Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Since you know so much, and I'm a fake lawyer, when is one entitled to a civil trial jury in the federal system? It's in the bill of rights. Please tell me the entire law on this issue since you know so much, and I know so little.
Fine, you won't get it. It says that the right to jury trial in civil cases is preserved in cases at common law involving more than $20.
The key words in there are "preserved" and "common law". A layman would just think, oh! that means you get a jury whenever the amount in question is more than $20. WRONG..
What it means is, and you have to take legal history into account, is that suits or issues involved cases legal in nature, get a jury trial. In the olden days, there used to be two court systems, law and equity. You had to go to a different court for each type of action. An example of an action in equity is a TRO and an injunction.. Defamation would be something in law. So in the old days, you had to go to an equity court to get a TRO and an injunction to stop the newspaper from printing ab out you, then you had to go a court of law, to sue for defamation. Later, the systems were merged, where you could hear BOTH causes of action in the same court, HOWEVER, the term "preserved" is used in the constitution, meaning that ONLY the legal matter can have a jury, not the equity one. So in the defamation case with the TRO, you cannot have a jury hear the issues about the TRO/injunction, but they can hear the defamation suit..
Fine, you won't get it. It says that the right to jury trial in civil cases is preserved in cases at common law involving more than $20.
The key words in there are "preserved" and "common law". A layman would just think, oh! that means you get a jury whenever the amount in question is more than $20. WRONG..
What it means is, and you have to take legal history into account, is that suits or issues involved cases legal in nature, get a jury trial. In the olden days, there used to be two court systems, law and equity. You had to go to a different court for each type of action. An example of an action in equity is a TRO and an injunction.. Defamation would be something in law. So in the old days, you had to go to an equity court to get a TRO and an injunction to stop the newspaper from printing ab out you, then you had to go a court of law, to sue for defamation. Later, the systems were merged, where you could hear BOTH causes of action in the same court, HOWEVER, the term "preserved" is used in the constitution, meaning that ONLY the legal matter can have a jury, not the equity one. So in the defamation case with the TRO, you cannot have a jury hear the issues about the TRO/injunction, but they can hear the defamation suit..
And now that you're hopefully done waving your penis around in the pretense that it is a brain, explain this:
Why (oh great lawyer and Constitutional scholar) were you completely unaware of Butler v Perry (240 US 328 [1916]),and Arver v US (245 US 366 [1918]) and their conclusions regarding the 13th Amendment and the draft?
And now that you're hopefully done waving your penis around in the pretense that it is a brain, explain this:
Why (oh great lawyer and Constitutional scholar) were you completely unaware of Butler v Perry (240 US 328 [1916]),and Arver v US [245 US 366 {1918}] and their conclusions regarding the 13th Amendment and the draft?
I"m not denying that's what the court said, but the court is wrong. Do you remember the Dred Scott decision? That was "right" for many years.. Do you remember Plessy v. Ferguson? Separate but equal? How long was that the law for until it was overturned in education in Brown v. Bd. of Education??
The court ruled this way on the draft because ti's in the best interest of the government. On it's face, it's a CLEAR violation of the 13th amendment. THere is no clearer violation...
The court ruled this way on the draft because ti's in the best interest of the government. On it's face, it's a CLEAR violation of the 13th amendment. THere is no clearer violation...
What was in the "government's" best interest in BUTLER v. PERRY, 240 U.S. 328 (1916) and why was the application by Justice McReynolds of Slaughterhouse incorrect?
What was in the "government's" best interest in BUTLER v. PERRY, 240 U.S. 328 (1916) and why was the application by Justice McReynolds of Slaughterhouse incorrect?
PLAIN MEANING.
If those two examples do not constitute involuntary servitude, WHAT DOES?
I"m not denying that's what the court said, but the court is wrong.
I'm sorry. But baldly asserting that the the Supreme Court is wrong, especially when you actually have a vast corpus of consistently decided law contradicting you, cannot raise anybody's confidence in your skill as a lawyer.
I think it is safe to assume that each individual Supreme Court Justice knows much more about the law than you do, and that all of them combined pretty much eclipse your very existence.
Quote:
Originally Posted by betamanlet
Do you remember the Dred Scott decision? That was "right" for many years.. Do you remember Plessy v. Ferguson? Separate but equal? How long was that the law for until it was overturned in education in Brown v. Bd. of Education??
I am not particularly interested in your review of past history. Anybody can do that. It is your seeming assertion of precognition that amuses me.
Quote:
Originally Posted by betamanlet
The court ruled this way on the draft because ti's in the best interest of the government. On it's face, it's a CLEAR violation of the 13th amendment. There is no clearer violation...
The court ruled this way because your belief that the draft is involuntary servitude is historically absurd. In fact... I think the court came very close to using those exact words.
I'm sorry. But baldly asserting that the the Supreme Court is wrong, especially when you actually have a vast corpus of consistently decided law contradicting you, cannot raise anybody's confidence in your skill as a lawyer.
I think it is safe to assume that each individual Supreme Court Justice knows much more about the law than you do, and that all of them combined pretty much eclipse your very existence.
I am not particularly interested in your review of past history. Anybody can do that. It is your seeming assertion of precognition that amuses me.
The court ruled this way because your belief that the draft is involuntary servitude is historically absurd. In fact... I think the court came very close to using those exact words.
So it's not possible for the Supreme Court to make mistakes or overrule itself like it has in the past?
So Plessy v. Ferguson can be overruled, but nothing else?
Why do you keep asking a question already answered?
Nobody has provided any valid answer. You posed a hypo about assault with a deadly weapon, various torts including assault and battery, possibly false imprisonment, and the least important of everything in your hypothetical would be the being forced to paint a house thing..
So involutary servitude does NOT include "duties owed to the government". Gee, how convienient!
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
