[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]
|
Status: Not Logged In; Sign In
U.S. Constitution Title: Non-Enforcement of Laws Works Both Ways; Jurors can Shut Down Obama Agenda Citizens can refuse to enforce laws enacted or supported by the Obama Regime by Bill Levinson Top Official Says Feds May Not Process Illegals Referred From Arizona reports that the Obama Administration will now refuse to enforce our country’s immigration laws in Arizona. A top Department of Homeland Security official reportedly said his agency will not necessarily process illegal immigrants referred to them by Arizona authorities. …”ICE has the legal discretion to accept or not to accept persons delivered to it by non-federal personnel,” Napolitano said. “It also has the discretion to deport or not to deport persons delivered to it by any government agents, even its own.” It is meanwhile a matter of record that Eric Holder’s “Justice” Department has one U.S. Code for his boss and another for the rest of the country, as shown by his department’s decision to prosecute sports bar owner Patrick Patte and two other men for allegedly using the Internet to operate a sports betting ring (specifically “using wire communications to transmit gambling information”). This is no different than what Barack Obama’s campaign, and Barack Obama personally, did when they ran an interstate lottery (“Dinner with Barack”) to raise campaign funds. The Obama regime’s decision to enforce laws selectively, or refuse to enforce laws it doesn’t like, sets a good precedent for citizens who are chosen for jury duty to trash any Obama-supported law including mandatory participation in health insurance, cap and trade, and gun control. All it takes is for one person who doesn’t like a law to hang a jury, thus wasting whatever resources the government put into the prosecution–and Constitutional precedent says that any citizen has not only the right but also the duty to nullify a law he thinks should not exist, or believes is being applied selectively (e.g. laws against Internet gambling). Suppose for example that you are chosen for a jury to hear a case in which someone is on trial for possessing a handgun in defiance of Chicago’s, New York City’s, or Washington DC’s gun laws. Even if the facts show that the person did possess a handgun in clear violation of the law, you can just say “Not Guilty” and stick to that decision. You do not have to explain or justify your verdict. This will result in (at worst) a hung jury. Since Barack Obama feels free to not enforce immigration laws he apparently doesn’t like, and Eric Holder feels free to charge a little guy with Internet gambling while overlooking far more egregious conduct by his own boss (including a rigged lottery in which not every entrant had an equal chance to win), they themselves should agree with jury nullification of laws they might happen to support. The right of jurors to nullify laws does not of course outweigh common sense. If somebody is on trial for possessing a handgun during a crime of violence in which he has threatened or hurt another person, you have a duty to find him guilty. You can’t convict somebody of something of which he is not legally guilty (in other words, jury nullification can work only in the defendant’s favor) but jurors can exercise discretion to bring in a guilty verdict when one is justified. Suppose for example that it is proven that the defendant beat a victim to a bloody pulp, but not that the defendant intended to kill the victim. You can’t as a juror return a verdict of attempted murder as the prosecutor might have requested (because the prosecutor failed to prove that beyond a reasonable doubt), but you can convict the defendant of a lesser included offense like aggravated assault (beating somebody to a bloody pulp) as opposed to letting him off. The bottom line is however that the President of the United States has, through his Immigration and Customs Enforcement department, said that it is all right to ignore or refuse to enforce laws with which one does not agree. From where we sit, this means it is equally if not more acceptable for citizen jurors to treat laws enacted or supported by the Obama regime with equal contempt and disrespect.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread |
|
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]
|