10th amendment discussion

[cwalner]

Oh, baloney. We're talking Jury Trials, not Appellant Court or Supreme Court opinion which may be discarded by subsequent Juries, but do not involve juries in their decision making.

Except for the small bit where what you just said is the exact opposite or reality.

When a jury nullifies a law and acquits somebody guilty of the crime, of which he/she is accused, the crime is still on the books and the state is free to prosecute others for the same exact crime.

When an appellate court or SCOTUS rules on a matter of law, it can affect how future courts treat the law depending upon how high of a court and how strict or broad the ruling is.

However, that is not to say that Jury Nullification is not a powerful tool for the people to oppose an unjust law. But even in its strongest cases, slavery and Prohibition, the law (via the constitution) had to change before prosecutions stopped, but enough nullifications sent a very powerful message to Washington that those laws did not accurately reflect the will of the people.

 

[Robert Prey]

I know that you are making that up, just as Eric Kane (from whom you apparently learned it), was.

I take it you've never gone to court over a constitutional issue such as refusing to pay a fine, fee or tax to the state in a form of money not sanctioned by Constitutional law.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Oh, baloney. We're talking Jury Trials, not Appellant Court or Supreme Court opinion which may be discarded by subsequent Juries, but do not involve juries in their decision making.

No, Robert, you have repeatedly said that a jury trumps the Supreme Court. You can't say appellate courts (including the Supreme Court) is off topic.

In fact, we got into this entire line of discussion when you brought up a Supreme Court case, the Dred Scott decision.

ETA: I direct you back to post number 48 where you first challenged the authority of the Supreme Court as the body that has the judicial authority (that is, the right to resolve cases involving the law including the Constitution*). You asked why I don't think the Dred Scott case was valid, and I told you that it was not current law, and hadn't been for a long time--that it was nullified by the Emancipation Proclamation and the 14th and 15th Amendments. You then said that it was nullified by a jury decision. Of course, as usual, you're simply wrong.

*And, to refresh your memory, this was in the context of your rejecting valid case law on the interpretation of the sentence from Art. 1 Section 10--in the list of powers denied the states--which you claim is a power reserved exclusively to the states to reject paper money. I've shown that your reading was flat out wrong, and then you started in with your absurd notion that juries have the authority to nullify Supreme Court decisions.

So no--it's not baloney. You can't now claim you're not talking about a jury somehow having the authority to nullify Supreme Court decisions.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

I take it you've never gone to court over a constitutional issue such as refusing to pay a fine, fee or tax to the state in a form of money not sanctioned by Constitutional law.

That's an ad hominem argument. It is entirely irrelevant whether crimresearch has ever gone to court for any reason at all. The arguments stand or fall on their own merits.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

When a jury nullifies a law and acquits somebody guilty of the crime, of which he/she is accused, the crime is still on the books and the state is free to prosecute others for the same exact crime.

Which means, of course, that the jury isn't nullifying the law (and is certainly not nullifying superior appellate court decisions). The question the jury is answer is a question of facts. So if they're ignoring the law (judge instructions), technically, they're only reaching a decision that ignores the facts.

 

[crimresearch]

I take it you've never gone to court over a constitutional issue such as refusing to pay a fine, fee or tax to the state in a form of money not sanctioned by Constitutional law.

I''m not the Eric Kane disciple here, you are.

I've also never shot a cop in the back of the head either, are you getting ready to carry your sovereign citizen convictions to that point too? Or don't you have the same dedication he and his son did?

 

[Robert Prey]

No, Robert, you have repeatedly said that a jury trumps the Supreme Court. You can't say appellate courts (including the Supreme Court) is off topic.

In fact, we got into this entire line of discussion when you brought up a Supreme Court case, the Dred Scott decision.

ETA: I direct you back to post number 48 where you first challenged the authority of the Supreme Court as the body that has the judicial authority (that is, the right to resolve cases involving the law including the Constitution*). You asked why I don't think the Dred Scott case was valid, and I told you that it was not current law, and hadn't been for a long time--that it was nullified by the Emancipation Proclamation and the 14th and 15th Amendments. You then said that it was nullified by a jury decision. Of course, as usual, you're simply wrong.

*And, to refresh your memory, this was in the context of your rejecting valid case law on the interpretation of the sentence from Art. 1 Section 10--in the list of powers denied the states--which you claim is a power reserved exclusively to the states to reject paper money. I've shown that your reading was flat out wrong, and then you started in with your absurd notion that juries have the authority to nullify Supreme Court decisions.

So no--it's not baloney. You can't now claim you're not talking about a jury somehow having the authority to nullify Supreme Court decisions.

Juries have the power to nullify law in the particular case they are judging. That is obvious. Nor have you shown anything regarding a mis-reading of Art I, Sec. 10. You only assert that you have. But you have not.

 

[Robert Prey]

I''m not the Eric Kane disciple here, you are.

I've also never shot a cop in the back of the head either, are you getting ready to carry your sovereign citizen convictions to that point too? Or don't you have the same dedication he and his son did?

I don't think the constitution allows for a citizen to shoot a cop in the back, but it does allow for States to make no Thing but gold and silver coin a tender and it also does allow for Juries to be judge of both fact and law.

 

[Triterope]

I take it you've never gone to court over a constitutional issue such as refusing to pay a fine, fee or tax to the state in a form of money not sanctioned by Constitutional law.

You mean like this?

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Juries have the power to nullify law in the particular case they are judging. That is obvious. Nor have you shown anything regarding a mis-reading of Art I, Sec. 10. You only assert that you have. But you have not.

Bullcrap, Robert. I cited several standing federal district court opinions. You simply reject the common law principle of stare decisis, and you for some reason believe that wackdoodle nut-job sovereign citizen websites are a better authority for interpreting constitutional law than these decisions.

At least be man enough to admit that you have looked at the evidence I presented and reject it (for whatever reason) rather than claim I have only asserted a position without defending it.

From way back in post number 38 of this thread:

U.S. v. Rifen (1978) or Nixon v. Phillipoff (1985) and Foret v. Wilson (1984). These clarify that your reading of the passage you quoted is wrong and mine is correct. My favorite is from Nixon which says:

The provision of the Constitution [USCA Const Art. 1, §8, cl. 5] which gives Congress the right to coin money, and regulate the value thereof, gives Congress exclusive ability to determine what will be legal tender throughout the country ... The provision of the Constitution [USCA Const. Art. 1, §10, cl. 1] which mandates that no state shall make anything but gold or silver coin tender in payment of debts acts only to remove from states inherent soverign power to declare currency, thus leaving Congress as the sole declarant of what constitutes legal tender; the provision does not require states to accept only gold and silver as tender ... Federal Reserve Notes are legal tender for any debt or public charge ... Using or accepting Federal Reserve Notes as payment for state court filing fees was completely proper under the Constitution. USCA Const. Art. 1, §8, cl. 5; 31 USCA §5103.

Oh yeah, prior to this, I pointed to that earlier part in the Constitution [Art 1, Section 8, Clause 5] which gives the fed the authority.

And remember, you were responding to a question about what authority is one that is exclusive to a state. You pointed to the section that lists limits to state authority (that is, a list of powers prohibited from the states) and simply ignore the grant of this authority to Congress.

 

[Robert Prey]

Bullcrap, Robert. I cited several standing federal district court opinions. You simply reject the common law principle of stare decisis, and you for some reason believe that wackdoodle nut-job sovereign citizen websites are a better authority for interpreting constitutional law than these decisions.

At least be man enough to admit that you have looked at the evidence I presented and reject it (for whatever reason) rather than claim I have only asserted a position without defending it.

From way back in post number 38 of this thread:

U.S. v. Rifen (1978) or Nixon v. Phillipoff (1985) and Foret v. Wilson (1984). These clarify that your reading of the passage you quoted is wrong and mine is correct. My favorite is from Nixon which says:



Oh yeah, prior to this, I pointed to that earlier part in the Constitution [Art 1, Section 8, Clause 5] which gives the fed the authority.

And remember, you were responding to a question about what authority is one that is exclusive to a state. You pointed to the section that lists limits to state authority (that is, a list of powers prohibited from the states) and simply ignore the grant of this authority to Congress.

Lower court rulings do not trump the constitution any more than do higher court rulings. The Constitution remains the supreme law of the land whatever courts may rule.. But if such a ruling is to be taken literally, it would mean the Founders intended two different kinds of legal tender -- one for the Feds and one for the States. A ludicrous situation on its face and contradicted by not only the Const. itself, but the debates of the Founders as recorded by James Madison. It would also mean that a Const. can have clauses that conflict. If the courts did their duty to uphold the Const. there would be no controversy.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

The Constitution remains the supreme law of the land whatever courts may rule.

I never claimed otherwise. I just assert that the authority to interpret the Constitution (that is to resolve cases that arise under conflicts or controversies involving the law, including the Constitution).

But if such a ruling is to be taken literally, it would mean the Founders intended two different kinds of legal tender -- one for the Feds and one for the States. A ludicrous situation on its face and contradicted by not only the Const. itself, but the debates of the Founders as recorded by James Madison.

Nonsense. Your reading of these clauses is simply wrong. The monetary authority is the sole authority of the Federal government. It is listed in the authorities granted to Congress. Further, the authority to coin money (other than things made of gold or silver--that is things with no monetary value other than their value as precious metals) is explicitly denied the states. The point is, the states do NOT have the authority to do anything that could mess with the Fed's monetary authority.

If the courts did their duty to uphold the Const. there would be no controversy.

Nonsense. Conflicts and controversies arise all the time. Your assertion means Article 3 would be unnecessary.

Let me put it this way.

You claimed that a jury decision trumps the Supreme Court decision. (Your way of rejecting the case law that shows my reading of the clauses regarding the monetary authority is correct.)

In fact, the Supreme Court is not bound by any lower court ruling.

 

[Robert Prey]

Nonsense. Your reading of these clauses is simply wrong. The monetary authority is the sole authority of the Federal government. It is listed in the authorities granted to Congress. Further, the authority to coin money (other than things made of gold or silver--that is things with no monetary value other than their value as precious metals) is explicitly denied the states. The point is, the states do NOT have the authority to do anything that could mess with the Fed's monetary authority.

Mr. Juggler, Please do me a very, very very BIG favor and show me two things from our Beloved Constitution:

1. Where does it say the the monetary authority is the sole authority of the Federal government. A direct quote, please. Art. I, Sec. 8 reads "The congress shall have the power To Coin Money, regulate the Value thereof and of foreign coin and fix the standard of weights and measures". But no license is given to make any thing but gold and silver coin a tender, nor any license to emit bills of credit, a subject extensively debated by the Founders and rejected. The Power to coin money is not the power to print money but understood to mean coins of the precious metals as confirmed in Art. I., Sec. 10.

and

2. Where does it say the that States can coin any kind of money at all, even gold or silver when Art. I., Sec. 10 specifically forbids the states from coining money:

"No State shall...coin money."

Is your Constitution different than mine?????

 

[Robert Prey]

Let me put it this way.
You claimed that a jury decision trumps the Supreme Court decision. (Your way of rejecting the case law that shows my reading of the clauses regarding the monetary authority is correct.)
In fact, the Supreme Court is not bound by any lower court ruling.

All laws are subject to the judgement of juries as to their justness and or constitutionality. And as far as the SC is concerned, I do not believe there has ever been a legal tender case before it that deals with the constitutionality of irredeemable paper. But if there was, or ever is, Art I., Sec. 10 still prevails, if juries would only enforce it.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Mr. Prey, this is getting tiresome.

I've already proven beyond any reasonable argument that the clause in question doesn't give the states the authority to reject paper money as you seem to think.

I'll quote the jurisprudence again, and tell you up front that I reject your absurd arguments that this is not current jurisprudence because a jury can somehow trump it (as you claim happened with the Dred Scott decision).

From Nixon v. Phillipoff:

The provision of the Constitution [USCA Const Art. 1, §8, cl. 5] which gives Congress the right to coin money, and regulate the value thereof, gives Congress exclusive ability to determine what will be legal tender throughout the country ... The provision of the Constitution [USCA Const. Art. 1, §10, cl. 1] which mandates that no state shall make anything but gold or silver coin tender in payment of debts acts only to remove from states inherent soverign power to declare currency, thus leaving Congress as the sole declarant of what constitutes legal tender; the provision does not require states to accept only gold and silver as tender ... Federal Reserve Notes are legal tender for any debt or public charge ... Using or accepting Federal Reserve Notes as payment for state court filing fees was completely proper under the Constitution. USCA Const. Art. 1, §8, cl. 5; 31 USCA §5103.

And again, the authority of this court decision is from the judicial authority established and vested in the courts in Article 3 of the Constitution.

And don't start the BS again about jury nullification.

No higher court has overturned this decision, and no lower court has the authority to overturn it. It is an accurate description of the judiciary's interpretation of these bits of the Constitution.

Yours is not.

"No State shall...coin money."

Is your Constitution different than mine?????

Yes. It is far more complete, and lacks a period after the word "money".

At any rate, how do you get from the "No State shall. . . coin money" to the authority of states to reject paper money issued by the fed? In fact, how is "No State shall...coin money" a reasonable answer to the question you first offered it as a response to? (You claimed that it somehow was an exclusive authority of the states. I have been arguing that it is in the list of authorities prohibited from the states and correctly describes what a state is prohibited from doing."

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

All laws are subject to the judgement of juries as to their justness and or constitutionality.

That's false.

Juries are seldom (if ever) given questions of law to settle. They are given questions of fact.

And no jury decision is binding on the Supreme Court, while the reverse is certainly not the case.

And as far as the SC is concerned, I do not believe there has ever been a legal tender case before it that deals with the constitutionality of irredeemable paper. But if there was, or ever is, Art I., Sec. 10 still prevails, if juries would only enforce it.

You mean the Supreme Court has never opted to take up such a case. I've already cited case law on the matter which is the actual binding interpretation of this section.

 

[Robert Prey]

Mr. Prey, this is getting tiresome.

I've already proven beyond any reasonable argument that the clause in question doesn't give the states the authority to reject paper money as you seem to think.

I'll quote the jurisprudence again, and tell you up front that I reject your absurd arguments that this is not current jurisprudence because a jury can somehow trump it (as you claim happened with the Dred Scott decision).

From Nixon v. Phillipoff:


And again, the authority of this court decision is from the judicial authority established and vested in the courts in Article 3 of the Constitution.

And don't start the BS again about jury nullification.

No higher court has overturned this decision, and no lower court has the authority to overturn it. It is an accurate description of the judiciary's interpretation of these bits of the Constitution.

Yours is not.


Yes. It is far more complete, and lacks a period after the word "money".

At any rate, how do you get from the "No State shall. . . coin money" to the authority of states to reject paper money issued by the fed? In fact, how is "No State shall...coin money" a reasonable answer to the question you first offered it as a response to? (You claimed that it somehow was an exclusive authority of the states. I have been arguing that it is in the list of authorities prohibited from the states and correctly describes what a state is prohibited from doing."

Perhaps I'll get a better answer if we stick to one issue at a time. Your post read:
" Further, the authority to coin money (other than things made of gold or silver--that is things with no monetary value other than their value as precious metals) is explicitly denied the states. "

And I am asking you where you see the authority for the states to coin money, even if gold and silver, when the clause clearly states "No state shall.... coin money;????

 

[Robert Prey]

That's false.

Juries are seldom (if ever) given questions of law to settle. They are given questions of fact.

And no jury decision is binding on the Supreme Court, while the reverse is certainly not the case.

An "not guilty" verdict in a criminal case is binding on everybody, including the Supreme Court since there is no appeal allowed. Surely you know that. Why do you persist in such baloney?

 

[Robert Prey]

At any rate, how do you get from the "No State shall. . . coin money" to the authority of states to reject paper money issued by the fed? In fact, how is "No State shall...coin money" a reasonable answer to the question you first offered it as a response to? (You claimed that it somehow was an exclusive authority of the states. I have been arguing that it is in the list of authorities prohibited from the states and correctly describes what a state is prohibited from doing."

I just don't understand how you can get such tortured intepretation out of the clear cut words: "No state shall... make any thing but gold and silver coin a tender in payment of debt." Either you are playing games here or hopelessly trapped in Owellian Doublethink. I think the latter.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

An "not guilty" verdict in a criminal case is binding on everybody, including the Supreme Court since there is no appeal allowed.

You're equivocating on the word "binding". That double jeopardy prevents retrying someone acquitted of a crime any chance for appeal does not make a lower court decision binding on the Supreme Court.

You're now conflating disposition of a case with establishing a principle of common law.

So tell me again, what jury do you suppose has overturned the Nixon decision I have twice quoted?