Historical note: 218 years ago today the Constitutional Convention got underway at Independence Hall in Philadelphia. The convention did away with the original Articles of Confederation and replaced them with our Constitution. Thanks, guys!

There has been much debate and concern lately about judges having the authority to override the will of the people as reflected in the legislative process. Not much has been said about the power of the people as represented by a jury to overrule judges.

I just finished conducting a seminar on Constitutional myths and facts. One of the items we covered was the court system and an individual’s right to a jury trial in both criminal and civil court. Why was jury trial so important to the founders that they felt they needed to secure it for civil offences and other particulars in the Bill of Rights? (link)

The Constitution, Article III, Section 2, Paragraph 3:
The Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment, shall be by Jury; and such Trial shall be held in the State where the said Crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any State, the Trial shall be at such Place or Places as the Congress may by Law have directed.

The Bill of Rights:
Amendment VI
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.

Amendment VII
In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.

Amendment VIII
Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

I propose that it is because the founders were concerned that judges would eventually usurp the true power of the jury.

Historically the principle of common law jury or trial by country has ruled. This was first established on June 15, 1215 at Runnymede, England when King John signed the Magna Carta. The first Supreme Court Justice, John Jay, put it best when he said, in the case of George Vs Brailsford (3 Dall 1):

“It is presumed, that juries are the best judges of facts; it is, on the other hand, presumed that courts are the best judges of law. But still both objects are within your power of decision … you have a right to take it upon yourselves to judge of both, and to determine the law as well as the fact in controversy.”

Many today are not aware that that right is afforded to a jury. As recently as 1972, however, the U.S. Court of Appeals ruled that the jury has an “unreviewable and irreversible power – to acquit in disregard of instructions on the law given by the trial judge.”(US vs Dougherty, 473 F 2d 1113, 1139).

If a jury feels a law is unjust the jury has the power to acquit. This was also the decision in the appeals of US vs Moylan, 417 F 2d 1002, 1006 (1969). Additionally, on June 24, 2004 the Supreme Court ruled that a judge couldn’t boost a sentence with out the jury weighing in. This in itself brings forth the fact that jurors need to be aware of their duties and rights.

Why have you not heard of these duties and rights? Because it is the citizen’s responsibility to know the rights and duties of being a juror.

Let’s look again at US vs Dougherty. Another quote from this 1972 case was: “The fact that there is widespread existence of the jury’s prerogative, and approval of its existence as a necessary counter to case hardened judges and arbitrary prosecutors, does not establish as an imperative that the jury must be informed by the judge of that power.” This is not surprising when you look back to 1895 and the case of Sparf vs US (156 US 51). The court ruled that although juries have the right to ignore a judge’s instruction on the law, they do not have to be made aware of their right to do so.

As a citizen you also need to be aware that there are efforts to keep those with this knowledge out of the jury box. We as concerned citizens can learn about those tactics by learning about court procedures. This information can be found in the “Advanced Trial Handbook” produced by Ervin A. Gonzalez and available here.

Be prepared the next time you are called for jury duty or in a court of law. You may save yourself or someone else from pain and suffering.

If you want to know more about your rights and duties as a juror review other sources here and here.

Be Blessed!

bookmark to:

Scott at Powerline posted this tribute from Justice George Nicholson of California’s Third Apellate District Court of Appeal to Presiding Judge Robert K. Puglia, who recently passed away. Included in the account is the moving and personal eulogy that was delivered at his funeral by California Supreme Justice Janice Rogers Brown, whose District Court nomination will soon be debated in the U.S. Senate. Her words help us know the man – and her – so much better, and is well worth reading.

Scott’s post also includes the famous “Freedom Is Not Free” speech Justice Puglia gave to the San Joaquin County Bar Association, the last paragraph I’ve excerpted here:

The rule of law relies on a fragile consensus, which remarkably has endured and allowed us, uniquely among the nations of the world, to live as free people for more than 200 years. It is the guarantor of our freedoms. It emits the glow that illuminates the shining city on the hill, the glow that is never so brilliant as when contrasted to the ominous shadows cast by the brutal tyrannies which have threatened our national existence in this century. More than anything else, the rule of law is at the heart of American exceptionalism. That is the unique place that America occupies among the community of nations.

If your faith in our judicial system and its judges has been diminished by the political circuses of late, reading the Powerline post can be very encouraging.

bookmark to:

Last night you had two teams that really don’t like each other go at it again. The team ahead in the standings looked to be a clear cut favorite, but a combination of poor clutch hitting, base running errors and the veteran team leaders looking like overmatched rookies let them snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.

But enough about the Senate. Did anyone hear how the Twins did last night against Cleveland?

bookmark to:

What do Luke Skywalker, Adolf Hitler and Eric Draven from The Crow have in common?

Read Kevin Ecker’s responses to my five “interview me” questions over at The Eckernet and find out as we take a tour through the mind of someone who was blogging before there were blogs.

Please, no flash photography and for your own safety, stay inside the velvet ropes.

bookmark to:

No, I didn’t live blog the St. Cloud MOB gathering at Granite City Food & Brewery because putting a computer screen in front of my face is like throwing a high, outside fastball to Torii Hunter. We both know we should resist, but we can’t help ourselves and we forget about everything else. If I was going to get sucked into anything Saturday night I wanted it to be the dynamic conversations of fellow MOBsters released from their basements. So, on a type-delay basis, here are my observations from the evening.

One, the Queen Banaian does not take a backseat to King in encylopedic knowledge or sparkling conversation. It was a delight to meet her and we enjoyed a stimulating discussion that ranged from soy cooking to the theatre, The Rules and, of course, The Mystery. My wife especially enjoyed the evening, while the Littlest Scholar and my youngest daughter found the most interesting part of the event to be the arrival of a hulking piece of Triple Chocolate cake – which they proceeded to demolish like Mitch Berg going through a Nick Coleman column. The flying forks looked like a light-saber duel from Revenge of the Sith.

Another plus of our fortuitous introduction was that Mrs. Scholar and Night Visions, poised at the twin entrances to our circular booth, were effective pickets against Kevin’s efforts to buy beer for my oldest daughter. I finally helped him see reason: whatever threat I represented paled in comparison to what the management and the thirsty people of St. Cloud might do to him if he caused GCFB to lose its liquor license. At least that kept him busy until Cathy in the Wright (aka St. Kate from the MAWB Squad) could hit him – really hard. I don’t know what that was about, but I think Cathy may sense that the Force is strong in my daughter and wants to talk to her about world domination.

Of course, the main appeal for an event like this is to meet the people behind the blogs I read, like fellow Mizzou alum Phil from Market Power, who brought me the distressing news that The Old Heidelberg – a campus tavern known in my day for its fried mushrooms and don’t ask, don’t tell approach to the 21-year-old drinking age – had burned down (and fortunately rebuilt). Phil is an economics prof at Mankata State and I thought it would be interesting to get he and King together to do an Iron Chef-type face-off on the ripple effect of a 10 cents per gallon increase in the gas tax, but no one else seemed to think this a good idea.

It was also fun to see the faces and feel the handshakes behind Heavy-Handed Politics (firm, but not crushing as you might expect) and Speed Gibson (a fellow Powerblogs user) and Martin Andrade, not to mention Flash from Centrisity.

A real highlight, however, was the chance to meet my Blog Buddy, Leo, from Pscymeistr’s Ice Palace – a guy I never would have known if not for blogging but whose writing and insights I really appreciate – but not as much as I appreciate the encouragement he’s given me.

Thanks, King, for organizing the evening and I look forward to seeing (and recognizing!) you and the other MOB members at future events!

bookmark to:

Apparently my leverage as “Eckernet Reader of the Month” was enough to induce Kevin to volunteer for a turn in the bright lights of the “Interview Me” meme. I would have posted the questions sooner but I wanted to build traffic to my site by having Kevin check back repeatedly.

So, Kevin, here are your five questions. (Other readers may feel free to play along and post your answers to these questions in the Comments or on your own blog). I’ll look for and link to your replies!

1. You have been referred to by some as “Young Jedi.” Are you really like Luke Skywalker, or are you more Han Solo or … Boba Fett?

2. What is the first book you read that affected the way you look at the world, and how? What type of books do you seek out now for your own entertainment or self-directed education?

3. How long have you been blogging and what were your objectives when you started? Have your reasons for blogging changed since you began? What has been the most surprising thing to you about blogging?

4. If you could have been an actor in any movie you’ve seen, what movie would it be and what character would you have played?

5. Describe the best day of your life so far.

(HT to Blogizdat for launching this meme.)

bookmark to:

There is much consternation, if not outright (outleft?) hysteria in the MSM of late regarding America’s imminent theocracy. Indeed, in reading Maureen Dowd, Frank Rich, Paul Krugman or the rendering unto seizure that took place on the cover of Harper’s it appears that the only uncertainty is whether or not theocracy is about to take over or if it already has.

All I can say is that if that rapturous moment has occurred I must have missed it … and you might imagine my disappointment.

And if their vision of theocracy were truly upon us I don’t think you’d see such open assaults where people of faith are compared to either the Taliban or the Nazis, which is interesting bit of name calling projection. Last I looked, it wasn’t Christians who were going around trying to tear down religious monuments in front of City Hall, or acting like Brown Shirts intimidating others by throwing pies and trying to shout down opposing points of view. In fact the vilification – or demonization, if you will – through outrageous and even libelous hate speech of a particular group of people because of their religious beliefs just sounds so, oh, 1934, don’t you think?

Yet for all their cries of oppression where they see religion crossing the line into areas they think should remain secular, the Secularists have no qualms about trying to enforce the secular on what others see as sacred. They will brook no criticism of their own ideals and insist they are being persecuted while simultaneously criticizing and undermining religious leaders (e.g., deriding the Pope as being too conservative, encouraging the Rainbow Sash escapades, trying to redefine marriage). Funny – Hitler persecuted and/or arrested German theologians who opposed him on spiritual grounds such as Niemoller, Bonhoeffer, and Barth and reconstituted the German church with officials willing to replace the Father with the Fuehrer. I read somewhere that that didn’t turn out so well.

Here’s the deal: this is really an old conflict – even older than WWII. (Public service announcement: Warning – scripture reference coming. Avert your eyes if sensitive to this type of material). Romans 12:2 tells believers not be be conformed to the world, but transformed by the renewing of our minds. It is the conflict of the outside world (which touches our flesh) and the inner man or woman (which is touched by the spirit). The secular world is all about forcing people to conform to their vision; the spiritual instinct is to see people transformed by God. And if they happen to change the way they vote as a result of that transformation, well, that’s part and parcel of free will.

Secularists want the government to run things, which is why they get so concerned about who runs the government. (Even though what they really want is to be a law unto themselves). In their quest they want to run everything – schools, public square, social institutions and come against any who say they are not beholden to these or recognize a higher authority. That’s because those who obey an authority higher than the government are more likely to cherish their individual right to their own conscience – and the renewed mind resists the old and does indeed become a law unto itself.

And frankly, I don’t think that that is such a scary concept to most people, as I described here a couple of weeks ago. It certainly wasn’t a scary thought to the founding fathers, as former New York Times reporter John McCandlish Phillips noted so well in the Washington Post (When Columnists Cry “Jihad!” – HT Michelle Malkin):

The fact is that our founders did not give us a nation frightened by the apparition of the Deity lurking about in our most central places. On Sept. 25, 1789, the text of what was later adopted as the First Amendment was passed by both houses of Congress, and subsequently sent to the states for ratification. On that same day, the gentlemen in the House who had acted to give us that invaluable text took another action: They passed a resolution asking President George Washington to declare a national day of thanksgiving to no less a perceived eminence than almighty God.

That’s president , that’s national, that’s official and, alas, my doubting hearties, it’s God; all wrapped up in a federal action by those who knew what they meant by the non-establishment clause and saw their request as standing at not the slightest variance from it. It’s a pity our phalanx of columnists cannot crawl into a time machine to go back and reinstruct them.

Related posts from other sources:
Flown to the Roll: A Glittering Jewel of Ignorance.

Bogus Gold: “Dispelling the Theocracy Myth and Its Defenders” and “Sullivan, Goldberg and Theocrats, Oh My!”

Fox News: Lawmaker Hopes to Open Churches to Political Speech

bookmark to:

Mil-blogger joatmoaf at I Love Jet Noise found the following on the bottom of his flight boot the other day. It’s from a blog called Forsake the Troops (joatmoaf’s comments in plain text):

This website is proudly dedicated to the notion that our nation’s military is grossly overcompensated, at the expense of the American taxpayers. Even as the evil, overspending Pentagon seeks to raise benefits for these scumbags, Forsake The Troops believes that these pukes get pay and benefits tax free when in a combat zone.”


Verbatim prolog. I kid you not.
Here’s more:


“Our problem is this: the military is a lifestyle these morons chose. What idiot risks their life for a country? It’s what they chose. Forsake our Troops! They must think that if they go to war, they don’t need to pay taxes just like the rest of us. Let ’em die in combat– we don’t need their ilk! “

I’m not going to give this deluded, anti-troop bowl of dog vomit any more direct links from this blog, or even build his Google index by mentioning the name again, but if you have to see what is there for yourself the URL is http://www.forsakethetroops.info/index.shtml. If you want more information, I’d rather any traffic go first to I Love Jet Noise, an excellent blog who’s post on this subject includes Dog Vomit’s supposed name and contact number. My reluctance to link to the offensive site, and to include the name and phone number here, is based on a strong hunch that this vomitous mass would love the attention. I probably should just let this pass without comment altogether and not even bother calling more attention to it – but if it’s reaction he’s after, then reaction is what he’ll get.


The content of the blog is so bizarre and so far out beyond where even the bad taste buses run that I initially suspected some kind of Kaufman-esque attempt at humor, even though the sidebar claims the blogger is serious (perhaps a tip-off on its own account). Even if that’s the case, he’s gone so far that the only punchline I’m interested in at this point is the one that’s forming outside his front door. Here are a couple more examples:

NINE MORE MARINES’ CAREERS BLOW UP IN THEIR FACES
Don’t military pukes learn anything? Nine more Marines bite the big one in combat. Stupid is as stupid does!


Number of US soldiers killed in the Iraq War, of their own doing, because they CHOSE to be leeches: 1,583. These scumbags deserved what they got.

Dog Vomit (and if there happens to be a blog out there that really is called “Dog Vomit” then I profusely apologize for putting your name in proximity with this bulging sphincter of a blog) also promotes a new blog under construction called “Forsake the Police” and includes wording that “this blog is sponsored by The Constitution and Free Speech.” No hat tip, however, to the Armed Forces that have helped keep these – and Dog Vomit – living in the style to which they’ve become accustomed.

bookmark to: