Nullification: Jefferson’s Rightful Remedy – Use It or Lose It

Coach is Right ^ | 12/13/15 | Karen Lees

[Oldpuppymax]

Roman philosopher Marcus Tullius Cicero observed, “No one was ever great without some portion of divine inspiration.” The greatness of our Constitution’s framers is evident in the document they created, which has successfully endured for 228 years – longer than that of any other nation.

But today our Constitution, which serves as the foundation for our nation’s law, is routinely ignored or subjected to federal encroachment and judicial overreach at the state, local, and individual levels.

Fortunately the framers wisely built-in a simple yet effective remedy to illegitimate laws and judicial encroachment, one which has been successfully used many times in the past. It is called nullification – the legal theory that a state has the right to nullify, or invalidate, any federal law which that state has deemed unconstitutional. It is the peaceful, civil disobedience to unjust law.

Thomas Jefferson described nullification as “the rightful remedy.” But it takes courage – an attribute in very short supply these days, especially among politicians.

One of the earliest examples of nullification is found in the book of Exodus. Against Pharaoh’s edict, Hebrew midwives refused to kill Hebrew males born into Egyptian captivity. Martin Luther King, Rosa Parks, Nevada rancher Cliven Bundy and KY County Court Clerk Kim Davis demonstrated modern day examples of nullification on a personal level.

Governments are instituted to serve their uniquely ordained and very limited purpose. Approximately 20 powers are granted to our government by its creator, the People of the states. They are listed in our Constitution in Article 1 Section 8. The primary purpose of our government is to guarantee protection of the citizen’s unalienable natural rights. These rights are not given or created by men, but are of natural divine order – “The laws of nature and...

[puppypusher]

If I ever get to serve on a jury where the defendant alegedly violated Connecticurs Assault Weapons ban without engaging in any other crime I’ll be using nullification and voting “Not Guilty”

I Think that law is a joke committed by lazy politician who were trying to cover their own butts.

I won’t stand for it.

[Oldpuppymax]

Jury nullification has been an issue for the past 2 hundred years. Many claim a sitting jury may exercise its authority in any way it wishes, based upon what it believes to be just. Others say the “law” and instructions from the trial judge must be followed.

Of course, thanks to the Patriot Act and other statutes which followed, Americans are no longer entitled to a day in court; to respond to charges, to speak with an attorney, etc.

[Mack the knife]

f I ever get to serve on a jury where the defendant alegedly violated Connecticurs Assault Weapons ban without engaging in any other crime I’ll be using nullification and voting “Not Guilty”

---

You won’t get on that jury without committing perjury during jury questioning which includes jury nullification questions.

[Calpublican]

{”You won’t get on that jury without committing perjury during jury questioning which includes jury nullification questions.”}

The perjury could be viewed as a personal act of nullification.

[Glad2bnuts]

Being disallowed on a jury for refusing to state your opinion on jurors ability to judge law, is judicial tyranny. I don’t recall USSC nominees being asked how they will rule. After all, our “servants” lie or obfuscate, while running for office and after without any legal repercussions. Being called for jury duty, and wanting to serve, is similar enough to me as running for an office, or wanting to be appointed as a Supreme Court Judge.