Replies

"Thus, the particular phraseology of the constitution of the United States confirms and strengthens the principle, supposed to be essential to all written constitutions, that a law repugnant to the constitution is void; and that courts, as well as other departments, are bound by that instrument."

And who decides which laws are repugnant? You? Juries?

No. The United States Supreme Court.

You're free to practice jury nullification if you wish, paine. In fact, I encourage you to do it if you believe that a law is unjust.

But the jury you're on won't be deciding the constitutionality of any law, as a body.

"Thus, the particular phraseology of the constitution of the United States confirms and strengthens the principle, supposed to be essential to all written constitutions, that a law repugnant to the constitution is void; and that courts, as well as other departments, are bound by that instrument."
J Marshall

And who decides which laws are repugnant? You? Juries? No. The United States Supreme Court.

Nope, it's not the court, -- not at a fair trial.
It's a fully informed jury of my peers..
That's the law, sinky, learn to live with it.

You're free to practice jury nullification if you wish, paine. In fact, I encourage you to do it if you believe that a law is unjust.

You're in denial sink.. The defendant here was NOT free to inform the jury in the case at issue.

But the jury you're on won't be deciding the constitutionality of any law, as a body.

Exactly. No one said they should. A juries decision only affects the case at hand..

You really need to learn to apply a bit of common sense to your arguments sinky..

"And who decides which laws are repugnant? You? Juries?

No. The United States Supreme Court."

Please clarify something for me.

If a law is clearly, beyond a shadow of a doubt,blatantly unconstitutional, but the USSC rules it is constitutional,does that mean it is constitutional?