Is the Constitution too Confusing?

[1PeaceMaker]

http://truthvoice.com/2015/03/ohio-judge-there-will-be-no-mentioning-of-the-constitution-here/

Today in a pre-trial hearing, an Ohio judge casually agreed with a motion filed by a prosecutor asking to ban a defendant from bringing up the United States Constitution or the constitutionality of the law under which he is charged with a crime.

The prosecutor's reason was that the constitution would confuse the jury! :dizzy:

Tell me it aint so....

:help:

 

[1PeaceMaker]

*crickets*

 

[1PeaceMaker]

Who needs Utilitarians when you have Idiocrats running things?

 

[Granite]

Well some of it is ambiguous and very much open to interpretation. "Confusing" might be going too far.

 

[1PeaceMaker]

Well some of it is ambiguous and very much open to interpretation. "Confusing" might be going too far.

Are juries too stupid to consider the place of the First Amendment in a case like this?

 

[Granite]

Are juries too stupid to consider the place of the first amendment in a case like this?

Well you know the joke about jurors: People too stupid to not get out of jury duty.:noid:

To answer your question: Probably not, I'd venture to say.

 

[aCultureWarrior]

The Constitution is only confusing to secular humanists who go out of their way to make it confusing (begging isn't freedom of speech).

If put in context with the other founding documents and the founders original intent, it's crystal clear.

 

[1PeaceMaker]

Well you know the joke about jurors: People too stupid to not get out of jury duty.:noid:

To answer your question: Probably not, I'd venture to say.

What good is a jury who can't judge in matters regarding the constitution?

 

[Granite]

What good is a jury who can't judge in matters regarding the constitution?

By definition I don't think such a jury would be much good to anybody or anything.

P.S. Also, I can almost see the prosecutor's point: Violation of a panhandling ordinance is not a free speech issue, so, it is arguable that Vaduva was in fact trying to muddy the waters or confuse the jury as to what was actually the issue here. From what I can tell on the web this guy's favorite hobby is getting arrested and deliberately causing trouble.

P.P.S. The link for the audio isn't working for me. A transcript of this discussion would be interesting. Where's TH when you actually need him???

 

[CabinetMaker]

What good is a jury who can't judge in matters regarding the constitution?

Not everything is a constitutional issue. Juries are generally seated to decide matters of law, not the constitutionality of specific laws. That is what is argued in appeals courts and higher courts.

 

[1PeaceMaker]

By definition I don't think such a jury would be much good to anybody or anything.

:up:

P.S. Also, I can almost see the prosecutor's point: Violation of a panhandling ordinance is not a free speech issue, so, it is arguable that Vaduva was in fact trying to muddy the waters or confuse the jury as to what was actually the issue here.

I guess then you would probably agree with me that the prosecutor was wrong because the jury has the right to judge the ordinance of the city in question in contrast to the First Amendment.

Vaduva knows that the ordinance is bad law. The jury has the right to judge that.

P.P.S. The link for the audio isn't working for me. A transcript of this discussion would be interesting. Where's TH when you actually need him???

 

[1PeaceMaker]

Not everything is a constitutional issue. Juries are generally seated to decide matters of law, not the constitutionality of specific laws. That is what is argued in appeals courts and higher courts.

Actually any jury can judge a law. If the law is wrong, that can be their decision.

 

[Granite]

I guess then you would probably agree with me that the prosecutor was wrong because the jury has the right to judge the ordinance of the city in question in contrast to the First Amendment.

I don't see panhandling ordinances as inherently "free speech" issues. Public safety's more what I think of.

 

[CabinetMaker]

Actually any jury can judge a law. If the law is wrong, that can be their decision.

That is why I qualified the statement.

 

[1PeaceMaker]

That is why I qualified the statement.

K, cool.


:carryon:

 

[CabinetMaker]

I don't see panhandling ordinances as inherently "free speech" issues. Public safety's more what I think of.

I agree with you. Asking people for money seems outside what the framers of the constitution had in mind when they protected free speech.

 

[1PeaceMaker]

I agree with you. Asking people for money seems outside what the framers of the constitution had in mind when they protected free speech.

Then why do corporations cite the 1st Amendment for advertising purposes?

 

[1PeaceMaker]

The question is often asked: Does the First Amendment protect advertisements? Advertising is indeed protected by the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.

...

Under the landmark U.S. Supreme Court decision, Central Hudson Gas & Electric Corp. v. Public Service Commission of New York, No. 79-565, Supreme Court of the United States, 447 U.S. 557; 100 S. Ct. 2343; 1980 U.S. LEXIS 48; 65 L. Ed. 2d 341; 6 Media L. Rep. 1497; 34 P.U.R.4th 178, June 20, 1980, a state must justify restrictions on truthful, nonmisleading commercial speech by demonstrating that its actions "directly advance" a substantial state interest and are no more extensive than necessary to serve that interest. This is the so-called Central Hudson Test.

http://www.lawpublish.com/amend1.html

 

[Granite]

How does panhandling constitute "advertisement"?

 

[1PeaceMaker]

How does panhandling constitute "advertisement"?

In my personal opinion... because....


It is "the action of calling something to the attention of the public especially by paid announcements"