States rights pipe dream

[Oddball]

Null juries are not a part of the constitutional apparatus, only in Dude's and others' minds.

One word suffices: nonsense.

Thanks for refusing to go to the link, research, and have an informed opinion based upon historical fact and 150 years of American legal precedent.

Your pitiful willful ignorance, in favor of deference to an authoritarian judicial oligarchy, is duly noted.

 

[Christopher]

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.

Plus its happened already and the federal gov't has been strong for so long now. Stop kicking and screaming and try to make it work for once. Get over the pipe dream and ideology, its the way it is now, regardless of what you think the framers wanted.

So you’re willing to trust one claque of demagogues with every aspect of government, instead of retaining local control and flexibility to deal with local problems, solutions, and initiatives? This idea shows an absolutely incredible lack of understanding of how systems work and/or fail. I'd at least like to credit this idea as trolling, but since ideas like this one are standard product for you, you are probably serious. I don't think you have a clue how federalism and local government work together because you haven't availed yourself to looking into it.

Straighten me out on this: You seem to believe the US Dept of Education hires teachers and builds brick-and-mortar school buildings, or that the US DOT builds highways because there is an interstate highway system, while in fact virtually all construction work and maintenance of our interstate highway system is contracted out and completed under state supervision, with limited federal funding to leverage the work between states. The Feds standardize and coordinate the system for all 50 states; the states do everything else within their borders physically and administratively.

(quote: "....certain things its just not feasible to have each state make their own rules and regulations." )
THIS IS how a federal system works, and practically and administratively it works well, because every state, even every county is different in uncountable ways. You seem to not grasp the ingenious design of the system, and why it works well when it works at all.

The following Jefferson quote comes to mind (bold emphasis added):

The way to have good and safe government, is not to trust it all to one, but to divide it among the many, distributing to every one exactly the functions he is competent to. Let the national government be entrusted with the defense of the nation, and its foreign and federal relations; the State governments with the civil rights, law, police, and administration of what concerns the State generally; the counties with the local concerns of the counties, and each ward direct the interests within itself. It is by dividing and subdividing these republics from the great national one down through all its subordinations, until it ends in the administration of every man's farm by himself; by placing under every one what his own eye may superintend, that all will be done for the best. What has destroyed liberty and the rights of man in every government which has ever existed under the sun? The generalizing and concentrating all cares and powers into one body.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Dude, I have professional and personal knowledge of the subject, and your opinion and those of your allies on this issue are willfully, deliberately erroneous. Sigh. Don't let your bias get in front of your discriminating ability to nuance. Until you fix that, you fail.

 

[code1211]

Of course, you don't address the point. Words do have meaning, and the constitution having SCOTUS rule on laws based on the constitution is indeed IN THE CONSTITUTION.
Are some of you for real?

Plese cite the Section and Clause.

Article III
Section 1.
The judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The judges, both of the supreme and inferior courts, shall hold their offices during good behaviour, and shall, at stated times, receive for their services, a compensation, which shall not be diminished during their continuance in office.

Section 2.
The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority;--to all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls;--to all cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction;--to controversies to which the United States shall be a party;--to controversies between two or more states;--between a state and citizens of another state;--between citizens of different states;--between citizens of the same state claiming lands under grants of different states, and between a state, or the citizens thereof, and foreign states, citizens or subjects

Sorry, it ain't there. Like so many things done by the courts, this was "poofed" into existance.

If the word "under" was the word "within", it would be there. Thank you, caller. Try again tomorrow. Please cite the section and clause instead of just posting parts that have no connection to the topic.

The laundry list of applications for the Supreme court does not include "interpret the meaning of the words written down in the Constitution". If that was one of the intended duties, don't you think the framers would have included that along with the other very detailed duties they did include?

The intent was that this court would have juris diction (sp?) over those matters that a State court could not reasonbly sit in judgement over. Look at the list that has the defined duties. They are all international or interstate or between a state and the citizens living therein.

The founders assumed that the legislators would make laws and retain their genitalia. They did not know that voluntary castration would be required to retain a career politician's seat. Of course, this was before the birth of Arlen Specter.

Is this guy the least principled of all the unprincipled snakes you've ever seen in that den of vipers?

 

[The T]

Judicial branch has to power to rule on constitutionality of laws. Who the hell else would if not judicial branch.

aNd nobody has answered this, but what is the purpose of Judicial branch if not to rule on laws?

I have, but you willfully ignored the fact.

Juries have the power to rule on unjust laws, but the judicial oligarchy purposefully keep that lawful and factual information away from jurors, so they can continue to rule politically, without check and balance, from the court room and judicial bench.

Fully Informed Jury Association

Juries?

Constitutional issues don't get ruled on by juries

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

 

[rightwinger]

Plese cite the Section and Clause.

Article III
Section 1.
The judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The judges, both of the supreme and inferior courts, shall hold their offices during good behaviour, and shall, at stated times, receive for their services, a compensation, which shall not be diminished during their continuance in office.

Section 2.
The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority;--to all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls;--to all cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction;--to controversies to which the United States shall be a party;--to controversies between two or more states;--between a state and citizens of another state;--between citizens of different states;--between citizens of the same state claiming lands under grants of different states, and between a state, or the citizens thereof, and foreign states, citizens or subjects

Sorry, it ain't there. Like so many things done by the courts, this was "poofed" into existance.

If the word "under" was the word "within", it would be there. Thank you, caller. Try again tomorrow. Please cite the section and clause instead of just posting parts that have no connection to the topic.

The laundry list of applications for the Supreme court does not include "interpret the meaning of the words written down in the Constitution". If that was one of the intended duties, don't you think the framers would have included that along with the other very detailed duties they did include?

The intent was that this court would have juris diction (sp?) over those matters that a State court could not reasonbly sit in judgement over. Look at the list that has the defined duties. They are all international or interstate or between a state and the citizens living therein.

The founders assumed that the legislators would make laws and retain their genitalia. They did not know that voluntary castration would be required to retain a career politician's seat. Of course, this was before the birth of Arlen Specter.

Is this guy the least principled of all the unprincipled snakes you've ever seen in that den of vipers?

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"

 

[rightwinger]

I have, but you willfully ignored the fact.

Juries have the power to rule on unjust laws, but the judicial oligarchy purposefully keep that lawful and factual information away from jurors, so they can continue to rule politically, without check and balance, from the court room and judicial bench.

Fully Informed Jury Association

Juries?

Constitutional issues don't get ruled on by juries

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

WTF?

Juries don't write laws either

 

[Oddball]

Even thy don't write them, they're the last line of defense against foolish laws foisted upon them.

Juries are, as a matter of course, the fourth branch of de jure government.

 

[The T]

Juries?

Constitutional issues don't get ruled on by juries

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?

 

[Oddball]

Dude, I have professional and personal knowledge of the subject, and your opinion and those of your allies on this issue are willfully, deliberately erroneous. Sigh. Don't let your bias get in front of your discriminating ability to nuance. Until you fix that, you fail.

I also note you haven't any legal points and citations, as does the FIJA site.

Tell ya what, you Google "Laura Kriho" and tell the class what she was ultimately convicted of, in taking her lawful and legal action in refusing to convict and hanging the jury in her case, based upon nothing more than her belief that the law being applied was unjust.

It is not only his right but also his duty... to find the verdict according to his own best understanding, judgment, and conscience, though in direct opposition to the direction of the court.
~ John Adams

"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... [juries] have a right to take it upon yourselves to judge of both, and to determine the law as well as the fact in controversy"
~John Jay

 

[JakeStarkey]

Dude, I have professional and personal knowledge of the subject, and your opinion and those of your allies on this issue are willfully, deliberately erroneous. Sigh. Don't let your bias get in front of your discriminating ability to nuance. Until you fix that, you fail.

I also note you haven't any legal points and citations, as does the FIJA site.

Tell ya what, you Google "Laura Kriho" and tell the class what she was ultimately convicted of, in taking her lawful and legal action in refusing to convict and hanging the jury in her case, based upon nothing more than her belief that the law being applied was unjust.

It is not only his right but also his duty... to find the verdict according to his own best understanding, judgment, and conscience, though in direct opposition to the direction of the court.
~ John Adams

"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... [juries] have a right to take it upon yourselves to judge of both, and to determine the law as well as the fact in controversy"
~John Jay

Don't need them, Dude, because your argument falls to summary judgment.

 

[Oddball]

IOW, your ass can't back up the checks that your keyboard writes.

I accept your capitulation.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Having appropriately and properly summarily dismissed Dude's arguments on null juries, I will add now that I fully endorse the extra-judicial role of the null jury, that becomes a finder of law as well as fact, despite or in spite of a judge's direction.

A second interesting point of this discussion is the historical effect that null juries have. A jury of peers found not guilty in the case of the killers of Emmett Till. The facts and the law clearly convicted the killers. Thus the role of racial terrorism by the Southern null jury needs to be considered more carefully in the history of the Civil Rights campaign.

The null jury then can have both positive and negative effects on society. The null jury defend Southern racism and Mormon extra-judicial violence in Utah Territory. Positively, I can cite a case where we the jury nulled the judge's directions on a property dispute: a developer wanted to force egress to a property that had been closed for almost twenty years. We ignored the judge's directions and found for the property holder.

 

[Oddball]

Do your homework on Laura Kriho first, before trying another lame deflection and misdirection.

Specifically: What unlawful act was she convicted of, in acting in her lawful and legal role as a juror?

 

[JakeStarkey]

Do your homework on Laura Kriho first, before trying another lame deflection and misdirection.

Specifically: What unlawful act was she convicted of, in acting in her lawful and legal role as a juror?

Not applicable, Dude, and you know it.

 

[Oddball]

It's totally applicable and relevant, you fake.

Put up or shut up.

 

[JakeStarkey]

You have offered nothing of worth. A judge would summarily dismiss it, and you know it. Have other things to do today. You fail.

 

[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.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

As soon as you realize it isn't the twentieth century and communism has been an abject failure every time it has been tried.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

You should put down Das Kapital and pick up the Federalist Papers...