LIBERTIES

RSS
Email

0 Kudo

Author	Comment
Covenanted Sister	law	#481	[-]
Posts: 156 (04/26/07 18:16:13) Frequent User Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	Apostoleze, You say Similarly, Israelite legal cases would have correctly been adjudicated on the basis of the law rather than on how the politics of Promised-Land invasion strategies were going, and whether you sided with the two or the ten spies. According to Torah, what matters is what the court decides, and this is ultimately what the people of God must depend upon. The codified law (written Torah) is not self-interpreting, and the particular cases that are reserved for the court included conflict between two legal rights: two laws (not to mention the interpretation of factual patterns and applicable law.) Sometimes in these instances the court must create a third law to settle a dispute between the two; other times it must actually overrule one of the laws. In either case, simply adjudicating the situation on "the basis of the law" simply doesn't work if, by that, you mean only the codified law as it exists and is understood by the court and parties at the time of the controversy. If the matter were really that straightfoward, Moses would have had no reason to contemplate his burden; Jethro would have had no reason to offer a solution; and God would have had no reason to create a Levitical court in the first place.
Unregistered(d)	Biblical and humanistic law	#482	[-]
Posts: 0 (04/28/07 18:54:06) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	CS, > According to Torah, what matters is what the court decides, and this is ultimately what the people of God must depend upon. Not completely. The court system established by Moses made provision for errors in court opinions just as the U.S. legal system has appellate courts, plus the Supremes. Moses was the final court of appeal. Even so, when courts make errors, it is the law of God and not the court that is the ultimate basis for what is right and wrong, and the people of God are called in scripture to rely upon the word of God, not the words of (judicial) man, when they differ. The same is true in U.S. law. A wrongly adjudicated case is still in error, even if it is handed down by the court. This is, in part, why all three branches of U.S. govt have a duty to uphold the laws under the Constitution, not just the judicial branch. This is also why juries exist, to nullify bad laws and decide differently than the courts would, when necessary. > ... conflict between two legal rights Biblical law contrasts with U.S. law in that it is not so much oriented around "rights". Biblical law is concerned with justice, not "rights". Rights are upheld implicitly when justice prevails. > Sometimes in these instances the court must create a third law to settle a dispute between the two; other times it must actually overrule one of the laws. Courts creating laws sounds rather out of place, a form of legislating from the bench. I would put it somewhat differently, that inconsistencies in the legal corpus are settled by refinement of the interpretation of the laws so that their interpretations are more consistent. This is mainly a problem for human law, where humans make up their own right and wrong, and in abundance. In the U.S. alone, there are nearly 2 million laws on the books. It is impossible for human lawmaking to maintain any semblance of consistency. it is much less of a problem with a legal foundation of Ten Commandments. > If the matter were really that straightfoward, Moses would have had no reason to contemplate his burden; Jethro would have had no reason to offer a solution; and God would have had no reason to create a Levitical court in the first place. Not exactly. Even with God giving the laws, and few of them, there is still a need to try cases. Moses' problem was not with the mess than humanistic law is but simply with the volume of cases needng adjudication, as the scripture itself states. CS, are you a lawyer? Ever taken a bar exam?
Covenanted Sister	levitical courts	#483	[-]
Posts: 156 (04/30/07 10:30:09) Frequent User Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	Apostoleze, I would disagree with your assesment that the court system we find in the Old Testament is a court system that was established by Moses. It seems pretty clear that this court system is established by the word of God (God Himself). To suggest that the Levitical courts were somehow man-directed and lacking in divine authority does damage to the very nature with which God endowed the court, as evidenced by the grave penalty God delivers for those who choose to ignore the court's judgment. Disagreeing with the judgment of the court is not a matter that was left to the freedom of one's conscience or to the liberty with which a person thinks he has in interpreting the word of God. The result for disagreeing with the court was the death penalty (and certain exile)!!! Read Deut. 17:8-13. If you read the Deuteronomy passage, you will also find that the court was specifically entitled to hear cases that dealt with "stroke and stroke" i.e., the written law itself. Obviously, it is apparent that law could conflict with law in a given set of circumstances. You suggest that "the court system established by Moses made provision for error in court opinions just as the U.S. legal system has appellate courts, plus the Supremes." Your appraisal of the matter is not supported by scripture. The passage from Deuteronomy does not allow for appeals of judgment. It simply directs obedience to the Levitical priests and the judge. (Moses wasn't going to live forever, and God anticipates that.)Moreover, contrary to your assessment, the Leviticus passage does not at all contemplate an appellate procedure. It only refers simple matters to those men Moses appoints, and it reservers more difficult matters to Moses himself. Regarding your distinction between "rights" and "justice," I think you are doing some needless equivocating here, but if you want to use the word "justice" instead of "rights", that's fine with me. (Personally, I think "rights" is an appropriate translation, but at this point, I don't mind using "justice" either.) Finally, the fact that there was an abundance of cases that needed resolution only underscores the necessity of the courts and points to the fact that Torah is NOT self-interpreting. In spite of your denial, the Deuteronomy passage makes clear the court's purpose: settling conflicts of law against law and determining applicability of law. The court's judgment was not a judgment of man, Apostoleze. It was a judgment with Divine Authority, and this brings me back to my point: God uses the court to teach His people. Their judgments were not mere suggestions.
Covenanted Sister	mistake	#484	[-]
Posts: 156 (04/30/07 11:54:06) Frequent User Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	Apostoleze, I forgot to point out a correction to your last post. You said, The same is true in U.S. law. A wrongly adjudicated case is still in error, even if it is handed down by the court. This is, in part, why all three branches of U.S. govt have a duty to uphold the laws under the Constitution, not just the judicial branch. This is also why juries exist, to nullify bad laws and decide differently than the courts would, when necessary. In every legal jurisdiction of the United States, juries never "nullify bad laws." Juries decide facts and facts only. Judges and appellate courts (to which there are no juries) decide laws.
Unregistered(d)	divine vs human law	#485	[-]
Posts: 0 (04/30/07 18:14:26) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	CS, > I would disagree with your assesment that the court system we find in the Old Testament is a court system that was established by Moses. Okay, God established it through Moses. He didn't wave a magic wand. He worked through his chosen leader of his chosen people. Even the Midianite relative played a role. > Your appraisal of the matter is not supported by scripture. The passage from Deuteronomy does not allow for appeals of judgment. The passage from Deuteronomy is not the end of the matter. > but if you want to use the word "justice" instead of "rights", that's fine with me. No, I don't. If you know anything about law you know that they are not "equivalent". They are distinct concepts that should not be conflated. Where DID you get your law degree, anyway? Why are you avoiding these questions about whether you are a lawyer or not? With few exceptions, I too would be embarrassed to be a lawyer. > Torah is NOT self-interpreting. Who said it was? > In spite of your denial, the Deuteronomy passage makes clear the court's purpose: settling conflicts of law against law and determining applicability of law. Who's denying that? > Their judgments were not mere suggestions. In your view, then, how did the Mosaic/Levitical legal system correct errors in judgment? Or are you going to tell me that they made no errors?
Covenanted Sister	response	#486	[-]
Posts: 156 (05/01/07 09:37:30) Frequent User Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	Apostoleze, I will not be so quick to agree with your distinction between "justice" and "rights" particularly in a modern jurisprudential context, but especially in the legal context of the Old Covenant and as pertains to the discussion at hand. I will remind you that you are the one who thinks biblical law is not concerned with rights. You very clearly stated, Biblical law contrasts with U.S. law in that it is not so much oriented around "rights". Biblical law is concerned with justice, not "rights". Rights are upheld implicitly when justice prevails. You may have overlooked the fact that my use of the word "rights" was dependent upon scripture itself, and scripture that specifies the subject matter of the divinely instituted Levitical court! The Deuteronomy passage clarifies the Levitical court's purpose: dealing with law vs law, legal right versus legal right (per RSV), legal right vs. legal right (per ESV), legality vs. legality (amplified); stroke and stroke (KJV). I haven't found any English translation that clarifies the matter is between justice and justice. Yet, "justice" is apparently the word you think must be used. Incredibly, you say that justice implies rights and biblical law is only concerned with justice. What does this mean, Apostoleze? Are rights only implied from the concept of Justice when it's a matter of convenience or, at least, when it's an extra-biblical matter? Does justice exist without any sort of rights at all? Or, is your error more fundamentally grounded in your own logical inconsistency? You say that Deuteronomy is not the end of the matter. Okay. Please tell us what other verses from scripture you are using that clarifies the jurisdiction, subject matter, and origination of the court. You ask whether the court erred in any of its decisions? For the benefit of other readers, here is the passage (Deut. 17.8-13): 8. If there arise a matter too hard for thee in judgment, between blood and blood, between plea and plea, and between stroke and stroke, being matters of controversy within thy gates: then shalt thou arise and get thee up into the place which teh Lord thy God shall choose: 9. And thoushalt come unto the priests the Levites, and unto the judge that shall be in those days, and inquire; and they shall shew thee the sentence of judgment: 10. And thou shalt do according to the sentence, which they of that place which the Lord shall choose shall shew thee; and thou shalt observe to do according to all that they inform thee: 11. According to the sentence of the law which they shall teach thee, and according to the judgment which they shall tell thee, thou shalt do: thou shalt not decline from teh sentence which they shall shew thee, to the right hand, nor to the left. 12. And the man that will do presumptuously, and will not hearken unto the priest that standeth to minister there before the Lord thy God, or unto the judge, even that man shall die; and thou shalt put away the evil from Israel. 13. And all the people shall hear, and fear, and do no more presumptuously The court is instituted by God Himself. God commanded that the decisions of the court be followed precisely. God commanded that no one act presumptuously by not obeying the priest who stands to minister there before the Lord or the judge. The penalty for disobeying any of these commands is death. God commands that no one act presumptuously. My answer to your question, then, is that the court ruled in accord with God's will. What mistakes do you think the court was making? If there were mistakes, would you have advised any of the litigants to act against the command of the court? Finally, why is my profession a concern of yours? If you think I am mistating facts about the U.S. legal system, then please enlighten me. Meanwhile, I hope you didn't miss my correction of your previous post regarding juries and judges, and facts and law.
Unregistered(d)	more law talk	#487	[-]
Posts: 0 (05/01/07 19:15:30) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	CS, > I will not be so quick to agree with your distinction between "justice" and "rights" particularly in a modern jurisprudential context ... Well, that's the problem: thinking in a "modern jurisprudential context", a context working hard to secure its place in hell nowadays. I'm not singling it out. It is but one of the failed institutions of a collapsing civilization. > Yet, "justice" is apparently the word you think must be used. Don't read my meaning into your construction. Justice is the goal of any good court. If justice prevails, then the implicit "rights" are secured. Check your law history; the concept of rights originated in modern individualistic society concerned with what the individual could be guaranteed by the System, going back to the barons of the Magna Charta or before. The biblical concept of law does not have this individualistic and self-oriented preoccupation with one's rights. Biblical law deals with the relationships between people and defines which behaviors are right and which aren't. Let's look at those verses: > The Deuteronomy passage clarifies the Levitical court's purpose: dealing with law vs law, legal right versus legal right (per RSV), legal right vs. legal right (per ESV), legality vs. legality (amplified); stroke and stroke (KJV). (KJV is "plea and plea".) Deut. 17:8 (ESV) "If any case arises requiring decision between one kind of homicide and another, one kind of legal right and another, or one kind of assault and another, any case within your towns that is too difficult for you, then you shall arise and go up to the place that the Lord your God will choose. "Legal right" is the translation of diyn, Hebrew 1779, Strongs: diyn, deen; or (Job 19:29) duwn, doon; from Hebrew 1777 (diyn); judgment (the suit, justice, sentence or tribunal); by implication also strife :- cause, judgment, plea, strife. Job 19:29 (ESV) be afraid of the sword, for wrath brings the punishment of the sword, that you may know there is a judgment." The word "judgment" in Job is the same word. Doesn't appear to be anything like "legal right" to me. I wonder how much these translators understood of Hebrew jurisprudence - not a very impressive effort. Don't believe everything you read - even in the "Bible"! > Incredibly, you say that justice implies rights and biblical law is only concerned with justice. What does this mean, Apostoleze? What people nowadays are concerned with that they call "rights" are to a sufficient extent subsumed under biblical justice, which is the maintenance of biblical law. If biblical law is correctly adjudicated (and there is no guarantee that it was or would be despite your misidentification of sanctions backing court decisions with correctness or not of the decisions themselves) then society is taught by the examples of application of biblical law in such cases to live by it. And when this is done, members of such a society are free of the oppressions that modern "rights" are intended to guarantee. Incredulity is sometimes a symptom of mental conformity to a failed system of thought. > Are rights only implied from the concept of Justice when it's a matter of convenience or, at least, when it's an extra-biblical matter? I don't quite know what you're asking, but it sounds like a loaded question. Biblical law doesn't exactly IMPLY rights, but offers a different (incompatible) path to the goal that rights are intended to achieve. Think about it, CS: what IS a right? It is part of a social contract with govt whereby govt guarantees the individal some form of sovereignty. Read the early U.S. founders and their influences (Locke, Mill, Rutherford) if you don't believe me, about their concept of giving the individual the rights only kings otherwise enjoyed. Can you imagine God sharing his sovereignty with man? That's not what a suzerainty covenant is about! And that is the only form of relationship that Yahweh has ever had with humanity. (If you are unfamliar with ancient suzerainty covenants, then I suggest you go to www.presenttruthmag.org and find the issues of Present Truth pertaining to "Covenant" and start reading.) > Does justice exist without any sort of rights at all? Yes, it does. We have no rights before God. All that we have comes from him and belongs to him. We have no 1 % autonomy to his 99 % autonomy. Yet those (few) societies who have lived by God's law have been the most free and least oppressed of any in history. > Or, is your error more fundamentally grounded in your own logical inconsistency? Well, since I don't beat my wife I never did stop. > You say that Deuteronomy is not the end of the matter. Okay. Please tell us what other verses from scripture you are using that clarifies the jurisdiction, subject matter, and origination of the court. Deuteronomy 17 is not this wide in scope. It tells us who has the authority to judge cases on appeal (v. . Note that the priests judge cases that cannot be resolved locally. That's a form of appeal in that the decision is made locally to remand the case to a higher court. > You ask whether the court erred in any of its decisions? For the benefit of other readers, here is the passage (Deut. 17.8-13): This is not about the correctness of court opinions but the sanctions backing their enforcement. A competent lawyer would know how to read more carefully than this. > The court is instituted by God Himself. Yes, through Moses and the priests and local leaders. > God commanded that the decisions of the court be followed precisely. Sanctions were strong (death penalty) for disregarding the court decisions. > God commanded that no one act presumptuously by not obeying the priest who stands to minister there before the Lord or the judge. The penalty for disobeying any of these commands is death. God commands that no one act presumptuously. The command was to abide by the court decision. That in no way makes it correct. Only the naive would think that Israel had perfect and infallible judges. > My answer to your question, then, is that the court ruled in accord with God's will. What mistakes do you think the court was making? If there were mistakes, would you have advised any of the litigants to act against the command of the court? Egad, CS. You think these were unfallen angels adjudicating in these courts? Time to leave Disneyland. In time, they would have made, and did make, every imaginable mistake under the sun. Read some Jewish literature sometime, like the Talmud. My question has nothing to do with your side-trip about obeying court opinions or not, but whether there was any recourse to correction of wrong decisions. Try to stay on-point, if you can, and answer the question I asked, not the one you imagined. > Finally, why is my profession a concern of yours? If you think I am mistating facts about the U.S. legal system, then please enlighten me. Why should you think I should regard you as having any expertise in law if you are reticent to even acknowledge whether or not you have any legal credentials? Your facts about the biblical legal system are certainly tenuous. You haven't said much yet about U.S. law. > Meanwhile, I hope you didn't miss my correction of your previous post regarding juries and judges, and facts and law. You want respect but have not done much yet to earn it.
Covenanted Sister	your mistake	#488	[-]
Posts: 156 (05/02/07 10:11:12) Frequent User Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	Apostoleze, I may be out of town the next couple days, but I want to assure you that I will address the more substantive issues in your post as quickly as I can. In the meantime, you made another gaffe regarding your understanding of the legal realm. Cases are only "remanded" to lower courts, never to higher courts. Cases are "appealed" to higher courts.
Unregistered(d)	my mistake	#489	[-]
Posts: 0 (05/02/07 19:16:50) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	CS, > Cases are only "remanded" to lower courts, never to higher courts. Cases are "appealed" to higher courts. I stand corrected - and that is additional evidence that supports my suspicion that you are indeed a barrister. Did you give your dollar to the court clerk yet? Of course, it is possible that you made it through law school but couldn't pass the bar exam. But I doubt that possibility. Maybe you're a "paralegal", or even a CPA ...
Unregistered(d)	jury nullification	#490	[-]
Posts: 0 (05/04/07 19:19:49) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	CS, > In every legal jurisdiction of the United States, juries never "nullify bad laws." Juries decide facts and facts only. Completely incorrect. This is what judges instruct juries but it is completely false, and only jurors who know the authority given juries under U.S. law will discount it. If you are a lawyer and you really believe this then: 1. You haven't studied U.S. legal history much, including the nullification of runaway slave laws by northern juries during the days around the War of the 1860s, or the purpose for the instiotution of juries in the first place. They were to have the authority to judge both the facts AND the law of a case. This still holds but judges do not want the usual ignorant juror to know it. Even lawyers can get in trouble with a jusge by telling the jury that, though it is completely true. 2. You might have become the victim of law-school conditioning- that is, selective coverage of law and emphasis upon legal procedures, not the law itself. To become an educated lawyer you have to go well beyond law school or you really won't know enough about how the System works. It is the same way in engineering. Many engineering graduates are practically useless (at first) when it comes to designing anything that works well. In engineering, only a small percentage of engineers really understand the subject well - maybe 5 %. The same is true in other fields, including law. I recommend that you learn from some of the best. I have been blessed to have been able to, from people such as Larry Becraft, who is one of the best constitutional attorneys in his areas of law in the U.S.: home.hiwaay.net/~becraft/ As for jury nullification, see: www.fija.org > Judges and appellate courts (to which there are no juries) decide laws. Not the same as jury nullification of bad laws.
Unregistered(d)	Evidence, Please	#491	[-]
Posts: 0 (05/07/07 10:17:24) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	Good morning, Apostoleze. In my opinion, giving out links to websites places too heavy a burden on your readers to search for actual evidence of your claims. Would you mind providing (and citing sources for) actual quotations from the founding fathers, or actual quotations from "U.S. law" to support your apparent contention that jury activism was part of the original purpose of juries? I looked at the second website you offered and some of the contentions about the jury's responsibility to protect citizens from being abused by government are quite a stretch. Protecting the citizenry from overreaching statists is the function of general elections. I mean, the implication of what you describe has the founding fathers handing 12 or fewer people the ability to wreak havoc on our legal system, overriding the will of the people and even the Constitution itself. Instances of juror activism dating as far back as the 1860s do not establish that activism was an intentional part of the system. It could just mean that there were people who bucked the system, and that the people responsible for overriding their activism did not fulfill their responsibility. One last question: Is this vein of the discussion straying from the topic, or is it just me?
Covenanted Sister	law	#492	[-]
Posts: 156 (05/07/07 15:57:17) Frequent User Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	Apostoleze, I don't mean to sound rude, but you're embarrassing yourself. Juries decide facts and facts only! This is an abiding concept of American jurisprudence. You seem to have done little research beyond googling "jury nullification" to come up with your response, and honestly, I'm not all that interested in the counsel of your self-titled "legal expert" friend. I have my own expertise. In deciding the facts of a case, a jury may decide that a defendent is "not guilty," resulting in a de facto "nullification"* of a law, but a verdict does not erase a law from the books, nor does it prevent the indictment or conviction of another defendent under the very same law. Moreover, if the parties wished to appeal the ruling of the of this sort, there would be no clearer grounds upon which to do so than one under the circumstances you have described. Allow me to use a simple illustration. If a jury decides not to convict a man of speeding on a U.S. Highway even when he admits in court that he was going 10 mph over the limit, this verdict does not (it bears repeating, does not) nullify the state's law against speeding. Nor does this verdict amount to a jury deciding matters of law, as you would have us believe. What it means is that the jury has denied the facts in the present acknowledgement of the law. *I placed "nullification" in quotes to mean implicitly what I am here expressing explicitly: the nullification is not an actual nullification of the legislative procedure that creates the law under which charges may be brought but a consequential nullification limited to the specific instance. If you have ever been to court (or have read a high school civics textbook), perhaps you would have a clearer understanding of how the U.S. legal system works. At the conclusion of the presentation of evidence, the lawyers hammer out "jury instructions": which are basically the specifics of the law which the court will use to arrive at a verdict. Once the attorneys have agreed to these instructions, the judge tells the jury the specific law they are to use in deciding the verdict. The jury has no say with regard to these instructions. Once given the instructions, the jury reviews the evidence presented at trial, sorting through that which they believe is credible and that which they believe is spurious. Once they have determined the credible evidence, it is measured against the instructions given to them by the judge. If the jury has decided a case contrary to the court's instructions, the parties have every right to appeal the case, but only on the LEGAL grounds which the jury has, in this instance, ignored-- never on factual grounds. Why? Because appellate courts CANNOT decide facts. They can only decide matters of law. Apostoleze, I find you terribly interesting because you seem to base your entire life on the convenience of conspiracy theories. If your assessment of legal education is correct, we must believe that all ABA-approved law schools are intentionally skirting the instruction of actual legal concepts and procredures upon which our very court system is based and into which the very students they educated are to participate. I'm curious--do you constantly look over your shoulder? If I recall correctly, what prompted this legal tangent is your statement that the Old Testament law is a compendium of case law proceedings. Can you substantiate that claim?
Covenanted Sister	cont	#493	[-]
Posts: 156 (05/07/07 16:18:16) Frequent User Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	continued.... Apostoleze, you said, You want respect but have not done much yet to earn it. I respect you because I acknowledge your worth as a human being with a living soul. I'm only sorry that you think respect must be earned.
Unregistered(d)	Jury nullification	#494	[-]
Posts: 0 (05/07/07 19:24:43) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	My Dear CS, You are correct that juries have never had the authority to change laws or set precedence in legal decisions. Trials by jury decision are not part of the trials of record from which legal precedents may be drawn. What juries CAN do is to return an acquittal even when the defendant is smoking-gun guilty of breaking some human law. (human law is damned according to God beginning with the Garden of Eden story.) The Fugitive Slave Act is but one example. Contemporary U.S. law offers over a million more. The power of nullification has been uniformly recognized by courts. See United States v. Boardman, 419 F.2d 110 (1st Cir., 1969); Washington v. Watkins, 655 F.2d 1346 (5th Cir. 1981); United States v. Kzyske, 836 F.2d 1013 (6th Cir. 1988) ; United States v. Dougherty, infra; United States v. Dellinger, 472 F.2d 340 (7th Cir. 1972); United States v. Wiley, 503 F.2d 106 (8th Cir. 1974); United States v. Trujillo, 714 F.2d 102 (11th Cir. 1983); State v. Butler, 153 S.E.2d 70 (N.C. 1967). If you're a lawyer you can quickly pull these up on Findlaw or Lexus Nexus. Here's a quote from one: United States v. Martin Linen Supply Co., 430 U.S. 564, 572-3 (1977): "[The jury's] overriding responsibility is to stand between the accused and a potential arbitrary or abusive Government that is in command of the criminal sanction. For this reason, a trial judge is prohibited from entering a judgment of conviction or directing a jury to come forward with such a verdict, regardless of how overwhelming the evidence may point in that direction." Three State constitutions recognize it: Georgia Const. 2-108; Indiana Const. arts.1,8,19; Maryland Const. art. 27, Sec. 593. As for early Americans on jury nullification: First U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice John Jay, writing in Georgia v. Brailsford, 1794, concluded: "The jury has the right to judge both the law as well as the fact in controversy". John Adams said in 1771 that: "It is not only...[the juror's] right, but his duty... to find the verdict according to his own best understanding, judgment, and conscience, though in direct opposition to the direction of the court." And Noah Webster, who wrote his original 1828 dictionary in order to preserve the integrity of the language of the Constitution, defined "petty jury" as "...consisting usually of twelve men [who]...attend courts to decide both the law and the fact in criminal prosecutions". A detailed historical analysis of jury veto power, also called jury nullification of law, appeared in the Yale Law Review in 1964. It held that: "The right of the jury to decide questions of law was widely recognized in the colonies. In 1771, John Adams stated unequivocally that a juror should ignore a judge's instruction on the law if it violates fundamental principles: There is much evidence of the general acceptance of this principle in the period immediately after the Constitution was adopted." But they won't teach you any of this in law school today. Trial by jury is one of the safeguards of freedom that Americans are losing quickly. Judges don't like it. > Instances of juror activism dating as far back as the 1860s do not establish that activism was an intentional part of the system. It could just mean that there were people who bucked the system, and that the people responsible for overriding their activism did not fulfill their responsibility. Jury nullification is not "juror activism"; it is the legitimate function of any jury. See John Jay's quote above. The topic question, a question which, like whether you are a lawyer or not, you have been avoiding, evading, or ignoring, is how the Israelite legal system could correct errors in legal opinions made by judges. Punishment for disobeying opinions is not the topic, by the way. Edited for language, modification in blue font
Unregistered(d)	For IS too	#495	[-]
Posts: 0 (05/08/07 20:03:51) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	IS, My 5/7/07 post was actually in response to your post, though it fits perfectly well for CS. If CS actually made it through law school, then even though she does not seem cognizant of jury nullification she might know how to look up court cases. They aren't hard to find on Findlaw.
Unregistered(d)	conspiracy	#496	[-]
Posts: 0 (05/08/07 20:29:32) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	Oh, CS, CS ... > Apostoleze, I find you terribly interesting because you seem to base your entire life on the convenience of conspiracy theories. Another misled perception on your part. If anything, I am interested in actual conspiracy in high places, not "theories". And most of the ruling class is too, by the way, but since you apparently know nothing about them or what they write, you wouldn't know that. You must watch too much TV news to be able to do independent research. > If your assessment of legal education is correct, we must believe that all ABA-approved law schools are intentionally skirting the instruction of actual legal concepts and procredures upon which our very court system is based and into which the very students they educated are to participate. I'm curious--do you constantly look over your shoulder? If this is intended to be some kind of an insult, it doesn't seem to carry much punch. You haven't said anything yet about WHAT you know about law or the barrister industry. Lawyers I know who actually have proven their abilities as lawyers also believe that law schools are too preoccupied with procedure and do not teach enough about the law itself. But since it is human law anyway, perhaps it is just as well. Let's get back to the topic, if you can do that. God's law is far more interesting than apostate law. > If I recall correctly, what prompted this legal tangent is your statement that the Old Testament law is a compendium of case law proceedings. Can you substantiate that claim? I've responded to this sufficiently in a previous post. You have yet to respond to my supporting facts and arguments. Okay, CS, here is a little mental excercise for you. See if you can tell me how, in the OT legal system, errors in court opinions could be corrected. See if you can stay on-point. If you want to talk about what the ruling class is doing ("conspiracy") or even about the "vast right-wing conspiracy" of Hillary Clinton, then start another thread for that. This one is already very long. Edited for language, edit in blue font
Covenanted Sister	wrong	#497	[-]
Posts: 156 (05/09/07 03:54:10) Frequent User Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	Apostoleze, In the first two sentences of your most recent post, you have acknowledged my correctness pertaining to the substantive matter in this vein of subject. Juries don't decide matters of law: juries can't change laws and juries can't create laws. The rest of your post only states what, again, most readers of high school civics textbooks already know: juries CAN return acquittals (this is an option in the verdict process). Pertaining to U.S. v. Martin Linen, you should be aware that you're not really stating anything novel. A judge can never interfere with a defendant's right to a trial by jury by telling the jury exactly how they must rule given the evidence, but the judge can charge the jury to rule in a certain way if they find a particular fact to be true. You have probably never heard of a Judgment Nothwitstanding the Verdict, have you? You have probably never heard of a Directed Verdict, have you? You have probably never heard of a Summary Judgment or a Judgment as a Matter of Law, have you? Moreover, regardless of what the jury decides, a party can always appeal the verdict if the trial court has in some way ignored or misapplied the LAW, which is what we are talking about here. Regarding your selective quotes, none of them establish what you are trying to say, Apostoleze. Read the rest of American jurisprudence. Even when John Adams says that juries must find the truth, "though in direct opposition to the direction of the court" this does not take away any one's right to an appeal, or else why on earth would our constitution create the appellate procedure and why would American governments support such a complex and expensive appellate procedure in compliance with the constitution? Nor does this take away the judge's right to entertain a motion notwithstanding the verdict. The fact that you quote Noah Webster's dictionary definition as an authoritative jurisprudence source is not even worth addressing. Let me raise my objection on foundation right now! I am curious, though, how you would know what is taught in law schools since it's clear that you lack even an elementary understanding of the legal realm as evidenced by your previous misuse of the word "remand"? You are obviously not even an accomplished high school civics textbook reader. I can appreciate that you desparately want to be "right" on this matter, but you're not. I am assuming you are pulling this discussion away from "Liberties" because you have nothing scriptural to say on the matter. If you do, could you PLEASE identify the scripture passages that identify the legal errors the Levitical courts were making? Perhaps we can steer this discussion back to its main topic.
Unregistered(d)	on-point, maybe?	#498	[-]
Posts: 0 (05/10/07 13:19:19) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	CS, > Perhaps we can steer this discussion back to its main topic. Gosh, what a great idea! You can do so by doing just that: answer the unanswered question I asked, not something else. As far as your discourse on my ignorance of law goes, I'll stand by what those whom I quoted have to say on the matter. Nothing was said about juries changing the law but about them NULLIFYING the law in trials. You always seem to respond somewhat off-point to everything. You would also do better to concentrate on the topic content rather than trying in vain to state anything useful regarding my psyche, please.
Covenanted Sister	scripture	#499	[-]
Posts: 156 (05/10/07 17:31:18) Frequent User Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	Apostoleze, You are fond of repeating the tired question, "When did you stop beating your wife," and using it presumably to point out what you perceive as loaded questions. I might throw the same phrase back at you. It's a little difficult for me to answer your question about how the Levitical Courts dealt with legal errors when as far as I can tell from scripture, there were no errors. I have stated before that I believe the courts ruled pursuant to the will of God. If you have any verses that mention the errors, then by all means, tell me what they are. Can you do this?
Unregistered(d)	God is Not Subject To Jury Nullification	#500	[-]
Posts: 0 (05/11/07 15:24:35) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	Hi, Apostoleze. Thank you for taking the time to share the specific quotations. They give me a better idea of the actual nature of the arguments of the people you are getting this from. You stated, " . . . If CS actually made it through law school, then even though she does not seem cognizant of jury nullification she might know how to look up court cases . . . " Part of the problem with CS' supposed lack of cognizance in regards to jury nullification is rooted in the way you initially presented it. As far as I'm concerned, you came in overstating the concept, backed off when CS challenged your initial presentation, and are now blaming her supposed ignorance of the legal system for the dysfunctional route your conversation with her has taken. (When I read your initial description, I got the impression that you were implying that juries can contribute to stare decisis in the same way that courts of appeal and the Supreme Court does.) The quotes that you offered -- gleaned from the various websites that you have studied -- have helped clarify what you mean by jury nullification, but I am at a loss to see why you think this has anything to do with the Judgment or Law of God. Jury nullification is intended to deal with unjust laws -- i.e., laws that should never have been made in the first place -- or to prevent laws from being misapplied. In the topic in this thread, God is the Law-maker and Judge and does not make mistakes that are subject to corrections by juries. This entire vein has been a monstrous tangent. Why are you making so much of her credentials? It is clear from your posts that you will not allow the momentum of your confidence in your own opinions to be undermined by someone who has actually passed the bar. You acknowledge that you have no credentials, but then make it clear that you know more about the "real" nature of U.S. law then most lawyers. If she came out and told you she is a lawyer, or even a judge, would you not still continue to insist that your knowledge base is more accurate than hers? Your frequent use of unncecessarily provocative phrases like "If CS actually made it through law school" implies that your interest here has not always been "the topic". Please take your own advice and stick with the topic, Apostoleze. Question: Why would you ever assume that the intricacies of modern-day legal systems will shed accurate light on God's concept of Law? Why are you using manmade legal systems to understand God's system?

<< Previous Topic Next Topic >>

Yuku free message boards

LIBERTIES

Quick Reply