Posted on 03/12/2003 7:27:40 AM PST by The FRugitive
So court decisions can invalidate our explicitly stated constitituional rights and that is no problem and good little conservatives should go along. Is that what you are saying?
I am sorry but your theory of government leaves us with no protection from tyranny short of an armed revolution. Don't you think that some non-violent alternative should be available for the people to defend themselves from an out of control government?
This really is a key point. I know that the far right and the far left want government all powerful to impose their ideas. Each forgets that the all powerful govt can just as easily impose the other side's ideas. Libertarians understand what the founders made very clear. Government is a dangerous servant and a fearful master and the jury idea was the final non-violent check on its powers.
By the way, the founders did not invent this. It is part of our heritage from at least as far back as the Magna Carta (1215 AD).
Wrong again.
no protection from tyranny short of an armed revolution.
Our historic systems of representative government have stood the test of time.
Your ignorance is your failure, not America's.
There is an old saying among patriots. There are 4 boxes that protect our freedom. Use them in this order: Soap box, ballot box, jury box, ammo box.
Now, even a blind conservative must have noticed that free speech is under attack. There are plenty of things that you cannot say, so the Soap box is of limited usefulness. Your voice is very low compared to the media voices.
The ballot box is also under attack, what with campaign finance limits, ballot access limitations and the general two party system that often gives us the choice between Tweedle Dum and Tweedle Dummer.
Now you deride anyone's use of jury nulification power to limit tyranny. So what is left?
The horrible choice of an armed revolution or bending over.
Sorry, I am going to use my power as a juror whenever the opportunity arrises. I hope that everyone else will too. It is our last best hope. I want my kids to grow up in a truly free nation, not one where they have to look over their shoulder at every turn.
Our free speech rights have never been greater.
the general two party system that often gives us the choice between Tweedle Dum and Tweedle Dummer.
Parties don't give us "the choice", candidates are self-selecting. The ignorance and incompetence of the one percenters is their failure, not America's.
jury nulification power to limit tyranny
To facilitate drug pushers and tax cheats?
Parties don't give us "the choice", candidates are self-selecting.
Doubletalk
Nulification facilitates drug pushers and tax cheats.
Denial of reality
"I'm curious about jury nullification in case I get picked and get a consensual "criminal" case (tax evasion, drug posession..."
Tsk, tsk, tsk.
"In our opinion the right to be exempt from prosecution for an infamous crime, except upon a presentment by a grand jury, is of the same nature as the right to a trial by a petit jury of the number fixed by the common law. If the state have the power to abolish the grand jury and the consequent proceeding by indictment, the same course of reasoning which establishes that right will and does establish the right to alter the number of the petit jury from that provided by the common law. Many cases upon the subject since the Hurtado Case was decided are to be found gathered in Hodgson v. Vermont, 168 U.S. 262 , 42 L. ed. 461, 18 Sup. Ct. Rep. 80; Holden v. Hardy, 169 U.S. 366, 384 , 42 S. L. ed. 780, 788, 13 Sup. Ct. Rep. 383; Brown v. New Jersey, 175 U.S. 172 , 20 Sup. Ct. Rep. 77, 44 L. ed. --; Bolln v. Nebraska, 176 U.S. 83 , 20 Sup. Ct. Rep. 287, 44 L. ed. --". "Trial by jury has never been affirmed to be a necessary requisite of due process of law."
U.S. Supreme Court, MAXWELL v. DOW, 176 U.S. 581 (1900)
How Judges Facilitated
Congress in Expanding Big Government
and Political Agenda LawsIf you've been robbed -- having thousands of dollars stolen from you -- do you want politicians to decide whether you've been harmed and to what extent, or let an impartial jury of your peers decide?
Who do you trust more: twelve of your working-class peers sitting as an impartial jury or politicians debating your fate on the floor of the both houses of congress and state legislature?
Since 1894 judges presiding over jury trials have routinely violated defendants' Sixth Amendment right to an impartial jury. Largely leaving the people's fate in the hands of congress.
Each criminal trial is officially filed as -- THE STATE OF "XX" (fill in the state) VS. "XX" (fill in the defendant's name). In federal court trials the criminal trial is officially filed as -- THE UNITED STATES VS. "XX" (fill in the defendant's name). In some jurisdictions the official filing looks lie this: THE PEOPLE VS. BOB CROW
Each juror is not to be partial, in favor of or against the state, nor partial, in favor of or against the defendant. It is the judge presiding over the trial that has the responsibility of ensuring that the jury is impartial -- favoring neither the state or the defendant.
The Sixth Amendment reads: "In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed..."
Prior to 1894, judges routinely ensured that each jury was an impartial jury as mandated by the United States Constitution.
Gray and Shiras (Justices), Dissent: Sparf and Hansen v. U.S., 156 U.S. 51, October Term, 1894. The classic opinion of the two dissenting justices on the case which effectively ended routine instruction of juries in their right to judge both law and fact. The majority ruled that while jurors do have the power to nullify the law, judges need not tell them about it, except in cases where state laws or constitutions specify that jurors must be told.
What Justices Gray and Shiras failed to acknowledge, either by incompetence or intent to defraud, is that it is the defendant's right to be ensured that his or her Sixth Amendment right to an impartial jury is upheld. It is not a juror's right to be informed. It is the defendant's right that each juror be informed.
In effect, since 1894 each judge has instructed by omission that each juror is to be partial, in favor of the STATE.
As an example of this routine judicial abuse:
"As a practical matter, I don't know how this is different from the beginning of a trial, when you tell the jurors you have to follow the law as I state it," Warren said. "I just won't give [the disapproved instruction]." California Supreme Court Don't Tell Jurors to Rat on Each Other
Hence, "as I state it", the judge omits informing the jury that it is to judge the law as well as the facts. Thereby violating the defendant's Sixth Amendment right to an impartial jury.
"At issue in People v. Engelman, 02 C.D.O.S. 6411, was California Jury Instruction 17.41.1, which judges give before deliberations. It directs jurors to advise the court if they suspect someone is refusing to discuss the evidence or plans to disregard the law." California Supreme Court Don't Tell Jurors to Rat on Each Other
Here the want of the lone judge is acting on behalf of the State -- in favor of the State; saying that jurors are to inform the court if they suspect one of the jurors intends to nullify the law.
The California Supreme Court decision upheld the juror's right to be secure behind closed doors. But the decision says nothing about the defendant's Sixth Amendment right to an impartial jury. Defendant's rights was not at issue, just jurors' rights.
In regards to defendants' rights, in fact and effect the judges are the ones that disregard the law -- disregards the Sixth Amendment as it pertains to upholding the defendants' right to an impartial jury.
More so, the jury cannot disregard the law. For there are only two choices the jury has in reaching a verdict. 1) The law was correctly applied/charged against the defendant (guilty verdict), or 2) the law was wrongfully applied/charged against the defendant (acquittal: not guilty verdict).
However, a juror can disregard the judge's unconstitutional instruction to follow the law as he or she states it when the judge fails to instruct the jury to judge the facts and the law.
A clear example of jury nullification -- the jury nullifying the law. Connie Jones filed charges against Bob Crow for assault and battery.
THE PEOPLE VS. BOB CROW
Bob Crow is charged with assaulting Connie Jones. Bob wrestled Connie, a stranger to him, to the ground. A man unconnected with either Bob or Connie just happened to video tape the entire incident including a few minutes prior to Bob slapping Connie. It is clear from the video that Bob did not act in self-defense.Following the judge's instructions that the jury is to follow the law as the judge states it, the jury has no choice but to render a guilty verdict against Bob Crow.
However one other thing was abundantly clear in the video. The reason Bob wrestled Connie to the ground was because Bob was convinced that Connie was attempting to jump off the three-hundred foot cliff. Unable to talk Connie out of jumping he wrestled her to the ground -- saving her life.
Had the judge upheld the defendant's Sixth Amendment right to an impartial jury, the jury could have nullified the law. Thereby selecting option #2 -- the law was wrongfully applied/charged against the defendant.
As a side note: If you were in Bob Crow's position, how well would your conscience hold up knowing that you could have at least tried to stop Connie Jones from jumping off the cliff yet chose to do nothing? Which is worse, being at the mercy of an impartial jury for assault -- initiation of force -- against Connie Jones, or living the rest of your life knowing you did nothing to try to stop her?
Major problem, the judge will not permit an impartial jury to be seated in your trial.
Additional note: The intent of the authors of the constitution in regards to the Sixth Amendment impartial jury was to protect the defendant from discrimination. Not just discrimination against race, sex and religion, but to protect against discrimination by the much more powerful government.
*
How Congress Caused Big Government
Congress has created so many laws that virtually every person is assured of breaking more than just traffic laws. Surely, with all this supposed lawlessness people and society should have long ago run head long into destruction. But it has not.
Instead, people and society have progressively prospered. Doing so despite the federal government -- politicians and bureaucrats -- creating on average, 3,000 new laws and regulations each year which self-serving alphabet-agency bureaucrats implement/utilize to justify their usurped power and unearned paychecks. They both proclaim from on high -- with complicit endorsement from the media and academia -- that all those laws are "must-have" laws to thwart people and society from running headlong into self-destruction.
Despite not having this year's 3,000 must-have laws people and society increased prosperity for years and decades prior. How can it be that suddenly the people and the society they form has managed to be so prosperous for so long but suddenly they will run such great risk of destroying their self-created prosperity? Three hundred new laws each year is overkill, but 3,000 is, well, it's insane. Insane that the people allow their well being and prosperity be sacrificed so that politicians and bureaucrats can "justify" their unearned paychecks.
How it works. Politicians and bureaucrats, aided by a complicit media and academics -- create a boogieman to scare people. Having foisted the illusion on the people, politicians and bureaucrats sweep in to save the day. Politicians thrive on saying, "I'm going to use government to help the little guy". With the boogieman in place they can justify creating more new laws and regulations.
That's how we get 3,000 new laws and regulations each year. And that's just from the federal government. State governments use the same ploy as do county and city governments.
Again, how is it that people's well being and prosperity has faired so well last year and the decades prior without having this year's 3,000 new federal government laws as well as a hundred new State laws for each state? When I say "faired so well", that is in light of the fact that each year the people are burdened with sacrificing more of their hard earned paycheck and freedom to government just so politicians and bureaucrats can "justify" their unearned paychecks.
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.