Remember Our Forefathers

As I drove into work yesterday morning, something happened to me that happens every single day on the NJ Turnpike: I was cut off by a MTA Bus. The moron driving the bus did not think twice about the lives he/she put in danger, and only because of the soot covered decal plastered to the rear of the bus: Yield to Bus, it’s the Law. That morning, after having driven this roadway for years and encountering this situation countless times every single work week, it finally aggravated me to no end. Why, in the name of all that is right, should I have to yield to a bus? Does not my job have the same importance as the jobs of the people on the bus? Is my commute not equally as relevant? Does my ability to provide for my family pale in importance simply because I elect to exercise my right to drive my own vehicle and sit in comfort rather than like a packed sardine? Ohhh, because they are carpooling they should receive special dispensation. Got ya. So, not only should public transportation users receive below market fares to entice them to use the system, fares which are below market because they are subsidized by my tax dollars, but they should also receive special preference in road usage at the potential expense of my life and the countless other motorists in their cars, trucks, and motorcycles sharing the same highway.

This Yield to Bus law is simply one amongst a million “laws” which serve no practical purpose, are completely unjust, and serve to benefit the interests of one certain group of people at the expense of others. Zoning laws, drug laws, education laws, professional licensing laws, motor vehicle laws, gun laws, commerce laws, speech laws, so on and so forth, all bog down our society and strip us of our Liberty day in and day out. But what of our obligation to follow such laws? To this I say that there is a long history, not only in this country but also throughout the Western world, of both educated thinking and law precedent (for all you stare decisis fans) which states that no such obligation exists.

The American and British traditions are ones which value highly the idea of Trial by Jury. One key privilege of the jury, one which is never used today due to a complete failure of knowledge by our society due to our dumbed down public education system, is the right of Jury Nullification. That is the right of a jury not only to decide the guilt or innocence of the accused in the matter of the law, but also to judge the law and whether or not it is just. It is enshrined in our legal system that the jury can declare the accused innocent not only by virtue of a lack of evidence to support the case brought against the person, but also because the jury believes that the law is invalid, unjust, and contrary to the Liberty which is supposed to be enjoyed by all Americans. It stands to reason then that any ordinary person has the same power to disobey or simply to avoid observance of unjust laws. Novel concept, or longstanding tradition? You be the judge…

“Any single man must judge for himself whether circumstances warrant obedience or resistance to the commands of the civil magistrate; we are all qualified, entitled, and morally obliged to evaluate the conduct of our rulers. This political judgment, moreover, is not simply or primarily a right, but like self-preservation, a duty to God. As such it is a judgment that men cannot part with according to the God of Nature. It is the first and foremost of our inalienable rights without which we can preserve no other.” John Locke, Second Treatise of Government, 1689

“To say that subjects in general are not proper judges when their governors oppress them, and play the tyrant; and when they defend their rights, administer justice impartially, and promote the public welfare, is as great treason as ever man uttered;–’tis treason,–not against one single man, but the state–against the whole body politic;–’tis treason against mankind;–’tis treason against common sense;–’tis treason against God. And this impious principle lays the foundation for justifying all the tyranny and oppression that ever any prince was guilty of.” Jonathan Mayhew, The Discourse, 1750

“If a juror accepts as the law that which the judge states then that juror has accepted the exercise of absolute authority of a government employee and has surrendered a power and right that once was the citizen’s safeguard of liberty, — For the saddest epitaph which can be carved in memory of a vanished liberty is that it was lost because its possessors failed to stretch forth a saving hand while yet there was time.” Theodophilus Parsons, Massachusetts Supreme Court Justice, 1788

“The jury has the right to judge both the law as well as the fact in controversy.” John Jay, 1st Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, 1790

“The jury has the right to determine both the law and the facts.” Samuel Chase, US Supreme Court Justice, 1796

“No duty, however, binds us to these so-called laws, whose corrupting influence menaces what is noblest in our being…” Benjamin Constant, Principles of Politics Applicable to All Governments, 1810

“Of liberty I would say that, in the whole plenitude of its extent, it is unobstructed action according to our will. But rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add ‘within the limits of the law,’ because law is often but the tyrant’s will, and always so when it violates the right of an individual.” Thomas Jefferson, Letter to Isaac H. Tiffany, 1819

“In dealing with the State, we ought to remember that its institutions are not aboriginal, though they existed before we were born: that they are not superior to the citizen: that every one of them was once the act of a single man: every law and usage was a man’s expedient to meet a particular case: that they all are imitable, all alterable; we may make as good; we may make better.” Ralph Waldo Emerson, Politics, 1844

“For more than six hundred years — that is, since the Magna Carta in 1215 — there has been no clearer principle of English or American constitutional law than that, in criminal cases, it is not only the right and duty of juries to judge what are the facts, what is the law, and what was the moral intent of the accused; but that it is also their right, and their primary and paramount duty, to judge the justice of the law, and to hold all laws invalid, that are, in their opinion, unjust, oppressive, and all persons guiltless in violating or resisting the execution of such laws.” Lysander Spooner, An Essay on the Trial By Jury, 1852

“The jury has the power to bring a verdict in the teeth of both law and fact.” Oliver Wendell Holmes, US Supreme Court Justice, 1902

“The law itself is on trial quite as much as the cause which is to be decided.” Harlan F Stone, Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, 1941

American tradition and the British common law upon which it was founded is rife with evidence which proves this dating all the way back to the 16th century, and maybe even earlier. It has only been the twisted workings of the State, in seeking its own aggrandizement, which has deprived Americans of knowledge of this right. In today’s courtroom, it is common practice for a judge to command the jury to follow his/her instructions as to what the “law” is. On the other hand, the Supreme Court in 1895 (Sparf v United States, 156 U.S. 51) found that a judge has no obligation or responsibility to make a jury aware of its power of nullification. I wonder why that double standard exists? Could it be that if the average American knew of his/her power of nullification that he/she might also become aware of his/her power to void any law which he/she deemed injurious to Liberty? Such a widespread stance in the name of Liberty would be the bane of, and a crushing blow to the authoritarians of the Nanny State.

Now, I know how the opposition to this idea would immediately respond to such a proposition: if the average citizen could avoid observance of any law, then a lawless society would exist. Typical statist argument, and absolutely a farce. People would still be punishable for their crimes. The “law” would still exist, and it would be up to a jury of peers to determine the innocence or guilt of the accused. The only difference would be that a fully informed and knowledgeable jury could indeed validate the nullification of the unjust law rather than simply accept the “law” as an inevitable fact of modern life.

Society and indeed the Government itself is nothing more than a voluntary social compact entered into freely by every citizen. Government exists only insofar as it is consented to by the governed themselves. If “whenever [Government] becomes destructive of [the unalienable rights to Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness], it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it…” then it logically stands to reason that the people are trusted with the capacity to “judge when their governors oppress them.” No human being can be bound by involuntary servitude, and that principle is even more true for future human beings not even born, so it therefore must be so that the people have a right to keep their legislators in check by nullifying unjust laws.