10th amendment discussion

[JoeTheJuggler]

the Tenth Amendment Center's interpretation is weird
especially when it lists the issues

Yeah-- I think that's just another name for anti-federalists or states' rights supporters (also "Neo Federalists", and curiously I know of one such character who insists that a person who supports this position be called a "federalist"!).

It really doesn't have much to do with actual 10th Amendment law. It's more about distrust of "big government" and the federalist system established by the Constitution (with a relatively strong central government as opposed to the looser federation of states under the Articles of Confederation).

Funny, they go on about saying the Constitution is the greatest document ever written but they seem to reject utterly the Article 3 judicial authority. They also don't seem to realize that amendments ratified according to Article 5 of the Constitution (including the 14th!) are now part and parcel of the Constitution itself.

ETA: Someone brought up a very good analogy: these states' rights "strict constructionists" are very much like Biblical literalists. They want to take a literal reading only of very few limited passages and ignore whatever else is there that doesn't fit their views. (Seriously--the guy in that youtube video says that the Bill of Rights only applies to the federal government, as if the 14th Amendment weren't part of the Constitution! I always want to ask that kind of person if he thinks it makes any logical sense at all to prohibit the federal government from establishing a state religion but allow state governments to do so!)

 

[Robert Prey]

Article III establishes the judiciary and gives it the authority to resolve disputes involving the law (including the Constitution itself). The Constitution is supreme, but the judiciary is the body that interprets the Constitution (and other laws). Your reading of the Constitution is not the one that is current valid jurisprudence. The cases I cited are. This really is the valid interpretation of that section of the Constitution.

What is invalid is your belief that the courts hold the final say as to what is and what is not a "law". And that is "current" government brainwash. A law is what 12 sovereign citizens on a jury say it is, or what one sovereign citizen on a jury says it is not. If there were 12 Joe the Juggler's in cases involving fugitive slaves, they would bow down to the Court's decision. Fortunately, in those days, the American people were not so brainwashed or willing to give up their sovereign power to a bunch of black robed oath takers.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

What is invalid is your belief that the courts hold the final say as to what is and what is not a "law". And that is "current" government brainwash. A law is what 12 sovereign citizens on a jury say it is, or what one sovereign citizen on a jury says it is not. If there were 12 Joe the Juggler's in cases involving fugitive slaves, they would bow down to the Court's decision. Fortunately, in those days, the American people were not so brainwashed or willing to give up their sovereign power to a bunch of black robed oath takers.

What on earth are you talking about now?

Are you claiming the Missouri jury decision in Dred Scott trumped the Supreme Court decision?

If so, you're simply wrong. [ETA: The history is clear: Scott lost his lawsuit for emancipation.] The Supreme Court is the highest court of appeal, and has the final authority on the interpretation of the law. It really is so.

Why do you reject Article 3 of the Constitution?

[ETA: BTW, your insistence that a jury trial decision is somehow superior to a Supreme Court decision is further misguided when you consider that Dred Scott's was a civil suit and not a criminal prosecution of any kind. The 6th Amendment right to a trial by jury is one of the rights of the accused in a criminal prosecution. The same basic point is made in Article 3 where it says "Trial of all crimes, except in cases of impeachment, shall be by jury. . . ."]

 

[cwalner]

What is invalid is your belief that the courts hold the final say as to what is and what is not a "law". And that is "current" government brainwash. A law is what 12 sovereign citizens on a jury say it is, or what one sovereign citizen on a jury says it is not. If there were 12 Joe the Juggler's in cases involving fugitive slaves, they would bow down to the Court's decision. Fortunately, in those days, the American people were not so brainwashed or willing to give up their sovereign power to a bunch of black robed oath takers.

What on earth are you talking about now?

If you must know

Self-described sovereign citizens take the position that they are answerable only to common law and are not subject to any statutes or proceedings at the federal, state or municipal levels, or that they do not recognize U.S. currency and that they are "free of any legal constraints".[2]

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

If you must know

So he's not talking at all about Constitutional law.

In other words, he's introducing a whackdoodle extremist political theory that is wholly off topic for this thread--even the more general version of this thread which relates to Constitutional separation of authority between the federal government and the states.

OK. I suppose that's the only way a person can talk about a jury decision being superior to Supreme Court decisions.

ETA: They sound like the Tea Party on Kool Aid. . . or a bunch of criminals anyway. I just read through the FBI description of this movement. I guess this accounts for many of the nonsense claims made in this thread. That the Supreme Court has no authority, that the fed doesn't have the authority to print money, the claims in that youtube video (rejecting the 14th Amendment, etc.). . .

http://www.fbi.gov/news/stories/2010/april/sovereigncitizens_041310

 

[cwalner]

So he's not talking at all about Constitutional law.

In other words, he's introducing a whackdoodle extremist political theory that is wholly off topic for this thread--even the more general version of this thread which relates to Constitutional separation of authority between the federal government and the states.

OK. I suppose that's the only way a person can talk about a jury decision being superior to Supreme Court decisions.

I don't know that for a fact, but I have never seen the term 'sovereign citizen' used in any other context. It is similar to FOTL, which has a few massive threads in CT, if you are not familiar with it.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

I don't know that for a fact, but I have never seen the term 'sovereign citizen' used in any other context. It is similar to FOTL, which has a few massive threads in CT, if you are not familiar with it.

I'm only vaguely aware of these movements/cults, and I don't frequent the CT subforum partly because they're seldom serious discussions of political theory, law, or much of anything.

Really--people invoking the Dred Scott decision and then claiming that the Supreme Court doesn't have the authority to interpret law and simultaneously claiming to consider the Constitution the greatest document ever written! What's the point?

Also, I've had more than enough frustrating real life experience attempting to talk with 9-11 CTists. They do not engage in intellectually honest debate. (Just asking questions as a hedge so they never have to provide evidence for any outlandish claims, for example.)

On that point, I'm very liberal, politically, and was an ardent critic of Bush. I was very active in my civic duty of exercising my right to free speech and political dissent, especially in the run up to the invasion and occupation of Iraq. I found my greatest anger was against the 9-11 CTists, though, who messed up the credibility of everyone criticizing the Bush administration. Frankly, I'd rather have a mutually respectful debate with an honest conservative than any involvement with an anti-government CTist.

 

[Robert Prey]

What on earth are you talking about now?

Are you claiming the Missouri jury decision in Dred Scott trumped the Supreme Court decision?

If so, you're simply wrong. [ETA: The history is clear: Scott lost his lawsuit for emancipation.] The Supreme Court is the highest court of appeal, and has the final authority on the interpretation of the law. It really is so.

Why do you reject Article 3 of the Constitution?

[ETA: BTW, your insistence that a jury trial decision is somehow superior to a Supreme Court decision is further misguided when you consider that Dred Scott's was a civil suit and not a criminal prosecution of any kind. The 6th Amendment right to a trial by jury is one of the rights of the accused in a criminal prosecution. The same basic point is made in Article 3 where it says "Trial of all crimes, except in cases of impeachment, shall be by jury. . . ."]

Civil or criminal -- doesn't matter. The jury is a group of citizens that determine both fact and law in a particular trial, a fundamental right that is intrinsic to common sense and firmly embedded in the Common Law going back centuries including but not limited to the Trial of William Penn in 1670 and also a written provision in many State Constitutions.

 

[crimresearch]

Sounds like another Eric Kane devotee.

 

[Alt+F4]

In short, it still technically applies, but to be able to challenge the laws that appear to be in violation require a suit be brought in front of the Supreme Court. Maybe you and your partner would like to be the test case. I am sure the local Lambda legal defense fund would be glad to take your case if it applies.

I can't say for certain but I think the overall strategy is to stay away from the Supreme Court and take the battle to the states, where it seems to be working, albeit, slowly. I predict that in ten years there will be 20 states with marriage equality laws, by then the membership of the Supreme Court will be very different.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Civil or criminal -- doesn't matter. The jury is a group of citizens that determine both fact and law in a particular trial, a fundamental right that is intrinsic to common sense and firmly embedded in the Common Law going back centuries including but not limited to the Trial of William Penn in 1670 and also a written provision in many State Constitutions.

You're seriously confused.

In jury trials, the jury is finder of fact. The law is given to them as instructions from the judge.

At any rate, that's not the issue. The issue is whether the decision of a jury trial is superior to that of the highest appeals court in the land, the Supreme Court. And it's not. Read Article 3 of the Constitution.

I think perhaps you're simply misreading the 7th Amendment. The fact finding decisions of a jury trial can't be appealed (unless the finding was grossly erroneous--something the common law allows for), but that's not what appeals do. They review the application of the law. And the 7th Amendment only applies to suits at common law anyway. Where a suit involved a statute or the Constitution, they are not suits at common law, but suits at statutory law.

So again, what was the final disposition of the Dred Scott case? Was the jury decision the legally binding one?

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

I can't say for certain but I think the overall strategy is to stay away from the Supreme Court and take the battle to the states, where it seems to be working, albeit, slowly. I predict that in ten years there will be 20 states with marriage equality laws, by then the membership of the Supreme Court will be very different.

I doubt DOMA will be around that long, one way or another. As I mentioned, since the fed is not defending it, at least in some districts, it's already been ruled unconstitutional.

I see no reason, though, to try to keep the cases out of the Supreme Court. It's blatantly unconstitutional for a number of reasons. Even the current court would be hard pressed to rule otherwise.

 

[Robert Prey]

You're seriously confused.

In jury trials, the jury is finder of fact. The law is given to them as instructions from the judge.

At any rate, that's not the issue. The issue is whether the decision of a jury trial is superior to that of the highest appeals court in the land, the Supreme Court. And it's not. Read Article 3 of the Constitution.

I think perhaps you're simply misreading the 7th Amendment. The fact finding decisions of a jury trial can't be appealed (unless the finding was grossly erroneous--something the common law allows for), but that's not what appeals do. They review the application of the law. And the 7th Amendment only applies to suits at common law anyway. Where a suit involved a statute or the Constitution, they are not suits at common law, but suits at statutory law.

So again, what was the final disposition of the Dred Scott case? Was the jury decision the legally binding one?

In jury trials, the jury is directed to be a finder of fact only, but only in the court's violation of their right to determine and judge the law itself. And that's not the way it used to be. Prior to the Sparf case in 1895, juries could be told of their right to judge both fact and law. Since the Sparf case, jurors are routinely lied to by the judge that their only province is fact and that they must follow the law as given by the judge. Total unconstitutional brainwash. Trial by Jury as written in the Constitution was understood to mean trail of both fact and law.

In the very first jury trail presided by the Supreme Court itself, Chief Justice John Jay gave the jury instructions duly recorded as follows:

“It may not be amiss, here, Gentlemen, to remind you of the good old rule, that on questions of fact, it is the province of the jury,
on questions of law, it is the province of the court to decide. But it must be observed that by the same law, which recognizes this reasonable
distribution of jurisdiction, you have nevertheless a right to take upon yourselves to judge of both, and to determine the law as well as the
fact in controversy. On this, and on every other occasion, however, we have no doubt, you will pay that respect, which is due to the opinion
of the court: For, as on the one hand, it is presumed, that juries are the best judges of fact; it is, on the other hand, presumable, that the
court are the best judges of the law. But still both objects are lawfully within your power of decision.”
Georgia v. Brailsford, 3 U.S. (3 Dall.) 1 (1794)

While the Dredd Scott decision was binding in that particular case, subsequent juries in many cases refused to follow the law as given in the Dredd Scott case. Repeated acquittals based on a particular law make that law a virtual dead letter as was the case in pre-civil war fugitive slave cases and later in cases involving alcohol prohibition.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

In jury trials, the jury is directed to be a finder of fact only, but only in the court's violation of their right to determine and judge the law itself. And that's not the way it used to be. Prior to the Sparf case in 1895, juries could be told of their right to judge both fact and law. Since the Sparf case, jurors are routinely lied to by the judge that their only province is fact and that they must follow the law as given by the judge. Total unconstitutional brainwash. Trial by Jury as written in the Constitution was understood to mean trail of both fact and law.

In the very first jury trail presided by the Supreme Court itself, Chief Justice John Jay gave the jury instructions duly recorded as follows:

“It may not be amiss, here, Gentlemen, to remind you of the good old rule, that on questions of fact, it is the province of the jury,
on questions of law, it is the province of the court to decide. But it must be observed that by the same law, which recognizes this reasonable
distribution of jurisdiction, you have nevertheless a right to take upon yourselves to judge of both, and to determine the law as well as the
fact in controversy. On this, and on every other occasion, however, we have no doubt, you will pay that respect, which is due to the opinion
of the court: For, as on the one hand, it is presumed, that juries are the best judges of fact; it is, on the other hand, presumable, that the
court are the best judges of the law. But still both objects are lawfully within your power of decision.”
Georgia v. Brailsford, 3 U.S. (3 Dall.) 1 (1794)

While the Dredd Scott decision was binding in that particular case, subsequent juries in many cases refused to follow the law as given in the Dredd Scott case. Repeated acquittals based on a particular law make that law a virtual dead letter as was the case in pre-civil war fugitive slave cases and later in cases involving alcohol prohibition.

So again, none of this supports your absurd claim that a jury decision trumps a Supreme Court decision.

What's your point?

Is it this part of the instructions you just quoted? "For, as on the one hand, it is presumed, that juries are the best judges of fact; it is, on the other hand, presumable, that the court are the best judges of the law"

Or is it your desire for us to return to the "good ol' days" of the 18th Century?

 

[Robert Prey]

So again, none of this supports your absurd claim that a jury decision trumps a Supreme Court decision.

What's your point?

Is it this part of the instructions you just quoted? "For, as on the one hand, it is presumed, that juries are the best judges of fact; it is, on the other hand, presumable, that the court are the best judges of the law"

Or is it your desire for us to return to the "good ol' days" of the 18th Century?

Juries can and do trump SC decisions even in the 21st century. And read the rest of John Jay's charge: "both objects (fact and law) are lawfully within your power of decision.” What is it about those words that are not clear? But getting back to the original post, States have the right and the power to nullify all transactions that do not involve lawful, constitutional money -- gold and silver coin or currency redeemable for same. Such cases do exist, but juries are never allowed to hear Constitutional arguments and courts of appeal refuse to hear such cases. If courts obeyed their oath to uphold the Constitution. the US would not have 16 trillion dollar debt, and a collapsing economy.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Juries can and do trump SC decisions even in the 21st century.

No they don't. The Supreme Court will respect findings of fact, but the decisions given at trial can be reviewed and reversed by appellate courts on up to the Supreme Court. An appellate court can review and reverse a trial court decision (even if the decision comes from the jury). The reverse is not true.

But getting back to the original post, States have the right and the power to nullify all transactions that do not involve lawful, constitutional money -- gold and silver coin or currency redeemable for same. Such cases do exist, but juries are never allowed to hear Constitutional arguments and courts of appeal refuse to hear such cases. If courts obeyed their oath to uphold the Constitution. the US would not have 16 trillion dollar debt, and a collapsing economy.

Sorry, but you're just wrong. The Constitution certainly does not prohibit federal debt.

Your positions on the nature of our government are so far outside the mainstream that they really aren't an important part of any real legal debates.

And you contradict yourself, simultaneously arguing that juries have the authority to trump Supreme Court decisions and that "juries are never allowed to hear Constitutional arguments".

 

[Suddenly]

Juries can and do trump SC decisions even in the 21st century.

Eh. They have the power to ignore the law when not convicting someone in a criminal case. In all other circumstances their decisions are subject to review from the bench. This is the logical result of the right to trial by jury combined with the right not to be subjected to double jeopardy. It is not a statement that twelve superdupersoverigns can leap over the Constitution in a single bound or something.

And read the rest of John Jay's charge: "both objects (fact and law) are lawfully within your power of decision.” What is it about those words that are not clear?

Well, These words are what is called "dicta" and do not have the force of precedent because the case does not turn on the power of a jury. The case is about a debt. There was no legal argument as to the power of a jury as it simply wasn't an issue. Jay's remarks on the power of a jury do not directly affect the question of the debt.

The constitution has a "case and controversy" clause that limits the judicial power. In the case you cite the "case and controversy" is a question of enforcement of a debt. A federal court has no power to make precedent as to an issue not brought before it. Only the ruling as to the debt is good law. If it were to take on itself to make a ruling regarding the power of a jury when that issue is not specifically before it, it would be acting beyond its Constitutional powers.

Now, had the issue before the court been whether a jury should be so instructed, this Jay passage would be significant. There is nothing in the opinion that indicates this is the case.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Eh. They have the power to ignore the law when not convicting someone in a criminal case.

Not really. In criminal cases, juries are never given questions of law. They're given questions of fact.

[That is, I'd argue that in cases of jury nullification, what they're ignoring are the facts, not the law. The famous OJ acquittal, for example, did nothing to change the laws regarding the crimes he was accused of, the rules of evidence, etc.]

In all other circumstances their decisions are subject to review from the bench.

And more importantly, the reverse is never true.

At most, an appellate court might remand the case back to the lower court to examine a specific question. But they're not in any way "trumping" the superior court decision.

Well, These words are what is called "dicta" and do not have the force of precedent because the case does not turn on the power of a jury. The case is about a debt. There was no legal argument as to the power of a jury as it simply wasn't an issue. Jay's remarks on the power of a jury do not directly affect the question of the debt.

The constitution has a "case and controversy" clause that limits the judicial power. In the case you cite the "case and controversy" is a question of enforcement of a debt. A federal court has no power to make precedent as to an issue not brought before it. Only the ruling as to the debt is good law. If it were to take on itself to make a ruling regarding the power of a jury when that issue is not specifically before it, it would be acting beyond its Constitutional powers.

Now, had the issue before the court been whether a jury should be so instructed, this Jay passage would be significant. There is nothing in the opinion that indicates this is the case.

Well explained, though I find it difficult to believe that the position Robert Prey is asserting is one that hinges on respect for or adherence to the Constitution.

He seems to be unaware of the fact that we rejected the Articles of Confederation in favor of a stronger central government. He seems to prefer a looser confederation of states governed by strict common law principles. (In fact, common law was rooted in monarchy, and what we've adopted into our legal system is a decided subset of English Common Law as a whole. And even state constitutions with language adopting common law reserve the authority of the state legislature to contradict matters that were held at common law.)

 

[Robert Prey]

No they don't. The Supreme Court will respect findings of fact, but the decisions given at trial can be reviewed and reversed by appellate courts on up to the Supreme Court. An appellate court can review and reverse a trial court decision (even if the decision comes from the jury).

An appellate court cannot reverse a "not guilty" verdict in a criminal trail.

 

[Robert Prey]

Sorry, but you're just wrong. The Constitution certainly does not prohibit federal debt.
.

Correct. But the Const. does prohibit the states from making any thing but gold and silver coin a tender in payment of debt, which if observed, would prevent the unlimited creation of money from out of nothing by the Fed, and thus prohibit the levels of debt the US has today.