Promote your business or product on 700level.com. For
more information about advertising with us CLICK HERE!

You're wrong Flesh if you think making abortion illegal won't dramatically lower the abortion rate and therefore save lives.

Plus, it's a matter of principle

But looking at some of his other positions- I shudder.

For example:
"Paul believes that juries deserve the status of tribunals, and that jurors have the right to judge the law as well as the facts of the case"

He also opposes separation of church and state, which frightens me

Paul: "When asked whether individuals should be allowed to own machine guns, Paul responded, "Whether it's an automatic weapon or not is, I think, irrelevant."

Jurors absolutely have the right to judge the law.

Dude- Neag, this guys sounds EXACTLY like you. You sure you're not Ron Paul in disguise?

Even when they don't understand it, Zak?

The laws are written and worded carefully in oder to be fair and protect people's rights, and the jurors have a right to understand why they were written the way they wer written, and the implactions of decisions based on those words. That's what lawyers and judges are for. You'd rather go back to witch trials then?

wow, that's an all time low for spelling

Rule of Law According to Zak:

Two men enter. One man leaves.

Break a deal. Spin the wheel.

Of course not.

Example: Lady has glaucoma and has been smoking marijuana, acquired illegally, to alleviate her symptoms. A jury can judge the law and say that marijuana should be legal for patients with glaucoma and acquit her.

To say you agree with all laws written by any government is some real subservient bullshit.

To say you agree with all laws written by any government is some real subservient bullshit.

And then you introduce the increasing chances of corruption, mistakes, and variance based on the particular jury bias, instead of "justice according to the law"

zak's right on this one, F_B.

According to Samuel Chase, US Supreme Court Chief Justice, 1796, a signatory toe the Declaration of Independence: "The Jury has the Right to determine both the law and facts". In this manner good men and women who stand up against tyranny are of one mind.

More recently, according to Chief Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes: "The Jury has the power to bring a verdict in the teeth of both law and fact".

And Judge Harlan F.Stone, Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court, 1941-1946: "The law itself is on trial quite as much as the case which is to be decided".

A jury has the inalienable right to veto or nullify bad and oppressive laws. I like that.

No wonder so many "negroes" got railroaded back in the day-

Hey if you want to take a step backwards, it's fine by me, I'm moving to Liberia

Nothing quite like making the law up as you go

No wonder all these supremacists and Nazis love him

Nothing quite like making the law up as you go

yep, thats what the founders had in mind.

and let's beat the horse a little more:

In an American courtroom there are in a sense twelve judges in attendance, not just one. As the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Maryland ruled, "If the jury feels that the law under which the defendant is accused, is unjust, or that exigent circumstances justified the actions of the accused, or for any reason which appeals to their logic of passion, the jury has the power to acquit, and the courts must abide by that decision." (US vs Moylan, 417 F 2d 1002, 1006 (1969).

If the jury feels that the law under which the defendant is accused, is unjust, or that exigent circumstances justified the actions of the accused

Circumstances such as- the accused is white and the victims were black, for instance?
In the South, according to juries, those were circumstances enough to acquit.
Ever hear of Byron De La Beckwith? Sam Bowers? Edgar Ray Killen? James Ford Seale?


I understand your thinking Zak, but I think I understand what the zealots are thinking too.

1 2 3