Federal judge orders Trump to restart DACA even though DACA is NOT a law!!!

SmarterthanYou said:
there's only one body that can overrule the supreme court........we the people.
Click to expand...

But that can only occur through our legislative bodies. There is no direct vote of the people to make any changes in court decisions.

The Constitution and its interpretation is not meant to be changed because of public opinion but legal opinion and precedent.
 
Flash said:
But that can only occur through our legislative bodies. There is no direct vote of the people to make any changes in court decisions.

The Constitution and its interpretation is not meant to be changed because of public opinion but legal opinion and precedent.
Click to expand...

you've never heard of jury nullification? the supreme court can say that all semi automatics are weapons of war and can be banned, but we the people can find everyone not guilty at trial, thus invalidating the courts decisions.
 
SmarterthanYou said:
you've never heard of jury nullification? the supreme court can say that all semi automatics are weapons of war and can be banned, but we the people can find everyone not guilty at trial, thus invalidating the courts decisions.
Click to expand...

Jury nullification cannot interpret the Constitution and deals primarily with criminal issues. It cannot tell legislative bodies what types of free speech can be restricted and what types cannot be. And, juries in different parts of the country may very well have different opinions meaning the interpretation of the Constitution varies from one day to another and one place to another.



Jury nullification cannot replace judicial interpretations of the Constitution. And, most jurors believe their job should be to follow the rule of law and not base a person's guilty on their own opinion.
 
Flash said:
Jury nullification cannot interpret the Constitution and deals primarily with criminal issues. It cannot tell legislative bodies what types of free speech can be restricted and what types cannot be. And, juries in different parts of the country may very well have different opinions meaning the interpretation of the Constitution varies from one day to another and one place to another.
Click to expand...
it absolutely does allow the peoples interpretation of the constitution because if a locality wants to enforce a law that prohibits an activity of free speech that the supreme court has said is not a constitutional right, we the people can acquit anyone on trial for that 'crime'.

Flash said:
Jury nullification cannot replace judicial interpretations of the Constitution. And, most jurors believe their job should be to follow the rule of law and not base a person's guilty on their own opinion.
Click to expand...

most jurors don't even know their rights because they've been brainwashed or browbeaten by the government and/or others about it. that only exposes their ignorance.
 
SmarterthanYou said:
it absolutely does allow the peoples interpretation of the constitution because if a locality wants to enforce a law that prohibits an activity of free speech that the supreme court has said is not a constitutional right, we the people can acquit anyone on trial for that 'crime'.
Click to expand...

That is not interpreting the Constitution, it is abandoning the rule of law and substituting individual opinions for the Constitution.

That would also allow a jury to convict a person for exercising his free speech that the Supreme Court has said is a constitutional right if the locality opposed that type of speech. You are allowing the government to take away more of our rights that the Constitution guarantees.

But many constitutional interpretations do not involve jury trials and so jury nullification would apply to only a small number of criminal cases.
 
jimmymccready said:
Thanks for showing you have no clue about our Constitution. Yes, the judges do decide such things as constitutionality, and they have for more than 200 years.
Click to expand...

You can't read. Everyone agrees judges decide whether a law is constitutional. The problem is they have no authority to do so. In 1803 they just granted the power to themselves. THINK
 
Flash said:
Those are all checks. Impeachment and conviction have removed several federal judges and although none have been Supreme Court justices they can be; Supreme Court justice Samuel Chase was impeached by the House.
Click to expand...

You can't read. I said no SC judge had ever been REMOVED by the impeachment process and that is correct. I am well aware judge chase was impeached, but he was acquitted by the senate. THINK
 
SmarterthanYou said:
you've never heard of jury nullification? the supreme court can say that all semi automatics are weapons of war and can be banned, but we the people can find everyone not guilty at trial, thus invalidating the courts decisions.
Click to expand...

And we need to see more jury nullification. Judges tell jurors "you can't do that" but that is a brazen lie. Juries do what they want.
 
Never waste time on a person who has already made up his mind and is in "nuh uh" land; those who say Marbury vs Madison and gun regulations are unconstitutional simply are a waste of time, energy, and motion to quarrel with. They will not learn anything.

When dealing with such people, simply state the overwhelming majority, but most of all the courts and the legislatures, disagree with them, and that is the end of it.
 
So Obama illegally institutes DACA, but Trump can not get rid of it, sounds like something a 5-4 majority SC should decide :rofl2:
Meanwhile let's let Democrats run in the mid-terms on protecting illegals over protecting American citizens
patience grasshoppers
 
Last edited:
Text Drivers are Killers said:
You can't read. I said no SC judge had ever been REMOVED by the impeachment process and that is correct. I am well aware judge chase was impeached, but he was acquitted by the senate. THINK
Click to expand...

If I can't read why did I include this statement in the post you copied? You tell me to "THINK" about the very things I posted.

"Impeachment and conviction have removed several federal judges and although none have been Supreme Court justices they can be;'

Removing a Supreme Court Justice through the impeachment process does not reverse the court's decision, it only punishes a justice after the fact.But, the 16th Amendment reversed a Supreme Court decision. If there are any court decisions we want to change we can always amend the Constitution, but I see no effort from the public or legislative bodies to do so.
 
Text Drivers are Killers said:
So show us where judges get the authority to nullify laws they say are unconstitutional.
Click to expand...

Show us where juries have the power of jury nullification.

The judges get that power from Marbury v. Madison. True, the Constitution contains nothing giving the courts the power to rule on the constitutionality of government actions, but this power existed in the colonies and the Federalist Papers make the assumption this power exists.

If the courts did not have that power, then the Constitution is meaningless since Congress, the president, and state governments could take any actions they choose even without constitutional authorization to do so.

It is silly to suggest jury nullification can determine constitutional powers. For example, look at the question of executive orders discussed in this thread. If President Obama did not have the constitutional authority for DACA, only the court could strike that down. That is not a criminal matter and does not go before a jury to nullify.
 
Flash said:
It is silly to suggest jury nullification can determine constitutional powers. For example, look at the question of executive orders discussed in this thread. If President Obama did not have the constitutional authority for DACA, only the court could strike that down. That is not a criminal matter and does not go before a jury to nullify.
Click to expand...

HAHAHA. You ignorant jackass. Section 1324 of title 8 of the US code makes it a federal felony to encourage illegals to live here and obama was certainly in violation of that when he started DACA. DACA is also obstruction of justice since obama was letting illegals live and work here when the law says they can't.

DACA is very much a crime. THINK
 
Text Drivers are Killers said:
HAHA. Ignorant fool. When can a judge do to stop a jury from using jury nullification? THINK
Click to expand...

By declaring a mistrial, for one. Before the trial begins, the judge issues guidelines that must be followed. At least that how it was on the Federal jury I was the foreman on.
How many juries have you sat in?
 
Flash said:
That is not interpreting the Constitution, it is abandoning the rule of law and substituting individual opinions for the Constitution.

That would also allow a jury to convict a person for exercising his free speech that the Supreme Court has said is a constitutional right if the locality opposed that type of speech. You are allowing the government to take away more of our rights that the Constitution guarantees.

But many constitutional interpretations do not involve jury trials and so jury nullification would apply to only a small number of criminal cases.
Click to expand...

there is simply no response to this bullshit riddled post. it makes zero sense whatsoever. are you trying to channel orwells 1984?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top