Here's a quote for you....

[revelarts]

A good end cannot sanctify evil means; nor must we ever do evil, that good may come of it. – William Penn (1644-1718), Some Fruits of Solitude in Reflections and Maxims

The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted.
– James Madison (1751-1836)

No free people can lose their liberties while they are jealous of liberty. But the liberties of the freest people are in danger when they set up symbols of liberty as fetishes, worshipping the symbol instead of the principle it represents.
– Wendell Phillips (1811-1884), in Liberty and the Great Libertarians (C. Spradling)


There is nothing new in the realization that the Constitution sometimes insulates the criminality of a few in order to protect the privacy of us all.
– Antonin Scalia, U.S. Supreme Court Justice, Arizona v. Hicks, 3/3/87

No doctrine involving more pernicious consequences was ever invented by the wit of man than any [constitutional] provisions can be suspended during any of the great exigencies of government.
– Roger B. Taney (1777-1864), U.S. Supreme Court Justice, Ex parte Milligan, 1866

[revelarts]

Anti-federalist papers

Federal Farmer, no. 4

...It is true, we are not disposed to differ much, at present, about religion: but when we are making a constitution, it is to be hoped, for ages and millions yet unborn, why not establish the free exercise of religion, as a part of the national compact. There are other essential rights, which we have justly understood to be the rights of freemen; as freedom from hasty and unreasonable search warrants, warrants not founded on oath, and not issued with due caution, for searching and seizing men's papers, property, and persons. The trials by jury in civil causes...

[fj1200]

"Those Founding Fathers were just pothead conservatives looking for their next high."

-unknown

[revelarts]

From Atlas Shrugs,
not a full on fan of Ayn Rand but she hits it out of the park in some areas.
apply these to our other rights as well, she mentions that a gov't that assume the right to take your life, also assumes it has the right to take your property. How about your guns, your privacy, your papers, children's educations, health etc etc


"What I actually am, Mr. Rearden, is a policeman. It is a policeman's duty to protect men from criminals—criminals being those who seize wealth by force. It is a policeman's duty to retrieve stolen property and return it to its owners. But when robbery becomes the purpose of the law, and the policeman's duty becomes, not the protection, but the plunder of property—then it is an outlaw who has to become a policeman."

• Ragnar Danneskjöld

"Who is the public? What does it hold as its good? There was a time when men believed that 'the good' was a concept to be defined by a code of moral values and that no man had the right to seek his good through the violation of the rights of another. If it is now believed that my fellow men may sacrifice me in any manner they please for the sake of whatever they believe to be their own good, if they believe that they may seize my property simply because they need it - well, so does any burglar. There is only this difference: the burglar does not ask me to sanction his act."

• Hank Rearden

"If you choose to deal with men by means of compulsion, do so. But you will discover that you need the voluntary co-operation of your victims, in many more ways than you can see at present. And your victims should discover that it is their own volition—which you cannot force—that makes you possible. I choose to be consistent and I will obey you in the manner you demand. Whatever you wish me to do, I will do it at the point of a gun. If you sentence me to jail, you will have to send armed men to carry me there—I will not volunteer to move. If you fine me, you will have to seize my property to collect the fine—I will not volunteer to pay it. If you believe that you have the right to force me—use your guns openly. I will not help you to disguise the nature of your action."

• Hank Rearden

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.
Thomas Jefferson





Time, Liberty, Blood


Rebellion against tyrants is obedience to God.
Benjamin Franklin




God, Against, Obedience


The welfare of the people in particular has always been the alibi of tyrants.
Albert Camus




Welfare, Particular, Alibi


The limits of tyrants are prescribed by the endurance of those whom they oppose.
Frederick Douglass





Endurance, Limits, Whom


Tyrants have always some slight shade of virtue; they support the laws before destroying them.
Voltaire





Before, Support, Virtue


Clever tyrants are never punished.
Voltaire








Read more at http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/ke...dCKSRRw6ZDf.99

[gabosaurus]

The world is like a ride in an amusement park, and when you choose to go on it you think it's real because that's how powerful our minds are.

The ride goes up and down, around and around, it has thrills and chills, and it's very brightly colored, and it's very loud, and it's fun for a while.

Many people have been on the ride a long time, and they begin to wonder, "Hey, is this real, or is this just a ride?" And other people have remembered, and they come back to us and say, "Hey, don't worry; don't be afraid, ever, because this is just a ride."

And we … kill those people.

"Shut him up! I've got a lot invested in this ride, shut him up! Look at my furrows of worry, look at my big bank account, and my family. This has to be real."

It's just a ride. But we always kill the good guys who try and tell us that, you ever notice that? And let the demons run amok … But it doesn't matter, because it's just a ride. And we can change it any time we want. It's only a choice. No effort, no work, no job, no savings of money. Just a simple choice, right now, between fear and love.

The eyes of fear want you to put bigger locks on your doors, buy guns, close yourself off. The eyes of love instead see all of us as one.

Here's what we can do to change the world, right now, to a better ride.

Take all that money we spend on weapons and defenses each year and instead spend it feeding and clothing and educating the poor of the world, which it would pay for many times over, not one human being excluded, and we could explore space, together, both inner and outer, forever, in peace.

--Bill Hicks

[Voted4Reagan]

Take all that money we spend on weapons and defenses each year and instead spend it feeding and clothing and educating the poor of the world, which it would pay for many times over, not one human being excluded, and we could explore space, together, both inner and outer, forever, in peace.

--Bill Hicks

That worked real well for us leading up to WWI and WWII didnt it Gabby?

Of the four wars in my lifetime, none came about because the U.S. was too strong — Ronald Reagan

[revelarts]

- Samuel Chase, Supreme Court Justice 1804 signer of The Declaration of Independence.
"The jury has the right to determine both the law and the facts."

Oliver Wendel Holmes, Horning v DC 254 US 35,138 (1920)
"The jury has the power to bring in a verdict in the teeth of both law and facts."

- U.S. v Moylan 417 F.2d 1002 at 1006 (1969)
"If the jury feels the law is unjust, we recognize the undisputed power of the jury to acquit, even if its verdict is contrary to the law as given by the judge and contrary to the evidence. This power of the jury is not always contrary to the interests of justice."

[red states rule]

Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. We didn't pass it to our children in the bloodstream. It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them to do the same.

Ronald Reagan

[Drummond]

- Samuel Chase, Supreme Court Justice 1804 signer of The Declaration of Independence.
"The jury has the right to determine both the law and the facts."

Oliver Wendel Holmes, Horning v DC 254 US 35,138 (1920)
"The jury has the power to bring in a verdict in the teeth of both law and facts."

- U.S. v Moylan 417 F.2d 1002 at 1006 (1969)
"If the jury feels the law is unjust, we recognize the undisputed power of the jury to acquit, even if its verdict is contrary to the law as given by the judge and contrary to the evidence. This power of the jury is not always contrary to the interests of justice."

I'm absolutely staggered by that last one. Is that really possible in America ?!?

I can't imagine that it could ever happen in England. Any jury trying that on over here would no doubt receive a reprimand from the judge, a demand then made to do their jobs properly ... and if the jury were incapable of doing that, a mistrial would be declared.

I'm not sure - because I've never heard of it ever happening !!! - but I'd be willing to bet that the jurors would risk legal action being taken against them, for bringing the court proceedings into disrepute ....

[Thunderknuckles]

I'm absolutely staggered by that last one. Is that really possible in America ?!?

I can't imagine that it could ever happen in England. Any jury trying that on over here would no doubt receive a reprimand from the judge, a demand then made to do their jobs properly ... and if the jury were incapable of doing that, a mistrial would be declared.

I'm not sure - because I've never heard of it ever happening !!! - but I'd be willing to bet that the jurors would risk legal action being taken against them, for bringing the court proceedings into disrepute ....

Yes, it's called Jury Nullification.

I don't see how it could not happen in England. If a jury decides someone is innocent, even in the face of overwhelming evidence against them, does the judge tell them sorry, you're wrong...guilty!

[aboutime]

Yes, it's called Jury Nullification.

I don't see how it could not happen in England. If a jury decides someone is innocent, even in the face of overwhelming evidence against them, does the judge tell them sorry, you're wrong...guilty!

Thunderknuckles. Unfortunately today. More judges are, and have been overruling Juries more often. But generally, not about guilt, or non-guilt, but rather the Terms of incarceration, or punishments.
Either way. I suspect. When judges overrule juries in this kind of case. The judge should then be challenged by a court review board, or Bar examination board.
The system is....by no means..Un-flawed.

[Thunderknuckles]

Thunderknuckles. Unfortunately today. More judges are, and have been overruling Juries more often. But generally, not about guilt, or non-guilt, but rather the Terms of incarceration, or punishments.
Either way. I suspect. When judges overrule juries in this kind of case. The judge should then be challenged by a court review board, or Bar examination board.
The system is....by no means..Un-flawed.

I must clarify that yes, a Judge can overrule a Jury verdict but they cannot overrule a jury acquittal based on nullification.

Back to Drummond, I did find this on Wikipedia:
"Perhaps the best example of modern-day jury equity in England and Wales was the acquittal of Clive Ponting, on a charge of revealing secret information, under section 2 of the Official Secrets Act 1911 in 1985. Mr Ponting's defence was that the revelation was in the public interest. The trial judge directed the jury that "the public interest is what the government of the day says it is" – effectively a direction to the jury to convict. Nevertheless, the jury returned a verdict of not guilty."

[revelarts]

I'm absolutely staggered by that last one. Is that really possible in America ?!?

I can't imagine that it could ever happen in England. Any jury trying that on over here would no doubt receive a reprimand from the judge, a demand then made to do their jobs properly ... and if the jury were incapable of doing that, a mistrial would be declared.

I'm not sure - because I've never heard of it ever happening !!! - but I'd be willing to bet that the jurors would risk legal action being taken against them, for bringing the court proceedings into disrepute ....

the principal CAME for England.
There were cases were the English juries defied the court and the King, and made the concept part of common law, the Edward Bushnell Jury case for William Penn in London being one of the main ones.

Edward Bushell was an ordinary man whose dedication to an ideal marks a great turning point in human justice. In 1670, Bushell was jury foreman at the sedition trial of William Penn in London. Penn, who later went on to found the American colony of Pennsylvania, was on trial for being a Quaker and speaking publicly. No evidence was introduced at the trial regarding the content of Penn's speech, but a great deal of emphasis was placed on the fact that the King had taken a personal interest in the trial and wanted Penn condemned. It took Bushell and the jury less than fifteen minutes of deliberation to return a verdict of Not Guilty (actually, the verdict merely said that Penn was guilty of speaking to an assembly - not a crime even then). The presiding judge was apoplectic. He ordered the jury back into deliberations and fined them all forty marks (about two years' wages). When they again returned the same verdict, he threatened to have Bushell's nose cut off for defying the King. He said "Gentlemen, you shall not be dismissed till we have a verdict the court will accept; and you shall be locked up without meat, drink, fire and tobacco. You shall not think thus to abuse the court; we will have a verdict, or by the help of God, you shall starve for it."

The entire jury spent several nights in London's infamous Newgate prison, but uniformly refused to return a verdict of Guilty. When the judge demanded to know when Bushell would change his mind the answer he received was unequivocal. "Never," replied Bushell. Eventually, Penn was set free and the jury imprisoned. Bushell spent several weeks in one of the worst prisons in England. On appeal, England's Chief Justice, Justice Vaughn, affirmed that a jury must be free to speak its conscience and cannot be fined for it's verdict. Bushell's case, 84 Eng. Rep. 1123; 6 State Trials 999 (C.P. 1670).

The courage of Edward Bushell and his fellow jurors established for all time the independence of juries in the Common Law nations. The most cherished part of our legal system was given weight and validity by sixteen common men possessed of an uncommon courage. And at their head was Edward Bushell.

[Drummond]

Ok, folks, I have to concede on this one.

Evidence that this happened way back in 1670, of course (!!!), did not, of itself, convince me I was wrong !! You could always argue that the law, and court procedures, are not static, they'll evolve over time.

But I did my research, and ... OK, I see it does happen ... if rarely ! The Clive Ponting case, I just barely remember. Bruce Grobbellar, likewise.

Have found this link ...

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2001...law.jurytrials

To be proved wrong by the Guardian .. it's humiliating !! Still ....

Even more striking was the acquittal at the Old Bailey in 1990 of Pat Pottle and Michael Randle, on a charge of helping the Soviet spy George Blake escape from Wormwood Scrubs in 1963, enabling him to flee to Russia. This was not just a case of a jury disregarding the judge's clear - and legally correct - instruction that the two men had no defence. The jury knew for a fact that they were guilty - not least because they had published a book entitled The Blake Escape - How We Freed George Blake and Why. As if that wasn't enough, Pottle and Randle, defending themselves, confirmed their responsibility for the crime and made impassioned speeches from the dock. They argued that bringing them to court 26 years after the crime was an abuse of the legal process and showed a political motive behind their prosecution. The jury was clearly impressed and acquitted, knowing that it was delivering a perverse verdict, showing two fingers to a system that would behave in this way.

I still say it's rare. But I was wrong this time. Thanks for correcting me.