You need to be a member of Command Center to add comments!
Replies
-
Looks like the Jury is still out on who is to be the final arbiter of the law... the SCOTUS and 9 unelected Judges or 12 US Citizens true and their elected members of Congress?
-
An indictment by a Grand Jury is the prescribed Constitutional method for bringing an accused to trial... US Attornies, Prosecutors, or District Attornies are not Constitutionally authorized to indict any citizen accused of a felony. Petit Juries is the Constitutional method for judging the facts and the law when adjudicating a felony criminal case. Why then are we seeing judges and prosecutors acting in the place of Juries? Juries were intended to be the FINAL ARBITERS OF THE LAW... both in weighing the facts and applying the law to render their verdict/judgment.
The Right of an accused to be tried before a jury of peers is the cornerstone too a just judicial system... as a jury of citizens is the body that holds the people's final check on government and consent unto the law. We need to return to a Jury centrist system of justice... whereby, the people apply both the facts and the law to administer justice.
This reply was deleted.
Juries, comprised of 12 good men and women should be interpreting and applying the law in all criminal cases... unelected judges should be present to administer order, assist juries and the officers of the court in performing their duties... to determine the facts and respond to the technical details, motions, and questions in the law arising during the trial. Juries should always be the FINAL ARBITERS OF THE LAW AND THE FACTS... that is the essence of self-government. Stepping aside to allow a Black Robbed unelected Judge to do the job opens the door to rule by judicial fiat... and the arbitrary Judicial temperament of one man, rather than the considered and just verdict of 12 Citizens.
Besides, the US Constitution clearly REQUIRES trials for all criminal prosecutions be by Jury... (See link below to the 6th Amendment) The Constitution says nothing about waving a trial by Jury, for a trial by Judge. That is the BS of pettifoggery. The 6th Amendment to the Constitution doesn't allow for a waiver. It clearly states: ALL CRIMINAL PROSECUTIONS... SHALL enjoy the right to... a trial by an impartial jury... There is no mention of trial by Judge or the right to waiver a jury trial. Why? Because the founders understood that the power of judgment must rest with the people, not an unelected judge. Return the power of JUDGMENT and the final arbitration of the law to the CONSENT OF the People... return that power to Grand Juries to indict criminal conduct, and to Petit Juries for the Judgment of all criminal cases.
For More On The 6th Amendment See: https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/sixth_amendment#:~:text=Sixth%20Amendment%20The%20Sixth%20Amendment%20guarantees%20the%20rights,nature%20of%20the%20charges%20and%20evidence%20against%20you
Jury nullification... a precept once understood to be the Citizen's right to determine the facts and consent to the Law. Bad laws once could be reversed by Jury nullification, when 12 good men and women true and faithful judges of the facts and the law determined the law to be in error, too ambiguous to enforce or outright despotic and unconstitutional. Jury nulification put the Citizen's in the seat of final arbitration between the individual and the state... not a Judge. We need to return to that proposition... too, end judicial activism and rule by judicial fiat.
For More On Jury Nullification see: https://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/jury+nullification#:~:text=Jury%20Nullification%20A%20sanctioned%20doctrine%20of%20trial%20proceedings,be%20the%20judges%20of%20both%20law%20and%20fact.