• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

10th amendment discussion

JoeTheJuggler said:
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".
Click to expand...

Juries do indeed have the right to trump SC decisions and examples of that include previously cited pre-civil war Fugitive slave laws, and alcohol prohibition as well as other issues.

And in my experience and knowledge of legal tender cases, juries are not allowed to hear any thing about the Constitution. If they were allowed, then we'd be back on a Gold and Silver monetary standard very quickly. Here is what happens typically. The judge takes the proceedings outside of the court room, in secret session, to prevent any media or other witnesses from observing the court's criminal conduct. Then the prosecution makes a "motion in limine" to limit the subject matter before the jury to exclude any thing about the constitution. The judge routinely approves and threatens the litigants with contempt for breach of the order and thus, the jury is kept ignorant.
 
Last edited:
Suddenly said:
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.

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.
.
Click to expand...

John Jay's jury charge has nothing to do with "dicta" nor does it have anything to do with any law, except a recognition that as a common law right the jury's power to determine both fact and law. John Jay's charge did not create any new right, nor establish any precedence, but merely recognized the right of juries to judge both fact and law as natural and pre-existing.
 
Last edited:
JoeTheJuggler said:
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.)
Click to expand...

Totally irrelevant to the issue of Jury rights, then, now and forever.
 
Last edited:
Robert Prey said:
Suddenly said:
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.

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.
.
Click to expand...

John Jay's jury charge has nothing to do with "dicta" nor does it have anything to do with any law, except a recognition that as a common law right the jury's power to determine both fact and law. John Jay's charge did not create any new right, nor establish any precedence, but merely recognized the right of juries to judge both fact and law as natural and pre-existing.
Click to expand...
...says the man with no legal experience to a lawyer of many years experience :rolleyes:
 
Robert Prey said:
Juries do indeed have the right to trump SC decisions and examples of that include previously cited pre-civil war Fugitive slave laws, and alcohol prohibition as well as other issues.

And in my experience and knowledge of legal tender cases, juries are not allowed to hear any thing about the Constitution. If they were allowed, then we'd be back on a Gold and Silver monetary standard very quickly. Here is what happens typically. The judge takes the proceedings outside of the court room, in secret session, to prevent any media or other witnesses from observing the court's criminal conduct. Then the prosecution makes a "motion in limine" to limit the subject matter before the jury to exclude any thing about the constitution. The judge routinely approves and threatens the litigants with contempt for breach of the order and thus, the jury is kept ignorant.
Click to expand...
Definitely Eric Kane seminar stuff. Did you pay him for it in legal tender, or barter for some homemade license plates and AK ammo?
 
Robert Prey said:
Totally irrelevant to the issue of Jury rights, then, now and forever.
Click to expand...

Well since you've offered nothing more on that subtopic other than repeated insistence that jury decisions can trump Supreme Court decisions, I felt no qualms whatsoever returning to the broader topic of this thread.
 
Robert Prey said:
Juries do indeed have the right to trump SC decisions and examples of that include previously cited pre-civil war Fugitive slave laws, and alcohol prohibition as well as other issues.
Click to expand...

What are you talking about? Juries didn't write the fugitive slave laws or alcohol prohibition.


And in my experience and knowledge of legal tender cases, juries are not allowed to hear any thing about the Constitution.
Click to expand...
As I've told you, juries are finders of fact, not law.

The judge takes the proceedings outside of the court room, in secret session, to prevent any media or other witnesses from observing the court's criminal conduct.
Click to expand...

This is just absurd paranoia.
 
JoeTheJuggler said:
This is just absurd paranoia.
Click to expand...
I tried to warn you Joe, but no, you were misled by the cute mogwai and you fed it after midnight. Now we have a ravaging troll loose in the thread. At least you did not get it wet, so we only have one.

When somebody tries to warn you 'DO NOT FEED THE TROLL' maybe you will listen next time.
 
JoeTheJuggler said:
As I've told you, juries are finders of fact, not law.
Click to expand...

Sorry to diagnose your insistence on an untruth as a hopeless case of government school or for all I know, law school brainwash.

"The jury has the power to bring a verdict in the teeth of both law and fact." -- Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, 1902
 
Robert Prey said:
Oh, ye of little faith. Check out:

Jury nullification at work in marijuana, gun cases

http://www.examiner.com/civil-liberties-in-national/jury-nullification-at-work-marijuana-gun-cases
Click to expand...

ha ha, so where is the SCOTUS in there?

You have made what is called an over generalization, the SCOTUS rules on what laws are acceptable under the COTUS. Juries decide the guilt in a specific case or in grand juries if the case is reasonable.

the fact that a jury may rule one way or another does not 'overturn' a SCOTUS decision, it is the right of the jury to do so. Now when you show me how in the 21st century there has been a consistent finding by all juries that the SCOTUS followed then you might have a case.

But still just hyperbole on your part.
 
Last edited:
Dancing David said:
ha ha, so where is the SCOTUS in there?

You have made what is called an over generalization, the SCOTUS rules on what laws are acceptable under the COTUS. Juries decide the guilt in a specific case or in grand juries if the case is reasonable.

the fact that a jury may rule one way or another does not 'overturn' a SCOTUS decision, it is the right of the jury to do so. Now when you show me how in the 21st century there has been a consistent finding by all juries that the SCOTUS followed then you might have a case.

But still just hyperbole on your part.
Click to expand...


Not at all. The law is overturned in that particular case. But repeated nullifications make the law a dead letter even if remains on the books, which in the case of Slavery, Fugitive Slave laws, Alcohol Prohibition and handgun prohibitions were eventually repealed. Today, drug laws, esp. medical marijuana is very close to having the same fate as will eventually be the case with unconstitutional legal tender laws and the unconstitutional Direct Tax on incomes.
 
Robert Prey said:
Oh, well that would explain his problem. I've encountered judges who never heard of this stuff as well. Not at all surprising.
Click to expand...

Did you ever consider that perhaps the vast majority of those in the legal system are right and you are not?

You are basically the legal equivalent of a homeopath.
 
Robert Prey said:
Not at all. The law is overturned in that particular case. But repeated nullifications make the law a dead letter even if remains on the books, which in the case of Slavery, Fugitive Slave laws, Alcohol Prohibition and handgun prohibitions were eventually repealed. Today, drug laws, esp. medical marijuana is very close to having the same fate as will eventually be the case with unconstitutional legal tender laws and the unconstitutional Direct Tax on incomes.
Click to expand...

Hi so what does this have to do with your statement about the SCOTUS in the 21st century?

Where is your data that jury nullification led to the repeal of Prohibition, after you answer the SCOTUS question.
 
Suddenly said:
Did you ever consider that perhaps the vast majority of those in the legal system are right and you are not?

You are basically the legal equivalent of a homeopath.
Click to expand...

And you are the equivalent of a ad hominemopath. The history of the rights of juries speak for itself. It is for you and other legal eagles to become head in sand ostriches if you so choose.
 
Suddenly said:
Did you ever consider that perhaps the vast majority of those in the legal system are right and you are not?

You are basically the legal equivalent of a homeopath.
Click to expand...

And you are the equivalent of a ad hominemopath. The history of the rights of juries speak for itself. It is for you and other legal eagles to become head in sand ostriches if you so choose.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom