Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

General Discussion

grasswire

(50,130 posts)

14. no no, there is a significant difference.

Reply to COLGATE4 (Reply #11)

Mon Aug 12, 2013, 01:29 AM

Aug 2013

Something may be allowed by our Constitution simply by not being prohibited by it. This thing may never be mentioned in the Constitution, but that means it is implicitly allowed.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

21 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Does the President believe in jury nullification? [View all] Loudly Aug 2013 OP

It would ring more true, if it were not for our recent history of misdeeds with respect to those our hlthe2b Aug 2013 #1

They do want Snowden back so bad, they'll say anything to get him to return. RC Aug 2013 #2

Good point. Of course it's disingenuous. LuvNewcastle Aug 2013 #3

Good point! oldhippie Aug 2013 #4

That's even more disingenuous. Snowden's consciousness of guilt is obvious. Loudly Aug 2013 #6

Right! He should face the inquisition tribunal. Fleeing is a confession of heresy! Demo_Chris Aug 2013 #17

It is the right of the citizen to judge the law as well as the facts of a case. grasswire Aug 2013 #5

Where is jury nullification 'allowed' in COLGATE4 Aug 2013 #7

anything that is not prohibited by law is allowed the citizen grasswire Aug 2013 #8

Cite to the SC case? COLGATE4 Aug 2013 #10

I'd like to see that case cite also .... oldhippie Aug 2013 #12

SC specifically grasswire Aug 2013 #16

Jury nullification generally grasswire Aug 2013 #18

So yes, there is historical precedent, but ...... oldhippie Aug 2013 #19

by the way, I didn't say allowed "in" the Constitution. nt grasswire Aug 2013 #9

No, you said 'Constitutionally allowed" COLGATE4 Aug 2013 #11

no no, there is a significant difference. grasswire Aug 2013 #14

Really? I think you need to sharpen that explanation a little ... oldhippie Aug 2013 #20

only in your mind. nt COLGATE4 Aug 2013 #21

I guess his law-school training didn't stick. 1-Old-Man Aug 2013 #13

+1 nt grasswire Aug 2013 #15