Sheesh!
I been sitting here trying to think how to answer this. I finally asked myself, "self?" what would our fellow readers prefer? Brevity!
the Constitution gives rights to the Govt. and protects rights already held by individuals correct ?
In the simplest, basic, non-all inclusive terms, yes (boy it hurts me to say that! There is SOOOO much more!)
This has been eroded for some time now
You mean starting
before the war of northern oppression?
judges instruction to a jury has no basis ...
Well they do because the verdict is ideally based on the facts of the case as applied to the pertinent law. The jury determines what the facts are through the evidence, and the judge gives them the applicable law in the charges.
...as the jury was the last check in the balance of power
I've never heard it put that way, but, with respect to the relationship between the accused and the law, I'd say that's a true statement (see below)
In reality the jury of peers could in fact not enforce a law they did not feel lawful even though it had stood all other test.
While I'm not trying to get into the semantics game, I don't think "enforce" is the best term to use in this particular situation. A LEO would, using his discretion and understanding of the law, enforce statutory law. A jury would render a verdict on the accused's charge of the violation of that statute. The key to what you are referring to is that even if the statute is valid, and even if the facts prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused violated that statute, the jury does NOT have to find the accused guilty. One of the standard jury charges in the State of Georgia goes something like "if you find that the defendant did, on so and so in such and such, commit the act of - whatever - in violation of -this and that - then you
MAY (not "must" but "may") find the defendant guilty of -the charge." So you are right, someone may violate a law beyond a reasonable doubt and the jury may still find him not guilty. Ask OJ.
No matter what happens with the 2nd. amend. case until some poor citizen goes to court we will still not have a finial ruling.
Maybe, but I think this decision is more important to "we the people" then an individual case here or there.
This thing in Texas was a win for WE THE PEOPLE , make no mistake citizens at home endure hardship to protect freedom also . The fact we can prevail proves we do have some freedom! ...all Americans enjoy the same freedoms and anything less would be Un-American .
AMEN BROTHER! AMEN!!!!! Now, let's get some input from Sharon!
