The Firing Line Forums - View Single Post

davem · March 5, 2014, 02:28 PM

One more thought. I know we are all frustrated these days with criminals "walking" because the police didn't handle matters correctly, all sorts of things along those lines. I'll agree it is a problem. Then, we all want to be good citizens, what's wrong with answering a few intrusive questions, no harm, etc. The issue is when to complain? Personally I think the time to complain has long since passed. For example in a lot of situations today you really don't get a trial by jury, you get an administrative law court judge or some type of arbitration because it is "more expedient". I've often wondered about whether such things would have been acceptable to the founding fathers? In a lot of instances there is a clever tie in to more government control. On the wildlife officer searching your vehicle. If you don't want to submit to that then fine- the attitude is just don't buy a hunting license. BUT isn't hunting an American activity enjoyed prior to the Constitution? Under pre-existing rights wouldn't it be protected by the 9th Amendment? I think the 9th has teeth, I may be wrong but I think that was what the Supreme Court used to say Slavery was Constitutional and why an Amendment needed to be passed to Constitutionally prohibit slavery.
In any event it seems to me that questions on a jury summons that have no bearing to you arriving on time to serve as a juror are not valid. Whether you will or will not be an impartial juror isn't a function of the court system, that ought to be dealt with by the two attorneys in the case.
Let me side step a little. Remember when Clinton pardoned a fugitive from justice by the name of Rich? It was on all the talk shows and all the current day experts said the often stated fact that the president's pardon power was "Absolute". Well I was listening to this over and over and then got thinking that the way the Constitution was written- very little was absolute. There is a law library not far from where I live so I went and read the cases on file. Wow! Times do change. There was case back in the early 1800's that was very similar and the Supreme Court THEN felt the pardon power could not be used to cloud the separation of powers established by the Constitution. In short, a fugitive from justice was answerable to the Judicial Branch of government, the president could pardon AFTER a conviction but he could not use the pardon power to prohibit the Judicial branch from exercising its Constitutional power to prosecute a crime. The reasoning of the supreme court at the time was pretty sound. The court felt the pardon could be used as an obstruction of justice, that without a trial facts that may implement others would never be discovered. The Presidential pardon power was the federal equivalent to a Governor's power on State level crimes.
Of course it is no longer that way but I mention that in the respect that I don't think government can just on its own hook intrude in areas beyond its function or role. So, to me at least, such questions on a jury summons are inappropriate.

March 5, 2014, 02:28 PM	#58
davem Junior member Join Date: October 4, 2004 Posts: 458	One more thought. I know we are all frustrated these days with criminals "walking" because the police didn't handle matters correctly, all sorts of things along those lines. I'll agree it is a problem. Then, we all want to be good citizens, what's wrong with answering a few intrusive questions, no harm, etc. The issue is when to complain? Personally I think the time to complain has long since passed. For example in a lot of situations today you really don't get a trial by jury, you get an administrative law court judge or some type of arbitration because it is "more expedient". I've often wondered about whether such things would have been acceptable to the founding fathers? In a lot of instances there is a clever tie in to more government control. On the wildlife officer searching your vehicle. If you don't want to submit to that then fine- the attitude is just don't buy a hunting license. BUT isn't hunting an American activity enjoyed prior to the Constitution? Under pre-existing rights wouldn't it be protected by the 9th Amendment? I think the 9th has teeth, I may be wrong but I think that was what the Supreme Court used to say Slavery was Constitutional and why an Amendment needed to be passed to Constitutionally prohibit slavery. In any event it seems to me that questions on a jury summons that have no bearing to you arriving on time to serve as a juror are not valid. Whether you will or will not be an impartial juror isn't a function of the court system, that ought to be dealt with by the two attorneys in the case. Let me side step a little. Remember when Clinton pardoned a fugitive from justice by the name of Rich? It was on all the talk shows and all the current day experts said the often stated fact that the president's pardon power was "Absolute". Well I was listening to this over and over and then got thinking that the way the Constitution was written- very little was absolute. There is a law library not far from where I live so I went and read the cases on file. Wow! Times do change. There was case back in the early 1800's that was very similar and the Supreme Court THEN felt the pardon power could not be used to cloud the separation of powers established by the Constitution. In short, a fugitive from justice was answerable to the Judicial Branch of government, the president could pardon AFTER a conviction but he could not use the pardon power to prohibit the Judicial branch from exercising its Constitutional power to prosecute a crime. The reasoning of the supreme court at the time was pretty sound. The court felt the pardon could be used as an obstruction of justice, that without a trial facts that may implement others would never be discovered. The Presidential pardon power was the federal equivalent to a Governor's power on State level crimes. Of course it is no longer that way but I mention that in the respect that I don't think government can just on its own hook intrude in areas beyond its function or role. So, to me at least, such questions on a jury summons are inappropriate.