tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7494384.post113624478853256846..comments2024-03-04T04:09:01.839-06:00Comments on And Doctor Biobrain's Response Is...: Against the Imperial PresidencyDoctor Biobrainhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01641661532899934766noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7494384.post-1136593371760624922006-01-06T18:22:00.000-06:002006-01-06T18:22:00.000-06:00"Jury nullification", that sounds great. I wasn't..."Jury nullification", that sounds great. I wasn't referring to anything like that, but now that you mention it, that sounds familiar and makes sense. I just thought that they'd lie and find the defendent not guilty; but the nullification thing is more accurate and fits even better with what I was saying.<BR/><BR/>As usual, I was just riffing with this stuff, using alcohol as the basis for my arguments; but it's always nice to see when reality really does match up to what I'm saying.Doctor Biobrainhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01641661532899934766noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7494384.post-1136576093357052382006-01-06T13:34:00.000-06:002006-01-06T13:34:00.000-06:00I believe one of the threads to your argument is k...I believe one of the threads to your argument is known as "jury nullification" in the US and as "perverse verdicts" in the UK. Whatever you call it, a jury is entitled to find the defendent not guilty even if the defendent clearly broke the letter of the law.<BR/><BR/>The reasons for this are twofold. Firstly, legislature may enact a law that is totally unjust. Such a law could not be repealed before an election, therefore the public (whom the law is supposed to serve) can refuse to find the defendent guilty. <BR/><BR/>Secondly, few laws are so carefully thought out that they apply universally in all circumstances. There will be exceptions of dire necessity (like breaking the speed limit to get a dying child to hospital). The jury can then say that, in <B>this</B> case, the law did not foresee those particular circumstances and find the defendent not guilty.<BR/><BR/>The reason this is called "jury nullification" in the US is that the jury can nullify the letter of the law. Over in the UK it's known as a "perverse verdict" because the jury, perversely, refused to let their verdict be guided by the letter of the law.<BR/><BR/>I believe that Jefferson, as President, deliberated upon the possibility that a President may find circumstances such that he feels compelled to ignore the Constitution for the greater good of the Republic. Jefferson was of the opinion that if such happened then the President must face sanctions (either indictment or impeachment).<BR/><BR/>Jefferson did not say what he thought would happen in such a case and I don't think jury nullification was an accepted principle back then, but it's fairly clear what ought to happen: the President faces the possibility of sanctions and can only escape punishment if the jury (on indictment) or the Senate (on impeachment) decide that the circumstances justified the action.<BR/><BR/>BTW, the so-called "War on Drugs" has pretty much wrecked this process in both the US and the UK. The US has passed legislation which forbids defence counsel informing juries that they may nullify the law. The UK is slowly restricting the number of cases in which a jury trial is possible. Both are attempts to prevent juries overwhelmingly refusing to convict people who smoke marijuana.Brian de Fordhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16330365334248560750noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7494384.post-1136480241372332672006-01-05T10:57:00.000-06:002006-01-05T10:57:00.000-06:00I, on the other hand, have not found Bush to be si...I, on the other hand, have not found Bush to be sincere in anything. I think that he likes the idea of tracking terror suspects, but I don't think his ideas necessarily reflect reality.<BR/><BR/>I also don't think that Presidents have the extra-legal powers that are often assumed to them. I don't care what FDR or Lincoln did, I don't believe in illegal precedents, even from Presidents. My point stands that Presidents can do what they think necessary to preserve the nation, but that they have to be held accountable for that and cannot claim an automatic exemption; just like the rest of us. <BR/><BR/>Almost no king in history was granted limitless power, even before the Magna Carta, and I don't see how Bush can do so either. He is no more above the law than we are. He is a citizen ruler with more powers than us, but who must still obey the law. That is the nature of our democracy, and anything outside of that will only help destroy it.Doctor Biobrainhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01641661532899934766noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7494384.post-1136245229437839612006-01-02T17:40:00.000-06:002006-01-02T17:40:00.000-06:00You make some great points,I think President Bush ...You make some great points,<BR/><BR/>I think President Bush is sincere in his efforts to track terror suspects, the legal allegations seem to hinge on how various officials define the word "war", as I understand it the President can take extrodinary steps to defend the nation against a foreign enemy (or its agents posing as US residents).Nonehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05283904210313868572noreply@blogger.com