[sinkspur]

If you wind up on a jury and refuse to convict because you disagree with the law, hold hard and fast to your right to refuse to say a word about why you refused, or stick to the story about reasonable doubt until the day you die (and preferably longer).

Exactly. If YOU don't think a law is constitutional, just refuse to convict.

But the idea that a judge has to allow a defense counsel to argue the constitutionality of a law, in each and every case, is simply ludicrous. That's begging for anarchy in the judicial system.

[Gunslingr3]

But the idea that a judge has to allow a defense counsel to argue the constitutionality of a law, in each and every case, is simply ludicrous. That's begging for anarchy in the judicial system.

Sounds like you have no faith in the jury system, so why even have it? Why not just let the judges decide, they know best, right?

[ovrtaxt]

McColl said he expects to win on appeal, but he added that it is time for Americans to pay attention to what happened in court. "I'm terribly disappointed," McColl said. "It was not a fair trial in accordance with the Sixth Amendment of the Constitution that includes the fundamental right to present evidence on your own behalf."

Here's the crux of the problem. This disallowed info is precisely what the trial was about. Typical kangaroo court crap when the IRS is involved.

I do agree, however, that the NRST is the way to go. Unfortunately, with the exception of Neal Boortz, nobody seems to know about it.