Yeah, I can be a bitch sometimes. Seriously, it is important we
get the quips right; they are preferable for easier/faster
teaching and remembering. Once that's done, other ideas can be
pursued. Let me know when your bumper-stickers are ready.
Technically, I'm not sure I see how my signature disagrees with
your statements. I wish you would have obliged my request for a
direct "pick-apart" rebuttal. Your suggestion is far too long.
But I think I see your beef. How about this one correction?:
************
{American jurors have complete Constitutional authority to vote
"not guilty" based on nothing more than a reasonable doubt over
the constitutionality of the law the defendant allegedly
violated, no matter the evidence. There is absolutely no
obligation to vote "guilty" to arrive at a unanimous verdict. Get
on a jury and help fulfill its other original purpose: to
counteract unconstitutional / oppressive government legislation.
See www.fija.org . [Please adopt this as your own signature.]}
Or this 2nd revision:
************
{No American juror is legally bound to vote to convict if he/she
has reasonable doubt over the constitutionality of the law with
which defendant is charged, no matter the evidence. Nor is the
juror bound to arrive at a unanimous verdict to avoid a mistrial.
Get on a jury and help fulfill its other original purpose: to
counteract unconstitutional / oppressive government legislation.
See www.fija.org . [Please adopt this as your own signature.]}
_____
Getting demanding, are you?
Well, having struggled with putting what I consider the
appropriate FIJA message
on bumperstickers (See
http://216.105.53.41/index.asp?PageAction=VIEWCATS
<http://216.105.53.41/index.asp?PageAction=VIEWCATS&Category=59>
&Category=59 which happens to be
under construction right now.
Okay, let's try a "signature-length" summary:
A juror has the moral duty to vote for a just verdict according
to law, but it is
entirely a matter for his own conscience how best to do that. The
"law" is not
necessarily what the bench instructs it to be, or the attorneys
say it it. It is
what is logically derived from the U.S. or state constitution,
understood as it
was when it was adopted. In a criminal case, vote to acquit if
you are unsure that
the charge is authorized by a statute authorized by the
applicable constitution,
or if you suspect the rights of the accused have been violated.
The original
standard of due process at the Founding was to argue all issues
of law before the
jury, and that is part of the right to a jury trial. If all
arguments of law have
not been made in the presence of the jury, the duty of the jury
is to acquit.
That's a bit long. You might pick parts of it, especially the
last two sentences.
_____
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
ForumWebSiteAt http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Libertarian
Yahoo! Groups Links
<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Libertarian/
<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
