John Jay's statement was made in a Supreme Court decision, he was the Cheif Justice of same. Between the branches of government Marbury v. Madison affords the Supreme Court review of the constitutionality of laws, but the jury system is intended to provide the citizens final say in the application of those laws. Marbury v. Madison isn't about the jury system, and further, Congress itself is afforded final say over the powers of the Supreme Court in Article III, Section 2, Clause 2, "In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction,
both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make."
Ignorance is a curable condition for the so inclined.
The question at hand is not the Jury's right or lack thereof to adjudicate on the constitutionality of a given law, rather it is whether such a law (a law stating that withholding is
mandatory) even exists.
The judge refused to even allow such inquiry in the most recent court matter, and in the previous trial, the IRS agents refused to testify as to te existence, if any, of such a law.
That is the biggest single problem here; the Court denying a defendant the right to explore whether the law he is accused of breaking even exists.
Diverting the focus from the actual problem to the straw man of a jury's right to decide the constitutionality of a law only disacts from the hitherto unanswered question:
Does this alleged but unsubstantiated law even exist? And if it does, why does the IRS refuse to cite it in open court?
Let's drop the hot dog bun and chew on the steak, n'kay Sinky?
;-/