I said in an earlier post that the Japanese internment was done by presidential order and was not relevant, and the runaway slaves were from real cases cited in earlier posts that you may peruse at your leisure.
Feel free to point them out, because I just skimmed the thread again and didn’t see any citations.
Because stating “We do NOT live in a Democracy. We live in a Republic.” shows that you have a crackpot idea about our governmental system. And having one crackpot idea is a strong indicator of having more crackpot ideas.
As you say, it has nothing directly to do with jury nullification. Jury nullification can be argued on its own merits. But when you introduce the crank meme about not being a democracy it proves you have not shown good judgement at least once in another civics area. And that discredits your judgement about the issue at hand: jury nullification.
Ah, I somehow missed this post before.
In this case, the meaning of “republican” is nowhere specified, has never been legally interpreted, and likely means nothing more than “not a hereditary monarchy.” And one might also note that it is a reference to the state governments and not to the federal government. In fact, every state has a democratic (as well as a republican) form of government.
And this statement has no legal force.
This is cherry-picking among the many meanings of the words, and it is by no means the most common or relevant one. Indeed, since what you are describing as the sole meaning of “democracy” is usually identified as a “direct democracy,” the word “democracy” by itself implies nothing of the kind.
“Democracy” means “rule by the people” and a representative republic (also known as an “indirect democracy”) is a form of rule by the people.
The structures of government laid out in the U.S. Constitution are:
(1) Republican, in the sense that they do not create a hereditary monarchy,
(2) Republican, in the sense that they create a system of representative democracy,
(3) Democratic, in that the ultimate authority derives from the people, and
(4) Democratic, in that all the methods of choosing people for positions of authority are based on notions of rule by the people, either directly or indirectly.
The Constitution nowhere chooses any particular definition of the words “republic” or “democracy,” but by implication, the Constitution creates a form of government that is both a democratic republic and a republican democracy.
In constitutional law, they do not solely you have the meanings you assign to them, and, indeed, have no relevant meaning whatsoever. Nowhere does the Constitution say that “the state shall not be a democracy” or “shall not follow democratic principles,” and, indeed, does largely follow democratic principles, as the term is commonly understood.
And when a particular faction of people begins to insist out of thin air that a particular, largely outdated and uncommon, meaning of a word is the sole meaning of that word, without any justification, it becomes a real farce.
And I might note, this phrase “a republic, not a democracy” is invoked in situations in which it has absolutely no relevance.
“The voting system should not arbitrarily discard votes.” - “A republic, not a democracy!” - Complete non sequitur. I don’t even understand what it’s supposed to mean, other than maybe “the Constitution isn’t serious about due process or equal protection.”
Well, some would disagree with you.
Wouldn’t be the first time; won’t be the last, but am constrained to point out that Justice Wilson’s remarks can provide no solace to the proponents of jury nullification. He does not advocate that juries be advised that they may ignore the law, but simply notes that, ultimately, they decide what the law means. In PA, jurors are given written definitions of the criminal charges against the accused for their use during deliberations.
He is saying juries can decide the law as well as the facts and can “overrule the directions of the judges”.
Wasn’t only him either:
Judges today would have it that juries absolutely must not decide law but only facts. This flies in the face of how the Founding Fathers wanted things to work.
Except your quote shows that John Jay did NOT want it to work that way. He simply recognized that the jury system gives juries the power to make it work that way.
And so it is today. We cannot, ultimately, stop a jury from using its power to decide the facts to also decide the law, at least in one direction. That is, the jury can acquit, even in the face of overwhelming evidence, and we cannot undo that action.
A jury can also convict when they lack sufficient facts to do so… but in that event, at least, the judge can correct the error.
It is a word. It is defined. It doesn’t have to be interpreted. If you want to say we live in a democracy and join with President Bush in saying we are exporting democracy around the globe, help yourself. Just know that there would be some old guys with their pictures on money rolling in their graves at the thought.
Fortunately, we are not in court and we’re not talking about legal force. Words mean what they mean. If you want to say Repulics and Democrays are the same form of government, knock yourself out. I’m tired of splainin it.
Yep, right out of thin air is where I got it. Believe what you want.
You are saying that jury nullification nullifies the power of democracy, so a juror would be blocking the will of the people. I am saying that the state can, and has, made some horrible laws and that jurors should be aware that they can vote their consciense to block that power. So, I can see how it wouldn’t be relevant to point out that it is the states power of legislating anything they can get passed and not necessarily the will of the people that is being nullified.
I don’t know what you’re running on about the voting system.
Wonderful thread. I always loved law and this has been enjoyable.
I’m not a fan of the American judicial system(in regards to jurors) because if I think about the average joe helping decide the fate of a man in a high profile case, I cringe. As blue collar as I like to be…I just can’t trust them - however them being people of today. If it was sixty years ago, I might not be so concerned. This is a reflection or a stance because of my view on modern society. It’s a system that’s under threat by the people who interact with it - as opposed to a system that was bad to begin with.
Almost equally, the idea of jury nullify is even scarier than the idea of the type of people who are allowed to be jurors.
We just have to trust that people do not have additional motives behind their decisions.
To the mini debate over Democracy vs Republic. Wasn’t it always the case that the foundation was a Republic and as time grew, it had to shift to a democracy to encompass the increasing population? That was my broad understanding and it sounded less conspiratorial than Roosevelt intentionally reissuing the Soldier’s Training Manuals to reflect how democracy was the true form of American government so he could institute social security.
But in it’s simplest form…democracy is ‘us five people say you two people have to die, we had a vote on it, five to two!’
Mobocracy is scary and kind of reflects why a jury who can nullify is alarming to me.
Nullifying is letting them go, not killing them.
Go to the front of the class for knowing what a Democracy is.
4 wolves and a sheep voting on what is for supper.
You have misread Justice Jay’s opinion. He is admonishing the trial court not for telling the jury what the law is, but for telling them what their verdict should be. Doing so was improper then and remains improper today.
Where? By whom? How many other definitions are there?
Everything has to be interpreted in order for it to have any meaning.
Ah, so you read the minds of dead people. By any chance do you have a painting of George Washington kneeling before a cross?
The Constitution is a legal document. The structure of the government is a legal structure. Anything that is done to or by the government is done through the legal system. The law and government are the same thing. You can’t talk about the government without talking about the law.
No, words mean what people use them to mean. Language isn’t magic and it isn’t static. And those words didn’t have single definitions in 1789 any more than they do in 2012.
You have only made assertions, assertions that have no merit. You haven’t explained anything.
You would probably be good friends with this guy.
You’d probably be friends with this guy…"Clinton said, “It depends upon what the meaning of the word ‘is’ is”
It is incredible that the conversation has degenerated to this.
Like I said, if you want to pretend that republic and democracy mean the same thing, help yourself. You want to pretend apples and oranges mean the same fruit, again, help yourself. I’m still done splainin it.
Yes, it is incredible. It’s also your fault that it has. I see that you have failed to offer any cites at all for your peculiar position, but here goes:
Dictionary.com defines “republic”:
“Democracy”:
You might note that the first definitions for each refer to the same thing: A government whose authority derives from the people exercising such power through elected representatives.
This manner of engagement does not flatter you.
From the U.S. Constitution, Article 4, Section 4
The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government
I didn’t offer anything at all. I see what you mean.
So, number 5 is not what we’re talking about and 4 isn’t either.
3 says anything that isn’t a monarchy or hereditary. So, Soviet Russia qualified as a Republic. Useless and wrong. Throw it out.
2 A Commonwealth is a group of Republics
1 actually defines it.
A small body of citizens who vote. As opposed to a Democracy, where everyone votes on everything, which you will define for us shortly.
1 is false when it says" or by their elected agents" as we have already used that definition as Republic. So, I understand your confusion. This definition also argues with itself in numbers 3,4, and 5…To vote on matters oneself or to vote on other people who will then vote for you are not the same political system.
2 is redundant of 1.
3 is correct, but doesn’t address voting. 4 is correct. Politically, everyone is equal, 1 man, 1 vote. Socially, there are no classes.
5 is the heart of the matter. It is a system where there are only common people, politically, and no privileged class.
As in a Republic, where there is a small body who votes for everyone.
democracy
Definition: government in which people participate
Synonyms: commonwealth, egalitarianism, emancipation, equalitarianism, equality, freedom, justice, liberal government, representative government, republic, suffrage
Notes: a democracy is confined to a small spot while a republic is extended over a large region
To say our country is a Democracy is WRONG. Locally, we democratically elect Representatives and they are SUPPOSED to serve in a Republican fashion in the Federal government. Senators are SUPPOSED to be elected by, and represent the State government, removing them yet another step from the democratic process.
So, I am not cherry picking as you state, but there are reasons why what you post are just wrong or inapplicable. It flies in the face of all reason and logic.
This should have given you a clue there was something wrong. They are not synonyms and the fact that people misuse them as synonyms doesn’t change anything. If that is the case, then let’s start using whatever words we choose at the moment and they too can lose their individuality…AHA, I have discovered it. The hatred for INDIVIDUALISM applied to words. Wow.
You are as welcome to pretend the one thing as the other.
It is easy to see how people are so far afield in their thoughts and ideas when the basics of language and history escape them.
What is sad is the probability that you are correct to use the phrase “my peculiar position” to imply that I am in the minority.
Just because there are a whole lot of folks on the wrong side of the fence doesn’t give weight to your argument.
I have now given my last word on this as we are way outside of this thread. If you still don’t get it, see if you can find an old civics instructor to help. It was a class we had to take back in the old days that taught about our government. I understand they don’t teach it anymore. I believe it.
In other words, you might be winning this argument if you were having it in 1912?
I’m sure you’ll forgive me (and everyone else) when we dismiss you as a less than unimpeachable source on reason and logic. “The dictionary is wrong! I am right! Why can’t you see that?”
Yes, you didn’t.
- This is a reference to state governments.
- It does not define “republic.”
- It does not say “not a democracy.”
No, it’s not useless and wrong. It is in fact a relevant definition. There are good reasons to believe that the clause you quoted might mean nothing more than “not a hereditary monarchy.” And if not that, it can mean nothing more than a “representative democracy.”
This is flat wrong.
No, you’re wrong. There is no logical, linguistic, rational, legal, or constitutional reason why a definition “already used” for “republic” doesn’t apply to “democracy.”
Again, you’re showing that you really don’t understand how language, law, or government works.
To respond to this nonsense would simply be repeating myself.