why is it that the majority of individuals who can't seem to understand the constitution REFUSE to use the commentaries and debate minutes to find out what the founders meant? Also, people need to understand that just because Madison was the one that penned the constitution, WE THE PEOPLE wrote it by debating it, changing drafts, and finally ratifying it to suit our purposes?
since you disagree with jury nullification because of its inherent possibility to be abused, do you then agree with full autonomy and power of the federal government to define and redefine the limits of its own powers that are written in to the constitution?
if the jury isn't there to judge not only the facts, but the law, why have a jury system? just let the judges/courts determine guilt or innocence?
A sad commentary on we, as a people, and our viewpoint of our freedom can be summed up like this. We have liberals and conservatives, Democrats and Republicans, yet those very people look at Constitutionalists as radical and extreme.................so those liberals and conservatives, Democrats and Republicans must believe that the constitution is radical and extreme.
Jury nullification was never intended as a method to interpret the Constitution or guarantee our rights. You claim that nobody can change the meaning of the Constitution, but a jury would be applying a different set of constitutional rights to each case.
The public is less supportive of constitutional rights than the law. A case on gun restrictions is going to be viewed more favorably after three mass shootings than before. The free speech of Muslims is more likely to be restricted after 9-11 than before. That is completely destroying the rule of law based on the political whims of the jurors.
There is no autonomy of the federal government to define or redefine its powers. Recent decisions on executive orders by Obama and Trump limited those powers. The recent decision about the ACA limited federal powers. None of those cases would have come before a jury for nullification because they are not criminal or civil law and they would all have expanded federal power.
The jury system is important in determining verdicts in civil and criminal laws (although 85% never go to trial and are settled out of court or with guilty pleas). The jury is not there to judge the law but to apply that law to the case. If a jury finds a child rapist not guilty that law must be unconstitutional in your system.
It is not there to determine the Constitution because, as you say, they are not educated enough to do it. I challenge whether they were ever more educated about constitutional law.
jury nullification was intended to prevent the government form overstepping its bounds, because the courts can get it wrong.
then our country has been destroyed.
YEARS after the law was put in to effect, so yes given your position the government CAN and DOES define its powers
again, you are incorrect. I suggest you read some history on jury nullification and it's uses.
FIJA.org
A sad commentary on we, as a people, and our viewpoint of our freedom can be summed up like this. We have liberals and conservatives, Democrats and Republicans, yet those very people look at Constitutionalists as radical and extreme.................so those liberals and conservatives, Democrats and Republicans must believe that the constitution is radical and extreme.
There is no jury to nullify anything on executive orders, laws passed by Congress not imposing criminal or civil penalties, state laws requiring segregated schools, and the really important stuff.
A jury finding one person not guilty for a certain action does nothing to help the big picture. Juries seldom find defendants not guilty and this has not stopped federal prosecution of drug cases that you say are unconstitutional. So, the whole jury nullification argument to uphold the Constitution has been a big failure.
Jury nullification was around before the Constitution, but so was judicial review.
which is why executive orders deal with how the agencies run and operate.
what kind of laws out there don't have penalties?
those aren't jury trials, nor are they crimes. the government entities have to hash those out.
you ever serve on a jury? the SCOTUS ruled awhile ago that judges don't have to notify jurors of their right to nullify...........in fact MOST courts tell jurors that they are not allowed to judge the law (wrongfully), but there are a few states where the legislature mandated the courts tell jurors of their right to nullify.
if you're talking about marbury, that was not before the constitution. If you're talking about judicial review in general, that didn't negate nullification by the people.
A sad commentary on we, as a people, and our viewpoint of our freedom can be summed up like this. We have liberals and conservatives, Democrats and Republicans, yet those very people look at Constitutionalists as radical and extreme.................so those liberals and conservatives, Democrats and Republicans must believe that the constitution is radical and extreme.
Before Marbury, as in the colonies. It doesn't negate nullification but it shows the accepted role of judicial review.
Or, as Hamilton writes in Federalist No. 78 where he calls the judiciary the weakest branch of government with the power to judge:
"It is far more rational to suppose, that the courts were designed to be an intermediate body between the people and the legislature, in order, among other things, to keep the latter within the limits assigned to their authority."
"The interpretation of the laws is the proper and peculiar province of the courts. A constitution is, in fact, and must be regarded by the judges, as a fundamental law. It therefore belongs to them to ascertain its meaning, as well as the meaning of any particular act proceeding from the legislative body.
"[W]henever a particular statute contravenes the Constitution, it will be the duty of the judicial tribunals to adhere to the latter and disregard the former."
A sad commentary on we, as a people, and our viewpoint of our freedom can be summed up like this. We have liberals and conservatives, Democrats and Republicans, yet those very people look at Constitutionalists as radical and extreme.................so those liberals and conservatives, Democrats and Republicans must believe that the constitution is radical and extreme.
gfm7175 (08-19-2019)
Truth Detector (08-19-2019)
Truth Detector (08-19-2019)
Bookmarks