The Sixth Amendment - Page 5

RightinNYC · 10-18-07, 12:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Voidwar

I do not find this analogy accurate at all.

One case going to scotus can alter or reverse a precedent.

A constitutional congress followed by ratification by the legislatures of 3/4 of the states is a VASTLY higher hurdle.

But my point is that things like those that I've mentioned will not be changed by SCOTUS. They will not even be heard by SCOTUS. This is a fact. They are settled law.

RightinNYC · 10-18-07, 12:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Voidwar

I absolutely disagree.
The document is not vague, and "interpretation" is just an attempt to edit and revise without the authority to do so.

Really?

Then please explain to me what the following passages mean:

"The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States;"

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press;"

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

"Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted."

"Nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

If the Constitution is not vague as you claim, this should be easy.

Iriemon · 10-18-07, 02:48 PM

I think the problem is he does not understand the world "impartial" and takes it to mean "random" or unmodified or something.

RightinNYC · 10-18-07, 02:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Iriemon

I think the problem is he does not understand the world "impartial" and takes it to mean "random" or unmodified or something.

Agreed, and I think that's compounded by the fact that he reads the Constitution, applies his own interpretation of the words, and assumes that that's what it actually means and that no other interpretations could be accurate.

Voidwar · 10-18-07, 06:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RightinNYC

But my point is that things like those that I've mentioned will not be changed by SCOTUS. They will not even be heard by SCOTUS. This is a fact. They are settled law.

These judges will die. But cases won't stop coming.

Settled Law ?
I'll call it settled when it takes a Constitutional Congress to repeal.

Voidwar · 10-18-07, 06:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RightinNYC

Really?

Then please explain to me what the following passages mean:

They mean exactly what they say.

I understand them just fine, being literate and fluent in english.

Voidwar · 10-18-07, 07:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Iriemon

I think the problem is he does not understand the world "impartial" and takes it to mean "random" or unmodified or something.

Quite inaccurate. As I previously stated, , ,

Quote:

Originally Posted by Voidwar

The idea, was that anything the government wanted to do to a citizen, they would need 12 citizen's to sign off on it. That is the core idea of a jury system. The slick lawyer's machinations weaken that protection. One lawyer is always better than another, so two adversarial lawyers will very rarely actually "tie" in these machinations. This means that most juries will then be partial, and partial to the side whose lawyer is better at Voir Dire.

I might be ok with a Judge eliminating a Juror, but not an already partial lawyer.

Lerxst · 10-19-07, 12:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CaptainCourtesy

We've had this argument before, and I'm not counting my chickens that we will come to any different conclusion than we did, before. The Constitution is written vaguely and generally in order to allow for interpretation. Not every future situation could be planned for; therefore, interpretation is an invaluable legal tool in applying modern situations to the Constitution.

As far as your 6th Amendment argument, we really need to start here: define imparital.

Thank you. You have hit the nail squarely on the head and driven this thing flush.

Quote:

Originally Posted by RINYC

Agreed, and I think that's compounded by the fact that he reads the Constitution, applies his own interpretation of the words, and assumes that that's what it actually means and that no other interpretations could be accurate.

Problem identified. Now how to fix?

CaptainCourtesy · 10-19-07, 03:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Voidwar

They mean exactly what they say.

I understand them just fine, being literate and fluent in english.

Apparently others are also literate and fluent and understand them fine, too. Just different from what you do. And since others, throughout history have interpreted them in different ways, your absolutist commentary holds no water.

RightinNYC · 10-22-07, 08:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Voidwar

These judges will die. But cases won't stop coming.

Settled Law ?
I'll call it settled when it takes a Constitutional Congress to repeal.

Can you link me to a single judge on any federal circuit or district court who believes that any of these precedents are mutable? Short of that, can you link me to a single respected juror from any school of thought who believes these are up to discussion?

If not, it means they're safe for at least the next 45 years, which is good enough for me.