To: george76
Laws are the province of legislation not some nuts “feelings” that a law is unjust. If a law is felt to be “unjust” we have recourse to change it. “Nullifiers” fail to understand they are advocating perjury as jurors swear to follow the judges explanation of the law.
To: AEMILIUS PAULUS
"Nullifiers" fail to understand they are advocating perjury as jurors swear to follow the judges explanation of the law.What if the judge's explanation is flawed or biased?
19 posted on
12/17/2015 9:53:15 AM PST by
Bloody Sam Roberts
(Democracy is not freedom. Democracy is simply majoritarianism. It is incompatible with real freedom.)
To: AEMILIUS PAULUS
Sorry, but if a law goes against the clear meaning of the Constituion, either federal or state, I am in no way obligated to adhere to it if I am on a jury. Otherwise, why have juries? Let judges do the determination of guilty or now.
22 posted on
12/17/2015 10:05:42 AM PST by
dirtboy
To: AEMILIUS PAULUS
Maybe you should read the literature at fija.org before you judge the constitutional duties of jurors.
To: AEMILIUS PAULUS
I prefer the concept of a law unjustly applied, such as a prosecutor piling on charges or stretching the intent of a law because of pressure to charge something. Remember when the feds tried to use Sarbanes-Oxley laws to charge someone who threw undersized fish back into the water?
-PJ
59 posted on
12/17/2015 11:20:38 AM PST by
Political Junkie Too
(If you are the Posterity of We the People, then you are a Natural Born Citizen.)
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson