It does square with 6th Amendment interpretation in this country. I've read your link. The only cases that were cited in that link in which attorneys successfully argued for jury nullification are pre-constitutional cases.
Indeed, most telling is Zenger's case, which was cited in your link. Tell me, do you read much? Have you read Zenger's case? The Crown in Zenger's case argued (and the justices agreed, in fact) that there was no right of jury nullification. In fact, Zenger's first two attorneys were disbarred for criticizing the Court, in many instances on its stance against jury nullification. It was really only Hamilton's reputation that allowed Zenger to present his defense at all.
Your link, again, confuses the issue of the POWER to nullify and the right to ARGUE for nullification. I suggest you learn the distinction, along with the FIJA. Of course, I suspect that the FIJA is well aware of the distinction, but is more than happy to dupe the folks that fail to grasp such minute, but important, details.
The issue, however, is whether a party can argue for jury nullification.
The judge said no, and this appears to square with the law in this country for at least a couple hundred years.
It does not square with the Constitutional law of the 6th as written.
It does square with 6th Amendment interpretation in this country.
Yes indeed, we have been arguing about "6th Amendment interpretation" since the 6th was written, -- and again, that ~is~ the issue here.
The issue here is whether a party [Fincher] can inform the jury about the law he is accused of violating.
The judge said no, and this does not square with the supreme law [the VI amendment] that has applied in this country for at least a couple hundred years.
The 'interpretation' you advocate does not allow the accused to have an "impartial jury" -- "informed of the nature and cause of the accusation" -- "against him".
Parse the language of the 6th as you will, but the intent is clear;
-- except to those who back a gov't using un-delegated powers.
Lawyers swear oaths to uphold the principles of our Constitution, not 'interpretations' that deprive their peers of the liberty to own a machine gun. -- I suggest you learn that distinction.