Thank you very much for the site links -- Supporting detail such as these are so difficult for me to find sometime. :) On Mon, 2 May 2005, Lee Einer wrote: > > > Joseph Sinclair wrote: > > >-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > >Hash: SHA1 > > > >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. > > > > I suspect that the term "reasonably infringe" is not one you would find > in the instructions to a jury. Reasonable doubt that an act is committed > would be in the jury instructions. The term "reasonably infringe" > normally comes into play when discussing the tension between personal > liberty and the liberties of others. Additionally, you lose the term > "reasonable" in the following sentence- > > > 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. > > > > Well, I can see that you're quite impassioned about this, and the issue > of jury nullification is one to which there is obviously some difference > of opinion. Historical fact, however, is not a matter of opinion but a > matter of record. This, from a law school website- > http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/zenger/nullification.html > > "Early in our history, judges often informed jurors of their > nullification right. For example, our first Chief Justice, John Jay, > told jurors: "You have a right to take upon yourselves to judge [both > the facts and law]." In 1805, one of the charges against Justice Samuel > Chase in his impeachment trial was that he wrongly prevented an attorney > from arguing to a jury that the law should not be followed." > > You can also read a summary of the history of jury nullification in the > US here- > > http://www.personal.psu.edu/faculty/j/p/jph13/JuryNullification.html > > Not interested in a flame war over this, just want to bring to your > attention the fact that, for better or worse, jury nullification has > been with us since the country was founded. > > > > > 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 > >>> > >>> > >>> > >-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- > >Version: GnuPG v1.2.5 (GNU/Linux) > > > >iD8DBQFCdo5Mz97zWS+k+hcRAjIeAKCLef517RwLW2llxIlSqzCSZd9LLgCePacP > >Br60cr0PV0qjML++LOPEugE= > >=1342 > >-----END PGP SIGNATURE----- > >--------------------------------------------------- > >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 > --------------------------------------------------- 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