States rights pipe dream

[JakeStarkey]

I've offered a link to (here it is again) Fully Informed Jury Association, which is chock-full of legal points, authorities, citations and American legal history.

I've also cited a specific case where the principle was put into play (Laura Kriho ), and the person doing so being harassed and persecuted by the judicial oligarchy before finally acquitted of any wronging whatsoever.


The one here who is offering nothing of substance, all the while claiming victory for himself, is you, Fakey.

Oh, Dude, you are such a plebe. One, jury nullification is not a legal right, much a constitutional right. Two, nonetheless, I believe in it. Three, the practice has been used negatively and positively in our history.

Now move along. And what is Soggy muttering about to his reflection in the window downtown this morning?

 

[rightwinger]

How do you figure? Our Laws are rooted to the Constitution.

WTF?

Juries don't write laws either

However they elect people who do. So I'd say they have a stake in it...wouldn't you? And do judges advise juries to focus on the LAW(s) in the cases they are involved in to render a verdict?

*YOU* aren't really very good at this...are you?

Do you even understand what a jury does?

 

[Oddball]

I've offered a link to (here it is again) Fully Informed Jury Association, which is chock-full of legal points, authorities, citations and American legal history.

I've also cited a specific case where the principle was put into play (Laura Kriho ), and the person doing so being harassed and persecuted by the judicial oligarchy before finally acquitted of any wronging whatsoever.


The one here who is offering nothing of substance, all the while claiming victory for himself, is you, Fakey.

Oh, Dude, you are such a plebe. One, jury nullification is not a legal right, much a constitutional right. Two, nonetheless, I believe in it. Three, the practice has been used negatively and positively in our history.

Now move along.

Once again....No points, no authorities, no legal citations, no historical facts....Just your say-so.

Your concession is accepted...Again.

 

[JakeStarkey]

I've offered a link to (here it is again) Fully Informed Jury Association, which is chock-full of legal points, authorities, citations and American legal history.

I've also cited a specific case where the principle was put into play (Laura Kriho ), and the person doing so being harassed and persecuted by the judicial oligarchy before finally acquitted of any wronging whatsoever.


The one here who is offering nothing of substance, all the while claiming victory for himself, is you, Fakey.

Oh, Dude, you are such a plebe. One, jury nullification is not a legal right, much a constitutional right. Two, nonetheless, I believe in it. Three, the practice has been used negatively and positively in our history.

Now move along.

Once again....No points, no authorities, no legal citations, no historical facts....Just your say-so.

Your concession is accepted...Again.

Summarily dismissed. Your evidence does not rise to the level of consideration, much less acceptance. Not every burden of proof is met by simple posting, and this is one of them.

 

[The T]

WTF?

Juries don't write laws either

However they elect people who do. So I'd say they have a stake in it...wouldn't you? And do judges advise juries to focus on the LAW(s) in the cases they are involved in to render a verdict?

*YOU* aren't really very good at this...are you?

Do you even understand what a jury does?

Been on a couple of them dumbass.

 

[JakeStarkey]

WTF?

Juries don't write laws either

However they elect people who do. So I'd say they have a stake in it...wouldn't you? And do judges advise juries to focus on the LAW(s) in the cases they are involved in to render a verdict?

*YOU* aren't really very good at this...are you?

Do you even understand what a jury does?

T may understand at a very preliminary level some of the functions of a jury.

Judges advise on the law as it applies to the case while the jury decides the facts as presented to them. This is where null jury comes in: juries uncommonly flip off the judge's instructions and decide the outcome, not based on law according to the judge, but on the jury's commonly accepted values or norms in order to reach its decision of "justice", whether guilty or not guilty.

I am sure that T does not know this, while Dude does but disagrees with the law in the first place. There is no groundwork of acceptable argumentation that the null jury is a constitutional right.

 

[code1211]

I guess it depends what "is" is......

Unfortunately, hundreds of years of legal precidence says you are wrong. The Supreme Court has legal authority to interpret the Constitution...that is not going to change regardless of the Conservative definition of "is"

I didn't say that the authority to interpret the Constitution does not exist. I said it's not in the Constituion. In the tradition of English Common Law which rests as a foundation to our web of legalities, precident is as legal as the Constitution, although, it is easier to change.

If you cannot find it in the Constitution does make it UnConstitutional, it just means the Framers did not forcast the need for it.

 

[rightwinger]

I didn't say that the authority to interpret the Constitution does not exist. I said it's not in the Constituion. In the tradition of English Common Law which rests as a foundation to our web of legalities, precident is as legal as the Constitution, although, it is easier to change.

If you cannot find it in the Constitution does make it UnConstitutional, it just means the Framers did not forcast the need for it.

Thanks...we are in agreement

 

[JakeStarkey]

However, judicial review was actually in the constitutions of nine of thirteen states, and seven of nine Constitutional Delegates were in favor of the principle. The principle was commonly accepted, and Marshall easily grounded SCOTUS supremacy in an interpretation of Article III.

 

[The T]

However they elect people who do. So I'd say they have a stake in it...wouldn't you? And do judges advise juries to focus on the LAW(s) in the cases they are involved in to render a verdict?

*YOU* aren't really very good at this...are you?

Do you even understand what a jury does?

T may understand at a very preliminary level some of the functions of a jury.

Judges advise on the law as it applies to the case while the jury decides the facts as presented to them. This is where null jury comes in: juries uncommonly flip off the judge's instructions and decide the outcome, not based on law according to the judge, but on the jury's commonly accepted values or norms in order to reach its decision of "justice", whether guilty or not guilty.

I am sure that T does not know this, while Dude does but disagrees with the law in the first place. There is no groundwork of acceptable argumentation that the null jury is a constitutional right.

I know more than you think I do Fakey.

 

[rightwinger]

Do you even understand what a jury does?

T may understand at a very preliminary level some of the functions of a jury.

Judges advise on the law as it applies to the case while the jury decides the facts as presented to them. This is where null jury comes in: juries uncommonly flip off the judge's instructions and decide the outcome, not based on law according to the judge, but on the jury's commonly accepted values or norms in order to reach its decision of "justice", whether guilty or not guilty.

I am sure that T does not know this, while Dude does but disagrees with the law in the first place. There is no groundwork of acceptable argumentation that the null jury is a constitutional right.

I know more than you think I do Fakey.

It doesn't show

 

[JakeStarkey]

T may understand at a very preliminary level some of the functions of a jury.

Judges advise on the law as it applies to the case while the jury decides the facts as presented to them. This is where null jury comes in: juries uncommonly flip off the judge's instructions and decide the outcome, not based on law according to the judge, but on the jury's commonly accepted values or norms in order to reach its decision of "justice", whether guilty or not guilty.

I am sure that T does not know this, while Dude does but disagrees with the law in the first place. There is no groundwork of acceptable argumentation that the null jury is a constitutional right.

I know more than you think I do Fakey.

It doesn't show

Dude knows quite a bit, RW. His problem is his bias. He thinks he knows more than he does, and that which he does know his bias trips him. Libertarianism is for the weak minded.

 

[rightwinger]

I know more than you think I do Fakey.

It doesn't show

Dude knows quite a bit, RW. His problem is his bias. He thinks he knows more than he does, and that which he does know his bias trips him. Libertarianism is for the weak minded.

I am referring to The T...

Dude thinks he is smarter than he is. He backs it up with short, dismissive responses and thinks he makes his point

 

[my2¢]

One specific example that really burns me about disrepecting states rights is the issue regarding separation of church and state. The Constitution limits what the U.S. Congress can do in terms of religion. Seems to me on this matter that my state, city or school board's actions do not fall under the federal court's jurisdiction. It's not that I want prayer in public schools, but I believe citizens within our school district should control these matters in a manner within the boundaries of our state's constitution.

 

[Oddball]

It doesn't show

Dude knows quite a bit, RW. His problem is his bias. He thinks he knows more than he does, and that which he does know his bias trips him. Libertarianism is for the weak minded.

I am referring to The T...

Dude thinks he is smarter than he is. He backs it up with short, dismissive responses and thinks he makes his point

I've made my point in this thread with links to both a very credible source on the issue and a real world application of the concept being discussed....Y'know, substance and factual information.

Yours and Joke's argument has basically been: "Nuh-uuuuuhhhhh!"

If that's bias, I'll plead guilty and continue to let the non-rebuttals of you to knuckleheads fall to pieces on their own accord.

 

[Chris]

One specific example that really burns me about disrepecting states rights is the issue regarding separation of church and state. The Constitution limits what the U.S. Congress can do in terms of religion. Seems to me on this matter that my state, city or school board's actions do not fall under the federal court's jurisdiction. It's not that I want prayer in public schools, but I believe citizens within our school district should control these matters in a manner within the boundaries of our state's constitution.

As long as there are math tests, there will be prayer in public school.

 

[The T]

Dude knows quite a bit, RW. His problem is his bias. He thinks he knows more than he does, and that which he does know his bias trips him. Libertarianism is for the weak minded.

I am referring to The T...

Dude thinks he is smarter than he is. He backs it up with short, dismissive responses and thinks he makes his point

I've made my point in this thread with links to both a very credible source on the issue and a real world application of the concept being discussed....Y'know, substance and factual information.

Yours and Joke's argument has basically been: "Nuh-uuuuuhhhhh!"

If that's bias, I'll plead guilty and continue to let the non-rebuttals of you to knuckleheads fall to pieces on their own accord.

And I'll be right HERE laughing *with YOU* as we watch the knuckleheads suck wind as they have demonstrated tusfar...and then blame one or the other for their abject Failure.

 

[The T]

It doesn't show

Dude knows quite a bit, RW. His problem is his bias. He thinks he knows more than he does, and that which he does know his bias trips him. Libertarianism is for the weak minded.

I am referring to The T...

Dude thinks he is smarter than he is. He backs it up with short, dismissive responses and thinks he makes his point

Don't you excuse yourself and Blame Me Mother FUCKER.

You are looking for a fucking SHIELD...and *I* aint if fuckstick. Try a log.

 

[JakeStarkey]

One specific example that really burns me about disrepecting states rights is the issue regarding separation of church and state. The Constitution limits what the U.S. Congress can do in terms of religion. Seems to me on this matter that my state, city or school board's actions do not fall under the federal court's jurisdiction. It's not that I want prayer in public schools, but I believe citizens within our school district should control these matters in a manner within the boundaries of our state's constitution.

As long as there are math tests, there will be prayer in public school.

1. Who is going to tell God, "get out of school ere or I am going to kick your butt?"

2. Prayer is in school. Anybody who denies that den hies reality.

3. And, no, the religious establishment clause, freedom of religion, etc., clearly reveal that the church can no more impede on the state than it can on the church.

 

[Mr. Shaman]

When will many conservative realize this isn't 19th century anymore and get over their love affair over states rights? Having 50 different states with all kinds of different rules and regulations may have made sense back then, but these days of vast and fast travel, and much more complicated industries, it would be a clusterfuck having states rule everything by themselves. Hardly a united country. And certain things its just not feasible to have each state make their own rules and regulations.

It's the same (exact) issue, regarding education.

Too many "conservatives" have an issue with the federal-government's involvement in education, but we need some kind o' national-standards, when evaluating the legitimacy of an individual's education. I'm thinkin' corporate-America must (also) appreciates some system-of-evaluation, as well.

Granted, some business/org has every right to hire whoever they want, but the "stockholders" also have some rights, when it comes time to evaluate (even after-the-fact) whether-or-not a mistake's been made....and, how to avoid such a mistake, in the future.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b0sNJhphi7U]YouTube - Bill Maher New Rule - From Elites to Jesus[/ame]​