ex-LT wrote:Randygmn wrote:usnret wrote:I really don't see how he has rewritten the constitution. It seems like you think that only your opinion matters and everyone else's doesn't.
Eliminating a jury of one's peers is constitutionally protected and a significant part of our judicial systems due process. That's not an opinion.Sixth Amendment - U.S. Constitution wrote:In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.
Where, exactly, in the Sixth Amendment, does it guarantee a "jury of one's peers"?
"Peer" is NOT defined by socio-economic standards. That's just what a modernized colloquialized interpretation has people believing. It has only to do with geography.
