Posts Tagged ‘Constitution’

Jury Nullification

Saturday, May 15th, 2010

During the 19th century, the fugitive slave laws were passed to force people who knew of escaped slaves to return the slaves to the ‘owner’. Many of the northerners did not agree with this law and would not only refuse to return the slaves, but would assist them in getting farther from the slave owner. The ‘criminals’, i.e., the people who helped the slaves, would often be arrested and tried for violating those laws. Time and time again the jurors would acquit them.

After the 18th amendment was passed, laws in support of it were also passed. These were the prohibition laws. Those who violated these laws against manufacturing, sale and transportation of alcohol were put on trial for their offences. Time and time again the jurors would acquit them.

The defendants were guilty of the laws, as they stood, but the jurors believed the laws to be bad laws. Therefore they would acquit. This is called jury nullification.

The consistent jury nullification of the fugitive slave laws were instrumental in getting those laws overturned. It was also jury nullification of the prohibition laws that led to the 21st amendment which rescinded the 18th amendment.

So what constitutes a bad law? Any law which is unconstitutional. In 1803, in Marbury vs. Madison, Chief Justice Marshall delivered the majority decision. In it he stated, “ . . . the theory of every such government must be, that an act of the legislature, repugnant to the constitution, is void.” Marshall was saying that if a law is not Constitutional, it is not law. It is void.

A law may be Constitutional and still be a bad law. The prohibition laws were Constitutional but the people still believed them to be bad laws.

A law designed specifically to work against a political opponent is a bad law. A law which has no victims is a bad law. If a law is not a just law, it is a bad law.

A law which goes against your conscience is, to you, a bad law. If you are against the death penalty, a law that would cause the accused to face the death penalty is a bad law. Or at least the penalty is bad and the only way you can fight it is to consider it a bad law. The same logic applies if you are not specifically against the penalty but believe the crime does not justify a penalty so extreme.

If you are called to jury duty

The important message here is that as a juror, YOU have the right and power to determine if a law is a bad law or a good law. If it is a just or unjust law. If you find yourself on a jury, you have the right and the power to judge the facts of the case. But you also have the right and power to judge the LAW of the case.

The judge won’t tell you that you have the power and right to judge the law. They would rather you believe you only have the power and right to judge the facts. If the judge tells you anything, he or she will most likely tell you that you do NOT have the right to judge the law. The judge won’t hesitate to say you may only judge the facts and he will judge the law. The judge may also tell you that you took an oath to do exactly as the judge orders. But the oath you took likely only obligated you to do your best to provide justice for the defendant.

There was a time when it was standard procedure for a judge to inform the jury that they could and should judge the law. In the late 1800’s that practiced stopped. For a while the defense attorney would give this message to the jurors, but that too has been stopped. Now if a defendant or his/her attorney attempts to say anything about this the judge will tell them to stop. If they don’t stop, the judge will threaten contempt of court charges.

Why are you no longer informed about jury nullification? Don’t forget that the judge works for, and is paid by, the government. It is in his or her best interest to keep the government happy. And the government does not like their laws knocked down by jurors or anyone else.

So where does this leave you as a potential juror? When you are questioned during jury selection, it is best to remain silent on the subject. If they ask you anything jury nullification, you do not need to acknowledge any knowledge of the subject. There questions are just a ploy to keep any honest citizens who know they have the right to judge the law from being a juror on the case. The judges take an oath to support the US Constitution but they won’t hesitate to lie to you to keep you from using all your knowledge to truly judge the case completely. Including the law itself.

To learn more about your rights, powers, and duties as a juror, please visit the site of the Fully Informed Jury Association. Then, when called upon to serve as a juror, please accept and do your best to be sure justice is done for the defendant.

In closing let me emphasize that all this talk about bad laws does not mean that all laws are bad. Anyone who steals or damages someone else’s property, or who does bodily harm to another person, should indeed pay the penalty provided by law (assuming the penalty to not be “cruel and unusual” as prohibited by the 8th amendment). Those laws are not bad laws. They should be upheld as long as the defendant is actually guilty of the stated crime. Jury nullification is to protect the defendant from bad laws and being railroaded by political enemies or because of personal grudges, etc., not to free those defendants guilty of harmful crimes.

Tags: , , , ,
Posted in Politics | No Comments »

Enumeration

Thursday, March 18th, 2010

Some of my readers think that I don’t believe the Federal Government should do anything. Especially if they read “What Are You Willing to Give Up?” So they might presume I don’t believe in the census. But I do. You see, as I have stated repeatedly in these articles, I believe in the Constitution. The Constitution is not perfect but it is still a great document. It is a contract between the government and the states. That sort of makes it a contract between the government and you. And me.

The census was authorized by the Constitution in Article I, Section 2. It was placed there for the purpose of knowing how many citizens the country had. More specifically, how many citizens each state had. There were two reasons to know this information.

Stand up and be counted.

The first reason is the House of Representatives.

“The Number of Representatives shall not exceed one for every thirty Thousand, but each State shall have at Least one Representative . . . “

So by counting the population of each state, it could be determined how many representatives the state should have. The idea was to divide the population of each state by 30,000 and the whole number answer would be the number of representatives that state would get. If the state had less than 30,000 population, it would get one representative.

Not more than one representative for every 30,000 was in the Constitution and has never been changed, not constitutionally. In 1911 congress decided the house was getting too big. I won’t go into WHY they decided this because I don’t know why for sure. The way I read the Constitution I believe that this relationship of not more than one representative for every 30,000 was something not to be changed. To change it should require an amendment. That was not done. I must admit, however, that the congress of 1911 may have been technically OK in the legislature that froze the house size at 435 members. After all, if there is one for every 600,000 citizens, that is not more than one for every 30,000.

The second reason for the census is taxation. The Constitution allows two methods of taxation. The first is excise taxes as spelled out in Article I, Section 8.

“The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States; . . . “

The founders realized that there would be times when the above taxes would not pay all the bills of the Federal government. So they agreed to allow direct taxes to “ . . . be apportioned among the several States.” These are the only direct taxes allowed. The Federal government was to bill the separate states in ratio to their population. Each state was to determine how to collect from its own citizens. (more…)

Tags: , , , ,
Posted in Politics | 1 Comment »

Beyond the Constitution

Thursday, December 31st, 2009

Most of the time It is good to think outside of the box. However, there is one box we should never think outside of: The Constitution of the United States. The Constitution is a small box. I copied and pasted the entire Constitution, including the preamble and all 27 amendments, into my word processor. According to my word processor it is less than 8000 words. Eight thousand is a big number – if you are hand counting raindrops or grains of sand. For reference: a work of fiction that would be classified as a short story might well be up to 15,000 words. In case you want to check it out, the Constitution can be found online here: http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html. I don’t recommend counting the words by hand, but if you would like to – go for it.

The nice thing about thinking inside a box is you have less to think about. Especially when the box is small. None the less, our hired help in Washington D. C. have a hard time with the limitations of this little box. It seems that almost none of them like to be confined. This seems so strange since they all took an oath to support the United States Constitution when they took office. If they don’t like the idea of staying within the confines of this little box, why do they run for office? Surely they know what is required before they run, don’t you think? Whatever the reason, they can’t seem to stay within that box.

If you want good government (some would call that an oxymoron), you have to keep up with what is going on. I’ve heard some say, “I have no interest in politics.” Maybe not, but remember this: Politics has an interest in you! So, first and foremost, let your senators, representatives and president know that you are paying attention and you will work to vote them out of office if they violate the Constitution. If they pay no mind to you, DO work to vote them out of office.

If you find it necessary to replace an unresponsive elected official, just be careful that you help find someone who will be more honest when taking the oath of office. Finding such a person who is willing to run is not an easy job, but it needs to be done. Maybe you can run. Mind you that while we are talking the federal level here, it is also important to take similar actions on the state and local levels.

Since it is almost impossible to keep power hungry politicians from running for (and winning) office, we must be prepared to act against the laws they create which violate their Constitutional restraints, along with our rights and freedoms. (more…)

Tags: , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in Politics | No Comments »

What Are We Willing to Give Up?

Sunday, November 1st, 2009

At the following link you will find a cartoon called “Make Mine Freedom” which came out in 1948.

http://nationaljuggernaut.blogspot.com/2009/09/this-cartoon-seemed-far-fetched-in-1948.html

I suggest you view the cartoon first, then read as many of the comments as you choose. As of this writing there are over 300 posted comments. Many of them deserve or require replies. I have chosen to reply to only one. I have not posted this at the original site for reasons of my own. Still, it is something that needs to be said and I say it here for all those interested. I have no problem with anyone linking this article to the original site. I will quote the original comment first, then my reply.

On October 25, 2009, Julio said: “Americans who rant and rave against “socialism” obviously want to give up their local and state police departments, their fire departments, their public schools, their state colleges, their libraries, the US armed forces, medicaid, medicare, social security, their state and interstate highway system, the US Postal System, federal law enforcement agencies, unemployment checks and food stamps, and many other beneficial institutions and agencies.”

Yes, Julio. I would like to give up most of the things on your list. I would like to give up all of those items that the Constitution does not give authority for. Now I am talking at the Federal level. Local and state police departments and fire departments should be just that, local and state. That means with no help from the Federal government. Help always comes with strings and strings always mean controls. No help, no interference and no controls.

Personally, I would prefer no public schools at all. However, that is a topic for another session. I will point out that the words “education”, “school”, “university”, and “learn”, do not appear in the Constitution. “College” does appear but only in reference to the Electoral College. My state (Indiana) constitution does promise education. I don’t agree, but at least it is legal at the state level.

I am not aware of any Federal involvement in libraries except the Library of Congress. I suspect many libraries get Federal grants. That is unconstitutional, therefore it is wrong.

The Constitution allows for a navy. It also allows for an army but limits army funding to a two year period. The Founders had a reason for this: They knew, first hand, the potential terror of a standing army. Both the navy and the army were meant for DEFENSIVE purposes, not for empire building. The wrong use of the military is also a topic for another session.

Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security. Yes, they should all be eliminated. Medicare and Medicaid are major factors in the health care crisis we now face. All three are major factors in the financial crisis the country now faces. When I was in my early twenties I espoused the idea of eliminating Social Security. I never felt those who had paid into it should be left out in the cold. Those already receiving benefits should continue to receive the return on their payments as promised. Those who had paid in for a significant amount of time (but were not yet collecting SS) should receive a pro-rated amount when the time came for them to collect. In the mean time, the money should no longer be taken from the workers (or their employers). The balance of the payments should come from general taxes until SS is totally phased out.

The Constitution allows the Federal government to ESTABLISH both post offices and postal roads. Nothing about maintaining them in perpetuity. Nor should we have any Interstate system set up and funded by the Federal government. The states could decide on where the road between city a in state A and city b in state B could meet so it would be easy to get from one city to another. Then the states could build them (if their state constitutions allowed).

There are very few laws that fall into Federal jurisdiction for the purpose of enforcement. Treason and counterfeiting come to mind. So I suspect a single Federal law enforcement agency should suffice. Most of the Federal agencies with enforcement powers are enforcing unconstitutional laws.

As for unemployment checks and food stamps, I cannot support government charity at any level above the township level. By that I mean the Federal and state governments should not provide handouts to people, corporations or other entities. If a person falls on hard times and cannot find needed private charity from family, friends, churches, or fraternal organizations, then he or she should be able to go to the township for help. This should be the last resort. When the help comes from a higher government level, much of the money available will be lost in the bureaucracy leaving less for its intended purpose. Also, when the help comes from a very local source, it is harder for the lazy good-for-nothing types to game the system. Those who truly have problems will get the help they need, those who won’t try to help themselves will only get it a time or two. Corporations should NEVER get charity from ANY government.

That leaves “many other beneficial institutions and agencies”. Show me what institutions and agencies you are talking about and I’ll show you institutions and agencies that benefit some at the expense of others. And I’ll bet the US Constitution will not support them.

Now for some more general thoughts. True Capitalism has not been in use for a very long time in this country (or anywhere else that I know of). We have had government controls with laws passed to benefit the large corporations at the expense of the small competitors. It is not more regulation on capitalism that is needed. Such regulations makes it difficult for new and/or small companies to enter a market. Take barbers for example. Yes, so far as I know, at present there are no Federal license requirements or regulations for barbers. But there are state and sometimes local requirements. If I can find a barber who does what I want for a fee I’m willing to pay, I don’t care if they have a government approval or not. If they do a bad job, they will lose me as a client and I’ll advise my family and friends to stay away. If they do a good job, I’ll come back. If they do an excellent job I’ll not only come back, but I’ll recommend them to my family and friends.

It always comes back to the Constitution. If the Constitution does not specifically allow it, it cannot be done at the Federal level. As far as lower government levels are concerned, if some states (or cities) are more socialistic and others are less so, let the people vote at the ballot box. If they are not satisfied with the results they can vote with their feet. Of course the states, counties and cities must still protect the rights guaranteed by the Constitution of these united States – including the Bill of Rights.

Tags: ,
Posted in Politics | No Comments »

Pledge of Allegiance

Tuesday, August 25th, 2009

“I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands, one Nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.”

When was the last time you stood up, placed your hand over your heart (or saluted, military style) and recited the above pledge?

Government schools start the day with the pledge (as well as many school events).

Many sporting events start with the pledge.

Court sessions may start with the pledge.

Congressional sessions open with the pledge.

Local government meetings – city and county council, planning commission, etc. – usually start with the pledge.

Political meetings often start with the pledge.

Why do we do this and what does it mean? In fact, where did the pledge of allegiance come from? Let’s start with a little history of the pledge.

Francis Bellamy wrote the pledge in 1892. Bellamy was the cousin of author Edward Bellamy. Edward Bellamy wrote a best selling book titled Looking Backward from 2000 to 1887 which was published in 1888. Looking Backward was published in every major language of the day. It is the story of Julian West, a man who wakes up in the year 2000 from a hypnotic trance (he was in the trance since 1887) to find himself in a socialist society – a military socialist government. Edward Bellamy considered this a utopian society. Edward and his writings influenced his cousin who agreed that a military socialist government would be a better world then the ‘inequities’ of a country with freedom and liberty at its root.

Both of the Bellamys felt that the government should run the schools. This is something that was starting to happen. Schools were not and are not a part of the federal government’s responsibility. Neither schools nor education are even mentioned in the Constitution. However, some (probably most) of the state constitutions take on the responsibility of providing education for the children of said state. But that is another topic.

Francis Bellamy was involved in the October 12, 1892, Columbus Day celebration, This was the 400th Anniversary of the discovery of America. James Upham was an employee of a Boston publishing firm which published “The Youth’s Companion” magazine. Upham’s uncle, Daniel Ford, was the owner and editor. This was one of the most widely distributed magazines of the era. It was in this magazine that the Pledge of Allegiance was first printed (on September 8, 1892). Ford claimed that Upham (and the staff of the magazine) wrote the pledge while Francis Bellamy claimed credit for it. I have found no proof to back either side, however, my inclination is to believe Bellamy was the author of the pledge.

Author or not, Bellamy promoted that the pledge should be recited in schools every morning. “The Youth’s Companion” agreed with the concept and also promoted it. It was first recited in schools on October 12 for the Columbus Day celebration. It then became a daily ritual in the schools throughout the country. Bellamy, being the socialist that he was, wanted the children to pledge allegiance to the government (as represented by the flag). He wanted them to acquire a loyalty to the flag (thus also to the government) so it would be second nature for them to accept any and all edicts of the government without question. (more…)

Tags: , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in Politics | 2 Comments »