Should juries be allowed to interpret the constitution?

[ShootSpeeders]

Our present system of letting the 9 unelected judges on the Supreme Court have final say on every issue is intolerable in an alleged democracy. The constitution does not say who has the authority to nullify laws due to unconstitutionality, but the tenth amendment says a power not given to the feds belongs to states or the people. So let the people decide if a law should be nullified or not.

As an example, if you are white and are denied a job due to affirmative action, then sue the govt and let the jury decide if AA violates the 14th amendment. Or if you are say convicted of drug use and get a 20 year sentence then claim that is cruel and unusual punishment and let a jury decide.

 

[ShootSpeeders]

There isn't one honest judge in america and the SC justices are the most corrupt of all. They take their bribes and rewrite the constitution whenever they wish and call it interpretation. That's how decisions like roe v wade and plyler v doe and bush v gore happen.

 

[George Costanza]

Absolutely. What our criminal justice system needs is 12 people, untrained in the law, "interpreting" the Constitution and basing verdicts on their "interpretation."

Once we get that implemented, perhaps we could just do away with judges altogether. In fact, why not do away with trials, while we're at it? I mean, after all, are police going to arrest someone who isn't guilty?

 

[ShootSpeeders]

Absolutely. What our criminal justice system needs is 12 people, untrained in the law, "interpreting" the Constitution and basing verdicts on their "interpretation."

Glad you agree with me. The SC judges interpret the constitution anyway they feel and rewrite it whenever that suits them. That's how legally incomprehensible verdicts like roe v wade and plyler v doe and bush v gore are inflicted on us. Be better to let jurors do it.

 

[George Costanza]

Absolutely. What our criminal justice system needs is 12 people, untrained in the law, "interpreting" the Constitution and basing verdicts on their "interpretation."

Glad you agree with me. The SC judges interpret the constitution anyway they feel and rewrite it whenever that suits them. That's how legally incomprehensible verdicts like roe v wade and plyler v doe and bush v gore are inflicted on us. Be better to let jurors do it.

Don't agree with you at all - as you well know. Sorry you don't agree with some of the rulings of The Supremes. That doesn't mean that the Constitutional issues they must wrestle with should be placed in the hands of lay persons. Your suggestion here is plain ridiculous. If you don't agree with some of their decisions, tell us why. Attack their reasoning. Don't make yourself lose credibility by a post of this nature.

A story is told of a woman who confronted Pablo Picasso about one of his cubist paintings. The woman said: "This painting is not art at all - it is stupid. My ten-year-old son could make a better painting than this one." The story goes that Picasso showed her some of the paintings that he had done when he was ten years old - paintings that were almost photographic in their clarity and realism.

I remember something my art professor told me in college: "Just because you don't like something does not mean that it is bad art." I would say the same to you. Just because you don't agree with a Constitutional ruling by the U.S. Supreme court does not mean that it is a bad ruling or that the function of the court should be turned over to a jury of lay people, untrained in the law.

 

[Katzndogz]

Absolutely. What our criminal justice system needs is 12 people, untrained in the law, "interpreting" the Constitution and basing verdicts on their "interpretation."

Once we get that implemented, perhaps we could just do away with judges altogether. In fact, why not do away with trials, while we're at it? I mean, after all, are police going to arrest someone who isn't guilty?

Or, we can have trial by midia and verdict on facebook.

 

[ShootSpeeders]

Absolutely. What our criminal justice system needs is 12 people, untrained in the law, "interpreting" the Constitution and basing verdicts on their "interpretation."

Glad you agree with me. The SC judges interpret the constitution anyway they feel and rewrite it whenever that suits them. That's how legally incomprehensible verdicts like roe v wade and plyler v doe and bush v gore are inflicted on us. Be better to let jurors do it.

Don't agree with you at all - as you well know. Sorry you don't agree with some of the rulings of The Supremes. That doesn't mean that the Constitutional issues they must wrestle with should be placed in the hands of lay persons. Your suggestion here is plain ridiculous. If you don't agree with some of their decisions, tell us why. Attack their reasoning. Don't make yourself lose credibility by a post of this nature.
.

I told you why. Their decisions make no legal sense. Take roe v wade. There is nothing in the constitution about abortion and that means (by the tenth amendment) it is a state issue - as it always had been up to 1973. The judges took their bribes and invented the "right" to abortion.

 

[ShootSpeeders]

Actually we don't have to "allow" juries to interpret the constitution. They already have that right. Juries can do anything they want and they need to realize that.