In one of the most notorious [and wrongfully applied] jury nullifications of all time, OJ's jury found that murder was just fine, as long as a white cop peripherally connected to his investigation might have used the word nigger once in the last ten years.
Racist juries in some states routinely acquitted Klansmen. They also saw no "universality" of murder as instrinsically evil, as long as untermenschen were being killed.
We have well-recognized ways to repeal unjust laws. We have well-recognized ways to modify or overturn anti-Constitutional laws. In the routine practice of those refinements, juries are not, and should not be, involved, except possibly to highlight when the corrective reforms are needed and effect them in the proper channels.
Advocating that every citizen be a legislature unto himself is an idea abhorrent to the very meaning of law, and would have been justly deprecated by the Framers as mob rule.
I don't remember too much about the trial, but there was one freeper that said that he thought OJ was taking the rap for his son; another thing I seem to recall is that there were improprieties taken with collecting/handling the evidence (I vaguely remember something about a blood sample that may have contaminated evidence).
I'm not prepared to unilaterally say that the jury was wrong in that case.
Racist juries in some states routinely acquitted Klansmen. They also saw no "universality" of murder as instrinsically evil, as long as untermenschen were being killed.
They will have to answer to the Supreme Judge.
We have well-recognized ways to repeal unjust laws. We have well-recognized ways to modify or overturn anti-Constitutional laws.
Oh? Like ObamaCare — riiiiight.
In the routine practice of those refinements, juries are not, and should not be, involved, except possibly to highlight when the corrective reforms are needed and effect them in the proper channels.
How stupid — just because some law
hasn't yet been recognized as contrary to the constitution binding its originating legislature doesn't mean that the accused should be found guilty. For example, New Mexico's Constitution says No law shall abridge the right of the citizen to keep and bear arms for security and defense
, yet the Statute NMSA 30-7-2.4 does precisely that.
So, should a jury convict for violation thereof? That is, a citizen who kept firearms in on-campus housing thus violating NMSA 30-7-2.4 — remember that the constitution explicitly prohibits this law.
Advocating that every citizen be a legislature unto himself is an idea abhorrent to the very meaning of law, and would have been justly deprecated by the Framers as mob rule.
I haven't said that [every citizen should be a legislature] at all.
But your arguments perhaps show a misunderstanding as to the nature of authority: the laws are established by the legislature which is established by the Constitution… if the Constitution prohibits certain laws and the legislature enacts such anyway, are they legitimate? If they are, then there is no sense in having a Constitution, because there is nothing that can constrain them (except, perhaps, violent revolution) — but if they are nullity, then how can a judge constrain them to try the facts
when the fact is that the law is illegitimate?
How many laws are created each and every year, as opposed to repealed each year?