Comments on: The Simple Solution to Fix America's Economic Problems

By: Alice

Alice — Sun, 02 Jan 2011 22:27:45 +0000

Hello Cal. I suggest thet YOU get YOUR facts stright. The above comments ARE correct and true. You may want to research the FACTS. It is better to have everyone think you are stupid, than to open your mouth and prove it!

Please wait...

By: Rob

Rob — Sun, 02 Jan 2011 17:34:47 +0000

Hey Cal. If citizens, in their roles as jurors are incompetent to judge the worthiness of the law, how are they in their roles as voters competent to judge the worthiness of those who write the laws? I direct your attention to the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850, upheld by the Supreme Court (Dred-Scott decision) repealed in 1864 as a direct result of jury nullification…the juries determined that the law was not fair. Same as the 18th amendment. Amendments are introduced in House(Senate) ,referred to House(Senate) committee, House(Senate) debates and passes its form of amendment, House and Senate members confer,reach compromise on single bill,and either House and Senate approve compromise,or President signs amendment into law. FACTS SET STRIGHT!

Please wait...

By: Rob

Rob — Sun, 02 Jan 2011 10:24:05 +0000

Ever since the John Peter Zenger case of 1735, juries have ALWAYS had the right to nullification. In a 1952 decision of (Morissette v United States), the U. S. Supreme Court recognized the powers of juries to engage in nullification. The court stated: “Had the jury convicted on proper instructions of the Judge it would be the end of the matter. But juries are not bound by what seems inescapable logic to judges.”

1969, 4TH CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS (United States v. Moylan): “If the jury feels the law is unjust, we recognize the undisputed power of the jury to acquit, even if its verdict is contrary to the law as given by a judge and contrary to the evidence. 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 or passion, the jury has the power and legal authority to acquit that person and the courts must abide by that decision.”
I just cited two Supreme Court cases…do your research, Cal. Guilty verdicts CAN be overturned and/or appealed. NOT guilty verdicts can NEVER be overturned, not even by the Supreme Court or anyone! And thats a fact!

Please wait...

By: Cal

Cal — Sat, 01 Jan 2011 04:50:23 +0000

Juries have never had the right to determine the fairness of a law. Jury nullification exists not because it’s a valid doctrine but because once a jury’s verdict is rendered it can’t be reversed, even if the verdict is later proved to be corrupt.

Also, amendments to the Constitution are not “signed into law” by the president. You should try to get basic facts straight before you write an article.

Then again, if everything that’s factually incorrect were removed from this article, there’d be no article left.

Please wait...