Post by Periander.Post by Steven LitvintchoukPost by The HarbingerReason 1.
It will be more difficult for corrupt, hypocritical, odious,
deceitful,lying French Presidents to visit and mock the very entente
cordiale that has dug them out of the merde twice in living memory.
Please explain.
Are you referring to the two world wars? Because France did give a good
accounting of themselves in World War I. France didn't fall into moral
decay until after World War I.
The French army mutinied in 1916 for a period of several months the British
Army effectively was France's only defence ...
yes - not all of the French - some.
Post by Periander.that and the fact the
German's didn't catch on in time.
Germans also had moral troubles - as we all later learned.
Post by Periander.Following this period France was all but
finished in the war.
"finished"? - vulnerable, but so was the other side.
its called a quagmire, we've forgotten - but soon we shall remember again.
--
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...If the jury feels that
the law under which the defendant is accused is unjust, or that exigent
circumstances justified the actions of the accused, or for any reason
which appeals to their logic or passion, the jury has the power to
acquit, and the courts must abide by that decision.
4th Circuit Court of Appeals, United States v. Moylan, 1969
[The jury has an] unreviewable and irreversible power...to acquit in
disregard of the instructions on the law given by the trial judge...The
pages of history shine on instances of the jury's exercise of its
prerogative to disregard uncontradicted evidence and instructions of the
judge; for example, acquittals under the fugitive slave law.
D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, Unites States v. Dougherty, 1972
It is not only [the juror's] right, but his duty...to find the verdict
according to his own best understanding, judgment, and conscience,
though in direct opposition to the directionof the court.
John Adams, 1771
.....it is usual for the jurors to decide the fact, and to refer the law
arising on it to the decision of the judges. But this division of the
subject lies with their discretion only. And if the question relate to
any point of public liberty, or if it be one of those in which the
judges may be suspected of bias, the jury undertake to decide both law
and fact.
Thomas Jefferson, "Notes on Virginia," 1782
It is presumed, that juries are the best judges of facts; it is, on the
other hand,presumed that courts are the best judges of law. But still
both objects are within your power of decision.....you have a right to
take it upon yourselves to judge of both,and to determine the law as
well as the fact in controversy.
Chief Justice John Jay, Georgia v. Brailsford, 1794
Jurors should acquit, even against the judge's instruction...if
exercising their judgement with discretion and honesty they have a clear
conviction that the charge of the court is wrong.
Alexander Hamilton, 1804
The jury has the power to bring a verdict in the teeth of both the law
and the facts.
Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Horning v. District of Columbia, 1920