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