Don't know if this is your cup of tea; but if it is, I'd be delighted to hear from you!
FYI!
From the article:
"All branches of the federal government, and the states and the people, are assumed to have an interest in seeing constitutional provisions respected and carried out.
Further, all the parties to the Constitution were expected to have sufficient knowledge of our rule of law to ensure this result would be achieved.
And in the case of the federal [/state/local] government[s], it is reasonable to expect this, for all its officers have sworn oaths (or affirmations) to carry out this very principle – deference to our written constitution in all matters concerning the People."
[Bold [-] added]
In fact, I see a judges oath of office as a positive DUTY to inform an impartial jury as to the Constitutional facts of the issues at hand.
Instead, as the article notes, many State judges are instructed to inform juries that they can NOT question the 'law':
"In 1895, in United States v. Sparf, the court effectively found that, yes the juror had the sovereign right to exercise reason, judgment, and conscience with respect to both fact and law; but because he presumptively already knows he has this right from extra-legal sources, judges are not required to explain it to him. This seems to be the very reverse of the Miranda reasoning; oh, well…."
"…to this day, trial jurors retain the right to veto, or "nullify" bad laws, though they are rarely told this by the courts. Prosecutors and judges try to exclude people from serving on juries who admit knowing they can judge the law, or who have doubts about the justice of the law. This destroys the protections jurors were supposed to be able to invoke on behalf of fellow citizens against unjust prosecutions:
how can our right to a trial by an impartial jury be met if those with any qualms about the law are excluded from serving?"
How indeed can fed/state/local judges & officials, all sworn to support and defend our Constitution, rationalize excluding ALL the facts in the case at hand from a jury?
Thanks for the ping. Nicely written essay. I don't know much about this, so I'll refrain from offering any opinions.
Personally, I view jury nullification along with the right to keep and bear arms as "reset buttons" for the rule of law, provided by the framers to keep both the federal and state government in check. Their existence alone ought to be enough to constrain the law makers and judiciary.
But rather than being constrained by them, on the one hand, the law makers seek to make the second amendment of no such effect and on the other hand, the judiciary omits to mention jury nullification while at the same time, exercising that very power on their own initiative (judicial activism).
The problem is ignorance, a basic (K-12) education system which keeps the next generation in the dark about the checks and balances of our rule of law and the veto power of the governed. Conversely, the solution is information. When the educators don’t or won’t speak of such things, then we can via broadcast – internet, publications, etc.