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.
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.
The member of Congress can be voted out but the law has already been passed. A federal judge can be impeached and convicted or Congress/states can pass a constitutional amendment to change a constitutional interpretation. Or, Congress can always amend if it involves an interpretation of a law. So, there is equal chance to change the decision whether by Congress or courts.
To prevent governmental abuses is why the framers built checks and balances into the Constitution. You want to remove one of those checks.
There has to be interpretation. Unless we take some rights as absolute, how do we determine what restrictions can be put on free speech or religion or whether a law violates those rights? If police must have a warrant to prevent unreasonable searches how do we know when a search is reasonable and does not need a warrant? These specifics were never settled by debates and commentaries and certainly do not cover recent technology such as GPS, cell phones, or electronic surveillance issues.
When was there ever an example of the people interpreting the Constitution? How would we do it--put it up for a vote? That only represents current opinion and not the intent of the framers. The "people" did not even write the document since Anti-Federalists did not even attend the convention because they did not want a stronger central government; so, those attending only represented one side.
it's because we have been apathetic in allowing the courts to define reasonable is how we end up with no accountability for deaths of unarmed people by cops......because judges interpret 'reasonable'. The constitution was written to restrict the government, not the people. it's why there are phrases like 'shall make no law' and 'shall not be infringed'. But people have become too afraid of the freedom of others so they demand that others surrender their rights to make them feel safer.
it's called jury nullification. it was used to prevent the government from convicting a journalist for remarks about Lincoln and how we didn't let people be convicted of the alien and sedition acts in the beginning. its why people were rarely convicted for not returning slaves that had escaped to the north. we interpret the constitution to keep the government operating within the confines of the constitution.
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.
Buh bye, shitstains:
USFREEDOM911
CFM
Smarterthanyou
Yaya
I Love America
Havana Moon
Truth Detector
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 cannot strike down laws or actions of an excessive government that do not involve criminal or civil court proceedings. The people sure didn't stop D. C. from banning handguns but the Supreme Court did. Jury nullification did not strike down the ACA requirement that required states to expand Medicaid but the Supreme Court did. Jury nullification did not stop the cops from placing a GPS on a man's car without a warrant, but the courts did.
You and I might commit the same act but decided to find you not guilty using jury nullification but find me guilty for the same act. It is not practical and applies to too few cases and does not stop government from restricting our rights. The courts can strike down a law restricting free speech. But I would have to be arrested and prosecuted and then hope a jury would find me not guilty if we relied on nullification because the law would still be in effect. And then, the jury might not nullify the conviction of a person exercising his free speech if that speech or person was unpopular (Muslims, American Nazis, communists).
Bookmarks