The U.S. Supreme Court is, and rightly should be, the final word on that question.What, just like they were "the final word" at one time about slaves not having the rights of free citizens?
Anybody who thinks a pronouncement from any branch of government declaring we have no right as individuals to keep and bear arms will be "the final word," and that we'll all then go gentle into that good night, lives in a pretty sheltered world and hasn't really been paying attention to what the soul of this movement is all about.
There will be no "final word" denying our rights, nor any more "final solutions" while some of us yet breathe.
[Via Dan Gifford]
Here's MY final word: COME AND TAKE 'EM!
ReplyDeleteMr. Levy's education is lacking. There are two higher authorities on the Constitution than the Supreme Court. A petit jury, and the body of the people, both of which are charged with weighing the law and the constitution. That most are not aware of this, doesn't excuse Mr. Levy not knowing it if he is going to expound.
ReplyDeleteThe USSC is the highest court in the land. It is not the highest authority on the law or Constitution.
ReplyDeleteTell me more about this "petit jury", S.A.
ReplyDeleteThe petit jury is simply a trial jury, usually 12 person tried and true. They are not just charged with hearing the facts of a case, but also have a duty to judge the law. In addition to judging the law, they have a duty to determine if the law is constitutional. If they decide it is not they may acquit even if the facts of the case go against the defendant. This is called jury nullfication.
ReplyDeleteNo judge will ever apprise a jury of their total duty, ex: Fincher.
In fact, many judges give illegal instructions to a jury telling it, they do not have the power to determine if a law is just or constitutional. They most often instruct a jury to deliberate only on the facts of the case as presented. This is, in actuality, a denial of civil rights.
A defense attorney is in almost every case forbidden by the judge to raise issues of the constitutionality of the law under which his client is charged. The most frequent quote is "The law is not on trial here." That is a lie.
The law is always on trial when a case goes to the jury. However, it is likely that fewer than 2% of the people making up juries are aware of their duty and so follow the judges instructions. Which, by the way, they are not obligated to do. The jury owns the courtroom. It is theirs. They are not just charged with trying the facts of a case but are also charged with finding the truth.
If that truth proves to be that a defendant was charged under a law repugnant to the constitution they are obligated to acquit.
Here again, ignorance works in favor of the state.
When the USSC makes a pronouncement it affects all like cases. That is the reason for the misapprehension that they are the final word. When a petit jury finds a law unjust or unconstitutional they a) are not obligated to state their reasons for acquittal and b) their decision only affects that one case. However, unlike a decision from the USSC, their decision is above challenge.
The above is true, but I urge you search for "duties of the petit jury" and "jury nullification", or some variables thereof.
O.K., now I understand. I've long held that jury nullification is a right of the people, and I know judges don't like it. But tell me: where is it right to use it? Against unconstitutional laws for sure, but how far do we use it? When do we overstep the proper bounds and turn it into misuse?
ReplyDeleteWhen do we overstep the proper bounds of freedom and turn it into misuse, crotalus?
ReplyDeleteif the law is just and constitutional and a jury acquits because they like the defendant's haircut or he is famous or any other reason except failure of the state to prove its case, then they have overstepped.
ReplyDeleteSo far, that has not really been a problem.
Ain't that right, OJ...:)
ReplyDeleteThanks, S.A.
ReplyDeleteAnd I gotta agree with David. The O.J. trial was a case of "We don't care if he's guilty; we're gonna let our brother go."
I gotta disagree on the OJ thing. I started out believing he was probably guilty. He is a prick, he was an abuser, and he was used to getting away with shit because he used to be able to carry a football.
ReplyDeleteHe was a perfect fit for a sonofabitch that would do that.
However, I watched or listened to the whole case and I was convinced that he did not kill those people. Ironically, his defense team had nothing to do with turning my opinion, but the prosecution and the cops did.
The prosecution not only convinced me he didn't do it, they convinced me they didn't really believe he did it. How's that for ineffective prosecution?
However, the jury had no choice in that trial. When the prosecution cheats,and they did, when the cops perjure, and they did, when evidence is manufactured, and it was, the jury must acquit the defendant.
They don't do that because they are fans,or because he was famous, they do that to protect all the rest of us who don't have the money to mount a defense capable of exposing the chicanery of the prosecution. That was their duty. They had proof of perjury, manufactured evidence and prosecutorial misconduct.
They, therefore, had no choice but to acquit. Even if they thought OJ might have done it, they could not convict and preserve their honor or duty.
They did this nation a great service. I do not for a minute believe they let him go because he was a "brother". They simply had no choice, and that was the fault of the cops and DA.
re: OJ. I did not watch the trial but I did watch most of the pretrial. I came away from that convinced that the cops were incompentent lying scum -- and, somewhat paradoxically, that OJ was guilty of the crime. The shoddy work of the cops and the medical examiners bothers me quite a bit more than OJ "getting away" with murder.
ReplyDeletere: "the Final Word".
Levy: The U.S. Supreme Court is, and rightly should be, the final word on that question. Let’s give the court an opportunity to rule, and give the rest of us the benefit of the court’s collective judgment on a debate that concerns millions of Americans.
With "thinking" like that, I'm surprised he is able to operate the computer he typed it on. While it is quite possble that the "collective" judgment of 5+ members of the SC is "better" than that of millions of other people, it is not very likely. And as to being the "final word", I'm _very_ sure that that goes to those who are alive to speak it -- which won't be those who say the _wrong_ thing and _try_ to make it stick.