Jurors should acquit, even against the judge's instruction... if exercising their judgement with discretion and honesty they have a clear conviction the charge of the court is wrong.
-- Alexander Hamilton, 1804
It is not only the juror's right, but his duty to find the verdict according to his own best understanding, judgement and conscience, though in direct opposition to the instruction of the court.
--John Adams, 1771
I consider trial by jury as the only anchor yet imagined by man by which a government can be held to the principles of its constitution.
-- Thomas Jefferson, 1789
Guess you know more than they do.
In the 1850's, the Supreme Court held that Blacks were Chattel. Which, by the way, was consistent with the U.S. Constitution. Fortunately, however, we aren't stuck with that decision.
The Hamilton quote does not support your assertion that jurors decide the law. The Adams quote, is pre-U.S. Constitution. And, the Jefferson Quote certainly does not support your conclusion.
The jury system is great. And it is vital to our way of life and jurisprudence. Jurors, however, determine the facts, not the application of law.
For what purpose is the judge there? Is he just the sargent at arms? He just there to referee?
Next time a juror makes a ruling of law anywhere in this country, you let me know. Next time they make a ruling on an objection, you let me know. Why is it that every Friday I have to argue my motions on the law before Judges, without the presence of Jurors? Can't we just put twelve freepers in the box and let them rule as a matter of law on my summary judgment motions, motions in limine, motions to dismiss, objections, discovery motions, and protective orders?
Sorry, the system is there so that a jury of one's peers can determine the facts, including the credibility of witnesses, and the reliability of proof. They also determine if the parties meet their respective burdens of proof. They do not rule on matters of law. Period.