Decriminalize Guns. All guns

Home ▸ Archive ▸ Politics ▸ Decriminalize Guns. All guns
ZWICK 4 PREZ's avatar

ZWICK 4 PREZ

Senior Member

7,733 posts
Jan 18, 2013 7:29 PM
LJ;1369471 wrote:Yes they were, 5th and 6th amendments lol
State in the language where it specifies this.

Hint: It doesn't. It was adopted later.
Jan 18, 2013 7:29pm
LJ's avatar

LJ

Senior Member

16,351 posts
Jan 18, 2013 7:59 PM
ZWICK 4 PREZ;1369486 wrote:State in the language where it specifies this.

Hint: It doesn't. It was adopted later.
Hint, it does
5th- "nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself" aka right to remain silent
6th- " the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed"- aka jury of peers

I think you are thinking of the reading of the Miranda rights, which is a notification of the 5th and 6th amendments.
Jan 18, 2013 7:59pm
ZWICK 4 PREZ's avatar

ZWICK 4 PREZ

Senior Member

7,733 posts
Jan 18, 2013 8:06 PM
LJ;1369507 wrote:Hint, it does
5th- "nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself" aka right to remain silent
6th- " the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed"- aka jury of peers

I think you are thinking of the reading of the Miranda rights, which is a notification of the 5th and 6th amendments.
http://www.usconstitution.net/constnot.html
Jan 18, 2013 8:06pm
pmoney25's avatar

pmoney25

Senior Member

1,787 posts
Jan 18, 2013 8:07 PM
6th Amendment- In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defense

How does that not be a trial by peers? It entitles a person to a fair cross section of people in their community. How is that no a trial by peers(equals)

5th Amendment-No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation

So the part that says, "Nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself", How does that not mean the right to remain silent. Im assuming you are probably wanting the exact phrase or think because the Miranda rights came later that you are right. The Right to not speak or incriminate yourself was in the constitution for both trial and pretrial situations like interrogation.
Jan 18, 2013 8:07pm
LJ's avatar

LJ

Senior Member

16,351 posts
Jan 18, 2013 8:14 PM
Hurr durrr
Today, the American ideal dictates that we are all peers of one another, that regardless of gender, race, religion, social status, or any other division (except age), we are all equal. In this ideal, since we are all peers, a guarantee of a jury of ones peers would be redundant.
There is no such actual law of jury of peers" the "by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed" closest thing you get to that. There is no actual law.

And right to remain silent isn't in your link.
Jan 18, 2013 8:14pm
ZWICK 4 PREZ's avatar

ZWICK 4 PREZ

Senior Member

7,733 posts
Jan 18, 2013 8:17 PM
LJ;1369518 wrote:Hurr durrr

There is no such actual law of jury of peers" the "by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed" closest thing you get to that. There is no actual law.

And right to remain silent isn't in your link.
The fact the jury selection has changed over the years proves the constitution didn't explicitly state this right hurr durr.
Jan 18, 2013 8:17pm
LJ's avatar

LJ

Senior Member

16,351 posts
Jan 18, 2013 8:19 PM
ZWICK 4 PREZ;1369524 wrote:The fact the jury selection has changed over the years proves the constitution didn't explicitly state this right hurr durr.
It's not a right!!! It's not stated ANYWHERE!!!! It's an adage.
Jan 18, 2013 8:19pm
ZWICK 4 PREZ's avatar

ZWICK 4 PREZ

Senior Member

7,733 posts
Jan 18, 2013 8:21 PM
LJ;1369525 wrote:It's not a right!!! It's not stated ANYWHERE!!!! It's an adage.
So now you're saying its not a right whereas you said it was covered under the 5th and 6th amendment then you found out you were wrong. Gotcha.
Jan 18, 2013 8:21pm
LJ's avatar

LJ

Senior Member

16,351 posts
Jan 18, 2013 8:26 PM
ZWICK 4 PREZ;1369526 wrote:So now you're saying its not a right whereas you said it was covered under the 5th and 6th amendment then you found out you were wrong. Gotcha.
Um no, I said that is what "jury of peers" refers to. We didnt have lords and royalty in the U.S., so it didn't to be explicitly included. The adage in today's society refers to this "by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed" in the constitution.

Stop trying to spin that you were completely wrong. Jesus christ. Just admit it for once. The 6th guarantees you a trial. The 5th guarantees you the right to remain silent. PERIOD.
Jan 18, 2013 8:26pm
ZWICK 4 PREZ's avatar

ZWICK 4 PREZ

Senior Member

7,733 posts
Jan 18, 2013 8:33 PM
LJ;1369529 wrote:Um no, I said that is what "jury of peers" refers to. We didnt have lords and royalty in the U.S., so it didn't to be explicitly included. The adage in today's society refers to this "by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed" in the constitution.

Stop trying to spin that you were completely wrong. Jesus christ. Just admit it for once. The 6th guarantees you a trial. The 5th guarantees you the right to remain silent. PERIOD.
Jury selection has evolved over the years and hence the verbiage has changed. That's my point. The constitution was written that way to evolve with time.
Jan 18, 2013 8:33pm
LJ's avatar

LJ

Senior Member

16,351 posts
Jan 18, 2013 8:37 PM
ZWICK 4 PREZ;1369532 wrote:Jury selection has evolved over the years and hence the verbiage has changed. That's my point. The constitution was written that way to evolve with time.
What verbiage has changed?
Jan 18, 2013 8:37pm
pmoney25's avatar

pmoney25

Senior Member

1,787 posts
Jan 18, 2013 8:39 PM
ZWICK 4 PREZ;1369532 wrote:Jury selection has evolved over the years and hence the verbiage has changed. That's my point. The constitution was written that way to evolve with time.
No,it was there in the beginning. The term jury of peers came from the part of the constitution that he put in bold. The right to have an impartial jury of people in the state and district that the crime happened.

And the right to remain silent is pretty evident also.

At least you did get the innocent until proven guilty right though!!!
Jan 18, 2013 8:39pm
ZWICK 4 PREZ's avatar

ZWICK 4 PREZ

Senior Member

7,733 posts
Jan 18, 2013 8:40 PM
LJ;1369533 wrote:What verbiage has changed?
you can't be this dense. We've literally been arguing over it for the last several posts.
Jan 18, 2013 8:40pm
LJ's avatar

LJ

Senior Member

16,351 posts
Jan 18, 2013 8:42 PM
ZWICK 4 PREZ;1369536 wrote:you can't be this dense. We've literally been arguing over it for the last several posts.
No we haven't. The wording of the 6th amendment has not changed over the years. It has never included "jury of peers". It's not written anywhere in U.S. federal law
Jan 18, 2013 8:42pm
ZWICK 4 PREZ's avatar

ZWICK 4 PREZ

Senior Member

7,733 posts
Jan 18, 2013 8:44 PM
LJ;1369537 wrote:No we haven't. The wording of the 6th amendment has not changed over the years. It has never included "jury of peers". It's not written anywhere in U.S. federal law
The wording in the amendment had not. The wording we use currently has evolved to reflect how the system has evolved over time.
Jan 18, 2013 8:44pm
pmoney25's avatar

pmoney25

Senior Member

1,787 posts
Jan 18, 2013 8:45 PM
Jury of Peers= Impartial Jury of people within the state and district which the crime occurred. Just because people use a different phrase now doesn't mean the right never existed. The right to have a trial of other impartial people instead of a King/President/Judge making the decision. Im not sure what you are even trying to argue at this point.
Jan 18, 2013 8:45pm
LJ's avatar

LJ

Senior Member

16,351 posts
Jan 18, 2013 8:48 PM
ZWICK 4 PREZ;1369538 wrote:The wording in the amendment had not. The wording we use currently has evolved to reflect how the system has evolved over time.
No it hasn't. "Jury of peers" is from the Magna Carta from 1215, meaning that if you are Lord you are judged by Lords, and a peasant was judged by peasants. That wasn't a problem we had to deal with then, but the adage has been around for 900 years
Jan 18, 2013 8:48pm
ZWICK 4 PREZ's avatar

ZWICK 4 PREZ

Senior Member

7,733 posts
Jan 18, 2013 8:57 PM
LJ;1369542 wrote:No it hasn't. "Jury of peers" is from the Magna Carta from 1215, meaning that if you are Lord you are judged by Lords, and a peasant was judged by peasants. That wasn't a problem we had to deal with then, but the adage has been around for 900 years
It's also implicit with you will no longer have a jury of all white men like we used to do when we didn't allow women and blacks. You know. Stuff that has evolved over time.
Jan 18, 2013 8:57pm
LJ's avatar

LJ

Senior Member

16,351 posts
Jan 18, 2013 9:04 PM
ZWICK 4 PREZ;1369547 wrote:It's also implicit with you will no longer have a jury of all white men like we used to do when we didn't allow women and blacks. You know. Stuff that has evolved over time.
That's not what "jury of peers" means.
nisi per legale judicium parium suorum


It means that commoners will be judged by other commoners. Period. The laws have been changed in the goverment to recognize those people as commoners, but that doesn't mean that people before that were not judged by other commoners.
Jan 18, 2013 9:04pm
ZWICK 4 PREZ's avatar

ZWICK 4 PREZ

Senior Member

7,733 posts
Jan 18, 2013 9:07 PM
LJ;1369552 wrote:That's not what "jury of peers" means.
nisi per legale judicium parium suorum


It means that commoners will be judged by other commoners. Period. The laws have been changed in the goverment to recognize those people as commoners, but that doesn't mean that people before that were not judged by other commoners.
Ok
Jan 18, 2013 9:07pm
Cleveland Buck's avatar

Cleveland Buck

Troll Hunter

5,126 posts
Jan 19, 2013 2:55 PM
ccrunner609;1369481 wrote:quit being stupid........
Are kids the only ones in schools? Or are there adults there too? And we don't need any more national training or assistance.
Jan 19, 2013 2:55pm