Bad example, or is the Constitutional Rights Foundation Chicago in error?

http://www.crfc.org/americanjury/jury_peers.html

"The phrase "a jury of one's peers" is a part of the American lexicon, yet surprisingly it nowhere appears in the Constitution. The Sixth Amendment simply guarantees the right to "a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed."

Sorry to be a trouble maker, I am such a stinker.

You're right Balducci! I should have just stuck with the obvious example- What does the Constitution mean by "establishment of religion" and "freedom of the press." As I asked earlier, why, if we take freedom of the press literally, does it apply to television news?

As to the jury question, though, it should be noted that a "jury of peers" was already part of the common law at the time of the adoption of the Constitution. It goes all the way back to the Magna Carta and has always been accepted as part of American law. It is certainly one of the unenumerated rights retained by the people through the 10th Amendment. (It could also be argued that it is part of the due process of law guaranteed by the 5th and 14 Amendments.)Hence the phrase is indeed subject to judicial interpretation.

I could just as easily asked, though, what is meant by an impartial jury? Today that is often interpreted to include those who don't know the parties and who are basically unaware of news about the case. That was not always so. In fact, as I pointed out earlier, in the 19th Century, juries were often expected to know the parties and have familiarity with the case.

Thanks for pointing that out, though.

Stinker.

:eek:

Hi critter, if you read Gerald Schroeder's books, you'll see that evolution and design are not necessarily in conflict. Evolution is the mechanism through which the design is developed and played out.

I've never said that there was a conflict at all. A close friend of mine was a strict "creavolutionist" and I never saw any reason to argue with him about it.
It was my understanding from the quote in the OP that the Nessie example was primarily being used to argue against evolution, rather than for intelligent design.

So, since it's been definitively established that Nessie is totally real, I was only offering my own explanation for what that could mean.

And Skookum/Bigfoot/Sasquatch is also the "missing link," but we all knew that.

Nerver mind how it got here, more impotantly is the question; Why is Nessie here?

Is this a standard term these days? I like it!

I actually own some things that people would hardly believe. People who don't own stuff made by Doug Higley. Doug is one of my heroes.

I don't know how common the term is, but that's how he described himeself. I like it too.

Yes, tommy, that is the question. As one philosopher expressed it, the great question is, why are there things, and not nothing?

Demergo ergo sum.
"She sinks, therefore she is."

As the great philosopher, Professor Irwin Corey, replied when asked "Why does it rain?":

"That's a two part question. The first part is 'why.' Philosophers have asked that for centuries.

"The second part is 'Does it rain?'

"Yes!"

Maybe "freedom of the press" really refers to the navy's wish to continue recruiting sailors via the use of "press gangs."
:pirate: