JB/034/130/001

Click Here To Edit

1828. August 25

Constitutional Code. III. Rationale
Ch Quasi Jury

91 or 1
cor. Incona
Trusting these men with
superlegislative power
viz. constitution, of its
refuse to trust them with
the absolute power of liberating
an accuser evidence

§ No inconsistency in thus harnessing the power of a Jury

But says somebody you in whose eyes these same
individuals are not unapt to bear a paramount part in
the business of legislationof legislation can even an unbounded scale, can you with any consistency, regard
those as unapt with regard to a function so bounded
in its extent so subordinate in its importance in that of
pronouncing a or in a case whether in the defendants side of the cause willing
is at stake than the fate of this or that individual?

92 or 2
Answer
1. Only of necessity or
constitutive power given
to them: to no authority
more intellectually
apt could such power be given
without a certainty of
beig reviewed

Answer

I answerAnswer 1. in regard to the power I give
to them - it is under the pressure of necessity that I give it to
them because in no other kind could it be riposed, without inthe
absolute certainty of its being abused.

93 or 3
2. As to locative
legislators,
to be guided by
general reputation i:e:
certificates by Pub. Opinion
Tribunal: as
superior aptitude of
is certified by experience

2.. In the case of the power given to them as to the
of legislators, for in no instance whatever is any time of the legislation
given to them, I have them as according to all experience
I may without danger have them, to be assisted, and in as far as
this phase guided by general reputation: no opinion in
judgment of their are they in theirthat cause called upon to
pronounce. But of judicature by no one of can here be pronounced in other case no judgement can any one of the proname
any judgment which is not his own: no less direct as delted and coupled is
the cognizance taken of the matter this case their situation than in the his situation case
is that of the Judge. In the forming of it no impartial assistance
have they: no assistance that so much as pro to be impartial,
other than that of the Judge: of that very functionary,
to whose power the use and sole use of theirs as to apply
a check: and under to whose direction guidance in so far as without
forming a relation to the matter are opinion of their own, they
committ themselves, their function is of in efficient and useless no use

94 or 4
In the Judicial case
no such assistance has
the less intellectually
apt functionary.

95 or 5
SOle assistance, Jury i.e. the very functionary
the checking of
whose power is the
sole use of all promissary
power given
to the less intellectually
functionary - So far
without