worst court decisions in our history

then what you end up with is the laws having the ability to undermine the rights of the people at a whim, with some of those people ending up in prison for nothing more than pissing off the legislature at any given time. that is why we have the right to nullify laws we feel are unconstitutional, unjustly applied, or just plain wrong. sorry you don't agree with the framers of the constitution and the early members of our federal court system.

 

I agree with the framers on the role of the courts, on the lifetime or "good behavior" (to minimize political influences) appointment of judges through a confirmation process and those court decisions from 1895 on that are counter to the few that you cite.

I dont agree that the people serving as jurists have the right to overturn or simply ignore laws with which they might disagree. I dont want the people of Mississippi sitting on a jury and deciding that Roe is unconstitutional (another extreme example) and convicting a doctor of murder.

Their rights are expressed through the electoral process.

I believe in the will of majority (even if I not among that majority) while protecting the constitutional rights of the minority. And, I dont suggest that I know the intent of the framers with regard to many points in the Constitution, particularly given that there are conflicting narratives and points of view in the writings of the framers.

 

then why have a jury system? if your belief is that the commoners aren't intelligent or impartial enough to determine guilt or innocence, shouldn't we just do away with the trial by jury?

and your example of convicting a doctor of murder is kinda ludicrous. your judges do have the authority to overturn verdicts, prosecutors have the ability to not charge someone with a crime. or would the whole justice system go to hell because the people can vote their conscience?

should the jury, in your opinion, strictly follow the law as it's handed down by a judge, say in this case?

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/illinois-man-faces-75-years-in-jail-for-filming-police/

even though we the people may consider public servants like police having no reasonable expectation of privacy, the law says that it's illegal to film so we should automatically convict?

 

We have a jury system because the Constitution guarantees the right to a trial by jury.

But going back to those documents of the framers that you refer to so frequently, consider Hamilton in Federalist 78 and the concept of the courts as an intermediate body between the "people" and the legislature:

Then, as to early Court decisions, consider what is one of the first and probably the most important decision by the Court, Marbury v Madison and the establishment of the concept of judicial review and the power of the courts, not the people, to determine the constitutionality of laws.

Finally, I didnt say people cant vote their conscience....I dont support mind control. People can certainly lie during the jury selection process and state that they wont let their personal beliefs influence their decision regarding the facts of a case.

I said people should not be directed or encouraged to consider the constitutionality of laws when making a verdict.
--- merged: Dec 6, 2011 7:44 PM ---
As to your case, above, if, or when, it reaches the federal courts, the state law may, and I would agree should, be ruled unconstitutional.

That is how the system works.....the higher courts determine the constitutionality of laws, not the people. It is not always perfect, but far better than leaving the judgement of laws to be influenced or altered by the whims of ideologues who happen to be selected to serve on a jury.

 

BTW, I never said it was my belief “that the commoners aren't intelligent or impartial enough to determine guilt or innocence” as you erroneously suggested.

What you (towing the Ron Paul line) are advocating is that juries look beyond guilt or innocence under the law in question based on the facts presented and, instead or in addition to, consider the constitutionality of the law itself. And I pointed out the beliefs of one framer (and many others agreed with Hamilton) that it is the purview of the courts to determine constitutionality.


My belief again, since you dont seem to get it, is that juries should not be directed or encouraged to consider the constitutionality of laws.

 

Surely someone has said Roe v. Wade already.

 

I'm afraid that leaving the decision of what rights I have, what rights you don't have, what, when, where, how, and why of those rights up to the legislature and courts, which we created mind you, is totally unacceptable. I've seen way too many abuses of peoples rights in this judicial system you apparently believe cannot be improved upon or forced to do right by we the people, some in fact posted on the old board by myself. so no, I will continue to exercise my right to jury nullification and attempt to teach others to do so.

 

Go for it!

You see it as protecting the rights of the people and ignore the fact that it can just as easily allow ideologues to take away the rights of the people.

But when you suggest that your position represents the intent of the framers, as if the framers were of one mind and one voice on the issue, it is not correct. Much like the Paul crowd's insistence regarding many other issues and their rigid ideological view of the framers intent.

IMO, extreme ideologues are the greatest threat to the Constitution, particularly when they attempt to impose their view on the people based on falsehoods and misrepresentations.

 

the courts still have power to correct wrongs of the people, much like we have the power to correct wrongs of the courts. it's really that simple and it doesn't have to do with letting people get railroaded by a justice system whos wheels turn so slowly that my dead grandmother could make coffee faster than they could get anything done. the framers may not have all been one mind, but the constitution is pretty clear on what is and isn't. It's only ideologues who choose to muddy it up with 'vague' and 'obscure' references to the framers intent. Again, there were numerous commentaries on what the constitution meant, what it does, and most of all, what it does not, and the people all voted on those commentaries. it is pretty clear.

 

If it is so clear, which interpretation of the Constitution was the framers intent -- Jefferson's view of the role of the federal government being limited to the enumerated powers or Hamilton's more expansive and active role for the federal government?

The Constitution is not clear at all, but rigid ideologues like Paul and his minions insist it is only the former.

And by doing so, ignore or dismiss early landmark Court decisions that were more in line with Hamilton's view....like Marbury v Madison in 1803 which established the concept of judicial review and the power of the courts, not the people, to determine the constitutionality of laws and McCulloch v Maryland in 1819 which established the principle that the Constitution grants implied powers to Congress beyond those enumerated and that States cant impede valid constitutional exercises of power by the Federal government.

So basically, Paul is full of shit.

 

I'd have to go with the limited one, since Madison advertised this to all the delegates. Marbury could be considered a power grab, however, it matters little since numerous court cases even as late as the 1980s have stipulated the right of a jury to nullify.

 

Madison "advertised" his view to the delegates and Hamilton didnt? Are the Federalist Papers written by Madison more reflective of the intent than those written by Hamilton? Based on what besides your ideology?

Marbury was a power grab? And not relevant because of later decisions....but of course only up to 1890s...decisions after that dont matter?

And McCulloch? Another power grab?

You like to suggest that early Court decisions support your position and the fact remains that both of these landmark decisions do not support your position.

It doesnt really matter which interpretation you go with or I go with, it is the Court that makes that determination.

I'll say it again, the Paul crowd are rigid ideologues and blowhards who want to force their interpretation on the people and arrogantly dismiss as "power grabs" any Court decisions (including those as early as 1803 and 1819) with which they disagree.

 

John Adams also would disagree with those prosecutors: "It's not only ....(the juror's) right, but his duty, in that case, to find the verdict according to his own best understanding, judgement, and conscience, though in direct opposition to the direction of the court." [emphasis mine[ John Jay, the first Chief Justice of the U. S. Supreme Court, would also disagree as made clear when he said: "The jury has a right to judge both the law as well as the fact in controversy." More recently Supreme Court Justice Byron White said in 1975: "The purpose of a jury is to guard against the exercise of arbitrary power--to make available the common sense judgement of the community as a hedge against the overzealous or mistaken prosecutor and in preference to the professional or perhaps over conditioned or biased response of a judge." In 1969, ruling in US v Moylan the US Court of Appeals for the District of Maryland stated:


"We recognize, as appellants urge, the undisputed power of the jury to acquit, even if its verdict is contrary to the law as given by the judge, and contrary to the evidence. This is a power that must exist as long as we adhere to the general verdict in criminal cases, for the courts cannot search the minds of the jurors to find the basis upon which they judge. If the jury feels that the law under which the defendant is accused, is unjust, or that exigent circumstances justified the actions of the accused, or for any reason which appeals to their logic of passion, the jury has the power to acquit, and the courts must abide by that decision." [emphasis mine]


Indeed, up until the late 1800s it was common for judges to instruct jurors that if they disagreed with the law they should acquit. This began to change when the union movement began to take hold. Judges tended to be from the upper-classes, thus were generally more sympathetic to industrialists than they were to labor and would use their injunction powers to break labor strikes. Juries, on the other hand, tended to be made up of working class people who would be more sympathetic to union organizers and members. As a result trials of striking workers or union organizers for violating anti-union criminal conspiracy laws often ended in hung juries (it only takes one out of twelve jurors to hang a jury after all) or outright acquittals.

Judges' attempts to rein in juries got a boost after Sparf v. Hansen where the Supreme Court ruled that since all jurors knew of their ability to nullify the law it was not reversible error for a judge to fail to inform them of that right. Since that time the mere mention of the possibility of jury nullification by a defense attorney has become grounds for a mistrial, and usually a contempt citation for the offending attorney as well.

But despite all of this, the right of juries to nullify laws still exist explicitly in several state constitutions:

Maryland - Declaration of Rights Art. 23. "In the trial of all criminal cases, the Jury shall be the Judges of Law, as well as of fact, except that the Court may pass upon the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain a conviction."

Indiana - Article 1 Section 19. "In all criminal cases whatever, the jury shall have the right to determine the law and the facts."

Oregon - Article 1 Section 16. "... In all criminal cases whatever, the jury shall have the right to determine the law, and the facts under the direction of the Court as to the law, and the right of new trial, as in civil cases."

Georgia - Article 1 Section I Paragraph XI (a) "The right to trial by jury shall remain inviolate ... In criminal cases, the defendant shall have a public and speedy trial by an impartial jury; and the jury shall be the judges of the law and the facts."

It was jury nullification that robbed the Fugitive Slave Acts of their efficacy so thoroughly that South Carolina cited the fact as one of its reasons for secession, and jury nullification was so prevalent near the end of Prohibition that prosecutors stopped even bringing alcohol charges. Situations like this, where unpopular and Constitutionally questionable laws are passed and enforced, are precisely why the Founders included the right of jury trial in our Constitution, as another check on the power of government. It is for this reason that some have called juries "the fourth branch of government", because in order to be effective a law must be passed by the legislative branch, endorsed by the executive branch, affirmed by the judicial branch and agreed to by the citizens (as demonstrated by convicting those who break the law).

Jury nullification is not about "setting murderers free" or "allowing rapists to walk", it is about citizens deciding what laws are unreasonable or unjust and exercising their conscience and refusing to convict. For the government to try to take this power away from the citizens takes us one step further down the path to a Police State. Remember the words of John F. Kennedy: "Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable."

 

I did get a laugh out of this line:

Now there's an object analyses of Spark & Hansen v United States (not Spark v Hansen)....nothing like spinning the interpretation of the verdict. (I would love to see the source of that interpretation, particularly if you are going to copy and paste in full).

As I said, do your thing, dude.

It just gets a bit tiresome to hear the same old bullshit that Ron Paul and his minions know the framers intent when clearly the framers were not of one mind and one voice despite your inference that since Madison "advertised" his views to the delegates, it must be the intent of all the framers and dismissing the views of Hamilton (and others) completely. Or that the Paulists are the true defenders of the Constitution and those who disagree (like the Court in Madison, McCullough or the above case) are engaged in a power grab.

Honest people can have honest disagreements about the intent of the framers or specific Court decisions. Dishonest, arrogant blowhards insist that their interpretation is the framers intent and anything else is hijacking the Constitution.

 

Never mind, I found the source you copied and pasted.

Rantings of an Insane Libertarian:
http://insanelibertarian.blogspot.com/2011/11/police-state-cometh-episode-ii.html

A fitting description, but hardly an objective analysis.

You might leave a comment on his blog and suggest that being the expert that he is on the subject, he should at the very least correctly identify Sparf & Hansen v US (not Sparf v Hansen).