And a judge is lying to the ury when he tells them that the Judge decides what the law is and the jury is required to apply the facts to the judges instructionsas to the law.
The US Supreme court has ruled that the jury is judge of both the facts and the law.
Then elect good people who will pass on Supreme Court nominees.
In certain circumstances he is the party determining facts and law, for example a judge trial. Even then most judges will decide better than a layman.
As much as I hate to agree with a seahawks fan you are absolutely correct.
Lets looks at a hypothetical example.
In some mostly liberal states self defense is still against the law. If on any jury where it was reasonable that someone would defend themselves, I would NEVER convict the one who defended himself. Regardless of what the local law says, our foundational documents guarantee our right to life. Any law that violates that is unconstitutional
In many major cities it is still illegal to carry a concealed weapon. This is blatantly unconstitutional even if the legislatures have voted to do it. You cannot violate the Constitution with a mere law. The juror is required by patriotic duty to judge every law in accordance with the Constitution.
A recent case in (The pacific northwest I think) of the man who was persecuted for collecting rainwater that fell on his own property! There is NO Constitutional authority for any legislature (or other government entity) to steal his water. This was an unconstitutional taking by government. The juror is required to judge in accordance with the Constitution.
AP, you sound like a prosecuting attorney who just wants the peasants to sit down, shut up and take what their "betters" have decreed for them. You have to realize that WE THE PEOPLE are the ultimate authority in this country. During jury duty WE judge the law as well as the case and no one has the authority nor the power to force us to violate our conscience.