Jury nullification was supposed to protect people from unjust laws
that their neighbors would refuse to convict on.
Would you sentence someone to 15 years in prison for installing electrical outlets higher than normal … as a safety measure… in a building that was intended as a daycare, simply because it wasn’t to official code specifications?
Would you convict someone for un-clogging a drainage ditch… even though, according to the letter of the law, it might have drained wet land?
What about a restaurant owner who has conflicting regulations to deal with. In order to be in compliance with one regulation, he may have to violate another that is written in a way that conflicts with it.
When the law is an ass, what (legal) recourse do we have except jury nullification?
Which is probably exactly why regulations violations are exempt from jury trials.
Getting the word out about jury nullification is not a bad idea. I don’t think every juror is going to swing with the rebels. Give people some credit for common sense. Stupidity makes airtime, especially epic stupidity; in real life common sense tends to prevail or the world would be in even worse shape.
Free : No. Juries are tasked with judging the evidence in a trial , not with judging the ' social justice ' of a law .
 September 1, 2015 at 3:51pm
You shouldn’t encourage anyone to bobbit, that would be assault and they would be arrested. Unless acting in self defense … then you could charge school officials with failure to maintain basic safety rules on school grounds.
I saw something recently on how students with romantic entanglements have lower GPA’s.
What about separating schools by gender? All male schools, all female schools…. and alphabet soup schools. They can do a survey to see what the demand is for trans- whatever, gay/ lez and set up the schools in different locations. Rent space for small classes. Use larger facilities for larger groups.
Reduces opportunity for romance to bloom and keeps young people focused on their studies while hormones are in full assault on rationality. It’s a thought. Reducing opportunity will not stop it, that would be King Canute trying to command the tides.
 September 1, 2015 at 3:26pm
There are several solutions up to and including a separate bathroom for each student.
That gets expensive and takes a lot of space. I agree with you.
I also see that the student would have reason to feel uncomfortable with being “different” WHICH IS UNAVOIDABLE. When someone identifies as non-standard gender ??? orientation or “identity” they are non-standard/different. They will have to get used to that. Why should the rest of the world cater to them? (Left hander’s unite – the world is designed against us!)
They can claim the right to live as they choose whether anyone approves or not; they cannot demand approval. The first is freedom, the second is tyranny. They can request separate bathrooms, but not insist that every girl in school be made uncomfortable to spare them discomfort. That is claiming royal privileges, not the freedoms accorded to everyone.
 September 1, 2015 at 4:47am
Greetings Kupo, my husband and I are from the Mat-Su borough.
Yes, 99% of all Alaskans including us, have always called it Denali anyway. Mostly just tourists called it McKinley. We’ve wanted this restoration to the true and proper name since the 70′s and the glory days of Gov. Jay Hammond. We’re please there was bipartisan support involved here as well.
We recall the McKinley naming having something to do with a PR stunt of some kind. We really doubt if anyone in DC or the RNC of the time would have cared about what a sourdough prospector named it. One story goes that a group of McKinley supporters organised an expedition to summit Denali and name it McKinley. They didn’t get past about 6000′ before turning back. That didn’t stop them from claiming they did and reporting false claims to newspapers in the lower 48. No one verified these claims with any locals. That’s fairly typical for the lower 48 media then and now for that matter.
With due respect to the good people of Ohio. Blocking legislature for about 40 years was uncool. Alaskans somethings feel as though we’re treated as provincials/second class citizens because of things like this.
That said: The imperial manner in which King Barry went about this is uncomfortable. Yes, King Barry found a way to screw-up an Alaskans wet-dream. Sigh.
 August 31, 2015 at 1:53pm
So, someone good enough to pass the background checks for concealed carry
AND the background checks to be a foster family
…isn’t good enough if they passed both?
How did we ever allow it to get this far?
You know, we say our kids are entitled but this happened on OUR watch. We're responsible for this. WE gave up these rights.
It's good that it sounds like it is being rectified, via both legislation and litigation.
I admire and respect foster parents. They open their homes and hearts to children in need, often for extended periods of time. It is not unheard of to discover foster parents adopting children that they have cared for. And for a large percentage of these children, a good foster parent is just what these kids need to grow up normal. That being said.....
There is no way in hell I would ever subject myself to government supervision of my home environment. To foster parents, I tip my hat to you for doing what I could never see myself doing.
Maybe now the Feds. will offer a reward for information on Foster Parents that have concealed carry licenses. This slipped through the cracks and you can bet that when qualifying new F P applicants this will be crossed referenced in the future.
A good argument for not allowing the govt to give permits are licenses for activities or businesses. Some jack wagon in a govt office can disrupt your lives over PC gone out of control……
 August 31, 2015 at 1:47pm
Prepare for the worst, hope for the best….
then work hard and try to create the best.
Anything else is failure to prepare, dystopian wallowing, or lazy ___.
None of which are helpful, and all of which can help create a more perfect storm.
August 31, 2015 at 1:40pm
Anyone remember when a country decided they wanted their gold back, and the US said sure…. give us 10 years. You’ll get it eventually. BTW, we melted it and recast. Something about our inventory control system.
 August 31, 2015 at 1:36pm
“a more plausible view…”
What’s your investment portfolio like?
Do you put your money where your fantasies are?
 August 28, 2015 at 4:47pm
“I will answer 1 of your questions because I think that is what you are entitled to…”
Ouch. It is their job to ask questions and seek answers… all day. It qualifies as a full time job;
I agree, however she is not a man. I could have said human, but somehow that made it seem less than the idea I was trying to express. Right or wrong, men are typically seen as the more vulgar of the two sexes.
 August 28, 2015 at 1:10pm
The parents have revocable power of Attny. If they don’t like it, they can say/do something about it. It is not anyone else’s business. Threatened legal action for taking kids to church with you? If a parent/parents do object, some non-theistic childcare can be set up while the family is in church. In neither case is it anyone else’s business.
I would bet that almost every family would have no problem with their kids going to church with their host family. The family could even add a stipulation in the power of attny that they are allowed to take the kids to church with them, and that this permission is revocable without revoking the rest of the power of attny.
If the parent stipulates that they no longer want their child/children to go to (that ) church, the agreement may be amended to specify what alterations of arrangements/accommodations would satisfy the the parent(s).
I actually think that there might be a point to their objection. The parent may feel that they have no option to object to anything without revoking the power of attny and risking loosing custody of their kid(s). Specify otherwise on this issue, and then stipulate a way to resolve other issues that may arise to neutralize similar fears. The p. attny. is still revocable, but options are stipulated on handling conflicts short of that.
That would be a way to handle it. If it’s become a problem, why didn’t they amend the contract to deal with it?
 August 27, 2015 at 5:26am
copied from elsewhere:
Anyone going hiking in such remote locations should carry
a small pack containing a mirror, NASA Mylar blanket (retains 90% body heat and costs $1),
empty canteen with water tablets, knife, a few matches or flint, and candy bars.
Substitute energy/protein bars.
Less likely to be eaten as soon as they get out of Mom’s sight
and candy might give them a reason to duck away… step 1 on getting lost.
water tablets, yes…FULL canteen and maybe a lifestraw.
plastic poncho in case of rain – to prevent hypothermia
ziplock bag w/dryer lint and other tinder
imagine all the twigs and leaf litter are soaked by rain…
signal whistle – and Morse code card &/or personal signal code ( __ . __ = Tim)
if everyone has whistles, you should have a way to tell each other apart
recognize if you are hearing your son,
or his mother hoping her whistle will carry farther than her voice
after you separated a bit to cover more ground.
fishook tied to line and coiled tight in small container like daily pillbox or contact lens case,
+ lump of bait (putty type)
invite each person in the group -including kids-
to add one thing that they think would help them survive
to their personal emergency kit
talk about it and practice (like fire drills) in a controlled environment
August 27, 2015 at 4:42am
Substitute energy/protein bars.
Less likely to be eaten as soon as they get out of Mom’s sight and candy might give them a reason to duck away… step 1 on getting lost.
August 27, 2015 at 4:23am
How the hell do you deport American Citzens?
You deport the parents and ask if they have made other arrangements for their child’s custody,
or if they are keeping their family together.
freeIdiot, You can deport the parents anytime (that was not my point). However, the “American kids” can stay and live with other relatives in the US or a foster home. If the parents took them back to Mexico, the “American Kids” can return anytime they are able to. Then they can sponsor their parents. But if the 14 amend is to be revised or update???? It won’t affect the anchor kids of the past. It will take affect on the date the law is revise, yes ? right ? Free…you're all about rightful law, right. Well this is the rightful process IF the law get amended….
August 27, 2015 at 4:14am
“unfair” question? Don’t you mean a hard or unwelcome one? These questions will come up. Certainly the issue will, and he would be in the hot seat… how would he implement or work around the law? What law would he propose to change or pass, if any?
What do we think of Dems who only get softball questions from their media fan base? Should we wait for political opponents to ask the tough questions and help us decide who has the best ideas, and the courage (etc) to implement them? What do we learn, or fail to learn, about people by NOT challenging them with hard questions?
The thoughts that comes to my mind are:
Should a President act like this? How will someone with his or Mr..
Trump's personality perform with foreign governments?
I actually have no problem with hard questions. I'm glad that my presidential candidates are getting asked questions that they're not necessarily comfortable with. When I called it "unfair" I was referencing how many people thought that the questions that Trump received from Kelly were unfair.
As far as I'm concerned, if you want to ask a slew of loaded or leading questions to every candidate in the field, do it - if for no other reason than to see how the behave under pressure.
August 27, 2015 at 3:48am
“If illegal immigrant parents are being deported, why would they choose to leave their minor children behind? And if they do, are they good parents?”
1. They may be getting deported into a physically dangerous situation.
2. They may believe their kid has a better chance at an education here
3. they may have friends or family here legally they could safely leave their kids with
All the above is hypothetical, there are many situations and variations.
“All of this presupposes that the children are US citizens. …”
Next read the constitution. I know what it was intended to deal with, but read the actual text. Look at the legal precedent. Yes, they are citizens.
August 26, 2015 at 4:19am
Pushing the police to do more than they have done [on the assumption that they were not doing their jobs] may be a waste of time, but mobilizing the community is not a waste.
I posted 2 comments that seemed a bit contradictory. Late, but thought I should clear that up.
August 26, 2015 at 3:01am
It was a a fair question though an unwelcome one…. everyone knows it will come up.
The question could have been handled much better:
1. kind of like ‘have you stopped beating your wife’ in the sense that there is NO good answer to that question. I don’t want to box myself in at this point; there are still discussions to be had.
2. It isn’t fair to try to dodge the question though. It is something that will obviously come up. Children whose parents are arrested for anything ELSE suffer for their parent’s mistakes. We don’t stop putting people in prison because they have kids who need them, right? Why should these children get special treatment that (other) American children in unfortunate situations do not have? It’s not quite the same, but that might be a starting point for a discussion.
3. What is your opinion, and what do you base it on?
Well, wanting to avoid hurting people is certainly a good thing. When any decision you make will hurt someone you need some other way to decide which of the imperfect options is still better than the alternatives you know about. Trying to decide what is ‘fair’ and treat everyone the same would be one such guide. An alternative is to look at all the people who could be hurt and choose to protect the people you like best and to hurt those you don’t like as much instead. Another is to deny equal protection of the law to the smallest minority so that fewer people are hurt. So, what do you think is ‘fair’, and why?