A Court Decision is No Law at All

"All laws which are repugnant to the Constitution are null and void." - Marbury v Madison 1803.

Views: 440

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Who else knows this? Better not let too many people find out, or something could happen. NAH, who am I kidding?

Let’s get busy in saving our  union by taking back our country from an out of control rogue federal government.

Please review the urls below related to Article V Convention of States movement directed in using our Constitutional rights to save our USA.

Then please get involved & forward to all your state constituents.

We the People can save our freedom & way of life for my and yours & all future free generations of Americans!

 http://www.conventionofstates.com/         

http://www.cosaction.com/

 Thank you.

Ed Garcia.

Jury nulification was at one time the ultimate judge of the law and those laws the people (jury) found repugnant, distasteful, offensive, disgusting. contradictory, incompatible, inconsistent with the US Constitution were deemed Null- without value, effect, consequence, or significance and Void - having no legal force or effect; not legally binding or enforceable; useless, ineffectual, vain.... by a jury rendering the verdict of INNOCENT... based on the law being repugnant to the Constitution and liberty.

Judges and Attorney's have been steadily pealing away the power of the Jury... taking away the right of the JURY to rule on BOTH THE FACTS AND THE LAW ... the right of the jury to judge both the facts and the law was the people's ultimate right and final consent to the law...  If a jury found any law repugnant it could in fact make it null and void thru rendering a verdict of innocent.

Today judges threaten jurors for encroaching on what they deem is the right of judges alone... to rule on the law.  In fact, judges in a jury trail are only their to keep order and to aid the jury in arriving at a verdict... it is up to the jury to determine the facts, too hear ALL THE EVIDENCE... too, decide what evidence should be considered and what should not... and finally, too consider the law and its application to the facts and the greater law of the Constitution as they see fit ... not some judge or prosecutor.

We need to empower the jury system once again... too restrict and remove those judges and lawyers who would abuse their power and usurp that of the jury... the PEOPLE's voice in the administration of the law... the final CHECK on bad government.  There was a time when jurors were permitted to ask questions of witnesses... too, hear all the evidence and too be trusted to know what evidence was proper and applicable... a time when a judge rarely if ever sent the jury out of the courtroom or held a juror in contempt. 

The JURY system dates back to Magna Carta and is a fundamental CHECK against unjust laws. In point of fact the US Constitution states that no 'indictment' or criminal charge may be made except by a Grand Jury... not a PROSECUTOR or District Attorney... a GRAND JURY is the only Constitutional means to indict.  Grand Jury's are made up of the People... they are the one's Constitutionally charged wit

h 'indicting' criminals after hearing the evidence presented by a prosecutor or district attorney.  See: US Constitution Amendment V.

"No Person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous (felony) crime, unless on presentment of indictment of a GRAND JURY, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger..."

This makes it very clear... no person, may be held to answer before a court of law for a capital, or felony crime, unless on presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury... Is that happening in America today?  No... why?  We have a corrupt legal system, run by lawyers who well know the law and the Constitution but abuse their offices to serve their purposes... often, contrary to the needs and security of the general public.

A jury system might be better in some cases, but it could also be worse. Juries might make better decisions, but for reasons I will cite below, they are also likely to make bad decisions.

One of the fundamental problems we have today is the lack of good education, a basic criteria for a republic. Since it is likely that the composition of juries will include the ill-educated, why should we expect good decision making? 

If we still had limited voting and jurors were selected from property owners who had something significant to lose by making bad decisions, then using juries might make more sense.The early jurors had experienced a recent revolution at home. They understood what they had to lose. Then we enacted universal suffrage, and today people no longer understand what is at stake and many don't care. So today everything anyone wants suddenly becomes a right. For example, given the atmosphere in the USA now, isn't a jury just as likely as not to approve queer marriages of any type? 

Who will determine where the jurors come from?  How much demographic bias will there be? 

Given the ever deteriorating state of education in the United States, the lack of knowledge of history and the misconceptions of the law and the constitution planted by schools, universities, parents and the media, would bringing back the jury system really be an improvement? There might be a lot of difference between one idiot in a black robe and 12 morons in civvies, but on the other hand, there might be none.

These arguments are precisely those used by attorney's and the elite to end the power of jury's... and one of the Constitutional Checks and Balances guaranteeing the right of the people to consent to the law.

The Jury selection process has safeguards that are designed to provide a qualified jury of ones peer's... sufficiently educated and able to understand the law and the need for justice, under the law.  I would much rather trust a jury with my life than a Judge who was appointed for life; especially, those whose education and experience have been molded by the law schools and courts over the last 75yrs.

The questions regarding jury demographics are moot... as our Constitution guarantees a trail by a jury of our peers, not the hand picked often stacked jury's of today.  Jury selection often takes multiple days or weeks in some of the more high profile cases.  Those with the money and high paid attorneys often make a mockery out of jury selection and are able to vet the jury in their favor... this is not what is supposed to happen.

If the polls are correct America is overwhelmingly a Christian Nation and RIGHT OF CENTER conservative... Therefore,  the majority of verdicts should favor right of center ethics and moral codes; not the views coming out of a leftist judicial system, loaded with judges and lawyers, which can't decide what the terms 'is' or 'Sex' mean... without mountains of debate and discussion. 

Our legal system is bankrupt and I would much rather have a jury of citizens sit in judgment over cases involving 'marriage' and 'homosexual  conduct' than the judges who have destroyed our historical system of moral rectitude.

However, this is all academic ... the Constitution guarantees the jury system and it includes the GRAND JURY... a much maligned and abused system, that is mandated by the Constitution. The Grand Jury system is the ONLY system Constitutionally permitted to indict for capital crimes and felony offenses. The People's Grand Jury is being ignored in many States and local communities, resulting in prosecutorial abuse as the prosecutor engages in prosecutorial discretion... a Anti-Constitutional form of selective prosecution.  We must return to the Jury system if we want to see our courts rendering true justice and our legal system functioning as lawful Constitutional bodies.

"These arguments are precisely those used by attorney's and the elite to end the power of jury's... and one of the Constitutional Checks and Balances guaranteeing the right of the people to consent to the law.

The Jury selection process has safeguards that are designed to provide a qualified jury of ones peer's... sufficiently educated and able to understand the law and the need for justice, under the law...."

Then you should be able to cite examples of these arguments. I don't know why you bothered citing the grand jury system, since grand juries can only be used in criminal cases per the constitution, and they only have the power to indict.

Other than grand juries, I could only find the word "jury" in the 7th Amendment
"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."

In any event, I think you are overly optimistic that a jury would make consistently better decisions, and in those instances where we do have judges who operate under the constitution, there would be a chance for the jury to make bad decisions.

My main point is that I do not trust uneducated people who should not be voting citizens in the first place to make critical decisions that can destroy the country any more than I trust conniving judges and lawyers that will attempt to influence those jurors. I do not think that the safeguards are sufficient to ensure that all jurors understand what they are doing, because lawyers are the ones who do the jury member selection.
And as for polls, they are not even reliable indicators of anything, much less determinants of what will actually happen.
Having said this, and understanding that there is no perfect system, I am not against having juries, but I just don't have the confidence that you seem to have that they will make good decisions, so the arguments must be made against as well as the arguments in favor.

The 6th Amendment to the US Constitution provides for the right to a 'speedy and public trial' by an impartial 'JURY' of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed.

See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sixth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_C...

Jury's are selected from a pool of peers .. registered voters who have no criminal record and are of good sound moral character as prescribed by MOST... not all... laws for jury qualification. 

A list of perspective jurors is provided to the Courts as prescribe by law and the jurors notified of their required service... usually, assembled before trail, they are then challenged and selected by both the prosecution and the defense ... each with various preemptory challenges (requiring no cause), challenges for cause (such as jurors who are relatives, close friends, have bad blood between the parties, etc.) and there can be competency challenges made... for mental and physical problems, that would make it impossible for the juror to serve.

In any event the jury system is the system our founding father's chose as the one best for our Republic... The Jury provides the final check on unjust laws, as the jury can find anyone innocent, based on the law being unjust or unconstitutional.  A jury still can, if they so choose, nullify the law in the case before them.  That is called Jury Nullification and it is the ultimate Constitutional check and balance against unjust laws.

See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jury_nullification

 Understand, but legal actions are not only confined to crimes.  The question is whether juries are mandatory for other than criminal cases.  It would appear from the words "suit at common law" in the 7th amendment that a defendant has a right to request a jury, but the jury is not mandatory unless there is a monetary settlement involved, which is not always the case.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/anncon/html/amdt7frag2_user.html

Thus I would argue that the founders did not want mandatory trial by jury in every case or the constitution would have been clear on that.

I would agree that it is probably easier to "fix" a judge than a whole jury, and if someone is a defendant and the matter could go either way, then a jury might be better, but no guarantees there either.

The simple interpretation of the Constitution is the best... Cornell law is the problem not the solution.

The 7th Amendment says: "In Suits at common law (civil cases) , where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trail by jury shall be preserved... " 

Meaning, that in any civil case in dispute... where the value of the suite is greater than $20, has the right to a jury trial.   NO mention is made of a MONETARY SETTLEMENT being necessary, that was added by external manipulation from the legal profession.... Cornel Law

Our founding father's guaranteed the right to a jury trail ... however, it is not a mandatory right in that it can be waived by consent. In practice a defendant or respondent may waive their right to a jury trial; settling, for trial by judge. 

That is different than stating our forefather's did not want mandatory jury trails for every case... They in fact, provided for trail by jury in every criminal case, where a felony or capital crime was committed, and in every civil case where the dispute was valued over $20.  

OFF WITH THEIR HEADS.

Off With Their Heads... not a bad idea.  Anyone have ISIS's phone number?

Great post. It is about time someone declared the truth which is only congress can make laws. Not Ovomit, not the black robed traitors, and certainly not unelected government thugs who want to force their beliefs on America.

So when will someone arrest Ovomit and his band of traitors?

RSS

LIGHTER SIDE

 

Political Cartoons by Chip BokPolitical Cartoons by Al Goodwyn

Political Cartoons by Tom Stiglich

C o r o n a V i r u s

© 2020   Created by Steve - Ning Creator.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service