Two things about the acquittal of Ammon Bundy and his armed followers should scare all America

[Anti Federalist]

why was I asked that question?

Because a CONstitutional scholar says the plumbing and heating guy is wrong.

Or maybe all this confusion is deliberate, because of the way the CONstitution was written.

Ya think?

 

[Anti Federalist]

I NEVER wrote "blarg" ANYTHING.

how did you pull that off?

<backspace backspace backspace>

Rinse and repeat

 

[otherone]

<backspace backspace backspace>

Rinse and repeat

A WITCH! A WITCH! BURN HIM!

 

[Anti Federalist]

that is correct Sir.

Oh?

Where does it say that?

Here are the only references to juries in the CONstitution

3: The Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment, shall be by Jury; and such Trial shall be held in the State where the said Crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any State, the Trial shall be at such Place or Places as the Congress may by Law have directed.

Article [VI] (Amendment 6 - Rights of Accused in Criminal Prosecutions)

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.

Article [VII] (Amendment 7 - Civil Trials)

In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.

I see nothing about either a "check and balance" nor anything about "applying the law" in rendering a verdict.

Maybe you got a special copy?

 

[Dr.No.]

It is jury nullification the same way the OJ trial was jury nullification.

 

[oyarde]

Jury nullification don't scare me. Thump winning does.

Jury nullification does not scare me . Clinton winning would be worse.

 

[scm]

Clinton winning would be worse.

No difference.

 

[oyarde]

No difference.

The Supreme Court is composed of people with poor reading comprehension skills . I am quite certain she can make it much worse .

 

[ChristianAnarchist]

Oh?

Where does it say that?

Here are the only references to juries in the CONstitution



I see nothing about either a "check and balance" nor anything about "applying the law" in rendering a verdict.

Maybe you got a special copy?

You are correct! There is nothing "defining" a jury in the constitution because they did not need to define it any more than they needed to define "judge". Jury meant that which existed in that time period. If you read something like Lysander's "Essay on the Trial by Jury" it is clear from the historical definition of jury that it was a check against power. While it would have been nice for the "con" stitution to define all the words contained within it those who wrote it did not feel the need. It is unfortunate that the meaning has been distorted over the years to mean nothing more than a rubber stamp for oppression...

 

[HVACTech]

You are correct! There is nothing "defining" a jury in the constitution because they did not need to define it any more than they needed to define "judge". Jury meant that which existed in that time period. If you read something like Lysander's "Essay on the Trial by Jury" it is clear from the historical definition of jury that it was a check against power. While it would have been nice for the "con" stitution to define all the words contained within it those who wrote it did not feel the need. It is unfortunate that the meaning has been distorted over the years to mean nothing more than a rubber stamp for oppression...

thank you Sir.

there is simply no such thing as a perfect goonerment.
nor will there ever be.
as men.
all we can hope to do. is to provide "guidelines for success" to posterity.

Duty is the most sublime word in our Language.
Do your Duty in all thing's.
you can not do more.
you should NOT wish to do less.



HVACTech.

 

[HVACTech]

A WITCH! A WITCH! BURN HIM!

I am not a Plumber. and heat is a minor issue where I hang my hat.

and like they say in Texas. "Cooling, it"s a whole nother country"
yes. what I do IS magic.

 

[otherone]

I am not a Plumber. and heat is a minor issue where I hang my hat.

and like they say in Texas. "Cooling, it"s a whole nother country"
yes. what I do IS magic.

I was referring to AF's occult keyboard skills, not your trade wizardry.

 

[Anti Federalist]

You are correct! There is nothing "defining" a jury in the constitution because they did not need to define it any more than they needed to define "judge". Jury meant that which existed in that time period. If you read something like Lysander's "Essay on the Trial by Jury" it is clear from the historical definition of jury that it was a check against power. While it would have been nice for the "con" stitution to define all the words contained within it those who wrote it did not feel the need. It is unfortunate that the meaning has been distorted over the years to mean nothing more than a rubber stamp for oppression...

Very true, trust me, I'm well aware of all that, I'm merely getting a rise out of HVACTech.

And proving a point to the idjit in the OP who claims to be a CONstitutional "scholar".

 

[ChristianAnarchist]

Interesting... I received positive rep from both Anti and HVAC on the same post. Does this mean I'm living in the matrix??

 

[dannno]

It is jury nullification the same way the OJ trial was jury nullification.

No, in the OJ case the prosecutor was not able to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he was responsible for the real crime that was committed whereas in this case the jurors believed no real crime had been committed.

 

[Dr.No.]

No, in the OJ case the prosecutor was not able to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he was responsible for the real crime that was committed whereas in this case the jurors believed no real crime had been committed.

The way I see it, in the OJ trial, you had a black jury who wasn't going to convict "one of their own". In this trial, you had a white jury that wasn't going to convict "one of their own".

 

[dannno]

The way I see it, in the OJ trial, you had a black jury who wasn't going to convict "one of their own". In this trial, you had a white jury that wasn't going to convict "one of their own".

So you're one of those annoying people who thinks everybody is a racist.

 

[otherone]

The way I see it, in the OJ trial, you had a black jury who wasn't going to convict "one of their own". In this trial, you had a white jury that wasn't going to convict "one of their own".

You are saying the jury acquitted because they were white?

 

[Occam's Banana]

You are saying the jury acquitted because they were white?

Psshht! Of course not!

Obviously, the jury acquitted because they were right-wing extremist anti-government terrorists ...

 

[phill4paul]

Psshht! Of course not!

Obviously, the jury acquitted because they were right-wing extremist anti-government terrorists ...

Probably the same jury that acquitted Timothy McVeigh.