Time: Sat Nov 16 13:50:34 1996 To: roc@xmission.com From: Paul Andrew Mitchell [address in tool bar] Subject: Nothing new under the sun... Cc: Bcc: Competent and qualified juries are the Law in America, provided that their selection is not skewed or biased by class discrimination. /s/ Paul Mitchell At 09:57 AM 11/16/96 -0800, you wrote: >On Fri, 15 Nov 1996, John Curtis wrote: > >> P.S. I believe that the integrity of the rule of law is the >> most single important pivot in all our debates. > >Isn't belief an article of faith? Or can it be rationally supported? >Doesn't every legal system start out, more or less, by declaring, "I am >The Law. Thou shalt have no other Laws before Me"? > >It occurs to me that "belief in the integrity of the rule of law" is >justified only so long as the administrators of that law adhere to it >themselves. Furthermore, it seems ridiculously easy to set it up so it >snaps back on the "faithful" simply by making so many things unlawful >that it is impossible NOT to be a "criminal" of one degree or another. >What do the faithful do about "unjust laws"? > >What do you think of this idea? To the degree that an individual who >has been made a de jure "outlaw" continues to adhere to "rule of law", >they make themselves vulnerable to oppression, sacrificial lambs to >their belief. > >Where does "due regard for the law" becomes unreasoning belief in a >concept, "just law", that is no longer in practice (if it ever was)? >How do one draw the line? > >----- >Harry Barnett <harryb@eskimo.com> >----------------------------------------------------------------------- > >
Return to Table of Contents for
Supreme Law School: E-mail