In the United States, the government would have us believe that we are entitled to a fair trial (Sixth Amendment).
However, how can one have a fair trial if there is a conflict of interest? What I am getting at is that in every criminal case in the United States, the judge represents the state and the state is the complaining party!! Whether it is a speeding ticket or a murder trial, in all criminal trial cases, the judge represents the state and the state is always the complaining party. Now granted, in some cases there is a jury, and I would say this does mitigate the unfairness of the trial somewhat. Of course, the state has made it illegal for the defense attorney to advise the jury that they can nullify.
Now, this is nothing necessarily new to any of you, however, I had never really thought about it before running across Marc Stevens and his book Adventures in Legal Land. I think this guy is a freaking genius. He shows just how inconsistent and what a fraud the U.S. legal system is.
At most, I think only 5% of the adult population would need to stop cooperating to have real change.
No, the complaining party is the district attorney, the judge is in the judicial branch.
That would be nice to believe, that judges are impartial arbiters of the Constitution and the prosecution is really concerned about justice, but I see little of that. In fact I see the opposite. I saw 9 justices vote against Miss Kelo when the state came and stole her property when the Constitution has Public Use not Public Benefit as the standard to take property. I hear of case after case of police being let off free of crimes and cases where citizens are harassed and railroaded into jail cells.
scineram: No, the complaining party is the district attorney, the judge is in the judicial branch.
Have you ever looked at a case? Every single one says "State of (whatever) vs. Jon Smith" or whomever. Who represents the State, if not the judge and the prosecuting attorney, both of whom have sworn loyalty to the state? Or for that matter, who pays the district attorney and the judge? Are you a democrat?
Checks and balances don't work, especially in regards to the executive branch which has most power over enforcement. I used to respect the Constitution but now I'm wondering if the Founding Fathers even realized the possible consequences of this document.
If I hear not allowed much oftener; said Sam, I'm going to get angry.
J.R.R.Tolkien, The Lord of the Rings
Good point. I am anything but democrat.
Natalie: Checks and balances don't work, especially in regards to the executive branch which has most power over enforcement. I used to respect the Constitution but now I'm wondering if the Founding Fathers even realized the possible consequences of this document.
Sure. That is why it was adopted.
Not everyone agreed to sign it.
Natalie: Not everyone agreed to sign it.
No one signed the Constitution. It is just four pages with writing on it.
Because they knew what it was about.
Should have stuck to their guns!
Spideynw:No one signed the Constitution. It is just four pages with writing on it.
None of the now living. I was talking about the Congress, there were disagreements even among them.
Natalie: Spideynw:No one signed the Constitution. It is just four pages with writing on it. None of the now living. I was talking about the Congress, there were disagreements even among them.
No really, no one has ever signed the Constitution. The supposed "signers" only signed that they were witness to it. They did not sign that they agreed to it.
Spideynw:No really, no one has ever signed the Constitution. The supposed "signers" only signed that they were witness to it. They did not sign that they agreed to it.
And that is the truth.
Great thread.
Spideynw: Natalie: Spideynw:No one signed the Constitution. It is just four pages with writing on it. None of the now living. I was talking about the Congress, there were disagreements even among them. No really, no one has ever signed the Constitution. The supposed "signers" only signed that they were witness to it. They did not sign that they agreed to it.
True that. But the states ratified it. Now the question is, how legitimate were the states that ratified the Constitution?
To paraphrase Marc Faber: We're all doomed, but that doesn't mean that we can't make money in the process. Rabbi Lapin: "Let's make bricks!" Stephan Kinsella: "Say you and I both want to make a German chocolate cake."
I wonder what would have happened if at least one of the states didn't ratify it?
Here's the breakdown. Looks like it was a close call in at least a couple of places.
Spideynw: No one signed the Constitution. It is just four pages with writing on it.
as Lysander Spooner pointed out, men would have to be mad to agree to the 'Constitution', in fact no one did and even if they did, they could not bind their descendants to obedience of it.
I am strongly inclined to call myself a Contractarian anymore.
"The first Accounts we have of Mankind are but so many Accounts of their Butcheries.All Empires have been cemented in Blood..."
- Edmund Burke, A Vindication of Natural Society
Alice:as Lysander Spooner pointed out
I need to read some Lysander Spooner stuff. Marc references him in his book.
Spideynw: Alice:as Lysander Spooner pointed out I need to read some Lysander Spooner stuff. Marc references him in his book.
Here is a Sean Gabb video where he talks to a group of conservatives and libertarians about rejecting the English constitution.
http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=-1760896777516663004
Lysander Spooner's No Treason
Is that not the reason for jury trial?
scineram: Is that not the reason for jury trial?
I agree that does mitigate some of the unfairness of the trial. However, the judge is still the one that gets to uphold or dismiss arguments. But, if the jury is informed, they can just nullify the law.
There is no reason we can give that would require any given person to accept the authority of the various state courts, government trials (by jury or not) are invalid because there is no liberty or contract in the arbitration, much less the 'laws' and statutes of the state.
Sorry, but disputes have to be arbitrated. Currently state courts do that. Their authority is their guns.
in government, authority is often used interchangeably with the term "power". However, their meanings differ: while "power" is defined as 'the ability to influence somebody to do something that (s)he could not have done' , "authority" refers to a claim oflegitimacy, the justification and right to exercise that power.
they have power, not legitimacy. ( they have no authority.)
Where there is no property there is no justice; a proposition as certain as any demonstration in Euclid
Fools! not to see that what they madly desire would be a calamity to them as no hands but their own could bring
nirgrahamUK: in government, authority is often used interchangeably with the term "power". However, their meanings differ: while "power" is defined as 'the ability to influence somebody to do something that (s)he could not have done' , "authority" refers to a claim oflegitimacy, the justification and right to exercise that power. they have power, not legitimacy. ( they have no authority.)
Yes, along the same lines 'somebody has to own property' and the government has a gun; that doesn't mean they actually have a claim on that property.
nirgrahamUK: "authority" refers to a claim oflegitimacy, the justification and right to exercise that power. they have power, not legitimacy. ( they have no authority.)
"authority" refers to a claim oflegitimacy, the justification and right to exercise that power.
fine. maybe one day you will say what you give a shit about.
scineram: Fine. I don't give a shit about that.
Fine. I don't give a shit about that.
I picture foot stomping out of the room, slamming the door, and turning up the radio really loud with some shaking in the hands and knees.