well we have a supreme court, once said slavery was legal, guess if you where teh slave you would be all right with that, and wait for someone to change the law in congress eventually. meanwhile get picking that cotton, the wheels of congress are turning, maybe one day they will correct the law.
is not the jury there to correct bad law? or is bad law ok with you, You can wait until the politicans fix it. meanwhile someone is rotting in jail.
no thanks. if you think it is right ot put a man in jail for a bad un-consitituional law, then you are a tryant, an immoral tyrant. we cannot lock up people and hope the bad laws are fixed later. the jury is your chance to right these wrongs. i swear to uphold the constitution as the highest law, not some law the legislature or judge came up with. if there is a conflict in my eyes, i go with teh Constitution.
Obama and the liberals need more jurors like you. ones that dont regard the Constitution as anymore than an old document. Jurors that blindly follow what liberal constitution hating politicans have to say about law.
heck to turn it around on you, why have a jury, we got a supreme court, let judges decide your fate????
OK, I've responded to this at least three times now. It appears that you're going to keep ignoring my answer, so I won't waste my time any further.
It would have been kinda hard for the Supreme Court to declare slavery unconstitutional when it's written into the Constitution.
i'm sorry, i know you are having an in depth conversation but this just jumped out at me.a jury is there to decide if a written law has been broken or not. juries do not make policy.
juries deal with an action by a person/entity and decide if that action has violated an existing statute. at least in criminal proceedings.