saw it as irrelevant. So Jacobson then attempted to submit instructions to the jury to decide his innocence on legal grounds but all three instructions were rejected by the judge so the jury never got to rule on them. The Supreme Court doesn’t give a reason for rejection. However, the claims are interesting: 1) “That § 137 of chapter 75 of the Revised Laws of Massachusetts was in derogation of the rights secured to the defendant by the preamble to the Constitution of the United States, and tended to subvert and defeat the purposes of the Constitution as declared in its preamble;” The preamble of the Constitution is not considered to be legally binding. It’s considered to be a philosophical introduction to the Constitution. Also, I’ll add that the Declaration of Independence is not a legally binding document either to hold the government legally accountable against the citizens of the U.S. as it was intended to be a declaration against England. It isn’t legally enforceable now. Discussion Question: Should the Preamble of the Constitution carry any legal weight? Is it specific enough to be able to properly guide the branches of the government? Should it have more or less power than the 9th Amendment? 2)
I’m working on a political science question and need an explanation to help me learn.
Choose FOUR discussion board questions to answer from any of the file attached.
A minimum of 8 sentences is expected for each post. Your own viewpoint has to be the focus and majority of the post. The post must be clearly related to a topic.
Opinionated only. JUST YOUR THOUGHTS. Not a summary. Focus on JUST the reading attached. No outside reading.
Requirements: 8 sentences for each discussion question
UNFORMATTED ATTACHMENT PREVIEW
Purchase answer to see full attachment
