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.
Where? What law? You provide a link that cites to Zenger's Case (a case that pre-dates the Sixth Amendment by 60 years, incidentally), in which the Crown and the Justices make crystal clear that jury nullification is not appropriate for the jury.
Chief Justice Delancey's instruction to the jury:
The great pains Mr. Hamilton [Zenger's attorney--PV] has taken to show how little regard juries are to pay to the opinion of judges, and his insisting so much upon the conduct of some judges in trials of this kind, is done no doubt with a design that you should take but very little notice of what I might say upon this occasion. I shall therefore only observe to you that as the facts or words in the information are confessed, the only thing that can come in question before you is whether the words as set forth in the information make a libel. And that is a matter of law, no doubt, and which you may leave to the Court.
Again, as I have stated before, the FIJA only provides examples of instances in which juries have nullified.
I ask again: where is the "Sixth Amendment interpretation since the Sixth was written" that demonstrates that attorneys have the right to argue nullification? Where is that law?