“Believe me, dear Sir: there is not in the British empire a man who more cordially loves a union with Great Britain than I do. But, by the God that made me, I will cease to exist before I yield to a connection on such terms as the British Parliament propose; and in this, I think I speak the sentiments of America.” – Thomas Jefferson
Judge Andrew Napolitano clearly and indisputably explains how we have lost our liberties, one tiny piece at a time.
Colion Noir is an American citizen, and yet the anti-Second Amendment activists cannot understand why he wants to exercise his rights under the Second Amendment. Why should he be be forced to be against defending his Constitutional right to bear arms?
Why is it that the police have become like small armies of occupation, with armor, and assault weapons, and armored vehicles and even drones? Tom Woods explains.
The Youngest Libertarian:
A bit of trivia for you, and possibly a Libertarian message?
Take my love,
Take my land,
Take me where I cannot stand,
I don’t care,
I’m still free.
You can’t take the sky from me.
Take me out,
to the black.
Tell them I ain’t comin’ back.
Burn the land,
and boil the sea,
you can’t take the sky from me.
Great poetry aside, the point is that we have natural rights, not given to us by government, or other people, but are derived from our humanity itself. That means that no one has the right to take them from us. That is why Thomas Jefferson’s magnificent poetry of “Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness” mean so much.
Something to think on.
Nullification – Your right, as a member of a jury, to decide not only the facts of a case, but the LAW:
“The jury has the right to judge both the law as well as the fact in controversy.” — Judge John Jay, first chief justice of the Supreme Court
“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 direction of the court.” — John Adams, Founding Father and 2nd President of the United States
1969, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Maryland:
“We recognize, as appellants urge, the undisputed power of the jury to acquit, even if its verdict is contrary to the law as given by the judge, and contrary to the evidence. This is a power that must exist as long as we adhere to the general verdict in criminal cases, for the courts cannot search the minds of the jurors to find the basis upon which they judge. 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 of passion, the jury has the power to acquit, and the courts must abide by that decision.” [US vs Moylan, 417 F 2d 1002, 1006 (1969)]
1972, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia:
“the jury has an “unreviewable and irreversible power… to acquit in disregard of the instructions on the law given by the trial judge…” [US vs Dougherty, 473 F 2d 1113, 1139 (1972)]
You must be logged in to post a comment.