Citizen Rights and Powers

[AllanHampton]

Citizen's have two Rights or powers that contain, or have, or carry, a force in the political arena and are mentioned in the body of the Constitution.

1) The exclusive Right or power to choose Representatives every two years (Article I, Section 2, clause 1).

2) The exclusive Right of the use of two jury boxes (Article III, Section 2, clause 3)

Constitutionally how far do those two Rights or powers extend or what are they designed to actually accomplish?

 

[Paschendale]

We view jury duty as a burden too much. It's a very important means by which the community can disagree with a standing law by returning verdicts that disregard them. It's a part of the political process, as much as voting for representatives. It should be encouraged more as a patriotic duty and part of political participation, rather than seen as almost a punishment.

 

[Fisher]

We view jury duty as a burden too much. It's a very important means by which the community can disagree with a standing law by returning verdicts that disregard them. It's a part of the political process, as much as voting for representatives. It should be encouraged more as a patriotic duty and part of political participation, rather than seen as almost a punishment.

Nope it is a punishment. Glad I will never be called again.

 

[PirateMk1]

We view jury duty as a burden too much. It's a very important means by which the community can disagree with a standing law by returning verdicts that disregard them. It's a part of the political process, as much as voting for representatives. It should be encouraged more as a patriotic duty and part of political participation, rather than seen as almost a punishment.

Right on. The fundamentals our country was founded on were the Soap Box, The Ballot Box, The Jury Box, and the Ammo Box. Free Speech, Elections, Being part of a jury, and our rights to keep and bear arms. The Jury box is were WE the people DIRECTLY govern ourselves. Laws do not get enforced without our consent, without which the government can do very little. I agree whole heartedly with your statement.

 

[PirateMk1]

Nope it is a punishment. Glad I will never be called again.

Why do you see it as punishment?

 

[AllanHampton]

We view jury duty as a burden too much. It's a very important means by which the community can disagree with a standing law by returning verdicts that disregard them. It's a part of the political process, as much as voting for representatives. It should be encouraged more as a patriotic duty and part of political participation, rather than seen as almost a punishment.

Yes, most important. In my view jury duty is a moral (not by any law) duty of citizenship. Jurors have the power to forbid the court unjustly punishing the accused.

 

[Fisher]

Why do you see it as punishment?

Because jurors have to listen to people like me jammer on and on and on. I was kind of kidding, but we don't have a lot of jury trials so people have to be on the jury for like a month and it really is hard for them to plan their lives being on 24 hour call for the month. Some don't mind it, but some I know really hate it. I try not to request a jury unless I am certain it will go to trial or my client demands it. There are some who seem to always request them knowing that the case is likely going to be settled, pleaded out, or done by bench trial which is just making people less willing to serve hauling them in day after day for naught IMO.

 

[AllanHampton]

Right on. The fundamentals our country was founded on were the Soap Box, The Ballot Box, The Jury Box, and the Ammo Box. Free Speech, Elections, Being part of a jury, and our rights to keep and bear arms. The Jury box is were WE the people DIRECTLY govern ourselves. Laws do not get enforced without our consent, without which the government can do very little. I agree whole heartedly with your statement.

In the political arena only the ballot and jury boxes have any force. The force of the jury box is forbidding the court from unjustly punishing the accused.

 

[AllanHampton]

Nope it is a punishment. Glad I will never be called again.

Let's see, when the cops came after my neighbor and I didn't serve on his jury, then he won't be around to serve on my jury when the cops come after me.

 

[PirateMk1]

Because jurors have to listen to people like me jammer on and on and on. I was kind of kidding, but we don't have a lot of jury trials so people have to be on the jury for like a month and it really is hard for them to plan their lives being on 24 hour call for the month. Some don't mind it, but some I know really hate it. I try not to request a jury unless I am certain it will go to trial or my client demands it. There are some who seem to always request them knowing that the case is likely going to be settled, pleaded out, or done by bench trial which is just making people less willing to serve hauling them in day after day for naught IMO.

I do find it annoying how they do it in my area, but at least its not as bad as it was. Personally I think jury selection should be random selection and if the juror has any hardship reason they cant serve. Pick em and go. Instead of all the five million questions that are then repeated for interviewing each juror and then cherry picking dropping a juror and starting a new round of questioning. Its a waste of time. I do see your point about people not wanting to come in because of the rigermarol.

 

[Fisher]

Let's see, when the cops came after my neighbor and I didn't serve on his jury, then he won't be around to serve on my jury when the cops come after me.

Regardless, being a member of the bar exempts me from jury duty and I wouldn't want my neighbor on my jury---he is mean :2wave:

 

[PirateMk1]

In the political arena only the ballot and jury boxes have any force. The force of the jury box is forbidding the court from unjustly punishing the accused.

Or say they don't agree with and wont enforce a law.

 

[AllanHampton]

Or say they don't agree with and wont enforce a law.

I agree, for the most part, because they don't know an unjust law or an unjust application of law from a just law.

 

[Fisher]

I agree, for the most part, because they don't know an unjust law or an unjust application of law from a just law.

I live in a conservative area. Juries award damages like it is coming out of their own pocket and give out long prison terms like it is Halloween candy. You don't want one unless you have a rock solid case.

 

[AllanHampton]

I live in a conservative area. Juries award damages like it is coming out of their own pocket and give out long prison terms like it is Halloween candy. You don't want one unless you have a rock solid case.

I am sure you are correct and that is the reason I am trying to get citizens to educate themselves. Voters and Jurors either don't know what they are doing or just don't care. Seems everyone has their gripes about what is going on but not much interested in learning what they can do about it.

 

[YoungConserv]

Citizen's have two Rights or powers that contain, or have, or carry, a force in the political arena and are mentioned in the body of the Constitution.

1) The exclusive Right or power to choose Representatives every two years (Article I, Section 2, clause 1).

2) The exclusive Right of the use of two jury boxes (Article III, Section 2, clause 3)

Constitutionally how far do those two Rights or powers extend or what are they designed to actually accomplish?

You forgot right to bear arms and secure in propert and effects

 

[AllanHampton]

You forgot right to bear arms and secure in propert and effects

No, I didn't forget, the Right to bear arms is not a citizen power or force in Constitutional America's political arena. Citizen's arms are constitutionally for the purpose of protection from physical attack.

 

[Fisher]

I am sure you are correct and that is the reason I am trying to get citizens to educate themselves. Voters and Jurors either don't know what they are doing or just don't care. Seems everyone has their gripes about what is going on but not much interested in learning what they can do about it.

Unless a jury finds someone not guilty, then everything they do is subject to being overturned or modified by the trial judge or on appeal. Juries in my area seem to hand out death sentences much more sparingly than they once did and seem to have replaced the technical requirements of self-defense with a "I would have done the same thing" standard. Beyond that, I really cannot get what you are aiming for. I personally cannot think of an "unjust law" that the jury would hear where I would want them disregarding the law.

 

[Trip]

In the political arena only the ballot and jury boxes have any force. The force of the jury box is forbidding the court from unjustly punishing the accused.

How might the ballot and jury boxes apply or exert any sort of 'force'?

In each case, the individual is only one member of a pool, and either case their vote does not involve the entirety of their opinion, but rather is constrained to a very limited subject area. That vote in the case of the ballot box, only applies to the individual and in no way constrains or ensures that elected individual will act in a particular fashion. In the case of the jury box, that vote only counts as one vote in the number of the jury, which typically only gets to vote for certain limited charges as provided by the court.

As discussed here, the Grand Jury originally was intended to be able to make its own charges, on whatever that jury might deem appropriate. However the federal government has resolved by its own unofficial process that such application of a Grand Jury is antiquated, and therefore resists any indictments brought by this means.

So really there is no "force" at all to the individual, or even a collection of individuals, to instituted a particular result, with the government no longer having any check upon it by individuals or the states themselves, particularly since the 17th Amendment.

 

[AllanHampton]

Unless a jury finds someone not guilty, then everything they do is subject to being overturned or modified by the trial judge or on appeal. Juries in my area seem to hand out death sentences much more sparingly than they once did and seem to have replaced the technical requirements of self-defense with a "I would have done the same thing" standard. Beyond that, I really cannot get what you are aiming for. I personally cannot think of an "unjust law" that the jury would hear where I would want them disregarding the law.

It matters to the accused what the jury thinks is unjust. And the subject is/was not about what Judges/courts/government are doing but about the power of the jury.

In my opinion beyond a reasonable doubt can throw suspicion of unjust on every law.

Do you have an opinion on the laws against personal use and or possession of Marijuana; are such laws just?

 

[Fisher]

It matters to the accused what the jury thinks is unjust. And the subject is/was not about what Judges/courts/government are doing but about the power of the jury.

In my opinion beyond a reasonable doubt can throw suspicion of unjust on every law.

Do you have an opinion on the laws against personal use and or possession of Marijuana; are such laws just?

So basically you have no position that would change anything.

In my state, a simple possession case is not eligible for a jury trial because they are done in the lower court and in my city you almost never get jail time for it :2wave:

 

[AllanHampton]

So basically you have no position that would change anything.

In my state, a simple possession case is not eligible for a jury trial because they are done in the lower court and in my city you almost never get jail time for it :2wave:

The discussion and my position is about changing juror's mindset by sharing information so citizens may enlighten themselves about the duty and moral obligation of the citizen jury.

Many people are in jail for possession, so I hear. What is your opinion on possession laws, specifically marijuana?

 

[Paschendale]

Regardless, being a member of the bar exempts me from jury duty and I wouldn't want my neighbor on my jury---he is mean :2wave:

I'm kinda bummed that I'll never serve a jury. I'm taking the bar in July.

 

[Fisher]

I'm kinda bummed that I'll never serve a jury. I'm taking the bar in July.

May be different in DC but I doubt it. Look on the bright side--maybe you will fail :lamo

Does DC or wherever you are taking it require the multi-state? That part isn't as hard as it may seem practicing for it. It is just so time consuming. IDK about Maryland's but Virginia's is one of the harder ones mainly because it is so highly weighted in favor of the essays which people get lost in and try to over explain everything or just assume the scorers will know what they are saying without explaining at all. It is like threading a needle from what I have heard.

 

[Thoreau72]

Citizens have rights.

We surrender a few of them to create the government and grant it powers.

The government has powers, the citizens have rights.

Rights and powers are not synonymous.