I would not mind so much that courts interpret the Constitution if somebody would realize what, under the Common Law, a court IS.
A court is not a judge, it is a JURY.
Look at courts in earlier days and you will not see a group of nervous, cowed people in the jury box bowing and scraping before His Holiness, the Judge.
He presided. They did the questioning, even if they were peasants.
No judge would have DARED “instruct the jury” about what verdicts they were allowed to bring in.
It was a JURY Trail, a Trial By Jury.
With somebody presiding.
Magna Carta gave you the right to be judged by your Peers. There was not a word in it about glorified lawyers.
Back when pickpockets were hanged, it was juries who changed the British Constitution. Finally thye simply refused to enforce such a peabrained law.
In South Carolina, the nutsy and unenforced regulations about liquor by the drink were finally repealed because juries refused to take them seriously.
Today the “Constitutional” interpretations are all in places where the Judicial Priests have their robes on, Appeals Courts, the College of Cardinals we call a Supreme Court.
If the Constitution doe snot make sense to the people of the United States, it states flatly that it is meaningless:
“We the People of the United States … and OUR Posterity.”
Supreme Court Justice Brandeis said, “To say that a law means what it says is a case of PERNICIOUS oversimplification”
I advocate perniciousness.
#1 by joe rorke on 06/03/2006 - 6:45 pm
No Spam. Yes, I remember reading that comment by Brandeis. I remember thinking at the time that that comment made it possible for Brandeis and all the rest of that rabble to pervert the law. Of course, the law doesn’t mean what it says. It means…..blah, blah, blah, etc. Then we can make it whatever we want. This doesn’t take legal genius. It just takes criminal minds. Evil minds. Minds willing to distort the truth on every possible occasion. And then they want to be called brilliant lawyers on top of it. The Attorney For The Damned is right. There aren’t many lawyers in the game that are worth two cents. Guys that throw black rags over themselves and sit in places where one has to look up at them don’t impress me. I’ve seen too many of them that shouldn’t be paid more than minimum wage.
#2 by Elizabeth on 06/04/2006 - 5:25 pm
G. Gordon Liddy does a great job about going after legal “thinking.”
He was trained as one, and worked as one (FBI, and later as a D.A. somewhere).
#3 by Joe C. on 06/04/2006 - 10:17 pm
A few years ago, I heard Jordan Maxwell speak, and he brought a guest to talk. He was this Armenian guy who came to America, and read everything he could about court procedure. Finally the day arrived when he was in court, it may have been traffic court, I forgot. He knew his rights so well, that he used a lot of little-used jargon, to the point where he conversed with the judge as almost an equal, intimidating him it sounded like. Finally, the judge threw the case out. I think that if someone actually knew their rights in a courtroom, it can be very empowering.
Of course there’s also the issue of common law, which we haven’t really been under for a very long time. There’s over 60 million laws! “Ignorance of the law is no excuse.” lol
#4 by Dave on 06/05/2006 - 2:15 am
The Supreme Court is something America never got right from day one and it has been a disaster since day one. Also, I imagine there may be lawyers out there that are so dumb they actually believe courts (civil or criminal) work, but I’ve never met a lawyer that dumb. Also, in my personal experience, I have never met a judge who was mentally sound.
Add to this a long list of things involving government that have never worked. A legislature, for example, is supposed decide what is an appropriate governmental activity, fund it, and contract with the executive branch to administer the activity. This means Congress and the state legislatures are supposed to do contract administration.
There is not a single legislator or member of the US Congress in America who has the slightest clue that this is what they are supposed to be doing. Not only that, if they did, not a one of them would have a clue about how to go about actually successfully administering a contract with their respective executive branches. Hey dude! You don’t have a democracy if your elected officials can’t control public expenditure. Instead, what passes for control is the turn around of endless audit reports that are singularly uninformative about how money was actually spent.
In every governmental jurisdiction in America the executive branches of our bazillions of “governments” and their ubiquitous public employee unions control everything. Congress and the state legislatures have no real power. The courts are “over there” just one more bureaucracy among the multitudes of bureaucracies.
Add to this that most court jurisdictions claim exclusive (unaudited) control of their own budgets as a matter of “independence according to principle of separation of powers”. The power of judges is only limited by their fear of law enforcement labor unions and the fact that some need to run for election and therefore cannot risk offending certain bar association honchos or the local yokel real estate and business aristocracy.
There is, however, the rule of law – the law of the jungle.
#5 by Mark on 06/05/2006 - 10:40 pm
All I have to say is:
Where’s Peter? He’s been too quiet these last several weeks which is kinda scary…
#6 by Bob on 06/06/2006 - 2:45 pm
Since he said nice things about me, I told Peter what a pain he was.
Peter takes me as seriously as I take myself, so he renamed himself Pain.
I insulted him, I threatened him, I burned a cross in his front yard, but Peter Pain is
still with us.