Previous 11 - 20 Next
In response to:

Should We Obey All Laws?

OldEnoughToKnowBetter Wrote: May 16, 2012 9:59 AM
bits=bites.
In response to:

Should We Obey All Laws?

OldEnoughToKnowBetter Wrote: May 16, 2012 9:57 AM
A politician I know once said that the art of taxation is to keep them as high as possible but low enough that the black market doesn't take over. I think that's where we are now. Many of the people that I know who are working independently (either a second job to make ends meet, between jobs, or laid off) are asking to be paid in cash, even significant amounts of cash. The law requires banks to report cash transactions over $10K, but several separate $9,999 cash transactions are perfectly legal.
In response to:

Should We Obey All Laws?

OldEnoughToKnowBetter Wrote: May 16, 2012 9:46 AM
Typical lib--doesn't know humor when it bits him in the a$$.
In response to:

Should We Obey All Laws?

OldEnoughToKnowBetter Wrote: May 16, 2012 9:45 AM
I think it was Butch Otter (R) in Idaho. If they had blue water and beaches I'd have moved there long ago. Here in the South (Georgia) there have been similar rumblings. The pushback against Obamacare is a similar example, and if the SCOTUS rules that it is constitutional, the rumblings could turn into open rebellion. Gun sales are trough the roof here.
In response to:

Should We Obey All Laws?

OldEnoughToKnowBetter Wrote: May 16, 2012 9:32 AM
If Prohibition is an example of peaceful civil disobedience, why do we still have thousands in jail and thousands more arrested each year for drug violations? There were certainly many who agreed with the Prohibition laws (my grandmother was a founding member of the WCTU), just as there are many who agree with the drug laws today. Prohibition and ending prohibition had much more to do with backroom payoffs to politicians than with what was right or constitutional.
In response to:

Should We Obey All Laws?

OldEnoughToKnowBetter Wrote: May 16, 2012 9:22 AM
The great magic trick of the federal government isn't to make a law prohibiting cell phone use, but to deny federal funds to any state that doesn't enact such a law. LaHood knows that a federal law would be questionable, but denying funds is certainly within the fed's power. It would take a strong state legislature to stand up to that kind of pressure.
In response to:

Should We Obey All Laws?

OldEnoughToKnowBetter Wrote: May 16, 2012 9:19 AM
Agreed Paulus. That may explain why only panels of judges rule in appeals courts and SCOTUS--the great unwashed of us are too ignorant to determine whether a law is just or constitutional.
In response to:

Should We Obey All Laws?

OldEnoughToKnowBetter Wrote: May 16, 2012 9:15 AM
Agreed, so during selection, I answer only the questions asked of me, typically with "Yes", "No", or "I don't know."
In response to:

Should We Obey All Laws?

OldEnoughToKnowBetter Wrote: May 16, 2012 9:10 AM
Money talks in Washington. With campaign money you can buy votes, get elected, and write laws that return money to the campaign contributors. It's a vicious circle with the voters on the outside. Both parties practice it--the only difference is who the contributors are. Unfortunately most of the American voters are too ignorant or too consumed with "Dancing With The Stars" to care about what politicians are saying or doing. Combine those masses with the outright deceptions from the MSM, and the millions who will vote for whomever gives them the most money confiscated from someone else and the republic is doomed.
In response to:

Should We Obey All Laws?

OldEnoughToKnowBetter Wrote: May 16, 2012 8:53 AM
When on a jury, I've always maintained that it was my duty to decide not only the facts of the case, but the facts of the law. I'd rather find an defendant innocent of violating a law that I feel is unconstitutional than find someone guilty when (in my opinion) the law is the violation. I would encourage you to stand up for what you believe is right, regardless of what the politicians decided that the law should be.
In response to:

Should We Obey All Laws?

OldEnoughToKnowBetter Wrote: May 16, 2012 8:47 AM
Jury nullification is a constitutional doctrine which allows juries to" ...issue a..."verdict contrary to the letter of the law.... If a pattern of acquittals develops, however, in response to repeated attempts to prosecute a statutory offence, this can have the de facto effect of invalidating the statute. A pattern of jury nullification may indicate public opposition to an unwanted legislative enactment. ... juries are often instructed to serve only as "finders of facts", whose role it is to determine the veracity of the evidence presented, and the weight accorded to the evidence, to apply that evidence to the law and reach a verdict, but not to decide what the law is."
Previous 11 - 20 Next