How to reform the Supreme Court

[legaleagle_45]

in common law systems fundamental law is created by Stare Decis, court made law, which may be, but is not restricted the black robed grim reaper on the bench,

since it is based upon court opinions written by judges. Decisions of juries are not relied upon as precedent or stare decisis. If you disagree, please cite a jury decision which has been relied upon in subsequent cases.. Want to try again?

Again you make my case in point!
This is not and never has been a government by the inhabitants. LOL

Actually you do not have a point, since stare decisis relies upon the written opinions of judges and not the verdict rendered by a jury. Thanks for agreeing with me that your original claim.

 

[legaleagle_45]

No, what it proves is that the Constituion does not support your position

It proves no such thing what so ever, it proves once again judicial construction can create anything they want from that fucking piece of paper.

No what it proves is that you are a legal illiterate who is totally unfamiliar with the development of courts of equity and that those courts in equity never had a jury and that the framers of the 7th specifically wanted to adopt that judicial system which is why the framers of the 7th employed the verbiage

IN SUITS AT COMMON LAW

You think those words were inserted for the fun of it? Apparently you wish to blame lawyers and judges for this so called construction? Has it occurred to you that the 2 primary drafters of the 7th Amend were lawyers and one of them was a former judge?

and you wish to excise those portions which do not comport to your whacky legal theories. You rely upon the the law of England to establish the right to jury trial in the first place,

yep thats where it came from

It was originally derived from Viking tradition.

but willfully chose to ignore the extent of the right as known by the framers and as expressly adopted by the framers when they restricted the right to "suits at common law" ..

Again you are incapable of distinguishing between educated criticism and your programming.

OK then clearly state that the 7th amend does not apply to suits in equity as that was the intent of the persons who drafted same and we can continue.

Which only goes to prove you are a legal ignoramous who is totally unfamiliar with the 7th Amend.

Yeh thats why I paraphrased part of it LOL

Please do not confuse the capacity of cutting and pasting with the capability of understanding and comprehension. Your cutting and pasting abilities have never been questioned by me.

 

[dcraelin]

DC is probably un-reformable without a convention called by the states. The idea that it has to be an open-ended convention is a myth however. Narrowly defined amendments could be called for by the states, a process that can bypass the corruption in DC.

The idea that it "has to be" open ended is based upon precedent. The original Constitutional Convention back in 1787 was in fact limited to proposing amendments to the Articles of Confederation. They exceeded their express authority and threw out the Articles of Confederation and proposed a totally new Constitution.

That this occured is extremely important to the creation of what is the US Constitution-- as it would have never got out of convention in the form proposed if the convention had been given authority to propose a wholly new form of government.

The thing is, we can put all the limits on it that we wish, but they can ignore those limitations and propose anything they want. The only issue then is whether the states would then ratify the proposals made by the runaway convention. If they don't... no harm no foul. If they do, we are SOL.

you seem to be defending the status quo by saying it was based on a run-away, illegal convention...novel

so you dont think it would have made it out if people would have known, does that mean your promoting hidden government, or do you think it would have been better? I think it could have been better.

I advocate following the legal process outlined in the constitution, allowing for open public debate. If States ratify that does not mean we are SOL but means we have lived up to the promise of Democracy/Republic

agreed, they exceeded the express implied and even fantasized authority.

the last thing this country would want is a convention, the people would fall for the advertisement with no clue what they were really getting, just like ohaha care. It would be surprise this is what you really got!

amendments wont work, unless they change a few structural core elements of government, the actual structure has to change.

a convention based on specified amendments would be well debated and responsible. You need to have a little more faith in we the people. AND what I propose would change a few core elements. Would build on what we now have but with less politics in the choosing of judges. Also, like Franklin, I think a one-house legislature would be better. Ireland just recently narrowly turned down eliminating their Senate and probably only didn't because it came with giving existing Prime Minister more power.

 

[JakeStarkey]

oh there are winners alrightee, it is neither the democrats nor the republicans if you are paying attention.

You as a n00b don't know the rules yet, so I will repost what you cut out. You can only cut out what does not pertain to a reply.

I just answered HOW the GOP won in 2000 and 2004. The same way they won in 1952 and1956 and 1968 and 1972 and 1980 and 1984 and 1988.

With the middle as well as the conservatives.

Thanks for admitting you were wrong.

I left in the portion that applied to "my" response.

You were smart enough to leave the quote in this time.

You are learning.

 

[legaleagle_45]

Again on the contrary you are incapable of going outside the constraints of your programming.

Nope you agreed with me that the 7th does not apply to equity jurisprudence. You agreed that it was the intent and purpose thereof as establish by precedent, you merely do not like it and wish to change it. The procedure for doing so is found in Article V of the Constitution. Good luck.

Correct., it is not required by law. Glad we agree. The idea is that jurors should disobey the law only when their conscience demands it not whenever the mood suits them. Did you know that cops do not have to inform suspects that they can refuse a requested search? Perfectly legit.

Disobey the law? huh? So they are naughty children spanky spank? That goes far beyond cops I will have you know.

You don't think people should disobey the law when their conscience demands it? The right to jury nullification is the capacity to ignore the law when justice demands it. The ability to disobey a law without sanction in other areas of the law is recognized and allowed. Why should this be any different?

That is correct however anyone with a bar card gives legal advice has an obligation to correctly advise the party.

They do. Your complaint is that they are not fully advised of everything that you want to be disclosed. Too bad. That is not fraud since "mere non disclosure is not fraud".

Just because you think it is in "bad faith" that a total rendition of all their rights and responsibilities is not provided does not mean it is in bad faith.

DUH! Did I say that every judge that opens his yap is giving advice in bad faith? NO More of your stawmanning drama, In fact some states are considering making that a statutory requirement to fully inform jurors.

Actually you did, but your current concession is duly noted. So there you go. Good luck

The Judge also does not inform them of their power to call for a potty break when necessary and thereby interrupt deliberations, is that bad faith as well?

So you think a potty break has anything to do with legal advice.

You think the legally recognized parameters for interrupting jury deliberations does not have anything to do with the law? You realize of course that the nature and scope of jury instructions are decided upon by the judge after hearing the argument of counsel. These jury instructions are "forms" which apply to specific fact situations. The court makes a determination on whether they are relevant or not and instructs the jury on what the judge believes is revealed by the facts... thus the judge is determining the outer parameters of the facts. Apparently you wish the judge to advise the jury on everything... the usual time to instruct a layperson on the law so that they are legally competent is 3 years. In your specific case, I doubt if it could ever be accomplished.

 

[legaleagle_45]

you seem to be defending the status quo by saying it was based on a run-away, illegal convention...novel

Not illegal at all, but certainly a "runaway convention".

so you dont think it would have made it out if people would have known, does that mean your promoting hidden government, or do you think it would have been better? I think it could have been better.

You must understand the political atmosphere in 1787. If the authority was given to create a whole new form of government, the makeup of the convention would have been much different and the resulting product would have been much different as well. There were significant demands for changes in the Articles of Confederation. The 2 primary political groups were the federalists and the anti federalist (those labels were adopted after the convention, but there political leanings were the same prior to the convention).

Prior to the convention, the federalists were the firebrands who wanted to vastly increase the power of the federal government. The anti federalists wanted more moderate changes. One thing to keep in mind was that the Articles required the unanimous consent of all states to amend it. ..

The antifederalists allowed the convention to be organized solely to propose amendments to the Articles. Then many of them decided NOT to attend. They would allow the firebrands to do the heavy lifting and they could stay at home, relax, drink mint juleps and when the convention was concluded could cherry pick the amendments they liked and deep six the amends they did not like

The antifederalists probably were in the majority at the time and if they had gone to the convention in numbers equivalent to their popular support, the product would have been much different.

The antifederalist howled that the product of the Convention was "illegal" and should not even be considered, especially since the proposed Constitution did not require unanimous consent but would be effective when 9 states ratified.

Madison responded to these complaints in Federalist Papers #40. basically saying "neener, neener".

The Avalon Project : Federalist No 40

 

[KokomoJojo]

Does any inhabitant have any right not recognized by the state? yes? or no?

Sure, a recent example was displayed in McDonald vs Chicago in 2010, where some laws in Illinois were found to infringe upon the right to keep and bear arms. Anything else?

So they only have rights that are recognized by the state.

You obviously have comprehension issues, huh? Did you get struck on the head with a big rock when you were young?

since when can the government claim authority over a man with the 14th amendment?

was he a slave that needed to be freed or something?

 

[legaleagle_45]

since when can the government claim authority over a man with the 14th amendment?

Since July 9, 1868 when the 14th was ratifed by the necessary number of states.

was he a slave that needed to be freed or something?

That was the 13th (the real one).

 

[legaleagle_45]

agreed, they exceeded the express implied and even fantasized authority.

Yep, but even unauthorized or even expressly forbidden action by an agent, such action can be ratified by the principal. In this case, all 13 states ratified the Constitution, so there is not further issue or argument.

the aoc was not "tossed out", it was overlaid and the government RECONSTRUCTED", from a league of friendship to a contractual union, and again in the 1860's and again in 1930's and again with 911, and so forth, though the latter was far less noticeable.

Incorrect. The AoC was tossed out and a totally new form of government was adopted. The remainder of your babble is mere babble. The AoC was not merely a "leauge of friendship" as it had substantive powers which were in fact binding upon the states. Both were "contracts" as the framers were almost unanimous in accord with the "social compact" theory of government enunciated by Hobbes, Locke and Rousseau. This is one of the few things the framers had almost unanimous agreement about.

 

[KokomoJojo]

Again on the contrary you are incapable of going outside the constraints of your programming.

Nope you agreed with me that the 7th does not apply to equity jurisprudence. You agreed that it was the intent and purpose thereof as establish by precedent, you merely do not like it and wish to change it. The procedure for doing so is found in Article V of the Constitution. Good luck.


Fine have it your way then we need to reopen all cases that involved more then 20 bucks and have been tucked under statutory equity today retried under common law.

What you fail to grasp here is that everything in law is being tucked under whatever can be made most profitable for the Just-Us club, equity. A jury should be mandatory from the start and the only way a jury decision can be overthrown should be by a grand jury, or an equivalent jury of 25.

For that matter summary judgment steals the right to your jury court again transferring the power to decide the case solely to the judge and should be completely abolished, too fucking bad if it costs more, it is cheap compared to what we pay in their RICO extortion racket.

Disobey the law? huh? So they are naughty children spanky spank? That goes far beyond cops I will have you know.

You don't think people should disobey the law when their conscience demands it? The right to jury nullification is the capacity to ignore the law when justice demands it. The ability to disobey a law without sanction in other areas of the law is recognized and allowed. Why should this be any different?

Again the legislature throws shit at the wall forcing people to run it through the gatekeeper courts which promptly extracts as much money from them as possible. I gave you the clip with prosecutor Fine and he said he knew that once it came down to filing against the BAR it was a lost cause.

I already posted Fines story and being a former state prosecutor I think he should be a good source since he exposes frankly only the tip of the iceberg what is going on and has always been going on in the juidcial system.

Which Court would you prefer Al Capone or Bugsy Seigel?



[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=CjO_hooO6hk#t=198"]Judges Using State Bar To Cover Up Corruption on www.fulldisclosure.net - YouTube[/ame]


[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A4v3PzfBIKg"]California State Bar Persecutes Mr. Fine - YouTube[/ame]


[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FcsbO_qPvwc"]How To Disqualify Your Judge www.fulldisclosure.net - YouTube[/ame]


They do. Your complaint is that they are not fully advised of everything that you want to be disclosed. Too bad. That is not fraud since "mere non disclosure is not fraud".

Silence when one has the obligation to speak such that it could influence the outcome of the jury and prejudice a party is fraud upon the court.

The judge has an sworn obligation to protect the litigants rights and insure the plaintiff does not bowl the defendant over and failure to do that is fraud and prejudices one of the parties and you are protecting their ability to continue.

Actually you did, but your current concession is duly noted. So there you go. Good luck

Yeh I agree, GOOD LUCK, in this RICO system people are lucky they dont get shot when petitioning the government. Oh wait thats right they die in car accidents plane crashes and other weird ways.

The Judge also does not inform them of their power to call for a potty break when necessary and thereby interrupt deliberations, is that bad faith as well?

So you think a potty break has anything to do with legal advice.

You think the legally recognized parameters for interrupting jury deliberations does not have anything to do with the law? You realize of course that the nature and scope of jury instructions are decided upon by the judge after hearing the argument of counsel. These jury instructions are "forms" which apply to specific fact situations. The court makes a determination on whether they are relevant or not and instructs the jury on what the judge believes is revealed by the facts... thus the judge is determining the outer parameters of the facts. Apparently you wish the judge to advise the jury on everything... the usual time to instruct a layperson on the law so that they are legally competent is 3 years. In your specific case, I doubt if it could ever be accomplished.

advising the jury on their duties regarding justice is not advising them on the case. Seems you are confused. again

 

[KokomoJojo]

since when can the government claim authority over a man with the 14th amendment?

Since July 9, 1868 when the 14th was ratifed by the necessary number of states.

was he a slave that needed to be freed or something?

That was the 13th (the real one).

ok then we will let others vote in the 14th club, have a conference with the grant to ourselves jurisdiction over you and your property, since you believe thats all it takes.

You are just kidding around now right?

 

[QuickHitCurepon]

We have a constitution now. End of story.

And the Constitution allows for amendments that could easily reform the SC back to its intended purpose...which it has FAR exceed.

Proposal - An Amendment that basically imposes:

• SC justice term limits
• Ability for a 3/5 vote from the House and Senate to override a majority opinion without being subject to Presidential veto
• Ability for 3/5 vote of the state legislatures to override a majority opinion

One only need to look a decisions like Marbury v Madison, Dred Scott V Sandford, Wickard v Filburn, Plessy v Ferguson, Korematsu v US, and many others to see that we need a remedy against a tyrannous and all powerful SC.

I could go with a type of term limit or mandatory retirement age. Unsure on other proposals but reform is necessary as your list of cases shows. I would add CitizensUnited, the Kelo case, for recent decisions broadly agreed to be wrong.

A mandatory retirement age would at least prevent the justices from becoming relics, and concomitantly, America won't become a relic, since everything from A-Z hinges on them, even our society and social norms.

 

[KokomoJojo]

And the Constitution allows for amendments that could easily reform the SC back to its intended purpose...which it has FAR exceed.

Proposal - An Amendment that basically imposes:

• SC justice term limits
• Ability for a 3/5 vote from the House and Senate to override a majority opinion without being subject to Presidential veto
• Ability for 3/5 vote of the state legislatures to override a majority opinion

One only need to look a decisions like Marbury v Madison, Dred Scott V Sandford, Wickard v Filburn, Plessy v Ferguson, Korematsu v US, and many others to see that we need a remedy against a tyrannous and all powerful SC.

I could go with a type of term limit or mandatory retirement age. Unsure on other proposals but reform is necessary as your list of cases shows. I would add CitizensUnited, the Kelo case, for recent decisions broadly agreed to be wrong.

A mandatory retirement age would at least prevent the justices from becoming relics, and concomitantly, America won't become a relic, since everything from A-Z hinges on them, even our society and social norms.

if there is a jury requirement for "every case", regardless, and summary judgment by "judge" were completely abolished then people would have direct input into the government by legal decisions they made, instead of begging some asswipe they voted for to please vote in accord with their will.

 

[QuickHitCurepon]

I could go with a type of term limit or mandatory retirement age. Unsure on other proposals but reform is necessary as your list of cases shows. I would add CitizensUnited, the Kelo case, for recent decisions broadly agreed to be wrong.

A mandatory retirement age would at least prevent the justices from becoming relics, and concomitantly, America won't become a relic, since everything from A-Z hinges on them, even our society and social norms.

if there is a jury requirement for "every case", regardless, and summary judgment by "judge" were completely abolished then people would have direct input into the government by legal decisions they made, instead of begging some asswipe they voted for to please vote in accord with their will.

I don't know about your view of how it would work, but my idea would set an age like 86. Simple. At 86, the justice is gone, and the president appoints another according to SOP.

 

[legaleagle_45]

Fine have it your way then we need to reopen all cases that involved more then 20 bucks and have been tucked under statutory equity today retried under common law.

What part of

the right to a jury trial only applies to suits at common law

do you fail to understand?

What you fail to grasp here is that everything in law is being tucked under whatever can be made most profitable for the Just-Us club, equity. A jury should be mandatory from the start and the only way a jury decision can be overthrown should be by a grand jury, or an equivalent jury of 25.

What you fail to understand is that the framers specifically knew of the distinction between law and equity as a term of art and specifically adopted that distinction in the 7th Amend. To claim that was not their inten is to demonstrate your ignorance. To claim that we should expand that original intent to encompass everything is fine, so long as you understand that you need to pass a Constituional Amend.

For that matter summary judgment steals the right to your jury court again transferring the power to decide the case solely to the judge and should be completely abolished, too fucking bad if it costs more, it is cheap compared to what we pay in their RICO extortion racket.

No it doesn't because your only right to a jury trial in a civil matter (the only place where a summary judgment arises) involves the right to have a jury determine matters of fact and that has long been the case allowing courts to set aside verdicts in civil cases well before the passage of the 7th Amend and it is exactly what the framers intended. If you wish to change the very nature of the right to a jury trial at common law, then you are free to pass a Constituional Amend. The thing is, I do not see you complaining about the lack of a jury trial when the amount in controversy is less than $20. Apparently you accept the intent of the framers to exclude the right to a jury for such cases, but refuse to accept the intent of the framers regarding what a suit at common law was and what the nature of the right being protected was.

Again the legislature throws shit at the wall forcing people to run it through the gatekeeper courts which promptly extracts as much money from them as possible. I gave you the clip with prosecutor Fine and he said he knew that once it came down to filing against the BAR it was a lost cause.

You are free to change what the law is through the proper procedures, such as through refrendum, legislation or constitutional amendment, what you can not due ihave the law comply to your personal vision of what the law should be.

Which Court would you prefer Al Capone or Bugsy Seigel?

Bugsy.

Silence when one has the obligation to speak such that it could influence the outcome of the jury and prejudice a party is fraud upon the court.

Yet there is no obligation to speak. You are free to create such an obligation.

The judge has an sworn obligation to protect the litigants rights and insure the plaintiff does not bowl the defendant over and failure to do that is fraud and prejudices one of the parties and you are protecting their ability to continue.

Just because you claim that it is fraud does not make it so. A party to the litigation is not entitled to a verdict contrary to the law. The "party" is not the one who is given jury instructions, so their can be no fraud vis a vis the "party".

The rest of your post is gibberish... and is ignored.

 

[legaleagle_45]

if there is a jury requirement for "every case", regardless, and summary judgment by "judge" were completely abolished then people would have direct input into the government by legal decisions they made, instead of begging some asswipe they voted for to please vote in accord with their will.

GO FOR IT!!! LOL

First convince 2/3rds of the Senate and 2/3rds of the House to pass such an amendmnet, then all you need do is convince 38 states to ratify same. We have done this 27 times in the past, 28 if you are to be believed.

 

[legaleagle_45]

Please do, since it was never ratified. Since then, the US Supreme Court very explicitly described the 1810 proposal as unadopted in several cases... Waring v. Clarke (1847) 46 US (5 How.) 441 at 493;Dillon v. Gloss (1921) 256 US 368 at 375; Coleman v. Miller (1939) 307 US 433 at 472; Afroyim v. Rusk (1967) 387 US 253 at 277-278.

My understanding is that virginia ratified it then reversed their decision, which is not possible for them to do.

Your understanding is wrong. Virginia state legislative records indicate that the Virginia House of Delegates approved the amendment on February 2, 1811, but the Virginia Senate rejected the amendment on February 14, 1811. Journal of the House of Delegates of the Commonwealth of Virginia 91 (Richmond, Samuel Pleasants, 1810 (1811); Journal of the Senate of the Commonwealth of Virginia 83 (Richmond, Thomas Ritchie, 1810 (1811) It requires boith houses of the legislature of Virginia to ratify, not just one. However, even if Virginia had ratified, you would still be one short... so you still lose.

Are you claiming that the literally thousands of volumes which did not contain the phantom 13th were printed by dumbasses?

What volumes?

You mean you are unaware that your puppet masters cherry picked a few states that had a misprint over a few years and you took them at face value conscerning a vast conspiracy to cover up and destroy the publ;ic records of the USA by an evil cabla of lawyers and bankers and that this conspiracy has lasted for 200 years and that it is only now coming to light? Errr... I have this bridge in Brooklyn I can sell you real cheap. Interested?

But to answer your question... all of the official federal publications made after 1818. The states works of Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Kentucky and Tennessee. The most respected works of the Constituional scholars of the day, to wit William Rawle,A View of the Constitution of the United States (1825; second edition, 1829); Joseph Story, Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States (1833), Not to mention the previous case law I cited.

Feel free to prove that britain (the crown) divested itself of all right title and interest in this continent.

Since they retained Canada, why would I try to do that?

1783 did nothing of the sort so dont waste my time please. Until then you have nothing what so ever.

Ho hum Please explain why when the Brits relinquish all claims to the USA, they are not relinquishing all claims to the USA?

Article 1st:
His Brittanic Majesty acknowledges the said United States, viz., New Hampshire, Massachusetts Bay, Rhode Island and Providence Plantations, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina and Georgia, to be free sovereign and Independent States; that he treats with them as such, and for himself his Heirs & Successors, relinquishes all claims to the Government, Propriety, and Territorial Rights of the same and every Part thereof.

You might also take a look at the Jay Treaty of 1794. The Brits snookered us by giving us Detroit.

No it didnt,.

Yes it did. You claiming otherwise is not evidence of the truth of your assertion.

Fuck history, try reading the AOC, the united states is created under the AOC and runs concurrent with it. .

Although I realize you would like to ignore history, the fact is that the US Consdtitution wholly replaced the AoC. Indeed there were certain things that they have in common.... did you know that many foreign constitutions have language which is identical to the US Constitution? Does that mean they are vassal states of the Great Britain? LOL

In other words if you destroy the aoc you destroy the authorizing document that created the federal US with equal footing to the USA. Not real good at law you.

If you are correct, then here is a great conspiracy theory for you... The first congress convened in 1789 prior to the ratification of the Constituion by North Carolina and by Rhode Island and those states had no representation present in the 1st Congress. The AoC requires unanimous consent of all states to amend. Thus, everything done by the 1st Congress is null and void... including the Bill of Rights if the Constituion was a mere overlay on the AoC. So guess what? You do not have a right to a jury trial.

and who is "[/COLOR]We The People"? Prove that "People" includes me.

[T]he people' seems to have been a term of art employed in select parts of the Constitution... While this textual exegesis is by no means conclusive, it suggests that 'the people' protected by the Fourth Amendment, and by the First and Second Amendments, and to whom rights and powers are reserved in the Ninth and Tenth Amendments, refers to a class of persons who are part of a national community or who have otherwise developed sufficient connection with this country to be considered part of that community... The language of these Amendments contrasts with the words 'person' and 'accused' used in the Fifth and Sixth Amendments regulating procedure in criminal cases." (U.S. v. Verdugo-Urquidez, 494 U.S. 259 [1990])

I do not have to prove that it incliudes you because I do not know if you are even human. For all I know you are a computer program which is designed to kick out whacky legal arguments on the internet whenever key phrases like "jury" or "esquire" are mentioned

I already gave you the opportunity to show that the constitution applies to the inhabitants and you failed to do so.

Just because you claim I failed to do so, does not mean that I failed to do so. The fact is the Constitution does apply to the inhabitants. For example, if you are a real person and if you live in the USA, try owning a slave. If you have income of any substantial degree go tell the IRS that, as an inhabitant of the USA the Constitution does not apply to you and that any laws that are made pursant to such Constitution are likewise inapplicable. This miight be fun as I believe many people espousing theories such as yours have been sent to jail, including the leading proponent of the "THE LAW THAT NEVER WAS". US v. Benson (7th Cir 1995) 67 F3d 641 reh.den 74 F3d 152

 

[legaleagle_45]

ok then we will let others vote in the 14th club, have a conference with the grant to ourselves jurisdiction over you and your property, since you believe thats all it takes.

What it takes is for 2/3rds of each house of congress to propose and 3/4ths of the states to ratify, then you are there.

 

[Sunshine]

Fine have it your way then we need to reopen all cases that involved more then 20 bucks and have been tucked under statutory equity today retried under common law.

What part of

the right to a jury trial only applies to suits at common law

do you fail to understand?



What you fail to understand is that the framers specifically knew of the distinction between law and equity as a term of art and specifically adopted that distinction in the 7th Amend. To claim that was not their inten is to demonstrate your ignorance. To claim that we should expand that original intent to encompass everything is fine, so long as you understand that you need to pass a Constituional Amend.



No it doesn't because your only right to a jury trial in a civil matter (the only place where a summary judgment arises) involves the right to have a jury determine matters of fact and that has long been the case allowing courts to set aside verdicts in civil cases well before the passage of the 7th Amend and it is exactly what the framers intended. If you wish to change the very nature of the right to a jury trial at common law, then you are free to pass a Constituional Amend. The thing is, I do not see you complaining about the lack of a jury trial when the amount in controversy is less than $20. Apparently you accept the intent of the framers to exclude the right to a jury for such cases, but refuse to accept the intent of the framers regarding what a suit at common law was and what the nature of the right being protected was.



You are free to change what the law is through the proper procedures, such as through refrendum, legislation or constitutional amendment, what you can not due ihave the law comply to your personal vision of what the law should be.



Bugsy.

Silence when one has the obligation to speak such that it could influence the outcome of the jury and prejudice a party is fraud upon the court.

Yet there is no obligation to speak. You are free to create such an obligation.

The judge has an sworn obligation to protect the litigants rights and insure the plaintiff does not bowl the defendant over and failure to do that is fraud and prejudices one of the parties and you are protecting their ability to continue.

Just because you claim that it is fraud does not make it so. A party to the litigation is not entitled to a verdict contrary to the law. The "party" is not the one who is given jury instructions, so their can be no fraud vis a vis the "party".

The rest of your post is gibberish... and is ignored.

[MENTION=43021]legaleagle_45[/MENTION]

Good post, Legal, but when you start talking to these people about the difference in law and equity you lose them. They are all constitutional scholars don'tchaknow. And they have no clue that they are being sold down the river through administrative regulations. Look around your house. I am sure there is nothing in it that is not regulated by some administrative board. The only thing I can come up with in my house is my cat, but her vet is regulated and likely her food as well because it requires a script from the vet to get it. The government doesn't really do anything about the hair she sheds or her shit in the litter boxes. But I would be in a helluva lot of trouble if I disposed of it improperly. Being that my cat is considered personal property, I have her Willed to a neighbor. But if someone else wants custody of my cat when I croak, they could challenge the Will itself. Well, that one isn't administrative, but you get the drift.

 

[dcraelin]

you seem to be defending the status quo by saying it was based on a run-away, illegal convention...novel

Not illegal at all, but certainly a "runaway convention".

so you dont think it would have made it out if people would have known, does that mean your promoting hidden government, or do you think it would have been better? I think it could have been better.

The antifederalists allowed the convention to be organized solely to propose amendments to the Articles. Then many of them decided NOT to attend. They would allow the firebrands to do the heavy lifting and they could stay at home, relax, drink mint juleps and when the convention was concluded could cherry pick the amendments they liked and deep six the amends they did not like

The antifederalists probably were in the majority at the time and if they had gone to the convention in numbers equivalent to their popular support, the product would have been much different.

The antifederalist howled that the product of the Convention was "illegal" and should not even be considered, especially since the proposed Constitution did not require unanimous consent but would be effective when 9 states ratified.

Madison responded to these complaints in Federalist Papers #40. basically saying "neener, neener".

The Avalon Project : Federalist No 40

if they went beyond the scope of their instructions then it was indeed illegal. they talked of Due process of law, hypocrites. The reason it mattered was precisely because, as u say, the majority was not represented...it would have turned out different. "heavy-lifting" give me a break.

I don't know about your view of how it would work, but my idea would set an age like 86. Simple. At 86, the justice is gone, and the president appoints another according to SOP.

86!!! I was thinking more along the lines of 60. Recently read part of a Marshall opinion that said the SC should take all cases that want to be heard. The SC has far more assistants than it had at that time and yet turns down many many cases, and takes recesses. They apparently arent up to the standards envisioned in our Constitution.