Decriminalize Guns. All guns

• ZWICK 4 PREZ

  

  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.
• LJ

  

  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.
• ZWICK 4 PREZ

  

  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
• pmoney25

  

  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.
• LJ

  

  ZWICK 4 PREZ;1369515 wrote:http://www.usconstitution.net/constnot.html

  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.
• ZWICK 4 PREZ

  

  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.
• LJ

  

  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.
• ZWICK 4 PREZ

  

  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.
• LJ

  

  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.
• ZWICK 4 PREZ

  

  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.
• LJ

  

  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?
• pmoney25

  

  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!!!
• ZWICK 4 PREZ

  

  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.
• LJ

  

  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
• ZWICK 4 PREZ

  

  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.
• pmoney25

  

  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.
• LJ

  

  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
• ZWICK 4 PREZ

  

  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.
• LJ

  

  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.
• ZWICK 4 PREZ

  

  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
• Cleveland Buck

  

  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.