That is my impression also. I think it is the "academic" thing.
Do you know if the author even addresses the role of juries in setting constitutional precedence?
I do not. Are you referring to "jury nullification?"
Hank
But object that if:
"-- any restriction on the rightful exercise of liberty is unconstitutional unless and until the government convinces a hierarchy of judges that such restrictions are both necessary and proper --- "
-- As it is not only up to the judges, -- but to fully informed juries of our peers to decide if our liberties are unconstitutionally restricted, in the particular case at hand.
--- All trials should be held under a "Presumption of Liberty" doctrine, which really could "provide a practical way to restore the lost Constitution."
Do you know if the author even addresses the role of juries in setting constitutional precedence?
10 tpaine
That is my impression also. I think it is the "academic" thing.
I see the 'burying' as an subtle effort to make a fairly radical point without getting called out.
Do you know if the author even addresses the role of juries in setting constitutional precedence?
I do not. Are you referring to "jury nullification?"
More than simple nullification.
I see it as a major fault in our system of checks/balances that jury's are not allowed to judge the constitutionality of the law in the case before them. --
And, -- if a jury does nullify in order to acquit, -- its judgment on the law in the case should not be questioned by higher courts.
Judicial review should only apply to convictions.
This method would rapidly build a body of precedent on the constitutionality of laws as viewed by our peers, -- not as viewed by our so-called 'professional jurists'.