Jury nullification.
- Thread starter Danzig
- Start date
This is really getting old, so I'll take a shot at it.
I think your main complaint is that you can't see how it could come under the Commerce Clause. Try this...have any of the guns, parts, materials, manufacturing machinery, etc. crossed a State Line? If so, I can see where the Commerce Clause could be invoked. Last time I looked you don't have any steel mills, iron or bauxite mines and very few firearm manufactures in Florida, so how do guns get there? Grow on trees?
This is an over-simplification.
Stare decisis is the recognition that sound jurisprudence should be reused to promote efficiency and consistency in the judicial process. But the emphasis is on 'sound' rather than simply on whether a determination has been made. A faulty determination should not carry weight. This is clearly demonstrated by reversals of SCOTUS decisions.
Wild, your quite right. The passage of the 18th amendment and subsequent jury nullifications would seem to bring up a rather interesting dilemma. In reality, there was no dilemma at all.
The amendment prohibited the manufacture, sale, transportation, importation, or exportation of intoxicating liquors for beverage purposes. The 18th amendment did not prohibit the possession or consumption of alcohol, however.
That was done by the Volstead Act. The Volstead Act defined those "intoxicating liquors" of the amendment. Pres. Woodrow Wilson vetoed the act, as he thought it went too far, but the Congress over-rode this and passed it on 10-28-1919. It went into effect at the same time as the 18th amendment went into effect, on 01-16-1920.
To be technical here, the Act did not prohibit the consumption of alcohol, merely the possession. It was therefore assumed that if you were caught consuming or had consumed, you had possession.
From what I have researched, it was prosecutions for simple possession under the Volstead Act and not the 18th amendment, that were being nullified.
The amendment prohibited the manufacture, sale, transportation, importation, or exportation of intoxicating liquors for beverage purposes. The 18th amendment did not prohibit the possession or consumption of alcohol, however.
That was done by the Volstead Act. The Volstead Act defined those "intoxicating liquors" of the amendment. Pres. Woodrow Wilson vetoed the act, as he thought it went too far, but the Congress over-rode this and passed it on 10-28-1919. It went into effect at the same time as the 18th amendment went into effect, on 01-16-1920.
To be technical here, the Act did not prohibit the consumption of alcohol, merely the possession. It was therefore assumed that if you were caught consuming or had consumed, you had possession.
From what I have researched, it was prosecutions for simple possession under the Volstead Act and not the 18th amendment, that were being nullified.
No, I mean because they were read a set of instruction that in many states has been codified into law.
Absolutely. But this isn't the only section that delegates powers to congress. You are forgetting about Art. 3 Sec. 1. They have the power to create courts and make the rules for them. Thus, they are by no means out of bounds if they decide to impliedly or explicitly prohibit nullification.
Antipitas:
Secrecy is the keystone of all tyranny. Not force, but secrecy ... censorship." Robert Heinlein in If This Goes On--
---------------------
Years ago, when I read deeply of science fiction, including a fair amount of Heinlein, what I take as the title of something he wrote doesn't ring any bells at all. Having said that, Heinlein was a pretty sharp person, as I believe graduation from the Naval Academy would tend to show.
Secrecy is the keystone of all tyranny. Not force, but secrecy ... censorship." Robert Heinlein in If This Goes On--
---------------------
Years ago, when I read deeply of science fiction, including a fair amount of Heinlein, what I take as the title of something he wrote doesn't ring any bells at all. Having said that, Heinlein was a pretty sharp person, as I believe graduation from the Naval Academy would tend to show.
Actually, it is not necessary that any part cross State lines, but that wasn't the line of reasoning I was looking for. I'm aware of the left wing interpretation of the commerce clause, and my problem with it can be summed up with a question:
Under the line of reasoning you propose, and in light of the SCOTUS opinion I just linked, can you think of anything which is beyond the regulatory power of Congress?
Only SCOTUS decides (legally, under our form of govenment) what is beyond the regulatory powers of Congress, and in this case the court has spoken. 922(q) is law until SCOTUS reverses it, or some lower court finds it unconstitutional and SCOTUS declines to review the case. One hope though, even SCOTUS has been know to reverse itself. You just have to wait until the mix on the court changes and then reapply.
In the meantime you can't carry your homemade machingun to school while smoking pot.
Let it Bleed
New member
The Court's reliance on the Commerce Clause in applying civil rights legislation to the States reminds me of the phrase that "the path to hell is paved with good intentions."
Congress has used the Commerce Clause to appropriate police powers that should rightly be exercised by the States only.
Congress has used the Commerce Clause to appropriate police powers that should rightly be exercised by the States only.
invention_45
New member
I'm truly sorry for your friend, and I mean that most sincerely. I don't think (see all my other posts) that drug users deserve to die.
When you support Prohibition II, you are supporting street-trade in drugs rather than legitimate trade. Street-trade has no incentive to maintain any sort of quality control, something the legitimate drug companies are driven nuts about at all times (been there).
Your innocent, and I mean that most sincerely, friend most likely died from an overdose because she was unaware of the potency of the drug she took or what drug interactions might take place.
You might remain on the side of Prohibition II, but by doing so you remain on the side against quality control and regulation of what those inclined to use illicit drugs consume. This kills people.
Back in the '30s, where was the drug problem? the CSA didn't exist. Cocaine and opiates were available everywhere, but there doesn't seem to be a history of problems. I strongly suspect that this is because the makers of "patent medicines" wanted to stay in business and to continue making money. Killing their customers by selling products with unpredictable concentrations of active drugs in them would be a sure way to do that, and to bring the resulting lawsuits to your door.
invention_45
New member
This would make it possible for Congress to outlaw simply lying in bed. Anything cross state lines to build your bed? Well, OK, then, get up off the bed. Oops. Anything cross state lines to lay your floor? Are you sure?
So let's say that you somehow manage to make that decision without getting caught. Make a cup of coffee before you leave. Where'd the heat come from? Sure it didn't cross state lines? Got ya there, you're under arrest. Let's not even think about the coffee itself. Coffee pot and cup, made in China?
Maybe you can somehow make it out your door before you break a law. Better not step in your car to drive anywhere. Or even in your shoes. Congress is free to outlaw those things, too. Do they make cars in your state? How bout gasoline? Oil? Brake fluid? The crude oil from whence all these things came? The asphalt or stones or pavers your car sits on?
You can't even get out of your driveway without Congress having the power to make something extremely ordinary that you are doing illegal.
Sound silly? What if, tomorrow, it got decided by some special interest group that too many children were being killed by people driving with burned out headlamps or signaling lights? Just because your lights worked yesterday, don't mean they work today. You roll through a stop sign (c'mon, tell me you NEVER do). You are stopped. Your burned out light is discovered, and now it's a federal offense, thanks to the Commerce Clause.
Fact is, Congress has found a catch-all that they can and do twist into law making silly things illegal. This is, IMHO, a severe abuse of power, and unethical as things come.
Think jury nullification is unethical and an abuse of the power to lie? Well, so do I. But I'm damned if I am going to sit and play nice while those in power play dirty.
Marko Kloos
Inactive
Not to sound callous, but the War on Drugs didn't do a fat lot of good to keep drugs away from your friend, did it?
Wildalaska
Moderator
Not to sound bitter and further divert this thread, she would have been dead sooner if she hadnt have had to scramble and sneak to get her stuff. And maybe a more intensive war would have prevented it.
But it's not a subject that I am emotionally equipped to be logical about.
WildnothingsmarmyinthesigAlaska
Let it Bleed
New member
If you are interested, Lester Grinspoon has written extensively on the subject of legalization. I'm sure there is a mountain of crap on the internet by many others, but I remember reading his material for a thesis paper way back in 1987 or '89.
Ah, books.
Ah, books.
LOL! Though I disagree with those applications of the commerce clause, I gotta admit that's funny!
On a not-so-funny note, Wild, if your friend had not been sneaking around, and had been able to be more open about what she was doing, it may have been easier to help her. When you have to admit a crime to seek help, it's one more obstacle to seeking help. When you have to accuse your friend of a crime to offer help, that's another obstacle as well. Just a thought, and no disrespect intended.
Marko Kloos
Inactive
If you apply that logic consistently, then you ought to be in favor of more stringent gun control. After all, maybe we'd have less violent crime if we had more stringent restrictions on weapon ownership.
You put your finger on it, Wild..."emotion" and "logic" have nothing to do with each other. Most people are only prepared to use logic until their feelings come in conflict. Most people toss logic out the window when you hit their hot button issue. For some, that's drugs...for others, it's guns.