An Essay On The Trial By Jury by Lysander Spooner (best love novels of all time TXT) ๐
- Author: Lysander Spooner
Book online ยซAn Essay On The Trial By Jury by Lysander Spooner (best love novels of all time TXT) ๐ยป. Author Lysander Spooner
Dependence For Their Salaries), To These Irresponsible Legislators.
This Dependence Of The Judiciary And Executive Upon The
Legislature Is A Guaranty That They Will Always Sanction And Execute
Its Laws, Whether Just Or Unjust. Thus The Legislators Hold The Whole
Power Of The Government In Their Hands, And Are At The Same Time
Utterly Irresponsible For The Manner In Which They Use It.
If, Now, This Government, (The Three Branches Thus Really United In
Chapter 1 (The Right Of Juries To Judge Of The Justice Of Laws) Section 2 Pg 9One), Can Determine The Validity Of, And Enforce, Its Own Laws, It Is,
For The Time Being, Entirely Absolute, And Wholly Irresponsible To
The People.
But This Is Not All. These Legislators, And This Government, So
Irresponsible While In Power, Can Perpetuate Their Power At
Pleasure, If They Can Determine What Legislation Is Authoritative
Upon The People, And Can Enforce Obedience To It, For They Can Not
Only Declare Their Power Perpetual, But They Can Enforce
Submission To All Legislation That Is Necessary To Secure Its
Perpetuity. They Can, For Example, Prohibit All Discussion Of The
Rightfulness Of Their Authority; Forbid The Use Of The Suffrage;
Prevent The Election Of Any Successors; Disarm, Plunder, Imprison,
And Even Kill All Who Refuse Submission. If, Therefore, The
Government (All Departments United) Be Absolute For A Day That Is,
If It Can, For A Day, Enforce Obedience To Its Own Laws It Can, In
That Day, Secure Its Power For All Time Like The Queen, Who Wished
To Reign But For A Day, But In That Day Caused The King, Her Husband,
To Be Slain, And Usurped His Throne.
Nor Will It Avail To Say That Such Acts Would Be Unconstitutional,
And That Unconstitutional Acts May Be Lawfully Resisted; For
Everything A Government Pleases To Do Will, Of Course, Be
Determined To Be Constitutional, If The Government Itself Be
Permitted To Determine The Question Of The Constitutionality Of Its
Own Acts. Those Who Are Capable Of Tyranny, Are Capable Of Perjury
To Sustain It.
The Conclusion, Therefore, Is, That Any Government, That Can, For A
Day, Enforce Its Own Laws, Without Appealing To The People, (Or To A
Tribunal Fairly Representing The People,) For Their Consent, Is, In
Theory, An Absolute Government, Irresponsible To The People, And
Can Perpetuate Its Power At Pleasure.
The Trial By Jury Is Based Upon A Recognition Of This Principle, And
Therefore Forbids The Government To Execute Any Of Its Laws, By
Punishing Violators, In Any Case Whatever, Without First Getting The
Consent Of "The Country," Or The People, Through A Jury. In This Way,
The People, At All Times, Hold Their Liberties In Their Own Hands, And
Never Surrender Them, Even For A Moment, Into The Hands Of The
Government.
The Trial By Jury, Then, Gives To Any And Every Individual The
Liberty, At Any Time, To Disregard Or Resist Any Law Whatever Of The
Government, If He Be Willing To Submit To The Decision Of A Jury, The
Questions, Whether The Law Be Intrinsically Just And Obligatory? And
Whether His Conduct, In Disregarding Or Resisting It, Were Right In
Itself? And Any Law, Which Does Not, In Such Trial, Obtain The
Unanimous Sanction Of Twelve Men, Taken At Random From The
People, And Judging According To The Standard Of Justice In Their
Own Minds, Free From All Dictation And Authority Of The
Government, May Be Transgressed And Resisted With Impunity, By
Whomsoever Pleases To Transgress Or Resist It.[3]
Chapter 1 (The Right Of Juries To Judge Of The Justice Of Laws) Section 2 Pg 10
The Trial By Jury Authorizes All This, Or It Is A Sham And A Hoax,
Utterly Worthless For Protecting The People Against Oppression. If It
Do Not Authorize An Individual To Resist The First And Least Act Of
Injustice Or Tyranny, On The Part Of The Government, It Does Not
Authorize Him To Resist The Last And The Greatest. If It Do Not
Authorize Individuals To Nip Tyranny In The Bud, It Does Not
Authorize Them To Cut It Down When Its Branches Are Filled With The
Ripe Fruits Of Plunder And Oppression.
Those Who Deny The Right Of A Jury To Protect An Individual In
Resisting An Unjust Law Of The Government, Deny Him All Defence
Whatsoever Against Oppression. The Right Of Revolution, Which
Tyrants, In Mockery, Accord To Mankind, Is No Legal Right Under A
Government; It Is Only A Natural Right To Overturn A Government.
The Government Itself Never Acknowledges This Right. And The Right
Is Practically Established Only When And Because The Government,
No Longer Exists To Call It In Question. The Right, Therefore, Can Be
Exercised With Impunity, Only When It Is Exercised Victoriously. All
Unsuccessful Attempts At Revolution, However Justifiable In
Themselves, Are Punished As Treason, If The Government Be
Permitted To Judge Of The Treason. The Government Itself Never
Admits The Injustice Of Its Laws, As A Legal Defence For Those Who
Have Attempted A Revolution, And Failed. The Right Of Revolution,
Therefore, Is Right Of No Practical Value, Except For Those Who Are
Stronger Than The Government. So Long, Therefore, As The
Oppressions Of A Government Are Kept Within Such Limits As Simply
Not To Exasperate Against It A Power Greater Than Its Own, The Right
Of Revolution Cannot Be Appealed To, And Is Therefore Inapplicable
To The Case. This Affords A Wide Field For Tyranny; And, If A Jury
Cannot Here Intervene, The Oppressed Are Utterly Defenceless.
It Is Manifest That The Only Security Against The Tyranny Of The
Government Lies In Forcible Resistance To The Execution Of The
Injustice; Because The Injustice Will Certainly Be Executed, Unless It
Be Forcibly Resisted. And If It Be But Suffered To Be Executed, It
Must Then Be Borne; For The Government Never Makes
Compensation For Its Own Wrongs.
Since, Then, This Forcible Resistance To The Injustice Of The
Government Is The Only Possible Means Of Preserving Liberty, It Is
Indispensable To All Legal Liberty That This Resistance Should Be
Legalized. It Is Perfectly Self-Evident That Where There Is No Legal
Right To Resist The Oppression Of The Government, There Can Be No
Lgal Liberty. And Here It Is All-Important To Notice, That, Practically
Speaking, There Can Be No Legal Right To Resist The Oppressions Of The
Government, Unless There Be Some Legal Tribunal, Other Than The
Government, And Wholly Independent Of, And Above, The
Government, To Judge Between The Government And Those Who
Resist Its Oppressions; In Other Words, To Judge What Laws Of The
Government Are To Be Obeyed, And What May Be Resisted And Held
For Nought. The Only Tribunal Known To Our Laws, For This Purpose,
Is A Jury. If A Jury Have Not The Right To Judge Between The
Government And Those Who Disobey Its Laws, And Resist Its
Chapter 1 (The Right Of Juries To Judge Of The Justice Of Laws) Section 2 Pg 11Oppressions, The Government Is Absolute, And The People, Legally
Speaking Are Slaves. Like Many Other Slaves They May Have
Sufficient Courage And Strength To Keep Their Masters Somewhat In
Check; But They Are Nevertheless Known To The Law Only As Slaves.
That This Right Of Resistance Was Recognized As A Common Law
Right, When The Ancient And Genuine Trial By Jury Was In Force, Is
Not Only Proved By The Nature Of The Trial Itself, But Is
Acknowledged By History. [4]
This Right Of Resistance Is Recognized By The Constitution Of The
United States, As A Strictly Legal And Constitutional Right. It Is So
Recognized, First By The Provision That "The Trial Of All Crimes,
Except In Cases Of Impeachment, Shall Be By Jury" That Is, By The
Country And Not By The Government; Secondly, By The Provision
That "The Right Of The People To Keep And Bear Arms Shall Not Be
Infringed." This Constitutional Security For "The Right To Keep And
Bear Arms," Implies The Right To Use Them As Much As A
Constitutional Security For The Right To Buy And Keep Food Would
Have Implied The Right To Eat It. The Constitution, Therefore, Takes It
For Granted That
The People Will Judge Of The Conduct Of The Government, And That,
As They Have The Right, They Will Also Have The Sense, To Use Arms,
Whenever The Necessity Of The Case Justifies It. And It Is A Sufficient
And Legal Defence For A Person Accused Of Using Arms Against The
Government, If He Can Show, To The Satisfaction Of A Jury, Or Even
Any One Of A Jury, That The Law He Resisted Was An Unjust One.
In The American State Constitutions Also, This Right Of Resistance To
The Oppressions Of The Government Is Recognized, In Various Ways,
As A Natural, Legal, And Constitutional Right. In The First Place, It Is
So Recognized By Provisions Establishing The Trial By Jury; Thus
Requiring That Accused Persons Shall Be Tried By "The Country,"
Instead Of The Government. In The Second Place, It Is Recognized By
Many Of Them, As, For Example, Those Of Massachusetts, Maine,
Vermont, Connecticut, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Indiana, Michigan,
Kentucky, Tennessee, Arkansas, Mississippi, Alabama, And
Florida, By Provisions Expressly Declaring That The People Shall
Have The Right To Bear Arms. In Many Of Them Also, As, For Example,
Those Of Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, New
Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Florida,
Iowa, And Arkansas, By Provisions, In Their Bills Of Rights, Declaring
That Men Have A Natural, Inherent, And Inalienable Right Of
"Defending Their Lives And Liberties." This, Of Course, Means That
They Have A Right To Defend Them Against Any Injustice On The Part
Of The Government, And Not Merely On The Part Of Private
Individuals; Because The Object Of All Bills Of Rights Is To Assert The
Rights Of Individuals And The People, As Against The Government,
And Not As Against Private Persons. It Would Be A Matter Of
Ridiculous Supererogation To Assert, In A Constitution Of
Government, The Natural Right Of Men To Defend Their Lives And
Chapter 1 (The Right Of Juries To Judge Of The Justice Of Laws) Section 2 Pg 12
Comments (0)