Slashdot Mirror

Juries do not get to decide if a law if legal.

Apparently you've never heard of jury nullification. You most certainly *do* have the right to decide if a law is legal when you are on a jury.

Juries do not get to decide if a law if legal.

Apparently you've never heard of jury nullification. You most certainly *do* have the right to decide if a law is legal when you are on a jury.

The states can do as they please.

When will people (especially /.ers) learn to read.???

Good question. Your reading test for today is:

"No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States"

The need for a more solid foundation for the protection of freedmen as well as white citizens was recognized, and the result was a significant new proposal--the Fourteenth Amendment. A chief exponent of the amendment, Sen. Jacob M. Howard (R., Mich.), referred to "the personal rights guaranteed and secured by the first eight amendments of the Constitution; such as freedom of speech and of the press; ... the right to keep and bear arms...." Adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment was necessary because presently these rights were not guaranteed against state legislation. "The great object of the first section of this amendment is, therefore, to restrain the power of the States and compel them at all times to respect these great fundamental guarantees."

Far be it from me to introduce actual informed analysis into a gun control flame war -- so instead I'll just refer anybody who is still interested to A Critical Guide to the Second Amendment.
/.

The 14th Amendment has been held to extend the same prohibition to the states.

Notwithstanding the whinging from some "conservatives" (the bogus types who are skeptical of government except when it does something they like, as opposed to the genuine article who maintain this skepticism consistently), it is clear that this is the original intent of the 14th Amendment's writers.
/.

Unfortunately for this interpretation, Article I, section 10, clause 3 says, nope, they can't. Although one could counter that the 2nd Amendment was the states' way of repealing that clause. Alternatively, one could point to the differences between "Troops" in that clause and "militia" in the 2nd -- except you'll start sounding like a militia is, um, regular citizens again.

In either case, watch what you wish for -- it could be argued that this sort of interpretation leads to all sorts of other problems.

...to "bear arms" was a phrase of the day that meant military service.

Cite, maybe? I find it hard to believe that the 2nd amendment means "Because it's important to have a strong defense, everyone shall be allowed to serve in the military." Especially since the full phrase is "Keep and bear arms."

...the second amendment is a historical curiousity from an age that vanished a long time ago.

Then feel free to take care of this in the constitutionally mandated way: Have your congressman or senators propose an amendment to repeal the 2nd Amendment. Plenty of people probably agree with you, and you only have to convince most of the state legislatures. It could happen...and while I wouldn't support the substance, I would accept that you're trying to improve the country in a way that supports the basic precepts upon which it was founded....instead of requesting that it be ignored because it doesn't matter anymore.

TSG

IANAL, so here's a question... patent infringement lawsuits are brought in civil court (I assume), where the defendant still has a right to trial by jury (7th amendment?).

Now, everyone here's complaining about bullshit patents ruining innovation -- well do something about it! How many slashdotters know that any member of a jury has the CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT to vote based on both LAW and FACT (known as "jury nullification") -- i.e., as a juror, not only do you judge whether the defendant broke the law, but also whether the law is just!

"The jury has a right to judge both the law as well as the fact in controversy."
John Jay, 1st Chief Justice
United States supreme Court, 1789

"The law itself is on trial quite as much as the cause which is to be decided."
Harlan F. Stone, 12th Chief Justice
U.S. supreme Court, 1941

"No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to enforce it."
16th American Jurisprudence 2d, Section 177
late 2nd, Section 256

Actually, judges normally instruct the jury of the exact opposite, that they are only there to judge whether the person in question broke the law. Not only that, but lawyers are explicitly forbidden to tell the jury about the possibility of jury nullification. Bullshit! That's misleading at best, and more along the lines of a blatant lie...

So if you ever happen to be on a jury where Yahoo/Amazon/Unisys is suing someone on the grounds of a patent that shouldn't have been issued in the first place, or maybe someone's being tried for possession of marijuana, or maybe the defendant looks funny to you, or maybe the defendant is the same race as you, vote however the hell you want! It's your right, guaranteed by the Constitution. Anarchy? Ha!

More info about Jury nullification

No, this actually doesn't have much to do with the topic, but I just read about this and think it's pretty fucking cool. Moderate down if you wanna.

This absurd interpretation of the Second Amendment isn't shared by serious legal scholars -- or indeed by anyone who has studied the Amendment's history.

You may want to check out some or all of these:

Palladium of Liberty? (Oklahoma City U Law Review, 1996)
The Second Amendment: Toward an Afro-Americanist Reconsideration (Georgetown Law Journal, 1991)
The Embarrassing Second Amendment (Yale Law Journal, 1989)

These are just a few of the more than 40 articles published in the last two decades on the subject. Of these articles, only two (both, incidentally, by lawyers known more as political hacks than scholars) agree with your assertion.

Craig

This absurd interpretation of the Second Amendment isn't shared by serious legal scholars -- or indeed by anyone who has studied the Amendment's history.

You may want to check out some or all of these:

Palladium of Liberty? (Oklahoma City U Law Review, 1996)
The Second Amendment: Toward an Afro-Americanist Reconsideration (Georgetown Law Journal, 1991)
The Embarrassing Second Amendment (Yale Law Journal, 1989)

These are just a few of the more than 40 articles published in the last two decades on the subject. Of these articles, only two (both, incidentally, by lawyers known more as political hacks than scholars) agree with your assertion.

Craig

This absurd interpretation of the Second Amendment isn't shared by serious legal scholars -- or indeed by anyone who has studied the Amendment's history.

You may want to check out some or all of these:

Palladium of Liberty? (Oklahoma City U Law Review, 1996)
The Second Amendment: Toward an Afro-Americanist Reconsideration (Georgetown Law Journal, 1991)
The Embarrassing Second Amendment (Yale Law Journal, 1989)

These are just a few of the more than 40 articles published in the last two decades on the subject. Of these articles, only two (both, incidentally, by lawyers known more as political hacks than scholars) agree with your assertion.

Craig