The law

[mward]

I didn't know 'shall not Infringe' was difficult to understand.

 

[hvymax]

I didn't know 'shall not Infringe' was difficult to understand.

Evidently.

 

[Publius]

Does the law matter anymore in states where there is a clear attack on the constitution? What if everyone broke the laws? What possibly could they do? Not saying this is right just curious of people's interpretation.

Of course it does. Leftists use unconstitutional laws to commit state-sponsored robbery, to prevent productive members of society from arming themselves so they can be more easily subjugated, to force you to give your money to friends of the leftists. If everyone breaks the law the leftists in power will arrest only their enemies. In Maryland there are tens of thousands of people violating immigration laws daily and the state not just ignores it, it also welcomes law-breakers from around the nation and the world. Meanwhile if the police stops you after Oct 1st and finds that you changed the upper on that HBAR you bought, oh Lord, you are done. So of course the law matters where the constitution has been void: THE LAW is the fake name given to tyrannical acts.

 

[mdcktt21]

I know it's been posted before, but it fits here:

“Did you really think that we want those laws to be observed?” said Dr. Ferris. “We want them broken. You’d better get it straight that it’s not a bunch of boy scouts you’re up against – then you’ll know that this is not the age for beautiful gestures. We’re after power and we mean it. You fellows were pikers, but we know the real trick, and you’d better get wise to it. There’s no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren’t enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws. Who wants a nation of law-abiding citizens? What’s there in that for anyone? But just pass the kind of laws that can neither be observed nor enforced nor objectively interpreted – and you create a nation of law-breakers – and then you cash in on guilt. Now, that’s the system, Mr. Rearden, that’s the game, and once you understand it, you’ll be much easier to deal with.”

I was trying to remember the wording of this. All I could think of was this: the only way to police the law abiding is via legislation.

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2

 

[DaedalEVE]

I know it's been posted before, but it fits here:

“Did you really think that we want those laws to be observed?” said Dr. Ferris. “We want them broken. You’d better get it straight that it’s not a bunch of boy scouts you’re up against – then you’ll know that this is not the age for beautiful gestures. We’re after power and we mean it. You fellows were pikers, but we know the real trick, and you’d better get wise to it. There’s no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren’t enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws. Who wants a nation of law-abiding citizens? What’s there in that for anyone? But just pass the kind of laws that can neither be observed nor enforced nor objectively interpreted – and you create a nation of law-breakers – and then you cash in on guilt. Now, that’s the system, Mr. Rearden, that’s the game, and once you understand it, you’ll be much easier to deal with.”

Ayn Rand, very nice.

Also, does the law matter? Only if people choose so.
The people making the "laws", enforcing them, interpreting them, etc... they are doing so at their whims. They decide when they want to do this or do that, enforce this or enforce that, or if they just want to say to hell with it all and let chaos run wild.
At the same time the average person also has the same choice. You, me, everyone else... we can decide to either abide by the decision those people make, or we can choose not to, and do anything we damn well please.
The only way they can possibly keep their order and make people obey them is through threat of force. Of course we can also use threat of force, and there are many more of us then there are of them. They realize this, so they start to militarize and create a monopoly on the use of force. They do this because they realize they are creating enemies of the people. They need to not only disarm us to eliminate us as a possible threat to them, but both increase the level of threat directed towards us (to more effectively keep us in line), and prepare themselves for possible insurrection. What they do NOT realize is that this is a game they can not win in the end, unless they are willing to commit genocide. The more laws that are created that turn innocent people into outlaws, the more outlaws you will have. When the point comes where so many freedoms have been lost, and anything you do can make you a criminal, why worry anymore about your freedom or if you are a criminal or not? At that point what is stopping anyone from killing? What is stopping the people from rising up and taking over by force, and destroying anyone and anything that oppressed them? What happens when even death no longer holds any fear for people?
That is the exact direction we are currently headed. Who knows how long it will take to get there? Maybe it'll be several generations from now, maybe a decade. It is inevitable however, unless the people running things take a break from their power trip and ease off on the zero tolerance police state nonsense. The tree of liberty could likely do with a bit of pruning as well.

 

[BondJamesBond]

Jury nullification is basically the only way to change an unjust system outside out outright revolt. Sadly, most people don’t even realize that it is perfectly legal to say “not guilty” on a jury even if the person did go against the “law”. Point in case, slavery was dealt a very heavy blow by jury nullification. Most judges hate jury nullification though and you will get throw off a jury if you verbally state that you are using it, so if you do use it, don’t say a word about why you are going against the law. Just keep saying, “Not guilty” and leave it at that.

You can also be held in contempt if you DO vocalize that you are nullifying. And anyway, a hung jury just gets a mistrial (maybe) and the defendant is tried all over again. Just sayin'.

 

[DaedalEVE]

You can also be held in contempt if you DO vocalize that you are nullifying. And anyway, a hung jury just gets a mistrial (maybe) and the defendant is tried all over again. Just sayin'.

Holding a Juror in contempt due to nullification is illegal. Just don't lie about it if asked during voir dire. If you do and it's discovered, THEN you can face criminal charges.

 

[BondJamesBond]

Holding a Juror in contempt due to nullification is illegal. Just don't lie about it if asked during voir dire. If you do and it's discovered, THEN you can face criminal charges.

Exactly. You need to keep quiet about it. If you say, "I am voting not guilty because I disagree with the law", the prepare to become a guest of the State for a while.

But, it practicality, how long can any of us afford to be on jury duty? The judge can send the jury back for further deliberations for as long as he or she sees fit.

 

[DaedalEVE]

Exactly. You need to keep quiet about it. If you say, "I am voting not guilty because I disagree with the law", the prepare to become a guest of the State for a while.

But, it practicality, how long can any of us afford to be on jury duty? The judge can send the jury back for further deliberations for as long as he or she sees fit.

Not true at all. If you say that during voir dire you are likely to be dismissed, that is all. If you say this during the case (in deliberation for instance) and another juror reports it, the Judge may decide to remove you from the Jury as a result, in which case you would be dismissed and an alternate called to replace you.
At no time however is it legal for a Judge to hold a juror in contempt on the grounds that they are exercising their power of nullification.

 

[BondJamesBond]

Not true at all. If you say that during voir dire you are likely to be dismissed, that is all. If you say this during the case (in deliberation for instance) and another juror reports it, the Judge may decide to remove you from the Jury as a result, in which case you would be dismissed and an alternate called to replace you.
At no time however is it legal for a Judge to hold a juror in contempt on the grounds that they are exercising their power of nullification.

A juror is instructed to make a decision based on the evidence. If a juror admits that they voted based on their disdain for the law,...well, a judge can hold anyone in contempt for a specific time for anything he or she chooses.

 

[DaedalEVE]

A juror is instructed to make a decision based on the evidence. If a juror admits that they voted based on their disdain for the law,...well, a judge can hold anyone in contempt for a specific time for anything he or she chooses.

That's one of the ways the court has tried to brainwash jurors into thinking they can't nullify for the past century or so, by telling them to "decide based on the evidence".
If I don't believe the person involved deserves to be punished for the crime, or the law is ridiculous to begin with, I have a duty to use nullification as a basis for why I am voting to acquit (despite evidence of guilt to the contrary). It's as simple as that.
It's what I refer to as "having standards", and I won't compromise mine.
The Judge, and everyone else, can sit and spin on it for all I care.

 

[Les Gawlik]

In this regard Maryland was, and I believe still is, unique. In every other state, the judge instructs the jury what the law is. The jury finds the facts, and applies those facts to the law that they have received from the judge. In criminal trials, the Court of Appeals has said that in this state, the jury is the finder of fact, but also determines what the law is. At least that is how it used to be.