I said in an earlier piece that enforcing a bad law rigorously is one way to get rid of it, but I stressed that was true in America. I am open to any contrary evidence, because I don’t LIKE this, but there really doesn’t seem to be any law today’s Europeans won’t support.
Knowing what the World War II Generation did to enslave America, a continent which had TWO such wars may be worse off. WWI barely touched America.
American and British laws were routinely changed by juries. The endless list of small crimes that one could be hanged for in Britain was effectively reversed by juries who would not convict a person who could be hanged for stealing a few shillings.
But today it is hard to imagine a British jury defying a judge in any way. I would be glad to be wrong if someone can give some examples. In America, too, juries consider themselves servants of the court.
The decision in the Crown Versus Pierce, where a judge ruled that in the case of Hate Laws, “the truth is no defense,” was the law under the Alien and Sedition Laws passed after the last huge Federalist Party victory in 1798.
But it was the LAST Federalist Party win because in 1800 the American electorate, not the courts, saved freedom of speech. It was hard to get convictions under that law — in America.
But the idea of a jury in today’s Britain disputing a guy in a black dress strikes me as impossible.
Would America pass the First Amendment today?
No other country on earth has what we call the first amendment.
I have pointed out that “since the invention of the wheel” is supposed to mean in caveman days, but when I point out how rare the wheel is, nobody remembers that phrase. Everyone says it, but nobody THINKS about it.
I have seen editorials reprinted from Australia bragging that they have no Bill of Rights and never will. In fact, all you find in American publications is a few columns like William Buckley’s endorsing European Hate Laws.
The Australian and Canadian reaction to mass shootings, which only happen where no honest person has a weapon, is to pass Draconian guns laws. I have heard of no instance where a jury has refused to convict anybody for trying to defend his family.
But I doubt you will see any of this put together in a few words anywhere but in BUGS.
In several states, including South Carolina, liquor laws were repealed by juries. In fact, while the rest of the state debated the law absolutely banning the per drink sale of anything but beer, Charleston had open bars.
The bars were kept open by juries. For a quarter of a century.
Try to imagine that happening with the cowed juries of today.
America is an island with its Bill of Rights. It is an island under assault.
But no one mentions that.
#1 by shari on 08/18/2010 - 9:23 am
Our “lawmakers” certainly would not pass the first amendment today. We have that gift from our forefathers. We have a whole slew of freaks and sickos,who are trying to kill it though.
#2 by Dave on 08/18/2010 - 10:46 am
The Bill of Rights has not spared even one generation of Americans travails and ordeals that proved who and what is worthy, a fact Political Correctness steadfastly denies lest its waiver system for those standing upon the dais of honor actually be examined. And for that purpose academia and the Supreme Court is relied on.
So we have PBS versioned history and well-compensated DOD engineers, who in gratitude to their Federal contracts, stand enormous American flags before their splendid homes.
And the police, invariably members of public employee unions (making them Communists in my view), also like to have American flag emblems sewn on their sleeves.
And occasionally, after volunteering for slavery, we hear freshly minted Marines proclaim jar head oaths “to die for the Constitution”.
Head scratcher stuff to me, but real nonetheless.
#3 by backbaygrouch on 08/18/2010 - 6:44 pm
The closest example of nullification that I can think of in the recent UK is the history of the just repealed ban on foxhunting. It was sporadically enforced by an unenthusiastic rural constabulary, which sometimes even employed gyrocopters, [helicopters on this side of the Pond], to monitor horse riders bounding across the terrain to assure that no vermin were harmed.. One suspects that the reluctance of the police to use resources, rather than the public’s ire was the real driving force behind the repeal. It should be noted that this resistance took place in the most English, that is, White, sectors of the kingdom’s demography.
Here, jury nullification is alive and well. However it is not to right legislative stupidity. It renders inoperative sanctions against the most basic criminal violations of the law. Get a Black on the jury and even murder is allowable. Case on point, OJ Simpson. It is a weapon in the war on Whites.
#4 by shari on 08/18/2010 - 7:18 pm
The OJ Simpson case has been surpassed by the Channon Christian, Chris Newson case, in the denial of justice. We have passed on from legislative stupidity, to vicious lawlessness. I think it’s hopeless to save, because blacks will increasingly back black muderers out of fear. The law of the jungle, if you will. Trials by the establishment have to be nullified.