illegal immigrants you equate to citizens are not part of the community that (ostensibly) created the laws. Therefore, they have no say in whether they should be obeyed or not.
If you crash my party, you don’t get to complain about the beer I’m serving. But if you helped pay for a keg and I went out and bought red wine instead (because I don’t like beer), then you have a right to kvetch.
Suppose you were on the jury for colonial newspaper publisher John Peter Zenger, who published articles against the King. Would you convict him of doing so? The jury didn’t — they said he had a right to do so.
Moral people can’t rely solely on the courts to establish what’s right or wrong
A good deal of this crap would stop if School children (and their parents) were reminded that a jury has not only the right but the obligation to judge the law as well as the offence ... and that this concept was validated by the Supreme Court opinion that has not been superceded. In the 1800s, judges used to tell you this ... but no longer.
Every juror should start deliberations with a request to see a copy of the exact text of the law which the defendant is claimed to have violated. If the law is vague, and subject to multiple interpretations, then no one’s liberty or treasure should be confiscated to enforce it. Some judges will throw you off of the jury if you insist on actually seeing the text of the law.
The next question is, “Is this a law that we should enforce? In other words, is it moral?”
For example, if I were on a jury for a young person accused of violating a pot possession law, I would note that the past 3 Presidents have admitted to the press that they broke this law; and then I would ask, “Is this a law that should be enforced?”
If so, then the third question can be asked ... did the defendant intend to and then actually violate the law?
Check FIJA.com for more information.
BFL, I’d like to reply to this at length
“...nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law...” (Amendment V). This covers it.
Congress can remove the jurisdiction of the judiciary over a given issue. They have done so in the past.
The Federal Judiciary, yes. But not the Supreme Court’s.
That amounts to the same thing, as the Supreme Court, except in a few specific cases prescribed in the Constitution itself, has only appellate jurisdiction. If you prevent the lower courts from taking up anything, you prevent the Supreme Court from getting that matter.
You pass the laws you want to pass in accord with the Constitution as written and take away the jurisdiction of the Federal judiciary to change it. Nothing the Supremes can do at that point.
But I think we're arguing arcana now.
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.