Affirmative action in college admissions was ..
Photo provided by Pexels
Affirmative Action | Affirmative Action | Equal Opportunity
My own observations of tax protesters lead me to believe that theactions of tax protesters are driven by emotional or psychologicalneeds that are more complicated than simple greed, and that the“arguments” they present to the IRS and the courts arereally nothing but elaborate rationalizations (or delusions) thatthey have constructed in order to avoid a reality that they areunable to accept. Sometimes the unacceptable reality is a sense ofpersonal financial failure. Unable to accept the idea that their ownincomes (or the lack thereof) might be the result of their own lackof skill or effort, or a matter of impersonal economics, taxprotesters instead decide that the income tax system is the problemand begin finding reasons why it should not exist. In other cases,the unacceptable reality may be a moral or legal failure. An unhappyencounter with the government, such as a bad result in a divorce or achild custody dispute, or even something as minor as a speedingticket, can lead to a belief that the government is broken, corrupt,or otherwise dysfunctional, which can then lead to a fixation on thefederal tax system as symbolic of that dysfunction. In the case ofalmost every persistent tax protester, there is some personal,financial, or legal trauma or crisis that precedes the taxprotester’s obsession with the tax system.
Does the 14th Amendment Mandate Affirmative Action
“Any other rule than that indicated in the aboveobservations would bring confusion and uncertainty in theadministration of the criminal law. Indeed, if a jury may rightfullydisregard the direction of the court in matter of law, and determinefor themselves what the law is in the particular case before them, itis difficult to perceive any legal ground upon which a verdict ofconviction can be set aside by the court as being against law. If itbe the function of the jury to decide the law as well the facts,-ifthe function of the court be only advisory as to the law,- why shouldthe court interfere for the protection of the accused against what itdeems an error of the jury in matter of law?
“Public andprivate safety alike would be in peril if the principle beestablished that juries in criminal cases may, of right, disregardthe law as expounded to them by the court, and become a law untothemselves. Under such a system, the principal function of the judgewould be to preside and keep order while jurymen, untrained in thelaw, would determine questions affecting life, liberty, or propertyaccording to such legal principles as, in their judgment, wereapplicable to the particular case being tried. If because, generallyspeaking, it is the function of the jury to determine the guilt orinnocence of the accused according to the evidence, of the truth orweight of which they are to judge, the court should be held bound toinstruct them upon a point in respect to which there was no evidencewhatever, or to forbear stating what the law is upon a given state offacts, the result would be that the enforcement of the law againstcriminals, and the protection of citizens against unjust andgroundless prosecutions, would depend entirely upon juriesuncontrolled by any settled, fixed, legal principles. And if it betrue that a jury in a criminal case are under no legal obligation totake the law from the court, and may determine for themselves whatthe law is, it necessarily results that counsel for the accused may,of right, in the presence of both court and jury, contend that whatthe court declares to be the law applicable to the case in hand isnot the law, and, in support of his contention, read to the jury thereports of adjudged cases, and the views of elementary writers.”
Photo provided by Pexels