j wrote: > Since we are straying far afield...... > > I rather like the Jury Nullification concept. I think it is useful. > There are a lot of stupid laws and there is no way anyone can get them > changed. Well, unless you are George Soros or have that sort of money. Exactly. The trouble with representative democracy arises in large part because while we all can vote for politicians, only a select class can afford to purchase one outright. > > > Regards > > > > > Joseph Sinclair wrote: > >> This discussion seems to have gotten a bit far afield, but what the >> heck... >> >> Fair warning, the following is pretty aggressive, as this issue >> touches on some items I am quite passionate about. If >> you'd rather stick to Linux topics, feel free to skip this message. >> >> First, a little bit about the US government. >> This country is NOT a democracy. Sorry to burst that bubble, but >> this nation is a Constitutional Republic. What that >> means is that the people DO NOT RULE. If you read the works of the >> founders, you'll find that the idea of popular rule >> TERRIFIED them. They believe all men to be naturally corrupt, so >> they wanted NO PERSON to rule; they therefore created >> a government in which LAW rules the country, and nothing else. They >> then gave the people the right to make and change >> laws through the legislative branch, AND NO OTHER. For efficiency >> they created an executive branch, and gave the, >> presumably corrupt, chief executive a, LIMITED, role in lawmaking as >> a check to the, presumably corrupt, legislative >> branch. For justice they created the judicial branch, and gave it >> power to INTERPRET law, but DENIED the, presumably >> corrupt, judiciary from making or changing law, and added the jury to >> protect the accused from a presumed corrupt >> government. The system of checks and balances was designed to pit >> the 3 branches of government against each other so >> that they would be too busy to act against their citizens. The >> problem arises in that the Congress has neglected their >> DUTY to balance the courts. If a justice steps over the line, the >> Congress has the DUTY to IMPEACH that justice. There >> are currently 5 justices on the Supreme Court that DEMAND impeachment >> for VIOLATING their oath of office, and it is >> Congress duty to DEFEND the Constitution by removing those justices, >> as they SWORE to do in their own oaths of office. >> Note also, the Constitution does NOT grant justices a lifetime term, >> only that they shall serve during "terms of good >> behaviour", and it only sets the terms for Supreme Court justices, >> all other federal justices serve according to >> whatever laws Congress passes. That's another important point, the >> federal courts do NOT answer to the Supreme Court, >> they answer to Congress (and the Constitution states that >> explicitly!). When several of the courts recently ignored the >> lawful direction of their actions by Congress, to review a highly >> questioned case, and refused the jurisdiction that >> Congress, by lawful act, granted them, they violated the >> Constitution, and those 3 justices should also be impeached. >> >> Jury nullification: >> The Jury is NOT, under ANY CIRCUMSTANCE, entitled to review, change, >> nullify, or modify law, NEITHER IS THE JUDGE. This >> has NEVER been the case in this country, and never should. If the >> jury finds that a defendant did not reasonably >> infringe a law, as in your couple of seeds argument, then they >> declare a defendant not-guilty. If they find a person >> did infringe, they MUST declare that person guilty. If they feel the >> infringement was not a very bad thing, they can be >> lenient during sentencing (where sentencing is up to the jury), but >> they DO NOT ignore the law, they DON'T HAVE THAT >> RIGHT. We all, as a condition of living in this country, voluntarily >> submit ourselves to the rule of the law. If you >> don't like the law, the right thing to do is change it, through the >> representative legislature, not through direct >> action. Even the great leaders of civil disobedience acknowledge >> that, when engaging in civil disobedience, breaking a >> law is subject to consequence, and even if the law is unjust, the >> consequences for breaking it must be accepted. Civil >> disobedience is about peacefully breaking an unjust law WHEN THERE IS >> NO OTHER CHOICE, not about simply ignoring a law >> you don't like, or setting it aside as a jury because you don't approve. >> >> Judges in a courtroom are the FINAL authority with regard to matters >> of law, the jury DOES NOT decide points of law, >> only matters of fact, guilt, and innocence. If a jury is not sure >> about any specific point of law, they MUST ask the >> judge, and the judge will answer. This does not mean that a judge >> can change, review, modify, etc... law, that's not >> their role either. Judges interpret law, and NOTHING ELSE. The >> crisis in justice in this country is because judges >> have set aside their proper duty and begun to rewrite the law on >> their own terms, and this is UNACCEPTABLE. Thomas >> Jefferson foresaw this in 1803 when, via the infamous Marbury v. >> Madison decision, the Supreme Court granted themselves, >> via judicial fiat, an immense new power never intended by the >> Constitution, he became more alarmed over his remaining >> years, and was, sadly, not heeded. Jury nullification is much the >> same, the jury ceases to determine fact, guilt, and >> innocence, and chooses to decide if the law is "fair" or "just", and >> that is NOT THEIR JOB. >> >> Aside: You claim that the jury has had the right, "upheld since the >> 1700s" to "pass judgment not only on the facts of >> the case but on the law(s) under which the case was brought". This >> is false. The Jury has never had the "right" to >> anything. Their DUTY is to decide matters of fact and determine >> guilt or innocence. The jury does not, in fact, pass >> judgment at all, the Judge passes judgment based on the determination >> of the jury as to the guilt or innocence >> (culpability in civil cases) of the defendant(s) (BTW a Judge has the >> authority to judge a defendant not-guilty, or not >> culpable, if he/she determines that the jury misapplied a point of >> law in reaching the guilty/culpable verdict). The >> Supreme Court ADDED the power to the APPELLATE courts to review (pass >> judgment on) laws, thus granting JUDGES the power >> to nullify or modify law. This was NEVER intended in our >> Constitution, BYPASSED the proper legal channel of >> Constitutional Amendment, and has threatened this nation ever since. >> Adding this same IMPERIAL power to a jury of 6-12 >> average people, to make a decision for a nation of over 300 million, >> is the height of recklessness, and tantamount to >> insanity. >> >> I'll repeat myself, if you don't like a law, TELL YOUR >> REPRESENTATIVE; if they don't change it, ELECT A NEW ONE. That >> is the extent of your right to change things, and YOU choose to >> VOLUNTARILY ACCEPT that limitation by choosing to live >> in this nation. If you find that the laws under which we live are >> unacceptable, you can work to have them CHANGED, >> properly, you can decide to ACCEPT them, or you can LEAVE. You have >> no other ETHICAL choice. Civil disobedience is >> part of working to have a law changed, you disobey, IF THERE IS NO >> OTHER OPTION, while working to have the LEGISLATURE >> change the law. You do NOT seek out an opportunity to disobey, you >> do NOT nullify a law while on a jury, you do NOT >> simply ignore the law. You OBEY to the limits of your CONSCIENCE, >> while you work, through your legal and natural >> rights, to change the law. This structure properly limits the >> tyranny of the majority, while recognizing the dictates >> of conscience, and is the only truly ETHICAL course of action. >> >> There is much more to say on this, but suffice it to state that, it >> is my firm belief that Jurist and Judicial activism >> is the worst form of corrupt power-grabbing political crime extant, >> and it's growing acceptance in this nation is a >> threat to the fabric of society as grave, and destructive, as open, >> armed, rebellion. >> >> ==Joseph++ >> >> Lee Einer wrote: >> >>>> >>>> Kevin Brown wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>>>> I have sat through jury selection where they have screened for >>>>>> potential jury nullifiers by summarizing the law allegedly violated >>>>>> and the infraction allegedly committed and asking each juror if they >>>>>> had a problem convicting if the evidence established that the >>>>>> defendant committed the alleged act. >>>>>> >>>>>> Needless to say, if you are honest and state that you disagree with >>>>>> the law allegedly violated, you will not be selected. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> This sounds like they are doing the right thing. It is for the >>>>> legislature to make laws, and the courts to enforce the laws. If the >>>>> law is unjust, then the defendant can appeal to a higher court, >>>>> but it >>>>> is not the place of the jury to not convict simply because they don't >>>>> like the law or agree with it. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> It is true that it is for the legislature to make the laws. It is for >>>> law enforcement and prosecutors to enforce them, and for the courts to >>>> interpret them. >>>> >>>> What is the jury's role? Historically, the right to a jury of one's >>>> peers has protected the accused both from the malicious and arbitrary >>>> actions of law enforcement and from prosecution under laws deemed >>>> by the >>>> community to be unjust, either in general or in application to a >>>> particular case. The authority of a jury to pass judgement not only on >>>> the facts of the case but on the law(s) under which the case was >>>> brought >>>> has been upheld since the 1700s in this country. Critics of jury >>>> nullification say that it brings anarchy to the courtroom, and that it >>>> is a two-edged sword, having acquitted white supremacists of hate >>>> crimes >>>> in the south. That may be true, but it is also a protection of the >>>> individual from a unjust laws and arbitrary prosecution. >>>> >>>> The "letter of the law" can be unjust in the extreme. I can remember >>>> back in days of yore, cops vacuuming out the shag carpets of vehicles, >>>> and picking out the seams of levis, finding a couple of marijuana >>>> seeds, >>>> and bringing charges for felony cultivation of the herb. A young adult >>>> whose crime was to let a couple of seeds fall from a doobie was thus >>>> prosecuted under the same law as a major drug dealer, and faced a >>>> felony >>>> sentence nearly as severe as would be handed down for murder. Was this >>>> just? Would it be appropriate for a jury to nullify in such >>>> circumstances rather than allowing the a teenager to face a decade >>>> behind bars with murderers, rapists, etc, for the crime of dropping >>>> two >>>> seeds in his shag carpet? >>>> >>>> >>>>> If you don't agree with the laws the legislature is passing, then >>>>> either convince others to vote for someone else at the next election >>>>> and/or write your current representative and let them know what you >>>>> think. They can't/won't change what they are doing if they don't >>>>> hear >>>>> from people who disagree with them. >>>>> --------------------------------------------------- >>>>> PLUG-discuss mailing list - PLUG-discuss@lists.plug.phoenix.az.us >>>>> To subscribe, unsubscribe, or to change you mail settings: >>>>> http://lists.PLUG.phoenix.az.us/mailman/listinfo/plug-discuss >>>>> >>>> > --------------------------------------------------- > PLUG-discuss mailing list - PLUG-discuss@lists.plug.phoenix.az.us > To subscribe, unsubscribe, or to change you mail settings: > http://lists.PLUG.phoenix.az.us/mailman/listinfo/plug-discuss > > --------------------------------------------------- > PLUG-discuss mailing list - PLUG-discuss@lists.plug.phoenix.az.us > To subscribe, unsubscribe, or to change you mail settings: > http://lists.PLUG.phoenix.az.us/mailman/listinfo/plug-discuss > -- Lee Einer Dos Manos Jewelry http://www.dosmanosjewelry.com --------------------------------------------------- PLUG-discuss mailing list - PLUG-discuss@lists.plug.phoenix.az.us To subscribe, unsubscribe, or to change you mail settings: http://lists.PLUG.phoenix.az.us/mailman/listinfo/plug-discuss