American Independence From the British Perspective

The move for independence wouldn't have happened had the French won in the Seven Years/French and Indian War. That opened up the west and got rid of a threat (the French and Indians). Of course, it opened up a bunch of other problems.

The main one being "who's gonna pay for this?"

But war was definitely not the answer.

Footnote to all this: The colonists weren't too keen on paying taxes anyway as Ben Franklin found out in 1759 with the Albany Plan. Franklin wrote: "The colonial assemblies and most of the people were narrowly provincial in outlook, mutually jealous, and suspicious of any central taxing authority."

American Loyalists in the Revolutionary World

I've been hearing that the War for Independence wasn't a war against a foreign foe, but was a civil war. Toss in how much it messed up the country whether the foe was domestic or foreign. Part of my fascination for this is that the scholars who address this issue point out that Tory meant conservative, as it still does.

Even more interesting to me is that there were many more loyalists out there than most people realise. Particularly in the southern states. I've seen comments where people from the south will say there were battles fought without a British presence during the War for Independence. I would also add the coercive nature of the rebels, particularly in New England.

Toss in that the militia needed to be under some form of civilian control, which is really what the "well-regulated" means. Even if you want to use the "well trained" meaning, there needs to be some form of structure because fighting a war requires a lot more than just being a good shot. There has to be discipline and serious drill, which comes from, well, organised training. Or as the Supreme Court said in Presser, which pretty much dealt with the militia:

The right voluntarily to associate together as a military company or organization or to drill or parade with arms, without, and independent of, an act of Congress or law of the State authorizing the same, is not an attribute of national citizenship. Military organization and military drill and parade under arms are subjects especially under the control of the government of every country. They cannot be claimed as a right independent of law. Under our political system they are subject to the regulation and control of the State and Federal governments, acting in due regard to their respective prerogatives and powers. The Constitution and laws of the United States will be searched in vain for any support to the view that these rights are privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States independent of some specific legislation on the subject.

The issue was the common defence and how it would be structured. not personal weaponry.

Unless you can show me those exact words in the constitution, then you're wrong and I am right because it does make it clear if you go a little beyond "we the people"  that the document addresses the common defence.

Myth Busting the American Riflemen of the Revolution Part 2: The Septics were the better troops.

The myth is that the minutemen drove them out at Lexington, Concord, and Bunker Hill. Not at all. 

Is Luigi Mangione a vigilante or a terrorist?

 Ok, I don't think the two are mutually exclusive. In fact, they tend to overlap.

I need to set up some definitions. I will define vigilantism as "collective coercive practices undertaken by non-state actors in order to enforce norms (social or judicial) and/or to take the law in their own hands". 

British criminologist Les Johnston suggests several criteria for defining vigilantism in his article What is Vigilantism?:

it involves planning and premeditation by those engaging in it; its participants are private citizens whose engagement is voluntary; it is a form of autonomous citizenship and, as such, constitutes a social movement; it uses or threatens the use of force; it arises when an established order is under threat from the transgression, the potential transgression, or the imputed transgression of institutionalized norms; it aims to control crime or other social infractions by offering assurances (or ‘guarantees’) of security both to participants and to others.

The punisments meted out by vigilantes can be quite spectacular and symbolic: vigilantes cannot arrest all criminals but can make punishment into a symbol to frighten others. Sanctioning often takes the form of physical punishment, public humiliation or, more rarely, execution. These sanctions are an attempt to control by exemplary punishment. So, the use of lynching is an example of both vigilantism and terrorism.

Terrorism  is "The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons."

What we have is the common factor of violence used to enforce, or create, a norm. Extra-legal or extra-Constitutional use of threats, or physical and psychological violence to punish, or to cause, incite or stoke fear and hate are common to both vigilantism and terrorism.  I would say that it's sometimes hard to distinguish between the two since they share the characteristics of (1) use of force (2) for a political purpose. 

Some might want to say that vigilantism is supposed to enforce the "law", or at least the established order. On the other hand, it is a non-governmental actor using force most of the time in violation of the law. To go back to the lynching example: the Ku Klux Klan (KKK) targeted African-Americans as well as Jews, immigrants, leftists, homosexuals, Catholics, Muslims, and atheists. The KKK used physical assault and lynching, against politically active blacks and their allies, even if the latter were whites. This was all done in opposition to the civil rights movement.

As I said, there is not a clear line between vigilantism and terrorism: both use violence for a political purpose.

Myth Busting the American Riflemen of the Revolution

Yet another myth goes down the crapper.


And while we're at it, the guns used by the Rebels were either English Brown Besses or French Charleville. The Navigation Acts pretty much precluded any home made guns by the Americans. BTW, note that the Brown Bess has "Tower", as in Tower of London, which is where the Royal Armoury is located and GR with a crown showing it was property of the British Government. I think there broad arrows as well, which means this was British government property.

In other words, the guns were STOLEN!


And stop calling the French "Cheese eating, surrender monkeys" since the US wouldn't exist without their help. Besides, the Swiss fit the cheese eating description much better if you know Swiss history.

OK, Luigi Mangione supporters!

 Yeah, I want to see him convicted.

And for some very good reasons, which I am going to try to explain for your sick minds.

Let's start off with what Brian Thompson did was NOT ILLEGAL! Yeah, no law against it. You might have been able to sue him, but you couldn't send him to prison for his business decisions regarding healthcare coverage, but being unethical doesn't make it illegal. The revolting nature of the business decisions of Brian Thompson and UnitedHealthcare, its cruelty, much though we may deplore it, is not a legal basis for murder. And if you have issues with what Thompson did there are methods in the system for you to change it.

But you are a bunch of lazy fucks who aren't going to do the serious work needed to change the system. I am trying, but I am on my own.
And you're not helping!

Next, murder IS ILLEGAL. Toss in that just because you don't like something doesn't give you the right to kill outside the law. You are just as bad as the anti-abortion activists who have no problem with killing abortion providers.

And where will it take us if you want to have the fucked up belief that killing someone outside the law is in any way justified? The pictures are of Alan Berg. He had outspoken atheistic and liberal views along with a confrontational interview style. He was known for upsetting some callers to the point they began sputtering, whereupon he would berate them.

Clarissa Pinkola Estés of the Moderate Voice website wrote in 2007: "He didn't pick on the poor, the frail, the undefended: He chose Roderick Elliot and Frank "Bud" Farell, who wrote The Death of the White Race and Open Letter to the Gentiles, and other people from the white supremacist groups... the groups who openly espoused hatred of blacks, Jews, leftists, homosexuals, Hispanics, other minorities and religious groups".

Berg was assassinated by members of the white supremacist group The Order, which believed in killing all Jews and sending all black people to Africa.

As I have pointed out before, your support for Mangione takes you into extreme right wing territory. Toss in that you don't help your cause because you make it plain that Mangione's actions WERE political, which puts him square into the defintion of being a terrorist.

Some people don't get that it isn't how many people you kill that makes you a terrorist, but your reason for killing the people.  If Alan Berg had been killed by someone he pissed off, that wouldn't be terrorism. But the fact that he was killed by the Order because of his beliefs: that he "was mainly thought to be anti-white and he was Jewish."

Let's go to the definition of Lynching:

Lynching is an extrajudicial killing by a group. It is most often used to characterize informal public executions by a mob in order to punish an alleged or convicted transgressor or to intimidate others. It can also be an extreme form of informal group social control, and it is often conducted with the display of a public spectacle for maximum intimidation.

Of course, Emmet Till wasn't lynched by a mob. So, a lynching can also be used to mean an act of violence used to intimidate. And it wasn't just blacks who were lynched. I would suggest looking up Wiley Brownlee.

But, an act of violence done for political reasons fits the description of terrorism: whether you like it or not.

So, is this something you really want to be associated with: especially when Mangione's confession.

Er, "manifesto" is made public? I don't think you will want your internet history coming out when you find out what an arrogant little psycho Mangione happens to be. You may be smart, but you are the epitome of ignorance if you are supporting him.

I would like to think that the light turned on in your head if you read this, but probably not.

After all, do you want to live in a world where people get away with murder?

Tory during the American War for Independence didn't mean they were against independence.

 It sort of amuses me that one line of alternative history is the what if the 13 Colonies had remained united with Great Britain. The reason that it amuses me is that alternative played out: in Canada. Anyone familiar with Canadian history knows this, but the short form from Wikipedia:

The term Tory was first used to designate the pre-Confederation British ruling classes of Upper Canada and Lower Canada, known as the Family Compact and the Château Clique, an elite within the governing classes and often members within a section of society known as the United Empire Loyalists (UEL). The United Empire Loyalists were American loyalists from the Thirteen Colonies who resettled elsewhere in British North America during or after the American Revolutionary War.

Interestingly,  The terms "Tory" and "Loyalist" also were used in the American Revolution for those who remained loyal to the British Crown. Surprisingly, about 80% of the Loyalists remained in the United States after the war. The 60,000 or so Loyalists who settled in Nova Scotia, Quebec, the Bahamas, or returned to Great Britain after the American War of Independence are known as United Empire Loyalists. Unlike the UEL, Loyalists in the states didn't make as much of a fuss. In fact, they are incredibly hard to learn about.

 Tory conservativism is the type of conservativism that wants to follow the law and uphold the established social order, which is why Canada worked peacefully toward its "independence" from Britain. Hence, the British loyalty oath is:

I, [Insert full name], do swear that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to His Majesty King Charles (o whoever the monarch happens to be), his heirs and successors, according to law. So help me God.

The loyalist take on US independence is vastly different with the British not spending much time on it and Canadians dealing with the movement from "la conquête" and a bit beyond. If you're lucky, you will be treated to the chaos which were the early years of the republic. I suggest the two series The War that Made America and Rebels and Redcoats.

The reason I would start the movement for independence starting with the French and Indian War. The easiest way for Britain to have kept the 13 colonies would have been to have said to General Braddock not to leave port until the colonists had come up with money to pay for their defence.

And to bugger off if they didn't.

Fortunately (Unfortunately?), the French weren't as interested in its North American territory as they were with the Caribbean ones. Had the Seven Years War turned out differently, the Colonists might have been incredibly tight with Britain realising that was their best bet for any serious defence.



When the bill arrived for the French and Indian War, the colonists were highly upset. They didn't learn their lesson: that war isn't the answer since it costs a lot of money. That is a lesson which is neglected in US history of the War for Independence.

The taxes weren't illegal, they were the bill for their defence.

But the colonists begged, borrowed, and stole their way through the War for Independence. And Louis XVI lost his head because its support for the colonists helped bankrupt France. 

The newly independent colonists sort of learned their lesson, but that also turned out to be a mess. After all, a few of the complaints from the Declaration of Independence were:

• He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil power.
• For Quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:
• He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty & perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation.
• He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages, whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.

And as the video above pointed out, they colonists weren't interested in paying taxes: even if it came from their own government. 

War was not the answer and the tories have been proven to be correct. The better course of action would have been to have worked peacefully within the legal framework since the War for Independence resulted in a mess which has lingered into modern times.

 

Since I mentioned it: What is the Privy Council of the United Kingdom?

As this person points out, the Privy council does a lot of things. One is that it can be the final arbiter of courts of appeal. Given that the Rule of Law is one of the key points of commonwealth membership, it seems that having a final say in decisions which are ultra vires. That is ultra vires ('beyond the powers') is a Latin phrase used in law to describe an act that requires legal authority but is done without it. Its opposite, an act done under proper authority, is intra vires ('within the powers').

The Heller decision was ultra vires since it went outside the case law and legislative history to judicially amend the constitution. The ironic bit being that the source for judicial review, Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137 (1803), is a case dealing with clauses in the constitution and says that they cannot be ignored.



Somebody needs to swat a judicial hand or two.

Could the US Actually Join the Commonwealth?

I have to admit this intrigues me. It's also related to another post on that being a Tory didn't mean one was against independence during the War for Independence. After all, Canada became "independent" under the Commonwealth as this points out. Toss in I've joked about this for a long time.

Of course, I feel even less involved in this than Brexit: especially since my first choice would be that the United Kingdon rejoin the European Union. Even if that meant some "unfavourable" terms. I don't trust Britain post-Windrush in regard to citizenship, among other things.

On the other hand, there would be some interesting developments if the US actually did join the comonwealth since two requirements are following the rule of law and transparent ("free and fair") elections. The latter being the more interesting of the two since elections in commonwealth countries  are not perpetual. They don't drag on forever.

But the rule of law would mean that the US Supreme Court may no longer be the final word in appellate decisions. The United States comes from the common law tradition and the Privy Council would be a very good final arbiter on the Second Amendment; especially since it doesn't have "skin" in the game.

Scalia was a poor choice to rewrite the constitution since he was biased toward "gun rights" and the Heller decision shows that he made some serious deviations in legal method, which violate the rule of law (e.g., failing to follow precedent, failing to look at the real legislative history, using secondary sources which were biased, etcetera). Add in that US judges are the products of the US legal education system.

An interesting concept, but the US is not a good candidate short of some drastic changes in culture.

The Constitution's Most Forgotten Amendment - 1000 Years in the Making

Yeah, but it comes in third, right after the other misunderstood Amendment (the Second). This ties in the mindset about the fear of standing armies and out of control military establishments.

There is way more evidence that the Constitution, Second, and Third Amendments relate to the common defence and the fear of standing armies than the private ownership of arms.

 

The 2nd Amendment Doesn’t Mean What You Think It Means | Think Again

This is pretty good, but I would guess that most people who would leave comments wouldn't have watched this: 

 The next video is a fairly decent explanation of Second Amendment case law, but it leaves out the issue of standing armies. Just remember the real issue was what form would the common defence take? A professional military or something like what Switzerland had. That is a small professional force for administration and training with the bulk of the forces being part timers.

That gets lost in the debate even though there is far more evidence that is what the issue was.

Toss in that the militia was pretty much a dead letter from the start.  The George Mason’s quote as recorded in the transcripts of the Virginia Ratifying Convention is a good confirmation of that:

“I ask, Who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people, except a few public officers. But I cannot say who will be the militia of the future day. If that paper on the table gets no alteration, the militia of the future day may not consist of all classes, high and low, and rich and poor; but they may be confined to the lower and middle classes of the people, granting exclusion to the higher classes of the people.”

Unfortunately, the exclusion was common in Mason's time, as my ancestor, a poor, Pennsylvania farm kid would attest. Dislike for the Militia was pretty much what killed it off, as this passage from Joseph Story, Commentaries on the Constitution 3:§§ 1890 (1833) points out:

And yet, though this truth would seem so clear, and the importance of a well regulated militia would seem so undeniable, it cannot be disguised, that among the American people there is a growing indifference to any system of militia discipline, and a strong disposition, from a sense of its burthens, to be rid of all regulations. How it is practicable to keep the people duly armed without some organization, it is difficult to see. There is certainly no small danger, that indifference may lead to disgust, and disgust to contempt; and thus gradually undermine all the protection intended by this clause of our national bill of rights.

The Second Amendment died of desuetude long ago. Attempts to revive it only create an out of control monster.

Is the party going to end soon?

 OK, show me where the concept of "self-defence" is explicitly mentioned in the US constitution.

Militia Training by James G. Clonney (PAFA)

It's not. And proper statutory interpretation says that when a law explicitly includes certain elements (e.g., common defence, army, navy, militia,etc.), it is inferred that the omission of other elements (e.g., private ownership of arms) is deliberate and intentional. This principle has been employed to ensure that the interpretation of laws remains consistent with their textual formulation. 

I would point out that the miltia is mentioned in the US Constitution and that the power of congress over it granted under Article I, Section 8, Clause 16 was one of the concerns high on the minds during the drafting of the Consrtitution. The other one being that the Feds had an Army. In the words of Elbridge Gerry:

• What, sir, is the use of a militia? It is to prevent the establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty. Now, it must be evident, that, under this provision, together with their other powers, Congress could take such measures with respect to a militia, as to make a standing army necessary. Whenever Governments mean to invade the rights and liberties of the people, they always attempt to destroy the militia, in order to raise an army upon their ruins.
  • House of Representatives, Amendments to the Constitution, 17, 20 Aug. 1789

A far better way of framing the discussion of what the Second Amendment is about and how it was understood by the founders is more along the lines of this early version of the right:

That a well-regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defense of a free state; that standing armies, in time of peace, should be avoided as dangerous to liberty; and that in all cases the military should be under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power.
Virginia Declaration of Rights, 1776 §13 which was written by Thomas Jefferson

This version is more than backed up by the primary sources that are taken out of context, or just misquoted, by the gun crowd. Or as Patrick Henry scholar, Henry Mayer, said:

This is not, I repeat NOT, part of Patrick Henry’s legacy. Clearly speaking of the problem of militia organization, what he actually said is, “The great object is that every man [of the militia] be armed.–But can the people to afford to pay for double sets of arms &c.? Every one who is able may have a gun. But have we not learned by experience, that necessary as it is to have arms, and though our assembly has, by a succession of laws for many years, endeavored to have the militia completely armed, it is still far from being the case. When this power is given up to Congress without limitation or bounds, how will your militia be armed? You trust to chance….”

 And Henry made it clear that he was addressing Article I, Section 8, Clause 16.

Justice William O. Douglas addressed Miller and glossed it in his dissent in Adams v. Williams, 407 U.S 143, 150 -51 (1972) , which somehow is omitted in lists of SCOTUS cases mentioning the Second Amendment. Which is too bad since Justice Douglas was a member of the Supreme Court when Miller was decided, which makes him a very good source for how that case should be read.

Justice Douglas pointed out that in Second Amendment jurisprudence:

The leading case is United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174, upholding a federal law making criminal the shipment in interstate commerce of a sawed-off shotgun. The law was upheld, there being no evidence that a sawed-off shotgun had “some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia.” Id., at 178. The Second Amendment, it was held, “must be interpreted and applied” with the view of maintaining a “militia.”
“The Militia which the States were expected to maintain and train is set in contrast with Troops which they were forbidden to keep without the consent of Congress. The sentiment of the time strongly disfavored standing armies; the common view was that adequate defense of country and laws could be secured through the Militia – civilians primarily, soldiers on occasion.” Id., at 178-179.

I should remind people that Justice Douglas was on the Court when Miller was decided, in addition to being one of the longest sitting justices. So, I would put his interpretation of Miller as being more autoritativre than Scalia's. But Scalia was correct in that Miller was not helpful to his reinterpretation of the constitution.

Which gets to my question: is the party going to end soon? Are people going to see the real history of the Second Amendment and constitution? Even more importantly, are they going to see that the Supreme Court has been acting outside its powers. After all, Judicial review is not in the US Consrtitution, but comes from the case of Marbury v Madison,  5 U.S. 137 (1803).

 A case that states “It cannot be presumed that any clause in the constitution is intended to be without effect.” 

Better yet, from the neglected case of Presser v Illinois,  116 U.S. 252, 6 S.Ct. 580, 29 L.Ed. 615 (1886), which says:

Military organization and military drill and parade under arms are subjects especially under the control of the government of every country. They cannot be claimed as a right independent of law. Under our political system they are subject to the regulation and control of the state and federal governments, acting in due regard to their respective prerogatives and powers. The constitution and laws of the United States will be searched in vain for any support to the view that these rights are privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States independent of some specific legislation on the subject.

 The problem with the Heller-McDonald rewrites and the offspring thereof is that there was a Second Amendment jurisprudence, which said it applied solely to the Militia and the Federal Government's power over that body.

Let's bring it back to what it should be.

How The U.S. Ruined Bread

OK, admitted baguette snob here, but I will admit that not all US bread sucks. But definitely, Wonder Bread is aptly named since it is a wonder this stuff is considered bread. 

On the other hand, Europeans do have a totally different attitude toward bread. And there are laws on what makes a baguette proper. French TV has a plethora of videos about that.

And bad bread is yet more evidence that the US isn't a Christian nation.

Gives us this day our daily bread...

Told ya so!: Why 5 Key UK Industries Are on the Brink After Brexit

What got lost in the Brexit "debate" was that it was all about free movement. Think if one of the largest US states pulled out and suddenly had a border with the other states. 

It's going to be even more fun if Britain decides to rejoin the EU since the EU made all sorts of concessions the first time around. My guess, is that won't be the case this time.

I guess I should be happy that Britain finally uses the Euro. Alas, the return of the real old blue passport was a total fantasy.

And the Passport Standard is set by the Airline Industry, not the EU!

to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or to affect the conduct of a government by assassination

Let's start with defintion:

The Federal Bureau of Investigation uses a definition of terrorism that tracks with the Patriot Act. “Terrorism” encompasses “acts dangerous to human life that violate federal or state law” and “appear intended (i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; (ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or (iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination or kidnapping.” It distinguishes between international terrorism (acts occurring abroad) and domestic terrorism, which occurs primarily within the U.S.

I'm going to focus on (ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or (iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination or kidnapping. This is because terrorism requires an intent. Just killing people to kill people doesn't cut it no matter how many people get killed.

On the other hand, we are given a handwritten confession which states an intent:

"Frankly, these parasites simply had it coming. A reminder: the US has the #1 most expensive healthcare system in the world, yet we rank roughly #42 in life expectancy. United is the [indecipherable] largest company in the US by market cap, behind only Apple, Google, Walmart. It has grown and grown, but as our life expectancy? No the reality is, these [indecipherable] have simply gotten too powerful, and they continue to abuse our country for immense profit because the American public has allwed them to get away with it. Obviously the problem is more complex, but I do not have space, and frankly I do not pretend to be the most qualified person to lay out the full argument. But many have illuminated the corruption and greed (e.g.: Rosenthal, Moore), decades ago and the problems simply remain. It is not an issue of awareness at this point, but clearly power games at play. Evidently I am the first to face it with such brutal honesty.”

Let's toss in that he shouted  "It's completely out of touch! It's an insult to the intelligence of the American people!" as he was being escorted into court. Which in my opinion caused him to waive any recourse to Miranda.

I know that he has shown an interest in the Unabomber. There are some other things I have heard mentioned about his possible intent, but I'm not going to bother with that stuff. First off, it's pretty much superfluous given the basic evidence out there (e.g., handwritten confession, possession of the murder weapon, possession of the ID, DNA and fingerprint evidence, etc.).  He's put enough out there to at least put him away for life.

 Mangione's actions and intent place definitely, show that he wanted to influence, or effect, the conduct of government through at least one act of violence. 

I would add that Mangione's supporters are his own worst enemies. Its too bad that insurance will not pay for a procedure to remove their heads from the assess.

As someone who has wanted to see healthcare reform in the US for a long time, I am disgusted by the actions of the people who are willing to lionise a person with a serious personality disorder.

The far better course of action would be to use the system to get healthcare reform.

While I would love to see Manione executed, that is the wrong course of action. It would be far better for him to be exposed for what he is (not someone to be idolised). And then stick him away where he may live out his life.

Or another inmate may terminate his life.

Jury Nullification and the Rule of Law

 Let's start with a definition:

The rule of law is a principle under which all persons, institutions, and entities are accountable to laws that are:

• Publicly promulgated
• Equally enforced (i.e., no person is above the law)
  
• Independently adjudicated
• And consistent with international human rights principles.

I was going to start this by asking what the Cato Institute and the Climate Defence Project have in common? Why Jury Nullification, of course. But the fact that these two groups that are fundamentally opposed, or should be, agree on this should bring someone to pause on this topic.

The proponents will say that it's not illegal, which isn't really true. It is hard to enforce in the US system because of the US Constitution and its guarantees of right to trial by jury, no double jeopardy, and probably a few other things that demonstrate what a piece of shit blotter it is compared to France's Déclaration des Droits de l'Homme et du Citoyen de 1789, but the latter is much more of a bill of rights than a constitution. The Déclaration defines the relationship between the citizen and the state, which is why France has gone through five republics, a couple of Empires, and a Monarchy or two with it still around.

I don't have much hope for the US Constitution lasting much longer the way things are going.

But I digress to return to a concept which is well suited for the lynch mob than a society which claims to be based upon laws. The strongest argument against nullification points to the core principle of our judicial system: We are a nation of laws, not individuals. Elected officials create the law. They can be replaced with ones who legislate more in lines with popular opinion if they don't. Allowing juries to bypass this system has resulted in more miscarriages of justice than triumphs. In addition, we ask jurors to take an oath to judge based upon the facts; how is embracing nullification consistent with this promise?

Or as Mark Pulliam asks:

What do nineteenth-century anarchist Lysander Spooner,^[1] the O. J. legal defense team, some elements of the militia movement,^[2] the Los Angeles juries that failed to convict the Menendez brothers of murdering their parents and that acquitted the brutal assailants of Reginald Denny, and the activists who promote the idea of “fully informed juries”^[3] have in common?

I would toss in lynch mobs for good measure. Emmett Till is an excellent example of jury nullification in action: two guilty men get away with murder and confess to it afterward.

Jurors are supposed to play an important but limited function: to sift through the evidence (especially conflicting testimony) and apply their factual findings to the relevant legal rules, which are determined elsewhere. Jurors are not lawmakers.

Jury nullification in practise:
The Jury in the Emmett Till Case

Bad things happen when juries step out of that limited role and decide to act as a “conscience of the community”, or some other bizarre concept of "Justice". In the Jim Crow South, all-white juries frequently acquitted defendants accused of lynching blacks and other heinous crimes, not because the evidence was weak, but out of sympathy for, or in solidarity with, the defendant. Conversely, in the O.J. Simpson case, the predominately African American jury arguably engaged in nullification in 1995 when it acquitted Simpson of murdering his ex-wife, Nicole, and her friend, Ron Goldman, despite what most observers felt was overwhelming evidence of Simpson’s guilt. More recently, many Americans were outraged when a San Francisco jury—possibly motivated by nullification—acquitted Kate Steinle’s killer. There are many other examples, such as George Zimmerman, that come to mind.

After all, what is a jury acting outside of the law but a 12-person mob, modern-day vigilantes?  The supporters of Luigi Mangione claim they want him to have a fair trial, yet they ignore that someone was killed without due process. They look up jury nullification in the hope that Mangione will be like Roy Bryant and J.W. Milam. They ignore the handwritten confession, which is more innocently called a "manifesto".

Civil disobedience is a grave misconception in the context of a seated juror refusing to follow the law. Civil disobedience is resistance to unjust government action as a last resort. That is when disobedience is the only alternative to becoming a participant in an objectionable act. This will never be the case with a seated juror. A potential juror who objected to service could refuse to report to court or serve on a jury. A person with a moral objection to enforcing a particular law (say, punishing a defendant charged with private drug use or blockading abortion clinics) should disclose that objection during voir dire and be excused from serving in the case.

But, after a juror has reported for service, been screened through voir dire, been seated and sworn to follow the law according to the instructions of the court, there is no room for “civil disobedience.” A juror reneging on his oath is acting outside the legal rules. A renegade juror cheats the parties to the case out of their right to have the matter decided according to the law, on the basis of which the evidence and arguments have been presented.

Although the "jury-power " activists point to historical events where juries refused to enforce laws that they considered unconscionable, there is no assurance that a jury operating outside the law would only acquit in a criminal case; it could just as easily “nullify” the instructions by convicting a person who was technically innocent. Jury nullification strips the individuals who comprise society of their right to have the laws enforced. Nothing could be more tyrannical or despotic than the arbitrary decision of a juror, or jury that has refused to follow their legal obligation.

 The rule of law is essential to the preservation of liberty. Friedrich Hayek, perhaps this century’s pre-eminent theorist of libertarianism, the political philosophy of freedom, believed that the defining characteristic of a free society is the rule of law, meaning legal rules stated in advance, uniformly applied, without excessive discretion. In Hayek’s words: “[W]hen we obey laws, in the sense of general abstract rules laid down irrespective of their application to us, we are not subject to another man’s will and are therefore free.” Thus, it is the universal, non-selective nature of law that allows us to be free. In Hayek’s view, it is precisely because judges and juries cannot pick and choose what laws to enforce in a particular case “that it can be said that laws and not men rule.”

A lawless juror is no more heroic than a rogue policeman violating the law or a politician accepting a bribe. If a juror (or any other member of the political community) feels that a particular law is unjust—and in a society as large and diverse as ours, we can assume that someone, somewhere, feels that every law on the books is unjust—the remedy is to petition the legislature for reform, not to infiltrate the jury and then ignore the law.

Luigi Mangione and his supporters are dangerous to society, and counterproductive to the issue of health care reform. I wonder how much further we would be toward healthcare reform is they had used the system, rather than act as vigilantes.  They should be working to change the law, not capriciously applying it.

Luigi Mangione will be tried based upon the evidence. I hope the jurors are willing to properly apply the facts to the law.

Otherwise, the US system of justice is best exemplified by the trial of Emmett Till's assassins.

See also:
Mark Pulliam, Nullifying the Rule of Law

__ ___, Jury Nullification, good or bad? 

English text of the Déclaration des Droits de l'Homme et du Citoyen de 1789

Switzerland During the French Revolution and Napoleonic Wars

Like the US, Switzerland has a national mythology about its arms. In the Swiss case, being armed has contributed to its neutrality and never being "invaded". 

But like the US, Switzerland's myth isn't really true. But it makes them feel good.


 th

A little more Swiss history since William Tell is more of a legend than a real person. Think along the line of King Arthur.

 

And I have been to Switzerland a few times. You won't see a lot of people carrying guns in Geneva, but you will see UN and other groups dedicated to peace. Switzerland strengthened its gun laws in 2019 to keep it in line with the EU and the Schengen agreement.

NRA approved Art!

Let's hear it for responsible gun ownership! BTW, this is nothing new, Nikki Saint Phalle was doing this in back in the 1960s. 

"In shooting myself, I took aim at society and its injustices" declared Niki. And she's also born in the US!

 Oh, by the way, Here's this on Swiss guns: