Warning: session_start(): open(/tmp/sess_quvndhlmi6re2cns9tsv5bvek6, O_RDWR) failed: No space left on device (28) in /var/www/vhosts/utefans.net/includes2.0/auth.inc on line 226 Utefans.Net -- Seems to me you are moving the goal posts, brah. Suddenly 1000+ years of precedent doesn't count?
Seems to me you are moving the goal posts, brah. Suddenly 1000+ years of precedent doesn't count?
Posted By: Zeous
Date: Saturday 15 June 2019, at 02:24 pm
One of the fundamental principles of precedent established in the formation of the country currently called the United States or United States of America is this:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.
How do the governed decline to grant their consent? Especially concerning whether or not a law "made" or "given" by a few is actually "just"? One might argue there are several possibilities. How do "subjects" aka "citizens" decline to grant consent... or can they, if they believe they are subject to the whims of an overclass of people?
Which brings us back to how the history of common law relates to the modern US system.
Drug possession statutes, for example, have been on the books for decades now, and still are in the majority of states as well as at the federal level, in spite of polling numbers showing that the majority do not consent.
What would happen if juries began to decide those statutes were unjust, and refused to convict? I imagine your belief is that they should be deemed disobedient subjects and deserve some kind of punishment.
What's to stop them from doing it though, other than their own beliefs and fear of imagined punishment? Nothing. It is a natural right to judge whether something is just or not. It happens all day, every day, in every corner of the world.
Regardless of the system of law in any particular place, the people have ultimate say over the justness of the man-made laws. Any that are particularly unjust will not last long (but might for a century or more, and vary to some degree), as momentum among the people swells to civil unrest or worse. Common law trial by jury is one way of staying in touch with the will and consent of the people. Yes, precedent and case history is a useful tool in refereeing, providing context, etc, but doesn't always have it right.
Should the precedent of sodomy being criminal remain intact today? Would a common law jury convict if a case were somehow taken to trial? According to your belief, they would be required to, since their responsibility is solely the question of fact. But, how many would deem the law unjust in the first place?
Anyway, again, I don't disagree that most alive today believe what they have been trained to believe, as you do.
So, if you are unsatisfied with any kind of evidence (even the very foundations of the tradition that is the highest form of man-made law of this land), and are looking for something specific to be satisfied, please define your precise criteria and I will consider whether it is worth my time to do the research for you. Or, you could do your own.