and lets say a radio station is brought up on charges they did not follow obamas fairness doctrine rules, that the station did not give equal time to a counterpoint view. would you vote that the radio station is guilty or innocent? lets say you believe the fairness doctrine is Un-Constitutional (freedom of speech) are you telling me that you would go with the Un-Constitutional law, over the Constitution????
how about some one in trouble for lets say refusing to perfrom a gay wedding, maybe a preacher is being sued, or a wedding photographer. lets say the laws says they cant discriminate, and they indeed did. however you believe that they should have freedom of association, and should not be forced into this. (ie the dicrimination law is wrong) would you vote guilty or not guilty (I’d vote not guilty)
More and more we have liberal Un-Constitutional laws imposed on us. If we belive the law is wrong, we have a DUTY to vote not guilty.
if more jurors did that, we would have less bad laws.
It is the right and duty of the jury to see if the law is right or not. to convict someone when you know the law to be un-constitutional is immoral.
dont let any judge try to force you to accept the law just becuase it is case law or the politicans imposed that law on us.
for another example, how about laws made by the judical branch (activist judges laws) in these cases, one can rightfully argue that the judical branch has no authority to make laws, that power is for the people and politicans to make. judges only apply the law, not write the law.
so you have a case where you must decide guilt or not for a law made up by an activist judge. do you go with the activist judges law, or do you ignore that law, becuase it was made outside of the constitutional constraints we have aginst judges making law???
It is a slippery slope when we prevert the justice system to prevent jurors from deciding if the law is right or not. that is part of the jurors job. that is one of the main reasons we have the protection of the jury system, to give one more defense agisnt un-constitutional laws.
we read of so many guilty verdicts for stupid laws, technical violations etc... too bad more jurors are not informed of their right to make sure the law is right.
technical violations of gun laws are one more example. how about the guy that technically violated the machine gun law, beucase his old worn Non-machine gun did double fire. Yes techinically his gun did indeed double fire (or was made to double fire by the feds) and there is no provision in the law for excusses like a worn gun, or bad ammo etc.. so strictly speaking he must be found guilty. a smart jury how ever should look at that law and say hey. this law was not meant to go after accidental mutlishots, even though there is no provision for excuses, it is still wrong. Id vote not guilty, even though the law was broken by him. the fact is the law IS broken, (as in the law itself was wrong)
the jury system is the final check to prevent abuse of bad laws on people. it is the final say in the power of the people to override bad law.
most if not near all judges do not want you to think like that. however you have a moral obligation to sort out if the law is just or not, if the law is Constitutional or not, if the law should be applied or not in that case.
with all the bad laws coming down the pike from activist judges, liberal un-Conbstitutional believing politians, and the like, you better pray he have juries that will look at if the law is just or not, rather than blinding following some judges order.
that is your moral Constitutional obligation.
Totally agree with your well articulated thoughts.