- Banned
- #201
Seriously? You put me through all that only to have no other rebuttal than to introduce the esoterica of jury nullification? Really?The meaning of "law abiding" isn't debatable; there are no gradations of it. A law abiding citizen is one who does not willfully violate any law to which they are subject.It all depends upon you classify as "law abiding."
Surely, this should apply to any legislator, governor, President, judge, police officer, or any other agent of government, who willfully takes any part in enacting, enforcing, or upholding any law which is blatantly unconstitutional. Every last one of them, after all, is required to take an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution, as his highest duty. He agrees to this as a condition of being allowed to hold whatever position he holds in government, and the legitimacy of his office and of any action that he takes in connection therewith is contingent on his diligence in holding to that oath.
Surely, no public servant who willfully violates his oath, and willfully violates the Constitution, can honestly be claimed to be “law-abiding”.In post 169 -- CDZ - Do you Believe Americans Would ever Turn in Our Guns? -- I expounded upon my assertion that the denotation of "law abiding" isn't debatable. Nothing has changed.Surely, no public servant who willfully violates his oath, and willfully violates the Constitution, can honestly be claimed to be “law-abiding”.
As is so for any individual, upon (1) a jurist's determination that the statute is constitutional and (2) the court's determination, given the evidence presented, that a defendant did indeed perform the actus reus and possess the mens rea needed to be held criminally culpable, yes, so it is that public servants can be called law abiding or law breaking, just as can anyone else.
As goes the matter of a public servant's violating their oath of office, well, the extent to which their doing so constitutes breaking the law depends on whether upholding it is by law required. I think military servants are legally bound to that oaths of office. Other public servants, however, may not be so formally bound, and those who aren't, if they break their oath of office can be said to have derelicted their duty and/or breached a public trust, but not not to have broken the law.
There is in the law a grey area whereby something must by law happen, however, violations of the code section isn't an offense/breaking of the law. Such statutes are readily identified by their lacking penalty provisions. The non-Presidential oath of office is one such law. Individuals taking that oath of office must, to receive the appointment and carry it out, take the oath as noted, but so averring is all they must do to be legally compliant.
AFAIK, the Oath of Office Accountability Act has not been enacted.
Your position was considered and studied. It has found to be false.
The courts had a problem with jury nullification and so they, not the legislatures, declared it to be illegal. So, the courts can be wrong too. Because the United States Supreme Court is not supposed to legislate from the bench, Trump nominated Gorsuch and I hope that he will bring some sanity to that body.
OMG
"Quite simply one does not get to decide unilaterally what law(s) is or isn't constitutional; jurists are the only people authorized to make that determination."
I cannot directly address your insults without having my posts deleted. But, really, something is wrong if jury nullification was all you got out of that post.