From: leone@GANDALF.SSW.COM (Bob Leone)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: A question on U.S. Constitution
Date: 2 Sep 92 13:13:58 GMT

>This is suspect.  If this is true, then the State, or Feds, can
>say "You have blue eyes, and the LAW says all persons with blue
>eyes are to report to the disintegration chamber".  I do not
>believe this constitutes "due process"; It gives far too much power
>to the government.  Do you think the Founding Fathers would allow
>*any* government this much power?...  I wonder if they mention
>what they meant by "due process"; Anyone have any pointers?
 
Undoubtedly, they meant the common-law interpretation of "due process".
I.e:
   1) Indictment by a Grand Jury
   2) A trial by jury in open court, conducted under the established rules
      of common-law
   3) If found guilty, the person being sentenced in accordance with the
      law he was found guilty of violating.

The safeguard here is the "trial by jury":

-----------------------------------------
"I consider trial by jury as the only anchor yet imagined by man, by
which a government can be held to the principles of its constitution."
        - Thomas Jefferson

"If the jury feels the law is unjust, we recognize the undisputed
power of the jury to acquit, even if its verdict is contrary to the
law as given by a judge, and contrary to the evidence ... and the
courts must abide by that decision."
 - US v Moylan, 4th Circuit Court of Appeals, 1969, 417 F.2d at 1006

"It is not only [the juror's] right, but his duty, in that case, to
find the verdict according to his own best understanding, judgement,
and conscience, though in direct opposition to the direction of the court."
        - John Adams, 1771

"... if exercising their judgment with discretion and honesty
they have a clear conviction that the charge of the court is wrong."
 - Alexander Hamilton, advice to jurors to acquit
   against the judge's instructions

"The jury has the right to determine both the law and the facts."
 - Samuel Chase, signer of the Declaration of Independence,
   and Supreme Court Justice, 1804

"The jury has a right to judge both the law
as well as the fact in controversy."
  - John Jay, first Chief Justice, U.S. Supreme Court
    ( Georgia vs. Brailsford, 1794:4 )

"But, sir, the people themselves have it in their power effectually
to resist usurpation, without being driven to an appeal of arms.
An act of usurpation is not obligatory; it is not law; and any man
may be justified in his resistance.  Let him be considered as a criminal
by the general government, yet only his fellow-citizens can convict him;
they are his jury, and if they pronounce him innocent, not all the powers
of Congress can hurt him; and innocent they certainly will pronounce him,
if the supposed law he resisted was an act of usurpation."
 - Theophilus Parsons, in the Massachusetts Convention on the
   ratification of the U.S.  Constitution [Jonathan Elliot, ed.,
   _The Debates of the Several State Conventions on the Adoption of the
   Federal Constitution_, (New York, Burt Franklin:  1888), 2:94 ]

"It would be an absurdity for jurors to be required to accept the judge's
view of the law, against their own opinion, judgement, and conscience."
 - John Adams

----------------------------

Bob Leone (leone@gandalf.ssw.com)
(The opinions expressed are my own.)

    No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms.  The strongest reason
    for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last
    resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.
	   - Thomas Jefferson, Proposal Virginia Constitution, June 1776
	     1 Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 (C. J. Boyd, Ed., 1950).
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns,alt.politics.clinton