In the United States, the government would have us believe that we are entitled to a fair trial (Sixth Amendment).
However, how can one have a fair trial if there is a conflict of interest? What I am getting at is that in every criminal case in the United States, the judge represents the state and the state is the complaining party!! Whether it is a speeding ticket or a murder trial, in all criminal trial cases, the judge represents the state and the state is always the complaining party. Now granted, in some cases there is a jury, and I would say this does mitigate the unfairness of the trial somewhat. Of course, the state has made it illegal for the defense attorney to advise the jury that they can nullify.
Now, this is nothing necessarily new to any of you, however, I had never really thought about it before running across Marc Stevens and his book Adventures in Legal Land. I think this guy is a freaking genius. He shows just how inconsistent and what a fraud the U.S. legal system is.
That would be nice to believe, that judges are impartial arbiters of the Constitution and the prosecution is really concerned about justice, but I see little of that. In fact I see the opposite. I saw 9 justices vote against Miss Kelo when the state came and stole her property when the Constitution has Public Use not Public Benefit as the standard to take property. I hear of case after case of police being let off free of crimes and cases where citizens are harassed and railroaded into jail cells.
Have you ever looked at a case? Every single one says “State of (whatever) vs. Jon Smith” or whomever. Who represents the State, if not the judge and the prosecuting attorney, both of whom have sworn loyalty to the state? Or for that matter, who pays the district attorney and the judge? Are you a democrat?
Checks and balances don’t work, especially in regards to the executive branch which has most power over enforcement. I used to respect the Constitution but now I’m wondering if the Founding Fathers even realized the possible consequences of this document.
No really, no one has ever signed the Constitution. The supposed “signers” only signed that they were witness to it. They did not sign that they agreed to it.
as Lysander Spooner pointed out, men would have to be mad to agree to the ‘Constitution’, in fact no one did and even if they did, they could not bind their descendants to obedience of it.
I am strongly inclined to call myself a Contractarian anymore.