Results 1 to 8 of 8

Thread: No first amendment rights for YOU, white guy

  1. #1
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,885

    No first amendment rights for YOU, white guy

    https://www.thefire.org/student-arre...-intimidation/

    Student Arrested By East Tennessee State University Police for ‘Civil Rights Intimidation’


    Myself? I would never find anyone guilty of a "hate crime" .... its PC BS

  2. #2
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,761
    Quote Originally Posted by davidmcbeth View Post
    https://www.thefire.org/student-arre...-intimidation/

    Student Arrested By East Tennessee State University Police for ‘Civil Rights Intimidation’


    Myself? I would never find anyone guilty of a "hate crime" .... its PC BS
    +1 at the underlying premise: the jury has the power to judge the law as well as the facts.

    Just today I was re-reading a passage in my book The Origins of the Fifth Amendment: The Right Against Self-incrimination by Leonard Levy (The book won the Pulitzer Prize in History). Levy relates the history of a fella name John Lilburne in 1600's England.

    What does the right against self-incrimination have to do with the power of a jury to judge the law as well as the facts? No much. The relationship is less between the two rights than the guy who put the capstone on the right against self-incrimination. But, this post is about the jury power to judge the law as well as the facts. (Is the law fair? Is it being correctly applied? Did the king (or Congress) just invent it to protect power or cater to lobbyists?)

    Lilburne was a massive thorn in Oliver Cromwell's side. Lilburne argued up one side and down the other in favor of English liberties. Upon discovering Cromwell was just as bad as the former king, Lilburne targeted Cromwell and his Parliament, skewering them and their policies with pamphlets printed by secret presses.

    In his last of at least three trials for vocal opposition to Parliament and Cromwell--in support of ancient English liberties--Lilburne asked his jury to judge the law as well as the facts. Despite the entire country knowing he was guilty, the jury found Lilburne not guilty. The jury judged the law contrary to justice, and decide he wasn't guilty. By about 1670 the right of the jury to judge the law as well as the facts was enshrined in English law.

    So, what is the connection between Lilburne, the right of the jury to judge law, and the right against self-incrimination? Nothing. It is just that Lilburne argued both. And, won on both! Shortly after Lilburne another case came up. The court expressly said a fellow cannot be forced to incriminate himself. That is why Lilburne provided the capstone on the right against self-incrimination--it was his trials and his arguments that finally shut up the government. But, at that last trial he also invited the jury to weigh the law as well as the facts. Lilburne did both.

    I remember years ago a poster--a very infrequent poster--accusing me of undermining law for advocating the right of a jury to judge the rightness of the law as well as the facts. He asserted I supported the complete deteriotion of society and the undermining of the rule of law. I was a bit slow. I didn't have a good come back. Today is a little different. "Oh, you insist the jury use the law to judge a defendant? Well, guess what buster, the right of the jury to judge the law as well as the fact is part of the law."1


    1. See the trial of William Penn and William Mead, two Quakers in Anglican England tried for preaching Quakerism about 1670. Their jury refused to convict them despite their being obviously guilty of breaking (an unjust) law. The judges imprisoned the jury! One juror, Bushell, appealed his imprisonment (Bushell's case). The higher court ruled the jury could not be punished for its judgement. That is the case that finalized the right of the jury to judge the law as well as the facts. Do look it up. It is too important not to read it.
    Last edited by Citizen; 10-04-2016 at 10:00 PM.
    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Thru Death's Door in Wisconsin
    Posts
    12,554
    Well done. A sow's ear thread stitched into a silk purse. Well done.

    There seems to be quite a bit of John Lilburn material on-line, but reading him is a long way from my current reading interest, Rational Belief: Structure, Grounds, and Intellectual Virtue by Robert Audi.
    I was not unserious with my suspicion of Gastaut-Geschwind Syndrome. No more quote mining, contextomy!. I am responsible for my writing, not your understanding of it.

  4. #4
    Moderator / Administrator Grapeshot's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    North Chesterfield, Va.
    Posts
    33,908
    Quote Originally Posted by Nightmare View Post
    --snipped-- Rational Belief: Structure, Grounds, and Intellectual Virtue by Robert Audi.
    "This book is a wide-ranging treatment of central topics in epistemology. It provides conceptions of belief and knowledge, offers a theory of how they are grounded in our experience and in the social context of testimony, and connects them with the will and with action, moral responsibility, and intellectual virtue."
    http://www.worldcat.org/title/ration...oclc/902853066

    This reading list will keep someone busy through the cold winter nights:
    https://www.goodreads.com/author/list/17865.Robert_Audi

    Epistemology explained:
    http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/epistemology/
    Last edited by Grapeshot; 10-05-2016 at 06:09 AM. Reason: added and fixed
    You will not rise to the occasion; you will fall back on your level of training.” Archilochus, 650 BC

    Old and treacherous will beat young and skilled every time. Yata hey.

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Thru Death's Door in Wisconsin
    Posts
    12,554
    Quote Originally Posted by Grapeshot View Post
    This reading list will keep someone busy through the cold winter nights:
    https://www.goodreads.com/author/list/17865.Robert_Audi

    Epistemology explained:
    http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/epistemology/
    Be wary of goodreads[sic]. Since AmaXon bought it, it has become little more than an User Contributed Advertising site with no curating.

    I was once an editor-librarian there but abandoned/resigned when they would not change their "quotations" policy.
    I was not unserious with my suspicion of Gastaut-Geschwind Syndrome. No more quote mining, contextomy!. I am responsible for my writing, not your understanding of it.

  6. #6
    Moderator / Administrator Grapeshot's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    North Chesterfield, Va.
    Posts
    33,908
    Quote Originally Posted by Nightmare View Post
    Be wary of goodreads[sic]. Since AmaXon bought it, it has become little more than an User Contributed Advertising site with no curating.

    --snipped--
    Still it provides a look at the volume of tomes produced from the author's prolific pen.
    You will not rise to the occasion; you will fall back on your level of training.” Archilochus, 650 BC

    Old and treacherous will beat young and skilled every time. Yata hey.

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Thru Death's Door in Wisconsin
    Posts
    12,554
    Quote Originally Posted by Grapeshot View Post
    Still it provides a look at the volume of tomes produced from the author's prolific pen.
    As does AmaXon's Author page for volumes carried by them, and the author's Wikipedia page has a bibliography section. Probably the best bibliography will be at personal and/or academic pages.

    Again, goodreads is all UCC with no curation to remove their liability for error and copyright violation. Trust and verify and goodreads has failed verification.
    I was not unserious with my suspicion of Gastaut-Geschwind Syndrome. No more quote mining, contextomy!. I am responsible for my writing, not your understanding of it.

  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    nj
    Posts
    2,708
    Quote Originally Posted by Citizen View Post
    +1 at the underlying premise: the jury has the power to judge the law as well as the facts.

    Just today I was re-reading a passage in my book The Origins of the Fifth Amendment: The Right Against Self-incrimination by Leonard Levy (The book won the Pulitzer Prize in History). Levy relates the history of a fella name John Lilburne in 1600's England.

    What does the right against self-incrimination have to do with the power of a jury to judge the law as well as the facts? No much. The relationship is less between the two rights than the guy who put the capstone on the right against self-incrimination. But, this post is about the jury power to judge the law as well as the facts. (Is the law fair? Is it being correctly applied? Did the king (or Congress) just invent it to protect power or cater to lobbyists?)

    Lilburne was a massive thorn in Oliver Cromwell's side. Lilburne argued up one side and down the other in favor of English liberties. Upon discovering Cromwell was just as bad as the former king, Lilburne targeted Cromwell and his Parliament, skewering them and their policies with pamphlets printed by secret presses.
































    In his last of at least three trials for vocal opposition to Parliament and Cromwell--in support of ancient English liberties--Lilburne asked his jury to judge the law as well as the facts. Despite the entire country knowing he was guilty, the jury found Lilburne not guilty. The jury judged the law contrary to justice, and decide he wasn't guilty. By about 1670 the right of the jury to judge the law as well as the facts was enshrined in English law.

    So, what is the connection between Lilburne, the right of the jury to judge law, and the right against self-incrimination? Nothing. It is just that Lilburne argued both. And, won on both! Shortly after Lilburne another case came up. The court expressly said a fellow cannot be forced to incriminate himself. That is why Lilburne provided the capstone on the right against self-incrimination--it was his trials and his arguments that finally shut up the government. But, at that last trial he also invited the jury to weigh the law as well as the facts. Lilburne did both.

    I remember years ago a poster--a very infrequent poster--accusing me of undermining law for advocating the right of a jury to judge the rightness of the law as well as the facts. He asserted I supported the complete deteriotion of society and the undermining of the rule of law. I was a bit slow. I didn't have a good come back. Today is a little different. "Oh, you insist the jury use the law to judge a defendant? Well, guess what buster, the right of the jury to judge the law as well as the fact is part of the law."1


    1. See the trial of William Penn and William Mead, two Quakers in Anglican England tried for preaching Quakerism about 1670. Their jury refused to convict them despite their being obviously guilty of breaking (an unjust) law. The judges imprisoned the jury! One juror, Bushell, appealed his imprisonment (Bushell's case). The higher court ruled the jury could not be punished for its judgement. That is the case that finalized the right of the jury to judge the law as well as the facts. Do look it up. It is too important not to read it.
    Freeborn John as he was referenced was arguably the first English libertarian.. He also refused to testify against himself before the notorious "star chamber" therefore I would indeed credit him with influencing the founders in drafting the 5th, he was also cited in Miranda v Arizona.. A true patriot!

    In 21st century American jurisprudence, the concept of a jury trial is slowly going away and being replaced with "plea bargaining". The fear of lengthly jail sentence upon conviction can at times make even the innocent take a "plea".

    I would also recommend for reading. " Commentaries on The Law of England" and" The Rights of Persons" by Sir William Blackstone, followed up with " Commentaries on The Laws of the United States" by Professor James Kent.

    My .02
    Regards
    CCJ
    Ask yourself, Do You Own Yourself?

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •