You, Citizen Have the Constitutional Power to Decide which Laws are Unconstitutional.

[Nutz]

The difference is, Nutz, I didn't simply argue with an opinion. I made an opinion based on the facts, which as I see them condone the use of jury nullification, and say that it is unconstitutional to disallow the apprisal of a jury of their constitutional right to nullification by the prosecution or the defense.

And I was establishing fact and provided no opinion. For some reason, you chose to attribute an opinion to me.

 

[TemplarKormac]

No, it is not. What am I dodging. We agree, a defense attorney cannot use jury nullification as a defense but jurors can decide however the please. What am I dodging, your inability to admit that we both agree on the facts?

Sheesh, pass the blunt.

"Jury Nullification is not a valid defense"

I interpreted that as disallowing an attorney to mention it at all in the courts. I invoke mea culpa, and present the fact that I am in considerable pain as I post. Not thinking clearly, nor seeing for that matter.

We agree, and I see that now.

 

[Nutz]

No, it is not. What am I dodging. We agree, a defense attorney cannot use jury nullification as a defense but jurors can decide however the please. What am I dodging, your inability to admit that we both agree on the facts?

Sheesh, pass the blunt.

"Jury Nullification is not a valid defense"

I interpreted that as disallowing an attorney to mention it at all in the courts. I invoke mea culpa, and present the fact that I am in considerable pain as I post. Not thinking clearly, nor seeing for that matter.

We agree, and I see that now.

I hope you feel better. Sorry for the misunderstanding.

 

[The2ndAmendment]

Yet you cite no legal precedent to suggest otherwise.

And your cites do not apply to the question of nullification at large. Either the judges will give it the wink wink and tell the juries what to do in terms of the law, or the NH supreme court will throw it out, or SCOTUS will do so.

The Supreme Court has been very reluctant to address this issue. They know exactly what the Founders thought of jury nullification.

The Supreme Court did address this issue:

Chief Justice John Jay, wrote: "It is presumed, that juries are the best judges of facts; it is, on the other hand, presumed that courts are the best judges of law. But still both objects are within your power of decision… you [juries] have a right to take it upon yourselves to judge both, and to determine the law as well as the fact in controversy".

 

[AntiParty]

I am so sick of Progressive scum always devaluing the Citizen and rendering them ultimately powerless in their perspective and rhetoric.

The fact is that the Right to by a Trial by Jury of your PEERS allows the American Citizen to determine which laws are just and which are not.

Thomas Jefferson:

"I consider trial by jury as the only anchor ever yet imagined by
man, by which a government can be held to the principles of its
constitution." --Thomas Jefferson to Thomas Paine, 1789.

"It is left... to the juries, if they think the permanent judges
are under any bias whatever in any cause, to take on themselves
to judge the law as well as the fact. They never exercise this
power but when they suspect partiality in the judges; and by the
exercise of this power they have been the firmest bulwarks of
English liberty." --Thomas Jefferson to Abbe Arnond, 1789.

"If the question [before justices of the peace] relate to any point
of public liberty, or if it be one of those in which the judges may
be suspected of bias, the jury undertake to decide both law and
fact." --Thomas Jefferson: Notes on Virginia, 1782.

Even Constitutional laws have been unjust, such as Fugitive Slave Laws and Prohibition, and these laws were rendered virtually useless through Jury Nullification. The verdict of a Jury (the acquittal in particular) cannot be overturned by a Judge (not even the Supreme Court), nor ignored by the Executive Power (they cannot arrest and detain/punish an acquitted man) nor usurped by Congress (Bills of Attainder are expressly forbidden in the Constitution). A Juror cannot be punished for his verdict. You, the Citizen, are the Supreme Sovereign of the Courtroom, and thus the Highest Earthly Authority to decide which laws are just and which are not.

Many claim that organized crime and the violence thereof was the reason Prohibition ended, but nothing could be further from the truth. If that were true, why hasn't the War on Drugs ended (modern prohibition) which has brought far worse violence and calamity than 1930's Prohibition ever did.

It was Trial By Jury that ended Prohibition (a progressive law --- go figure).

Progressives have had a rather unpleasant experience at the hand of Juries. There was a time when Progressives promoted "White Man's Burden," which was really an imperialist and racist policy to both invade and enslave people of color. Such Progressive White Supremacist ideas evolved into the KKK and eugenics programs. Notice that Democrats are still the Progressives, and they are still enforcing Black Codes in cities like Chicago to keep black people disarmed.

However, that aside, with their unpleasant experience of Fugitive Slave Laws being nullified by All-White Juries in both the North and South before the Civil War, they were clever to make the 16th Amendment (Income Tax) immune to Jury review, and it's through this penalty = tax, an absurd idea just recently affirmed by the Supreme Court, that Progressives are able to enforce their Unjust laws with a review by a Jury of your Peers, or --- Americans Citizens --- Progressives don't like when the ordinary Citizen is given this power, because they always nullify their unjust agendas and power grabs.

Identical in purpose to the 2nd Amendment, your right to Trial Jury, in Fifth, Sixth and Sevenths Amendments is there to empower YOU, the ordinary Citizen, as the Popular Sovereign. Popular Sovereignty was the CORE of the Enlightenment, it was the antithesis of the prevailing Feudalistic model of the Middle Ages, the Age of the Divine Right of Kings, where the Government officials were Public Masters. The Enlightenment brought upon an era where the Government officials were but mere Public Servants, who only ruled by the Consent of the People.

The decay of Divine Right started with the Magna Charta. It is here that the Barons decentralized the power of the King and granted themselves Trial by Jury, instead of Trial by King. In fact, this is where the word "Peers" derives from, since only Barons could judge other Barons.

No free man shall be captured, and or imprisoned, or disseised of his freehold, and or of his liberties, or of his free customs, or be outlawed, or exiled, or in any way destroyed, nor will we proceed against him by force or proceed against him by arms, but by the lawful judgment of his peers, and or by the law of the land

For a trivial offence, a free man shall be fined only in proportion to the degree of his offence, and for a serious offence correspondingly, but not so heavily as to deprive him of his livelihood. In the same way, a merchant shall be spared his merchandise, and a husbandman the implements of his husbandry, if they fall upon the mercy of a royal court. None of these fines shall be imposed except by the assessment on oath of reputable men of the neighbourhood

Within time, as the Enlightenment took hold, the concept of Trial by Jury was extended to all Englishmen, and it wasn't long before the King and his Judges attempted to punish his subjects for rendering verdicts contrary to the Royal agenda.

By the year of 1670, Jury Nullification was recognized as the Law of the Land, and Juries no longer feared being punished their verdicts.

In 1670, a grand jury refused to convict William Penn of unlawful assembly in Bushel's Case. The judge attempted to find the jury in contempt of court; this was ruled inappropriate by the Court of Common Pleas.

Even of the Freedom of the Press was born through Jury Nullification in the trial of Peter Zenger for publishing "seditious and libelous" articles about the King.

The Federalists got their asses handed to them during the Adams Administration when Juries routinely nullified the Alien and Sedition Acts (the Sedition half anyway). The Anti-Federalists rode a strong wave to victory not too long after --- and they never stopped violating those unjust laws --- they printed away as if those unjust laws didn't even exist...because convictions were EXTREMELY rare. The Government only prosecuted cases in districts where they were almost certain where there would be a conviction, and they still failed to obtain a conviction more often than they had expected.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

So why does this all matter? Well in history of modern firearms, there have been two standoffs within the United States in which the People have won. The first is the Battle of Athens, Tennessee, 1946, also known as the McMinn County War, the second is the Battle of Bunkerville, Nevada, 2014.

In both of these events, the Government has not, nor will not, arrest and prosecute the Militias that took up arms against them. The chance of acquittal (or a hung jury at the very least) are far too high and would be a devastating and humiliating popular blow against the credibility and authority of the tyrants currently in power. These Militias are protected by a Jury of their Peers. Unless the Government intends to punish and intimidate Juries in the 21st Century, there is no way of guaranteeing a conviction.

Of course, there is the NDAA, signed into law by Obama, that allows "terrorists" to be detained indefinitely in Article II Courts without a Jury Trial, but we have yet to see any Bunkerville Militia Members go missing, so it's safe to assume that the General Government has not implemented this unjust law that usurps Popular Sovereignty by annulling Jury Trials.

If the people resort to arms to resist immoral and unjust laws, you can rest assured that their Right to Trial by Jury of their PEERS will protect them.


That is why:
A: Confiscation of firearms.
B: Suspension of Jury Trials

Are automatic signals to overthrow the Tyranny that did either, because without either, you cannot resist the Tyranny. It appears, for now, that the Feds have backed off and respected the Will of the People. If this continues and the feds keep backing off, there will be no need to overthrow the Federal Government, it will actually be a peaceful (through strength) revolution.

And if you think the NSA and NDAA are the limits to which the Feds will ever abuse their powers, you are very naive. We must have either a peaceful revolution or a violent one to reverse the current course. I hope you desire the former.

And don't worry, someone is going to mention the handful of RARE cases where Jury Nullification was used wrongly, such as freeing whites who murdered blacks, but they won't tell you how many All WHite Juries freed slaves by annulling the Fugitive Slave Laws. They want you to hate Juries.

We the People dictate the Constitution. The Constitution does not dictate us. Fact.

 

[The2ndAmendment]

Jury Nullification in America has generally but a social ill and purveyor of injustice, particularly in the South, where the accused were convicted of crimes they did not commit.

TK, you can be on the side of the Klan and all that, but I won't.

???

Do you even know what Jury Nullification is? Anything involving a CONVICTION is NOT Jury Nullification.

Also, a Judge wields the power to overturn outrageous convictions.

 

[The2ndAmendment]

The difference is, Nutz, I didn't simply argue with an opinion. I made an opinion based on the facts, which as I see them condone the use of jury nullification, and say that it is unconstitutional to disallow the apprisal of a jury of their constitutional right to nullification by the prosecution or the defense.

Instead of hashing out this very fine difference, call a truce and tear Jake Fakey apart.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Jury Nullification in America has generally but a social ill and purveyor of injustice, particularly in the South, where the accused were convicted of crimes they did not commit.

TK, you can be on the side of the Klan and all that, but I won't.

???

Do you even know what Jury Nullification is? Anything involving a CONVICTION is NOT Jury Nullification.

Also, a Judge wields the power to overturn outrageous convictions.

Of course it is. Go back and read the full link I gave. You don't know much about this topic. If evidence is clear that the defendant is not guilty yet the jury willfully convicts despite that evidence, then, yes, it is jury nullification. Many judges in south and Midwest were as guilty as the jury in these cases.

2dA, go back and study some more.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The difference is, Nutz, I didn't simply argue with an opinion. I made an opinion based on the facts, which as I see them condone the use of jury nullification, and say that it is unconstitutional to disallow the apprisal of a jury of their constitutional right to nullification by the prosecution or the defense.

Instead of hashing out this very fine difference, call a truce and tear Jake Fakey apart.

Can't do it, 2dA. Back to your OP: You, Citizen Have the Constitutional Power to Decide which Laws are Unconstitutional.

Juries have no power in determining constitutionality of a law, only whether a case is decided pro or con on the merits of the case.

The power of nullification is recognized but the legal right of it is only signed into law in NH, which will not remain for long which it gets to the courts. In the meantime, the judge will wink wink at it, then tell the jury that the Judge is determiner of law and the Jury of fact only.

 

[TemplarKormac]

And your cites do not apply to the question of nullification at large. Either the judges will give it the wink wink and tell the juries what to do in terms of the law, or the NH supreme court will throw it out, or SCOTUS will do so.

The Supreme Court has been very reluctant to address this issue. They know exactly what the Founders thought of jury nullification.

The Supreme Court did address this issue:

Chief Justice John Jay, wrote: "It is presumed, that juries are the best judges of facts; it is, on the other hand, presumed that courts are the best judges of law. But still both objects are within your power of decision… you [juries] have a right to take it upon yourselves to judge both, and to determine the law as well as the fact in controversy".

But!

Every court since then has been scared to take up the issue with a direct ruling, including the current one. That is to whom I'm referring.

All the precedent has been set by the lower courts, but they alone have the power to settle it once and for all.

 

[TemplarKormac]

The difference is, Nutz, I didn't simply argue with an opinion. I made an opinion based on the facts, which as I see them condone the use of jury nullification, and say that it is unconstitutional to disallow the apprisal of a jury of their constitutional right to nullification by the prosecution or the defense.

Instead of hashing out this very fine difference, call a truce and tear Jake Fakey apart.

I already have. That's why he's taking potshots at me from afar. Our argument was finished over 2 hours ago. He was wrong about jury nullification being illegal. He knows hes wrong and he's been reduced to insulting me, and you it appears.

 

[TemplarKormac]

And before we go any further, juries can still nullify, attorneys however are not permitted inform the jury of nullification. That prohibition, as I see it, violates due process law. If the jury cannot be fully informed of their rights under the law, a person having their day in court is being robbed of their constitutional rights. Not to mention that the jury has their 1st Amendment rights violated as well. They are not being informed and are thus being barred of their right to redress grievances with their government, which I feel falls right in line with jury nullification.

Your opinion is not fact and not very logical.

Jury Nullification in America has generally but a social ill and purveyor of injustice, particularly in the South, where the accused were convicted of crimes they did not commit.

TK, you can be on the side of the Klan and all that, but I won't.

I'm sorry... now that my painkillers are taking affect---

What was that? Me siding with the KKK? That was desperate cheap shot. Not allowing juries to tip the scales of justice is an injustice within itself. What you have in our current court system is a dictatorship. Juries have no idea the power they hold.

I backed my opinion with various caselaw, and the law itself, so an opinion isn't an opinion when it's backed up with facts. Then it becomes a statement of fact. All you have is an assertion. I suggest you deal with it, Jacob.

 

[ogibillm]

If juries do start declaring laws unconstitutional, what can the govt do to stop them.? Nothing.

good thing we won't ever have to worry about that since juries can't declare a law unconstitutional.

that may be their reason for acquittal, but their reasons don't matter.

 

[Yurt]

fake starkey: jury nullification is illegal

 

[emilynghiem]

I forgot to make the vote public, I'd love to see which Progressive scum voted no.

Hi Grinch: I guess I was being a bigger Grinch than you.
Because I already agree and applaud the right of juries and people to vote their conscience, this thread did not change that.
So honestly the answer is no.

I already believe people have equal executive legislative and judicial authority
as equal human beings, and we merely play different roles in forming and applying social contracts and laws.

Here is an example of educational outreach I wrote to teach people the First Amendment outlines our equal rights
to represent ourselves where people are the government and share responsibility for due process to redress our own grievances directly:
http://www.emilynghiem.com.istemp.com/fa/JudgmentCall2011.AVI

The one thing I might object to on your OP as detracting from my respect,
because you unfairly slammed Progressives as the problem,
and I AM a Progressive Liberal Democrat,
that part I had NO respect for. But that is just a personal note and not about the jury issue itself.

The reason people are ignorant and dependent on government and party
is where they are inexperienced and dependent on government and party in the meantime.

The politicians hijacking the party are NOT progressive but political sellouts for election campaigns.
The REAL progressives behind the scenes are just as frustrated as you, beating their heads against
walls and feeling like Davids up against Goliaths. We are actually in the same boat, and I was shocked
to find out Republicans are going through this also, trying to weed out the career politicians who say one thing but do another.
Those aren't real Constitutionalists or conservatives either if they are just playing political games to stay in power.
So whoever you complain of, if they are preventing progress toward local independence and sustainability, those are not the real progressives
if they are holding things back by backlogging the system in conflict for political control.

I find more and more it is not about the labels but how educated and experienced we are,
or how separated we are mentally and socially that is preventing us from reaching agreement.

I know a lot of progressives who want to change the system,
but if the only choices offered are to get run over by the other party,
they succumb to namecalling and projected blame; and neither party
can overcome the political partisan bickering and bullying hijacking the process.

So I voted NO because I already agreed with you on the concept
and because I didn't respect just blaming on "progressives"
when the problems run deep than just the surface labels.

Thanks for starting this thread and pushing the idea.

We do need to get it out, but by working TOGETHER not blaming and naming
the other group as the problem. We all need to come together and educate the public!

Here, William Penn's famous jury nullification case is included in
this 30 second entry in a First Amendment media contest:
http://www.emilynghiem.com.istemp.com/fa/First Amendment Series/first amendment draft2_0001.wmv

If you want to ask the USMB moderators if we can have a contest section,
I would very much like to promote active participation and collaboration
between members on music, media and video messages on political education.

If people are organized in different groups, why not have FUN contests,
or encourage TEAMWORK to cross over political and religious lines to create project for public education and outreach. Why not focus on something creative and positive.

 

[Billo_Really]

I forgot to make the vote public, I'd love to see which Progressive scum voted no.

I voted "no", because I already have respect for the jury system and I also know how flawed it is. Have you ever been on a jury? Because if you have, then you'd know they aren't as autonomous as you're making them out to be.

I've been on 4 jury's in my life and what you discuss during deliberations, depends largely on the judges instructions to the jury. Which basically states what you can (and cannot) consider; what you can (and cannot) rule on; and how far you can go on any particular ruling.

Other than that, you can say anything you want and everyone gets a turn at their say.

 

[emilynghiem]

fake starkey: jury nullification is illegal

Sure, if you go by what lawyers and judges say is legal and illegal,
based on the monopoly they have over legal and judicial precedence.

If you use that system, following it by blind faith and not by informed consent,
how is that any different than popes issuing interpretations of law
that all people are required to follow? How is it any different than a political religion
if you blindly follow whatever rulings that officials in govt mandate like a cult?

How is that not a violation of church and state
if judges have this unequal power to interpret and impose laws, rulings and decisions
for people to follow MANDATORILY under penalty of law.

If it is not constitutional to do this with religion, which is voluntary to follow,
how much more so when it is mandatory to follow?

This is where I cannot figure out how people cannot see the importance in
NOT giving authority to judges and govt to make decisions over
religious disputes, from prayer in schools, termination of life issues,
and now gay marriage and health care policies that are religiously biased.

Why are we giving govt the unconstitutional authority to
establish religious bias or policies in cases of conflict?
If we cannot agree, due to religious differences, isn't that a big huge sign
that issue should remain outside of govt?

I believe religious conflicts should be resolved locally, where the people AGREE on a decision or agree to separate, and not abuse govt to take "one side" and impose on the other. I do not understand how it is constitutional to do that, if you believe religious biases should stay out of govt imposed policies.

If people AGREE to let govt decide a matter, or majority rule by parties, that's fine.

But from what I see, clearly people do not agree to submit their beliefs to an arbitrary vote. That should be taken as a sign to keep that issue out of courts, Congress and govt.

 

[The2ndAmendment]

because you unfairly slammed Progressives as the problem,
and I AM a Progressive Liberal Democrat,
that part I had NO respect fo

If it makes you less mad, I consider most Repugs and Neocons Progressive as well.

The REAL progressives behind the scenes are just as frustrated as you, beating their heads against
walls and feeling like Davids up against Goliaths. We are actually in the same boat, and I was shocked
to find out Republicans are going through this also, trying to weed out the career politicians who say one thing but do another.

Then you're aware that there's only one solution, but dare I say that you dare not say it --- and the New York Times just removed the moral high-ground from which we could have done it.

GG we all lost. I gave up yesterday. I no longer give a shit about any of this --- you can thank the New York Times for that. All you Neocons and Marxists can enjoy impoverishing America and running an imperialistic racket across the entire world. I'm seriously considering hooking up with a survivalist chick and living the rest of my young life in the Adirondacks. Hopefully I die of fever or pneumonia before I'm 40, it's a much better alternative than being a cog in the Neo-Feudlaist Empire.

sustainability

It's because of "sustainability" that I had to rally over 1,200 of my fellow citizens to stop eminent domain seizure of our homes and business --- on the coldest night of January. I also had the pleasure of having the shit kicked out of me by hired thugs for doing so --- in my own garage... in the middle of the fucking day. Too bad I can't prove they were hired by Town hall

http://lpsc.li/home/2014/01/11/a-view-from-the-ronkonkoma-trenches/

With great passion, many speakers in favor of the Ronkonkoma Hub expressed their deep sympathies and desires in order to benefit the thousands of imaginary people who “will live here,” while sharing negative and condescending attitudes about the real people who actual do live there. To these rhetorical artists, the residents of Ronkonkoma are inhuman, a blight and detriment to the Town of Brookhaven, and responsible for the hard economic times that they are experiencing.