YOU WAIVED YOUR RIGHT TO A TRIAL BY JURY
A trial by A JURY OF YOUR PEERS IS A TRIAL BY 12 PEOPLE WHO KNOW YOU and who can judge the law as well as the facts.
The writers of your Constitution had a strong distrust of government tyranny. A trial by a jury of your peers was intended to replace the inherently unfair trial by government. A trial by government does not fulfill the Fifth Amendment guarantee to due process of law. You have a right to a fair trial. Trial by government cannot be fair. "Inquisition" is trial by government.
The book Elliot's Debates On The Adoption Of The Constitution quotes (Vol 3, page 579) Patrick Henry as stating; "By the bill of rights of England, a subject has a right to a trial by his peers. What is meant by his peers? Those who reside near him, his neighbors, and who are well acquainted with his character and situation in life."
Also in Elliot's Debates we can read (Vol 2, page 516) where another Founding Father, James Wilson, signer of the Declaration of Independence, and later a Supreme Court Justice, reassured us that a jury of your peers would always be 12 people who know you: "Where jurors can be acquainted with the characters of the parties and the witnesses -- where the whole cause can be brought within their knowledge and their view -- I know no mode of investigation equal to that by a trial by jury: they hear every thing that is alleged; they not only hear the words, but they see and mark the features of the countenance; they can judge of weight due to such testimony; and moreover, it is a cheap and expeditious manner of distributing justice. There is another advantage annexed to the trial by jury; the jurors may indeed return a mistaken or il-founded verdict, but their errors cannot be systematical."
And again, in Elliot's Debates, Vol 2, page 110, Mr. Holmes from Massachusetts, assured us that cases would be heard in the local community where the jury of peers could form a judgment based on the character of the accused and the credibility of the witnesses.
That's right! Your Constitution was ratified on the reassurance that a jury of your peers would always be 12 people who know you.
Here is further proof that a trial by jury is not a trial by government: The Metropolitan News, a Los Angeles legal newspaper on October 25, 1973 quoted Hon. L. Thaxton Hanson, Justice Court of Appeals, State of California (ret.): "In ancient times, the right to trial by jury was called `trial per pals' - that is, trial by country - or by the people, as distinguished from trial by government."
Lord Hale, 18th Century English Jurist, was being quoted in the US Supreme Court's case Sparf & Hansen v. US, 156 US 51 at page 119 (1895): "... if the judge's opinion in matter of law must rule the issue of fact submitted to the jury, the trial by jury would be useless."
Much of your law comes from the English system. The US Supreme Court, in the same Sparf case at page 117 quotes Englishman John Milton in his book Defense of the People: "And hence it is that when a malefactor is asked at his arraignment, `How will you be tried?' he answers always, according to law and custom, `By God and my country, not by God and the King, or the King's Deputy [Judge].'"
In the impeachment Trial of US Supreme Court Justice Chase in 1805, your US Government itself fought for the right of the jury to judge the law as well as the facts. They impeached Justice Chase because he failed to tell a jury in a murder trial that they can judge the law. -- Perhaps juries today do not have the right to judge the law. Perhaps juries have waived their rights by registering to vote. All of their rights. [Government derives its powers from the consent of the governed, and registered voters have consented to be governed].
Supreme Court Justice Chase, a signer of the Declaration of Independence, was impeached for
"... endeavoring to wrest from the jury their indisputable right to hear argument, and determine upon the question of law as well as the question of fact, ..."
Your U.S. Government itself, in the Chase Transcript Article 1, Section 2, Clause 4, argued that Justice Chase did this outrageous thing:
"... to the disgrace of the character of the American bench, in manifest violation of law and justice and in open contempt of the rights of juries, on which ultimately rest the liberty and safety of the American people."
In 1969 in U.S. v. Moylan 417 F2d 1002 at page 1006: "We recognize as appellants urge, the UNDISPUTED power of the jury to acquit, even if the verdict is contrary to the law as given by the judge and contrary to the evidence. ... the jury has the power to acquit and the courts must abide by that decision."