Replies

You need to work on your reading comprehension. I don't admit that the evidence was less than conclusive. I say -- unequivocally -- that anyone who defers to that jury is a fool.

That includes you. It does not include me.

I note you don't touch on the acquittal of Klansman as a matter of nullification abuse at all, except to say they will answer to God. That is already true [or false] the question of nullification notwithstanding, with which it has nothing to do.

As for the rest, there is nothing in your quotes that indicates that the Framers believed in wholesale nullification. Their position is the same as mine, and it isn't yours.

You need to work on your reading comprehension. I don't admit that the evidence was less than conclusive. I say -- unequivocally -- that anyone who defers to that jury is a fool.
That includes you. It does not include me.

Again, I said that I don't really remember much of anything about that trial; therefore not to defer to their judgment would be to impugn their integrity and honor.
To do otherwise would be arrogant; I did not ever become familiar with the trial in any way — they did. You may have, I don't know; to take your word for it would be truly foolish though.

I am not ready to throw the baby out with the bathwater — I believe the founders were right when they said that it is better that a dozen criminals should be free [i.e. acquitted] than a single innocent punished.

As for the rest, there is nothing in your quotes that indicates that the Framers believed in wholesale nullification. Their position is the same as mine, and it isn't yours.

Really? I don't think you really understand what they were saying.
Remember they were very, very weary of tyranny — just ramming a 'law' into place (a la Obamacare) doesn't make that law good, or constitutional.
Just because some government organization [e.g. USSC] says that it's Constitutional doesn't mean that it is so.