From: Dale Thorn <dthorn@gte.net>
Date: Sat, 14 Sep 1996 03:01:11 +0800
To: Brian Davis <bdavis@thepoint.net>
Subject: Re: TWA 800 - Serious thread.
In-Reply-To: <Pine.BSF.3.91.960911171725.17601K-100000@mercury.thepoint.net>
Message-ID: <3238F0F0.274B@gte.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


Brian Davis wrote:
> On Wed, 11 Sep 1996, jonathon wrote:
> On Wed, 11 Sep 1996, Gary Howland wrote:
> But the public *is* asked to assent to those methods - your chance to 
> vote on them is known colloquially as "jury duty".

> But judges have said that Jury Nullification is not acceptable
> legal practice.

> And other judges have said the opposite.
> EBD

This seems similar to the Declaration-of-Independence argument about the 
"right of the people to overthrow the govt.", etc.

You can't expect the Constitution (a doctrine of law) to provide details 
on extra-legal activities such as violent overthrow of the govt., nor 
can you expect judges to explain in court how to ignore the Law.

And if all else fails, you can try picketing...

A well-written company charter (as an example) would contain provisions 
for exceptions to the charter, not to abrogate or undermine the charter, 
but just as a kind of escape valve. One would note the exception(s) for 
historical purposes, and for purposes of future litigation, and so on.
I can't help but wonder if the U.S. Constitution would have been better 
for something similar to this, instead of pasting on Amendments for 
every little thing.