[Bonaparte]

"As well as the 10th Amendment..."

...which only kicks in, legally, when a federal appeals court or the USSC says so. This was, afterall, a legal proceeding.

"...and the right of Jury Nullification..."

The jury was free to nullify anytime it wanted to. Guess what? It didn't.

"... and so much for fully informed juries too."

I know you meant to say, "fully prejudiced juries." Until the USSC says that Congress has no right to pass drug legislation and strikes those laws down, they stand. And they also take precedence over state and local law, laws that were not relevant to this federal proceeding. To mention them would only have been prejudicial.

[TigersEye]

The jury was free to nullify anytime it wanted to. Guess what? It didn't.

It was free to if it knew to. But the judge lied to them.

At another point, when Eye urged jurors to use their "common sense of justice," Breyer cut him off and said, "You cannot substitute your sense of justice, whatever that is, for your duty to follow the law."

Until the USSC says...

In other words your respect for the Constitution is nil. You're arguing for acceptance and adherence to law regardless of its origin. Either the Constitution is the supreme law of the land or it is not. To say that the 10th Amendment is irrelevant unless the USSC says it's relevant is to say that the Constitution is relative. The "Living Document" argument. The same legalistic moral relativism that gives us forced abortion laws.

Thanks for clarifying where you stand.