| Topic: |
Religions > Bible |
| User: |
"Johnny Asia" |
| Date: |
18 Nov 2004 05:26:36 PM |
| Object: |
ACLU comes to the aid of preachers |
Vegas preachers, ACLU mount free-speech fight
Wed Nov 17, 9:40 AM ET
By Scott Gold Tribune Newspapers: Los Angeles Times
The preacher with a hole in the knee of his jeans and a pocketful of
prayer cards waded through the late-night crowd--young men with hats
on sideways, women in saucy dresses, hired hands passing out fliers
for escort services.
Tom Griner turned a raised palm toward Robert Jones, a 21-year-old
visiting from Illinois.
"Jesus saves!" he shouted.
"Maybe," said Jones, not stopping to chat. "But he didn't win me $500
last night."
The way the American Civil Liberties Union (news - web sites) sees it,
the 1st Amendment was made for nights like this. The organization in
recent months has turned a small band of street preachers into
unlikely symbols of free speech--fighting, sometimes in noisy
confrontations with police and casinos, for the preachers' right to
spread the Gospel on the Las Vegas Strip.
The alliance is awkward. The preachers openly despise the ACLU, which
they view as an insufferably liberal institution. The ACLU doesn't
think much of the preachers' condemnations of "fornicators,"
Democrats, women who seek abortions and people who have not accepted
Christ as their savior.
And the Las Vegas establishment doesn't think much of the whole issue;
evangelical preachers bellowing about "homos," "porno freaks" and the
devil don't fit with the city's anything-goes marketing scheme.
But the ACLU forged ahead because, the organization said, a
long-percolating dispute between the casinos and the preachers
threatened the quintessential American venue for free expression: the
sidewalk.
Tenuous deal reached
This fall, the group's campaign resulted in a tenuous agreement among
casinos, police and city leaders that allows the preachers to stay. If
the agreement holds, it could mark the end of a decade-long fight to
give control over the sidewalks back to the public.
"We know we don't fit into the motif here," Griner said. "But
they"--he nodded toward the casinos behind him--"are not the only game
in town."
Courts have long held that sidewalks are constitutionally protected
forums for public opinion. Generally, as long as people are doing
things that are otherwise legal, they can do it on the sidewalk. Vegas
being Vegas, however, it's not that simple here.
In 1993 the city was forced to widen portions of Las Vegas Boulevard,
including the 2-mile Strip that runs along the themed casinos. New
sidewalks had to be built on private property in front of casinos,
which increasingly attempted to control activity on the walkways.
The following year, after 500 labor protesters were arrested for
trespassing because the MGM Grand complained, civil libertarians
launched their fight.
A public forum
Eventually the fight led to a lawsuit against the casinos, and in 2001
a federal appellate court sided with a different group of labor
protesters, ruling that the sidewalk in front of the Venetian Casino
Resort was a public forum even though it was on private property.
"What the court said, basically, is that if it looks like a sidewalk,
smells like a sidewalk and functions like a sidewalk, then by golly
it's a public sidewalk," said Gary Peck, executive director of the
Nevada ACLU.
.
|
|
| User: "gaffo" |
|
| Title: Re: ACLU comes to the aid of preachers |
26 Nov 2004 08:18:39 PM |
|
|
Johnny Asia wrote:
"What the court said, basically, is that if it looks like a sidewalk,
smells like a sidewalk and functions like a sidewalk, then by golly
it's a public sidewalk," said Gary Peck, executive director of the
Nevada ACLU.
good common sense.
and Praise Be the ACLU also.
The People Rule!
--
The courts have unanimously (and erroneously) refused to let defense
attorneys argue for nullification, typically by insisting that the jury
has no power to consider what the law should be, and that juries have no
lawful task but to decide whether the defendant broke the law. Yet, in a
fit of sheer inconsistency, the same federal courts of appeals are also
unanimous that it is permissible for prosecutors to urge juries to act
as the "conscience of the community" and use their verdict to "send a
message" about whether society should be willing to tolerate the
defendant's alleged conduct. James J. Duane, "What Message Are We
Sending to Criminal Jurors When We Ask Them to 'Send a Message' With
Their Verdict?," 22 Am. J. Crim. Law 565, 576-79 (1995).
The Sixth Amendment creates a right for the defendant to insist on a
jury to act as a community conscience and protect him from government
oppression, and yet only the State is allowed, when it chooses, to ask
the jury to consider matters of morality and conscience. Id. at 590-602.
Thus have we witnessed a complete perversion of the constitutional
priorities and structure.
One might fairly summarize the case law this way: "You may hope that the
jury will refuse to apply a harsh, unfair, or inequitable law, but you
may not urge them to do so." Steven Lubet, Modern Trial Advocacy 436 (1993)
If the jury feels the law is unjust, we recognize the undisputed power
of the jury to acquit, even if its verdict is contrary to the law as
given by a judge, and contrary to the evidence...If the jury feels that
the law under which the defendant is accused is unjust, or that exigent
circumstances justified the actions of the accused, or for any reason
which appeals to their logic or passion, the jury has the power to
acquit, and the courts must abide by that decision.
4th Circuit Court of Appeals, United States v. Moylan, 1969
[The jury has an] unreviewable and irreversible power...to acquit in
disregard of the instructions on the law given by the trial judge...The
pages of history shine on instances of the jury's exercise of its
prerogative to disregard uncontradicted evidence and instructions of the
judge; for example, acquittals under the fugitive slave law.
D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, Unites States v. Dougherty, 1972
It is not only [the juror's] right, but his duty...to find the verdict
according to his own best understanding, judgment, and conscience,
though in direct opposition to the directionof the court.
John Adams, 1771
......it is usual for the jurors to decide the fact, and to refer the law
arising on it to the decision of the judges. But this division of the
subject lies with their discretion only. And if the question relate to
any point of public liberty, or if it be one of those in which the
judges may be suspected of bias, the jury undertake to decide both law
and fact.
Thomas Jefferson, "Notes on Virginia," 1782
It is presumed, that juries are the best judges of facts; it is, on the
other hand,presumed that courts are the best judges of law. But still
both objects are within your power of decision.....you have a right to
take it upon yourselves to judge of both,and to determine the law as
well as the fact in controversy.
Chief Justice John Jay, Georgia v. Brailsford, 1794
Jurors should acquit, even against the judge's instruction...if
exercising their judgement with discretion and honesty they have a clear
conviction that the charge of the court is wrong.
Alexander Hamilton, 1804
The jury has the power to bring a verdict in the teeth of both the law
and the facts.
Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Horning v. District of Columbia, 1920
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Gregory Gadow" |
|
| Title: Re: ACLU comes to the aid of preachers |
22 Nov 2004 08:06:55 AM |
|
|
Johnny Asia wrote:
But the ACLU forged ahead because, the organization said, a
long-percolating dispute between the casinos and the preachers
threatened the quintessential American venue for free expression: the
sidewalk.
And herein lies the tremendous importance of the American Civil Liberites
Union. Ironic, isn't it, that only a "radically liberal" organization like
the ACLU would be willing to step up and defend these people. Oh,
Christians are *so* persecuted in the United States!
--
Gregory Gadow
techbear@serv.net
http://www.serv.net/~techbear
"The accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and judiciary, in
the same hands, whether of one, a few, or many, and whether hereditary,
self-appointed, or elective, may justly be pronounced the very definition
of tyranny." - James Madison, _The Federalist_, #47
.
|
|
|
| User: "Johnny Asia" |
|
| Title: Re: ACLU comes to the aid of preachers |
22 Nov 2004 04:25:16 PM |
|
|
Gregory Gadow <techbear@serv.net> wrote in message news:<41A1F27F.2D6591F@serv.net>...
Oh, Christians are *so* persecuted in the United States!
--
Shhh! That's one of the little white lies that give their
lives a semblance of meaning! Don't take away their little martyr
fantasies, it's one of their "deeply held" beliefs. They feel so
smug in their false knowledge that god will bless them because
they are so victimized by the forces of Satan.
+
"The power of accurate observation is called cynicism
by those who have not got it." - G. B. Shaw
Want to know what's really going on in Iraq?
http://www.angelfire.com/co/COMMONSENSE/wakeup.html
The Rise and Fall of the Holy Roller Empire
The God-Awful Truth about Christian Zionism
http://www.angelfire.com/co/COMMONSENSE/armageddon.html
.
|
|
|
| User: "Christopher A. Lee" |
|
| Title: Re: ACLU comes to the aid of preachers |
22 Nov 2004 05:16:17 PM |
|
|
On 22 Nov 2004 14:25:16 -0800, (Johnny Asia)
wrote:
Gregory Gadow <techbear@serv.net> wrote in message news:<41A1F27F.2D6591F@serv.net>...
Oh, Christians are *so* persecuted in the United States!
--
Shhh! That's one of the little white lies that give their
lives a semblance of meaning! Don't take away their little martyr
fantasies, it's one of their "deeply held" beliefs. They feel so
smug in their false knowledge that god will bless them because
they are so victimized by the forces of Satan.
Yet you would be surprised how many ordinay people believe that. A
month or so ago somebody at the Model Railway club, whom I had always
thought reasonable, was holding forth about how the ACLU wanted to get
rid of Christianity.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Teresita" |
|
| Title: Re: ACLU comes to the aid of preachers |
23 Nov 2004 08:44:53 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 22 Nov 2004 18:16:17 -0500, Christopher A. Lee
<calee@optonline.net> wrote:
On 22 Nov 2004 14:25:16 -0800, (Johnny Asia)
wrote:
Gregory Gadow <techbear@serv.net> wrote in message news:<41A1F27F.2D6591F@serv.net>...
Oh, Christians are *so* persecuted in the United States!
--
Shhh! That's one of the little white lies that give their
lives a semblance of meaning! Don't take away their little martyr
fantasies, it's one of their "deeply held" beliefs. They feel so
smug in their false knowledge that god will bless them because
they are so victimized by the forces of Satan.
Yet you would be surprised how many ordinay people believe that. A
month or so ago somebody at the Model Railway club, whom I had always
thought reasonable, was holding forth about how the ACLU wanted to get
rid of Christianity.
Now how would people get that crazy idea after seeing their nativity
scenes removed from the city park at the behest of the Anti Christian
Lamers Association?
--
Teresita aka Ruby Redinger
http://web.newsguy.com/rubyred
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mark K. Bilbo" |
|
| Title: Re: ACLU comes to the aid of preachers |
27 Nov 2004 08:22:49 AM |
|
|
In our last episode <dbt7q054198as7ci56i9952fh3s7lc90t6@4ax.com>, Teresita
lept out of the bushes shouting:
On Mon, 22 Nov 2004 18:16:17 -0500, Christopher A. Lee
<calee@optonline.net> wrote:
On 22 Nov 2004 14:25:16 -0800, (Johnny Asia)
wrote:
Gregory Gadow <techbear@serv.net> wrote in message
news:<41A1F27F.2D6591F@serv.net>...
Oh, Christians are *so* persecuted in the United States!
--
Shhh! That's one of the little white lies that give their
lives a semblance of meaning! Don't take away their little martyr
fantasies, it's one of their "deeply held" beliefs. They feel so smug in
their false knowledge that god will bless them because they are so
victimized by the forces of Satan.
Yet you would be surprised how many ordinay people believe that. A month
or so ago somebody at the Model Railway club, whom I had always thought
reasonable, was holding forth about how the ACLU wanted to get rid of
Christianity.
Now how would people get that crazy idea after seeing their nativity
scenes removed from the city park at the behest of the Anti Christian
Lamers Association?
So parks are only for Christian use?
Do the rest of us get our tax money back?
--
Mark K. Bilbo - a.a. #1423
EAC Department of Linguistic Subversion
Alt-atheism website at: http://www.alt-atheism.org
-----------------------------------------------------------
"Being surprised at the fact that the universe
is fine tuned for life is akin to a puddle being
surprised at how well it fits its hole"
-- Douglas Adams
.
|
|
|
| User: "Glenn \Christian Mystic" |
|
| Title: Re: ACLU comes to the aid of preachers |
09 Feb 2005 05:00:21 PM |
|
|
We ARE the "Public"... If five people owned private land, and four of those
five owners decided to ****, what would happen ???
"Mark K. Bilbo" <alt-atheism@org.webmaster> wrote in message
news:kPKdnV1q-8qxEDXcRVn-qA@megapath.net...
In our last episode <dbt7q054198as7ci56i9952fh3s7lc90t6@4ax.com>, Teresita
lept out of the bushes shouting:
On Mon, 22 Nov 2004 18:16:17 -0500, Christopher A. Lee
<calee@optonline.net> wrote:
On 22 Nov 2004 14:25:16 -0800, (Johnny Asia)
wrote:
Gregory Gadow <techbear@serv.net> wrote in message
news:<41A1F27F.2D6591F@serv.net>...
Oh, Christians are *so* persecuted in the United States!
--
Shhh! That's one of the little white lies that give their
lives a semblance of meaning! Don't take away their little martyr
fantasies, it's one of their "deeply held" beliefs. They feel so smug in
their false knowledge that god will bless them because they are so
victimized by the forces of Satan.
Yet you would be surprised how many ordinay people believe that. A month
or so ago somebody at the Model Railway club, whom I had always thought
reasonable, was holding forth about how the ACLU wanted to get rid of
Christianity.
Now how would people get that crazy idea after seeing their nativity
scenes removed from the city park at the behest of the Anti Christian
Lamers Association?
So parks are only for Christian use?
Do the rest of us get our tax money back?
--
Mark K. Bilbo - a.a. #1423
EAC Department of Linguistic Subversion
Alt-atheism website at: http://www.alt-atheism.org
-----------------------------------------------------------
"Being surprised at the fact that the universe
is fine tuned for life is akin to a puddle being
surprised at how well it fits its hole"
-- Douglas Adams
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Hypatia Kosh" |
|
| Title: Re: ACLU comes to the aid of preachers |
01 Dec 2004 01:14:53 PM |
|
|
Teresita <teresita@dataway.com> wrote in message news:<dbt7q054198as7ci56i9952fh3s7lc90t6@4ax.com>...
On Mon, 22 Nov 2004 18:16:17 -0500, Christopher A. Lee
<calee@optonline.net> wrote:
On 22 Nov 2004 14:25:16 -0800, (Johnny Asia)
wrote:
Gregory Gadow <techbear@serv.net> wrote in message news:<41A1F27F.2D6591F@serv.net>...
Oh, Christians are *so* persecuted in the United States!
--
Shhh! That's one of the little white lies that give their
lives a semblance of meaning! Don't take away their little martyr
fantasies, it's one of their "deeply held" beliefs. They feel so
smug in their false knowledge that god will bless them because
they are so victimized by the forces of Satan.
Yet you would be surprised how many ordinay people believe that. A
month or so ago somebody at the Model Railway club, whom I had always
thought reasonable, was holding forth about how the ACLU wanted to get
rid of Christianity.
Now how would people get that crazy idea after seeing their nativity
scenes removed from the city park at the behest of the Anti Christian
Lamers Association?
Which usually consists of Muslims, Hindus and Jews.
My memory is pretty faulty, but I seem to recall at least one case
where a town decided they didn't want to add a giant menorah to the
display in the public park, so away it went . . .
Anti-semitism--it can happen even to the *best* towns. <sardonic
smile>
-Hy
.
|
|
|
| User: "gaffo" |
|
| Title: Re: ACLU comes to the aid of preachers |
03 Dec 2004 08:22:44 PM |
|
|
Hypatia Kosh wrote:
Teresita <teresita@dataway.com> wrote in message news:<dbt7q054198as7ci56i9952fh3s7lc90t6@4ax.com>...
On Mon, 22 Nov 2004 18:16:17 -0500, Christopher A. Lee
<calee@optonline.net> wrote:
On 22 Nov 2004 14:25:16 -0800, (Johnny Asia)
wrote:
Gregory Gadow <techbear@serv.net> wrote in message news:<41A1F27F.2D6591F@serv.net>...
Oh, Christians are *so* persecuted in the United States!
--
Shhh! That's one of the little white lies that give their
lives a semblance of meaning! Don't take away their little martyr
fantasies, it's one of their "deeply held" beliefs. They feel so
smug in their false knowledge that god will bless them because
they are so victimized by the forces of Satan.
Yet you would be surprised how many ordinay people believe that. A
month or so ago somebody at the Model Railway club, whom I had always
thought reasonable, was holding forth about how the ACLU wanted to get
rid of Christianity.
Now how would people get that crazy idea after seeing their nativity
scenes removed from the city park at the behest of the Anti Christian
Lamers Association?
Which usually consists of Muslims, Hindus and Jews.
My memory is pretty faulty, but I seem to recall at least one case
where a town decided they didn't want to add a giant menorah to the
display in the public park, so away it went . . .
Anti-semitism--it can happen even to the *best* towns. <sardonic
smile>
-Hy
Yes AntiSemitism is a blight.
however - TODAY, silencing critics of Israeli Nazism as "AntiSemitic" is
the greater crime.
as is equating the Political contruct and Fascist State of Israel with
"Jews".
I'm American - don't make me a Christian
down with Nazism........including the Jewish Israeli ones like Sharon
and his Reichwing Likud Party.
--
The courts have unanimously (and erroneously) refused to let defense
attorneys argue for nullification, typically by insisting that the jury
has no power to consider what the law should be, and that juries have no
lawful task but to decide whether the defendant broke the law. Yet, in a
fit of sheer inconsistency, the same federal courts of appeals are also
unanimous that it is permissible for prosecutors to urge juries to act
as the "conscience of the community" and use their verdict to "send a
message" about whether society should be willing to tolerate the
defendant's alleged conduct. James J. Duane, "What Message Are We
Sending to Criminal Jurors When We Ask Them to 'Send a Message' With
Their Verdict?," 22 Am. J. Crim. Law 565, 576-79 (1995).
The Sixth Amendment creates a right for the defendant to insist on a
jury to act as a community conscience and protect him from government
oppression, and yet only the State is allowed, when it chooses, to ask
the jury to consider matters of morality and conscience. Id. at 590-602.
Thus have we witnessed a complete perversion of the constitutional
priorities and structure.
One might fairly summarize the case law this way: "You may hope that the
jury will refuse to apply a harsh, unfair, or inequitable law, but you
may not urge them to do so." Steven Lubet, Modern Trial Advocacy 436 (1993)
If the jury feels the law is unjust, we recognize the undisputed power
of the jury to acquit, even if its verdict is contrary to the law as
given by a judge, and contrary to the evidence...If the jury feels that
the law under which the defendant is accused is unjust, or that exigent
circumstances justified the actions of the accused, or for any reason
which appeals to their logic or passion, the jury has the power to
acquit, and the courts must abide by that decision.
4th Circuit Court of Appeals, United States v. Moylan, 1969
[The jury has an] unreviewable and irreversible power...to acquit in
disregard of the instructions on the law given by the trial judge...The
pages of history shine on instances of the jury's exercise of its
prerogative to disregard uncontradicted evidence and instructions of the
judge; for example, acquittals under the fugitive slave law.
D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, Unites States v. Dougherty, 1972
It is not only [the juror's] right, but his duty...to find the verdict
according to his own best understanding, judgment, and conscience,
though in direct opposition to the directionof the court.
John Adams, 1771
......it is usual for the jurors to decide the fact, and to refer the law
arising on it to the decision of the judges. But this division of the
subject lies with their discretion only. And if the question relate to
any point of public liberty, or if it be one of those in which the
judges may be suspected of bias, the jury undertake to decide both law
and fact.
Thomas Jefferson, "Notes on Virginia," 1782
It is presumed, that juries are the best judges of facts; it is, on the
other hand,presumed that courts are the best judges of law. But still
both objects are within your power of decision.....you have a right to
take it upon yourselves to judge of both,and to determine the law as
well as the fact in controversy.
Chief Justice John Jay, Georgia v. Brailsford, 1794
Jurors should acquit, even against the judge's instruction...if
exercising their judgement with discretion and honesty they have a clear
conviction that the charge of the court is wrong.
Alexander Hamilton, 1804
The jury has the power to bring a verdict in the teeth of both the law
and the facts.
Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Horning v. District of Columbia, 1920
.
|
|
|
| User: "Glenn \Christian Mystic" |
|
| Title: Re: ACLU comes to the aid of preachers |
16 Feb 2005 03:52:29 PM |
|
|
"gaffo" <gaffo@usenet.net> wrote in message
news:Ub9sd.26749$fC4.26191@newssvr11.news.prodigy.com...
Hypatia Kosh wrote:
Teresita <teresita@dataway.com> wrote in message
news:<dbt7q054198as7ci56i9952fh3s7lc90t6@4ax.com>...
On Mon, 22 Nov 2004 18:16:17 -0500, Christopher A. Lee
<calee@optonline.net> wrote:
On 22 Nov 2004 14:25:16 -0800, (Johnny Asia)
wrote:
Gregory Gadow <techbear@serv.net> wrote in message
news:<41A1F27F.2D6591F@serv.net>...
<snip>
Which usually consists of Muslims, Hindus and Jews. My memory is pretty
faulty, but I seem to recall at least one case
where a town decided they didn't want to add a giant menorah to the
display in the public park, so away it went . . .
Anti-semitism--it can happen even to the *best* towns. <sardonic
smile> -Hy
Yes AntiSemitism is a blight.
however...
Translation;
Let's speak AntiSemitically *anyway* #sigh#
- TODAY, silencing critics of Israeli Nazism...
Such oxyMoronics end my interest
<snip>
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "gaffo" |
|
| Title: Re: ACLU comes to the aid of preachers |
26 Nov 2004 08:23:50 PM |
|
|
Teresita wrote:
On Mon, 22 Nov 2004 18:16:17 -0500, Christopher A. Lee
<calee@optonline.net> wrote:
On 22 Nov 2004 14:25:16 -0800, (Johnny Asia)
wrote:
Gregory Gadow <techbear@serv.net> wrote in message news:<41A1F27F.2D6591F@serv.net>...
Oh, Christians are *so* persecuted in the United States!
--
Shhh! That's one of the little white lies that give their
lives a semblance of meaning! Don't take away their little martyr
fantasies, it's one of their "deeply held" beliefs. They feel so
smug in their false knowledge that god will bless them because
they are so victimized by the forces of Satan.
Yet you would be surprised how many ordinay people believe that. A
month or so ago somebody at the Model Railway club, whom I had always
thought reasonable, was holding forth about how the ACLU wanted to get
rid of Christianity.
Now how would people get that crazy idea after seeing their nativity
scenes removed from the city
..............what part of City (PUBLIC) park do you not understand?
park at the behest of the Anti Christian
Lamers Association?
--
Teresita aka Ruby Redinger
http://web.newsguy.com/rubyred
no place for your Religion on MY Park Lady...............
want your religious scene? FINE, place it on your land or your Church's
land or another willing private owner's land...........
not on my fucking public tax payed land God Dammit!!!!!!!!!!!
what do you not fucking understand about PUBLIC land anyway?
--
The courts have unanimously (and erroneously) refused to let defense
attorneys argue for nullification, typically by insisting that the jury
has no power to consider what the law should be, and that juries have no
lawful task but to decide whether the defendant broke the law. Yet, in a
fit of sheer inconsistency, the same federal courts of appeals are also
unanimous that it is permissible for prosecutors to urge juries to act
as the "conscience of the community" and use their verdict to "send a
message" about whether society should be willing to tolerate the
defendant's alleged conduct. James J. Duane, "What Message Are We
Sending to Criminal Jurors When We Ask Them to 'Send a Message' With
Their Verdict?," 22 Am. J. Crim. Law 565, 576-79 (1995).
The Sixth Amendment creates a right for the defendant to insist on a
jury to act as a community conscience and protect him from government
oppression, and yet only the State is allowed, when it chooses, to ask
the jury to consider matters of morality and conscience. Id. at 590-602.
Thus have we witnessed a complete perversion of the constitutional
priorities and structure.
One might fairly summarize the case law this way: "You may hope that the
jury will refuse to apply a harsh, unfair, or inequitable law, but you
may not urge them to do so." Steven Lubet, Modern Trial Advocacy 436 (1993)
If the jury feels the law is unjust, we recognize the undisputed power
of the jury to acquit, even if its verdict is contrary to the law as
given by a judge, and contrary to the evidence...If the jury feels that
the law under which the defendant is accused is unjust, or that exigent
circumstances justified the actions of the accused, or for any reason
which appeals to their logic or passion, the jury has the power to
acquit, and the courts must abide by that decision.
4th Circuit Court of Appeals, United States v. Moylan, 1969
[The jury has an] unreviewable and irreversible power...to acquit in
disregard of the instructions on the law given by the trial judge...The
pages of history shine on instances of the jury's exercise of its
prerogative to disregard uncontradicted evidence and instructions of the
judge; for example, acquittals under the fugitive slave law.
D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, Unites States v. Dougherty, 1972
It is not only [the juror's] right, but his duty...to find the verdict
according to his own best understanding, judgment, and conscience,
though in direct opposition to the directionof the court.
John Adams, 1771
......it is usual for the jurors to decide the fact, and to refer the law
arising on it to the decision of the judges. But this division of the
subject lies with their discretion only. And if the question relate to
any point of public liberty, or if it be one of those in which the
judges may be suspected of bias, the jury undertake to decide both law
and fact.
Thomas Jefferson, "Notes on Virginia," 1782
It is presumed, that juries are the best judges of facts; it is, on the
other hand,presumed that courts are the best judges of law. But still
both objects are within your power of decision.....you have a right to
take it upon yourselves to judge of both,and to determine the law as
well as the fact in controversy.
Chief Justice John Jay, Georgia v. Brailsford, 1794
Jurors should acquit, even against the judge's instruction...if
exercising their judgement with discretion and honesty they have a clear
conviction that the charge of the court is wrong.
Alexander Hamilton, 1804
The jury has the power to bring a verdict in the teeth of both the law
and the facts.
Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Horning v. District of Columbia, 1920
.
|
|
|
| User: "Glenn \Christian Mystic" |
|
| Title: Re: ACLU comes to the aid of preachers |
10 Apr 2005 09:04:28 AM |
|
|
"gaffo" <gaffo@usenet.net> wrote in message
news:WyRpd.34251$bP2.15942@newssvr12.news.prodigy.com...
Teresita wrote:
On Mon, 22 Nov 2004 18:16:17 -0500, Christopher A. Lee
<calee@optonline.net> wrote:
On 22 Nov 2004 14:25:16 -0800, (Johnny Asia)
wrote:
Gregory Gadow <techbear@serv.net> wrote in message
news:<41A1F27F.2D6591F@serv.net>...
<snip>
Yet you would be surprised how many ordinay people believe that. A
month or so ago somebody at the Model Railway club, whom I had always
thought reasonable, was holding forth about how the ACLU wanted to get
rid of Christianity.
Now how would people get that crazy idea after seeing their nativity
scenes removed from the city
.............what part of City (PUBLIC) park do you not understand?
I understand it as EVERYONE'S PRIVATE property, now looking at it that way,
IF MOST of the private owners wanted a nativity scene, guess what ???
park at the behest of the Anti Christian
Lamers Association?
--
Teresita aka Ruby Redinger
http://web.newsguy.com/rubyred
no place for your Religion on MY Park Lady...............
It isn't YOURS,, it is OURS !! You are OUTNUMBERED
want your religious scene? FINE, place it on your land
We just did ! When we put it on OUR PUBLIC property, if you don't want
it on "your land" as in *not ours*, go ahead and have it your way.... BUT
this PUBLIC LAND *ALSO* belongs to US
or your Church's land or another willing private owner's land...........
not on my fucking public tax payed land God Dammit!!!!!!!!!!!
You are free to apply for citizenship in another country, maybe one with an
atheist dictator of your choosing
what do you not fucking understand about PUBLIC land anyway?
YOU are the one thinking that PUBLIC means YOURS ALONE,,,, so WHO is having
a problem understanding what is PUBLIC ???? Look in your blasted MIRROR !
<snip a lot of repeated stuff, not related to the post>
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Glenn \Christian Mystic" |
|
| Title: Re: ACLU comes to the aid of preachers |
08 Feb 2005 05:26:50 PM |
|
|
Unless "public" means *minority owned* take a !!!VOTE!!!
"gaffo" <gaffo@usenet.net> wrote in message
news:WyRpd.34251$bP2.15942@newssvr12.news.prodigy.com...
Teresita wrote:
On Mon, 22 Nov 2004 18:16:17 -0500, Christopher A. Lee
<calee@optonline.net> wrote:
On 22 Nov 2004 14:25:16 -0800, (Johnny Asia)
wrote:
Gregory Gadow <techbear@serv.net> wrote in message
news:<41A1F27F.2D6591F@serv.net>...
Oh, Christians are *so* persecuted in the United States!
--
Shhh! That's one of the little white lies that give their
lives a semblance of meaning! Don't take away their little martyr
fantasies, it's one of their "deeply held" beliefs. They feel so
smug in their false knowledge that god will bless them because
they are so victimized by the forces of Satan.
Yet you would be surprised how many ordinay people believe that. A
month or so ago somebody at the Model Railway club, whom I had always
thought reasonable, was holding forth about how the ACLU wanted to get
rid of Christianity.
Now how would people get that crazy idea after seeing their nativity
scenes removed from the city
.............what part of City (PUBLIC) park do you not understand?
park at the behest of the Anti Christian
Lamers Association?
--
Teresita aka Ruby Redinger
http://web.newsguy.com/rubyred
no place for your Religion on MY Park Lady...............
want your religious scene? FINE, place it on your land or your Church's
land or another willing private owner's land...........
not on my fucking public tax payed land God Dammit!!!!!!!!!!!
what do you not fucking understand about PUBLIC land anyway?
--
The courts have unanimously (and erroneously) refused to let defense
attorneys argue for nullification, typically by insisting that the jury
has no power to consider what the law should be, and that juries have no
lawful task but to decide whether the defendant broke the law. Yet, in a
fit of sheer inconsistency, the same federal courts of appeals are also
unanimous that it is permissible for prosecutors to urge juries to act as
the "conscience of the community" and use their verdict to "send a
message" about whether society should be willing to tolerate the
defendant's alleged conduct. James J. Duane, "What Message Are We Sending
to Criminal Jurors When We Ask Them to 'Send a Message' With Their
Verdict?," 22 Am. J. Crim. Law 565, 576-79 (1995).
The Sixth Amendment creates a right for the defendant to insist on a jury
to act as a community conscience and protect him from government
oppression, and yet only the State is allowed, when it chooses, to ask the
jury to consider matters of morality and conscience. Id. at 590-602. Thus
have we witnessed a complete perversion of the constitutional priorities
and structure.
One might fairly summarize the case law this way: "You may hope that the
jury will refuse to apply a harsh, unfair, or inequitable law, but you may
not urge them to do so." Steven Lubet, Modern Trial Advocacy 436 (1993)
If the jury feels the law is unjust, we recognize the undisputed power of
the jury to acquit, even if its verdict is contrary to the law as given by
a judge, and contrary to the evidence...If the jury feels that the law
under which the defendant is accused is unjust, or that exigent
circumstances justified the actions of the accused, or for any reason
which appeals to their logic or passion, the jury has the power to acquit,
and the courts must abide by that decision.
4th Circuit Court of Appeals, United States v. Moylan, 1969
[The jury has an] unreviewable and irreversible power...to acquit in
disregard of the instructions on the law given by the trial judge...The
pages of history shine on instances of the jury's exercise of its
prerogative to disregard uncontradicted evidence and instructions of the
judge; for example, acquittals under the fugitive slave law.
D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, Unites States v. Dougherty, 1972
It is not only [the juror's] right, but his duty...to find the verdict
according to his own best understanding, judgment, and conscience, though
in direct opposition to the directionof the court.
John Adams, 1771
.....it is usual for the jurors to decide the fact, and to refer the law
arising on it to the decision of the judges. But this division of the
subject lies with their discretion only. And if the question relate to any
point of public liberty, or if it be one of those in which the judges may
be suspected of bias, the jury undertake to decide both law and fact.
Thomas Jefferson, "Notes on Virginia," 1782
It is presumed, that juries are the best judges of facts; it is, on the
other hand,presumed that courts are the best judges of law. But still both
objects are within your power of decision.....you have a right to take it
upon yourselves to judge of both,and to determine the law as well as the
fact in controversy.
Chief Justice John Jay, Georgia v. Brailsford, 1794
Jurors should acquit, even against the judge's instruction...if exercising
their judgement with discretion and honesty they have a clear conviction
that the charge of the court is wrong.
Alexander Hamilton, 1804
The jury has the power to bring a verdict in the teeth of both the law and
the facts.
Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Horning v. District of Columbia, 1920
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Hypatia Kosh" |
|
| Title: Re: ACLU comes to the aid of preachers |
01 Dec 2004 01:16:27 PM |
|
|
gaffo <gaffo@usenet.net> wrote in message news:<WyRpd.34251$bP2.15942@newssvr12.news.prodigy.com>...
Teresita wrote:
On Mon, 22 Nov 2004 18:16:17 -0500, Christopher A. Lee
<calee@optonline.net> wrote:
On 22 Nov 2004 14:25:16 -0800, (Johnny Asia)
wrote:
Gregory Gadow <techbear@serv.net> wrote in message news:<41A1F27F.2D6591F@serv.net>...
Oh, Christians are *so* persecuted in the United States!
--
Shhh! That's one of the little white lies that give their
lives a semblance of meaning! Don't take away their little martyr
fantasies, it's one of their "deeply held" beliefs. They feel so
smug in their false knowledge that god will bless them because
they are so victimized by the forces of Satan.
Yet you would be surprised how many ordinay people believe that. A
month or so ago somebody at the Model Railway club, whom I had always
thought reasonable, was holding forth about how the ACLU wanted to get
rid of Christianity.
Now how would people get that crazy idea after seeing their nativity
scenes removed from the city
.............what part of City (PUBLIC) park do you not understand?
park at the behest of the Anti Christian
Lamers Association?
--
Teresita aka Ruby Redinger
http://web.newsguy.com/rubyred
no place for your Religion on MY Park Lady...............
want your religious scene? FINE, place it on your land or your Church's
land or another willing private owner's land...........
not on my fucking public tax payed land God Dammit!!!!!!!!!!!
what do you not fucking understand about PUBLIC land anyway?
That would be nice, but usually what happens in these cases is that
they're allowed to display religious symbols on public land--they just
can't deny other faiths the same privileges.
Fair enough--all the religions despise each other enough that it
effectively does the job anyway.
-Hy
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Glenn \Christian Mystic" |
|
| Title: Re: ACLU comes to the aid of preachers |
25 Jan 2005 04:42:23 PM |
|
|
They are known by their fruits(record). I need not say more.
"Christopher A. Lee" <calee@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:6ns4q0dhvlqbfpcjljrio76c1hhf1ln6gs@4ax.com...
On 22 Nov 2004 14:25:16 -0800, (Johnny Asia)
wrote:
Gregory Gadow <techbear@serv.net> wrote in message
news:<41A1F27F.2D6591F@serv.net>...
Oh, Christians are *so* persecuted in the United States!
--
Shhh! That's one of the little white lies that give their
lives a semblance of meaning! Don't take away their little martyr
fantasies, it's one of their "deeply held" beliefs. They feel so
smug in their false knowledge that god will bless them because
they are so victimized by the forces of Satan.
Yet you would be surprised how many ordinay people believe that. A
month or so ago somebody at the Model Railway club, whom I had always
thought reasonable, was holding forth about how the ACLU wanted to get
rid of Christianity.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Tukla Ratte" |
|
| Title: Re: ACLU comes to the aid of preachers |
23 Nov 2004 12:41:59 PM |
|
|
Gregory Gadow wrote:
Johnny Asia wrote:
But the ACLU forged ahead because, the organization said, a
long-percolating dispute between the casinos and the preachers
threatened the quintessential American venue for free expression: the
sidewalk.
And herein lies the tremendous importance of the American Civil Liberites
Union. Ironic, isn't it, that only a "radically liberal" organization like
the ACLU would be willing to step up and defend these people. Oh,
Christians are *so* persecuted in the United States!
To be fair, I'm sure the ACLJ would come to the defense of liberal
non-Christians if their civil rights were being violated.
</me tries to keep a straight face>
--
Tukla, Eater of Theists, Squeaker of Chew Toys
Official Mascot of Alt.Atheism, aa 1347
.
|
|
|
| User: "Gregory Gadow" |
|
| Title: Re: ACLU comes to the aid of preachers |
23 Nov 2004 12:51:54 PM |
|
|
Tukla Ratte wrote:
Gregory Gadow wrote:
Johnny Asia wrote:
But the ACLU forged ahead because, the organization said, a
long-percolating dispute between the casinos and the preachers
threatened the quintessential American venue for free expression: the
sidewalk.
And herein lies the tremendous importance of the American Civil Liberites
Union. Ironic, isn't it, that only a "radically liberal" organization like
the ACLU would be willing to step up and defend these people. Oh,
Christians are *so* persecuted in the United States!
To be fair, I'm sure the ACLJ would come to the defense of liberal
non-Christians if their civil rights were being violated.
</me tries to keep a straight face>
I notice that the ACLJ is not aiding these street preachers. So who is the
greater defender and protector of Christian free speech?
--
Gregory Gadow
techbear@serv.net
http://www.serv.net/~techbear
"The accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and judiciary, in
the same hands, whether of one, a few, or many, and whether hereditary,
self-appointed, or elective, may justly be pronounced the very definition
of tyranny." - James Madison, _The Federalist_, #47
.
|
|
|
| User: "Tukla Ratte" |
|
| Title: Re: ACLU comes to the aid of preachers |
23 Nov 2004 03:33:20 PM |
|
|
Gregory Gadow wrote:
Tukla Ratte wrote:
< snip >
To be fair, I'm sure the ACLJ would come to the defense of liberal
non-Christians if their civil rights were being violated.
</me tries to keep a straight face>
I notice that the ACLJ is not aiding these street preachers. So who is the
greater defender and protector of Christian free speech?
The ACLJ only defends people when it suits their agenda, which is
destroying the Establishment Clause.
--
Tukla, Eater of Theists, Squeaker of Chew Toys
Official Mascot of Alt.Atheism, aa 1347
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mark K. Bilbo" |
|
| Title: Re: ACLU comes to the aid of preachers |
27 Nov 2004 08:20:23 AM |
|
|
In our last episode <41A1F27F.2D6591F@serv.net>, Gregory Gadow lept out of
the bushes shouting:
Johnny Asia wrote:
But the ACLU forged ahead because, the organization said, a
long-percolating dispute between the casinos and the preachers
threatened the quintessential American venue for free expression: the
sidewalk.
And herein lies the tremendous importance of the American Civil Liberites
Union. Ironic, isn't it, that only a "radically liberal" organization like
the ACLU would be willing to step up and defend these people. Oh,
Christians are *so* persecuted in the United States!
Huh. It's almost as if the ACLU isn't really out to persecute Christians
after all...
--
Mark K. Bilbo - a.a. #1423
EAC Department of Linguistic Subversion
Alt-atheism website at: http://www.alt-atheism.org
-----------------------------------------------------------
"Being surprised at the fact that the universe
is fine tuned for life is akin to a puddle being
surprised at how well it fits its hole"
-- Douglas Adams
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "George Peatty" |
|
| Title: Re: ACLU comes to the aid of preachers |
22 Nov 2004 04:47:15 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 22 Nov 2004 06:06:55 -0800, Gregory Gadow <techbear@serv.net> wrote:
And herein lies the tremendous importance of the American Civil Liberites
Union.
Baloney. The American Civil Liberties Union is none of those.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mike Andrade" |
|
| Title: Re: ACLU comes to the aid of preachers |
22 Nov 2004 05:11:49 PM |
|
|
George Peatty <pttyg47-1230@copper.net> wrote in
news:bkp4q058g813eectcnrk58bqegi55b789j@4ax.com:
On Mon, 22 Nov 2004 06:06:55 -0800, Gregory Gadow
<techbear@serv.net> wrote:
And herein lies the tremendous importance of the American Civil
Liberites Union.
Baloney. The American Civil Liberties Union is none of those.
Nice substantive argument. Thanks.
--
Mike
"No thanks, I'm just looking."
.
|
|
|
| User: "George Peatty" |
|
| Title: Re: ACLU comes to the aid of preachers |
22 Nov 2004 05:49:59 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 22 Nov 2004 23:11:49 GMT, Mike Andrade <ma@box.invalid> wrote:
George Peatty <pttyg47-1230@copper.net> wrote in
news:bkp4q058g813eectcnrk58bqegi55b789j@4ax.com:
On Mon, 22 Nov 2004 06:06:55 -0800, Gregory Gadow
<techbear@serv.net> wrote:
And herein lies the tremendous importance of the American Civil
Liberites Union.
Baloney. The American Civil Liberties Union is none of those.
Nice substantive argument. Thanks.
Yeah, kind of the antithesis of the moral majority is neither, which is
popular among your crowd ..
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mike Andrade" |
|
| Title: Re: ACLU comes to the aid of preachers |
22 Nov 2004 06:25:00 PM |
|
|
George Peatty <pttyg47-1230@copper.net> wrote in
news:8ou4q01stb9nqs66lg3lp3bl6ln2vc16l7@4ax.com:
On Mon, 22 Nov 2004 23:11:49 GMT, Mike Andrade <ma@box.invalid>
wrote:
George Peatty <pttyg47-1230@copper.net> wrote in
news:bkp4q058g813eectcnrk58bqegi55b789j@4ax.com:
On Mon, 22 Nov 2004 06:06:55 -0800, Gregory Gadow
<techbear@serv.net> wrote:
And herein lies the tremendous importance of the American Civil
Liberites Union.
Baloney. The American Civil Liberties Union is none of those.
Nice substantive argument. Thanks.
Yeah, kind of the antithesis of the moral majority is neither,
which is popular among your crowd ..
I've never heard that in "my crowd." But thanks for sharing.
--
Mike
"No thanks, I'm just looking."
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Gregory Gadow" |
|
| Title: Re: ACLU comes to the aid of preachers |
23 Nov 2004 12:53:25 PM |
|
|
George Peatty wrote:
On Mon, 22 Nov 2004 06:06:55 -0800, Gregory Gadow <techbear@serv.net> wrote:
And herein lies the tremendous importance of the American Civil Liberites
Union.
Baloney. The American Civil Liberties Union is none of those.
They are a union of Americans dedicated to protecting civil liberties. How are
they "none of these"?
--
Gregory Gadow
techbear@serv.net
http://www.serv.net/~techbear
"The accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and judiciary, in
the same hands, whether of one, a few, or many, and whether hereditary,
self-appointed, or elective, may justly be pronounced the very definition
of tyranny." - James Madison, _The Federalist_, #47
.
|
|
|
| User: "Hypatia Kosh" |
|
| Title: Re: ACLU comes to the aid of preachers |
01 Dec 2004 01:39:18 PM |
|
|
Gregory Gadow <techbear@serv.net> wrote in message news:<41A38725.FE378CF9@serv.net>...
George Peatty wrote:
On Mon, 22 Nov 2004 06:06:55 -0800, Gregory Gadow <techbear@serv.net> wrote:
And herein lies the tremendous importance of the American Civil Liberites
Union.
Baloney. The American Civil Liberties Union is none of those.
They are a union of Americans dedicated to protecting civil liberties. How are
they "none of these"?
They're a secret society of stinkin' COMMIES out to SUBVERT American
FREEDOM. That's why they defended the right of NAZIS to protest in
public ... oh, wait.
-Hy
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "George Peatty" |
|
| Title: Re: ACLU comes to the aid of preachers |
23 Nov 2004 04:12:48 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 23 Nov 2004 10:53:25 -0800, Gregory Gadow <techbear@serv.net> wrote:
They are a union of Americans dedicated to protecting civil liberties. How are
they "none of these"?
They don't protect civil liberties. They work to restrict them; case in
point, what they've done to the freedom of religion. When one cannot
express religious preferences publicly, one's freedom is rather hollow. The
ACLU was instrumental in making that happen; is still.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mike Andrade" |
|
| Title: Re: ACLU comes to the aid of preachers |
23 Nov 2004 04:36:42 PM |
|
|
George Peatty <pttyg47-1230@copper.net> wrote in
news:u7d7q0liuusn8540941li9hkmbbttunqjm@4ax.com:
On Tue, 23 Nov 2004 10:53:25 -0800, Gregory Gadow
<techbear@serv.net> wrote:
They are a union of Americans dedicated to protecting civil
liberties. How are they "none of these"?
They don't protect civil liberties. They work to restrict them;
case in point, what they've done to the freedom of religion. When
one cannot express religious preferences publicly, one's freedom
is rather hollow. The ACLU was instrumental in making that
happen; is still.
What "religious preferences" are you not allowed to express publicly?
--
Mike
"No thanks, I'm just looking."
.
|
|
|
| User: "George Peatty" |
|
| Title: Re: ACLU comes to the aid of preachers |
23 Nov 2004 06:10:04 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 23 Nov 2004 22:36:42 GMT, Mike Andrade <ma@box.invalid> wrote:
What "religious preferences" are you not allowed to express publicly?
Putting a creche or the Ten Commandments in the lobby of my county-city
building ..
.
|
|
|
| User: "Glenn \Christian Mystic" |
|
| Title: Re: ACLU comes to the aid of preachers |
15 Apr 2005 06:02:17 PM |
|
|
"George Peatty" <pttyg47-1230@copper.net> wrote in message
news:u9k7q0p2en1qbd65rmoekaa7gambg0hboe@4ax.com...
On Tue, 23 Nov 2004 22:36:42 GMT, Mike Andrade <ma@box.invalid> wrote:
What "religious preferences" are you not allowed to express publicly?
Putting a creche or the Ten Commandments in the lobby of my county-city
building ..
IF the Constitution's requirment that no laws be made abridging(restricting)
the free exercise thereof....You *would* be allowed just that, among other
things...
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Brian Westley" |
|
| Title: Re: ACLU comes to the aid of preachers |
23 Nov 2004 07:19:44 PM |
|
|
George Peatty <pttyg47-1230@copper.net> writes:
On Tue, 23 Nov 2004 22:36:42 GMT, Mike Andrade <ma@box.invalid> wrote:
What "religious preferences" are you not allowed to express publicly?
Putting a creche or the Ten Commandments in the lobby of my county-city
building ..
Can anyone put up decorations in that lobby?
If not, sounds like equal treatment to me.
---
Merlyn LeRoy
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
