Who will McCain choose for vice president?

Post Reply New Topic

My point about the jury is that 'letter of the law' is not always the highest good.

How do juries really defy the letter of the law though? They are a law-given control mechanism against the law, so it is not as if there is explicit denial of law.

McCain's VP choice appears to be an attempt to propitiate the Evangelical Taliban, who found his level of religious fanaticism to be deficient, because he had not spoken out in support of compulsory religious indoctrination in public schools, as well as public floggings and executions. She is very much in line with the right wing lunatics. Given that we live in a theocracy ( not so different from Iran or Saudi Arabia ), it is likely that her selection was a politically wise choice.

It was, after all, the Taliban who propelled her to the governorship of Alaska 2 years ago, even though she had no experience other than being a stay at home Bible thumping mom. As a running mate for McCain, she will be a very effective tool in pandering to the abysmal stupidity of the American public.

Intellectually, she is right on par with McCain, who as a younster, only managed to get into the Naval Academy because his father was an admiral, and ended up graduating 2nd to last in a class of about 500. He is competition with the man he hopes to succeed for being the slowest thinking mammal on the planet.

Being of very limited intellect and coming from a military family tradition, he believes that war is the solution to all of humanity's problems. His statement saying that he was prepared to occupy Irak for another century is remminiscent of similar claims made by Hitler made about the pedicted lifespan of the 3rd reich. Rest assured that if elected, he will launch a unilateral attack on Iran.

^^^^
Palin does appear to be a dominionist (christian taliban), but I have to say that the U.S. is nowhere near being like Saudi Arabia (yet). We have a long, long way to fall if the Repubs get into office again.

wrt. Juries, a jury does not always comply with what the letter of the law would say; for example, a jury might find someone innocent because they respect his or her motives, not because they believe that the accused did not do the crime that they were brought to trial for.

That is an actual legal strategy, I believe the technical term is "jury nullification".

A jury has an explicit right to reject the law, and this is a right that is legally given as a check against the law itself. A judge is hired to follow the word of law though. Different groups.

That's my point. If the writers of the constitution had wanted things always to be followed to the letter, they wouldn't have written juries into the constitution. They deliberately left room for interpretation.

Interpretation can, of course, be taken too far (a la Shrub), but the interpretation that the written, explicitly stated right to bear arms does not include the right to posses surface-to-air missiles or weaponized anthrax is not an extreme divergence from what the writers would have wanted.

That hardly seems like your point at all. I mean, juries are for cases not usually involving constitutional law, and these juries do not have the right to add laws so much as remove "illegitimate" ones. It hardly seems like the traditional interpretation of the Supreme Court or Constitution. There does not seem to be reason for a deliberate room for interpretation, especially since the founding fathers themselves could show some very strict interpretations of the constitution, with Jefferson arguing that a national bank was not constitutional at all, and Hamilton taking a legalistic(rather than highly interpretive approach) involving the necessary and proper clause. If laws are matters of interpretations, then they cease to be laws so much as guidelines.

It certainly is an extreme divergence from what the writers would have wanted. They wanted a right to overthrow an unjust government as noted by statements made by Madison in the Federalist papers, so without these weapons, how could a militia have much chance?

It's true that juries aren't usually involved in direct challenges of constitutional law, but once a law is established and a person is charged with breaking that law, the jury has leeway. The fact that juries do not write laws does not mean that they're not involved in interpreting them. Different branch of government, remember? The Legislative branch isn't the only one with a little bit of flexibility.



You think not?
I see very clear reasons for deliberately allowing some flexibility. For one, society and social mores change over time; for example, new, powerful weapons that the founders could not have imagined have been invented since the writing of the constitution. For another, the founders were wise enough to know that they could not plan for every expediency - and they also had enough experience with overbearing governments to distrust too inflexible of an institution.



It's very true, as I noted earlier, that interpretation can be taken too far. The question is where to draw the line: just before nuclear weapons? Just before weaponized anthrax? Just before grenade launchers? Just before fully automatic rifles? Just before handguns? Just before swords?

But juries have a legal amount of leeway with people who admittedly broke the law. Beyond that, they are to process evidence towards whether or not there is guilt in a situation. The legislative branch is the branch meant to have flexibility though.


No, I do not. Constitutions are not meant to really have flexibility, they are a bedrock. Next thing you will tell me is that wobbly foundations are good for buildings, they are not. Society and social mores may have changed, and that is why amendments exist, we have the power to amend the constitution, it was once used by society to ban alcohol then once again to reinstate it. It is not as if we need to "reinterpret based upon social changes" if we can literally change something based upon those changes.

The founders... really were not planning on having their government do much planning, and the debate on strict constructionism really really tends to seem to undermine your position on "distrusting too inflexible of an institution" as Jefferson's notion of the federal government(along with his supporters) was one even more inflexible than the one that you or I are promoting.


Well, how do you analytically define too far? If there is no analytical definition, the term is pretty meaningless. My answer is simple, the constitution does not draw a line, but allows for later generations to amend the constitution.

So do you think that we should ammend the constitution to explicitly state that weapons of mass destruction are not included in the right to bear arms?

LOL - from northern California, I can state with some authority that, while wobbling foundations might not be good for buildings, the building as a whole (foundation included) should surely be able to withstand considerable wobble!

I think you ought to redirect your thoughts to more practical areas. Even if the threat of "basement nukes" was credible, what sort of regulation would possibly make any sort of difference? Any graduate student in biochemistry could cook up a batch of anthrax or botulism, switch the degree to organic chemistry and nerve gas is not all that difficult to synthesize. Thankfully neither of these fairly easily attainable WMDs has had much of an impact on the street, but what could you really do to control them, since the primary pre-requisite is knowledge?

Small arms are already highly regulated in this country, there is no need for more laws. People just get hysterical over the occasional high profile incident while still knowing nothing on the subject. That's how England got into it's current mess, and I'm determined not to let that happen here.

Honestly, I don't care that much, but if you think we need to prevent the use of them, then perhaps yes.

Ok.

Dox47: Anthrax and Botulinum toxin are included under the aegis of 'weapons of mass destruction.' And it wouldn't take a graduate student to produce either.

I brought the subject up because Awesomelyglorious is advocating a literal interpretation of the 'right to bear arms,' with no interpretation allowed. Current interpretations clearly disallow WMDs, but I'm curious if AG would find our extant weapons bans more acceptable if there was such an amendment.

Personally acceptable? Maybe not. Would I see them as more legally legitimate? Yes, of course! My position is that such actions would increase the legitimacy, and I think I have made that explicitly clear at a few points.

Didn't you have enough examples with Ronnie Reagan as an senile President to wanting to take the risk with McCain?