[TChris]

it is up to the jurors.

OK. Where does the Constitution grant jurors the power to declare a law "bad" and change or ignore it for a trial?

I can define bad laws as thoose that are aginst teh bill of rights for starters. I have already stated a partial list which laws are bad (ie gun control, hate crimes, anti-prolife free speech laws.) so i wouyld never convict in thoose cases, I think they are Un-Constitutional.

Ironic that this should be your reason, isn't it? ...to violate the Constitution because you think the law is unconstitutional.

can you find one law that is unconstitutional as you read the constitution? please to prove you are a conservative, goive me one bad law???

There are plenty that I believe are unconstitutional; the list would be long. What you have written would probably be on my list as well.

But the huge gulf between us is what I believe should be done about it. I believe unconstitutional laws should be identified as such either by the legislature or an appellate court and eliminated or changed according to the processes authorized by the Constitution.

I would NOT take a sacred oath I intended to violate to sit on a jury and ignore or alter the law. I would either declare my aversion to the law during the jury selection process, or if I learned of the magnitude of the mess during the trial, I would attempt to have myself removed from the jury.

There's a right way to fix a problem and your way is not it, in my opinion.

[dhm914]

well if your idea of fixing the problem of bad law, will allow a man to rot in jail waiting for the legislature to fix the probelm, well let me just state i hope that unfortunate person is you, not anyone else.
that is a selfish, immoral, anti-patriotic postion to take. for you to allow a freeman to be imprisoned for a law you KNOW is wrong, just becuase you have some high headed belief that the legal system will eventualy fix itself, and you must wait for that process is dead wrong.

the jury is to not convict an innocent man. a man is not guilty of violating unjust laws. you would rather convict a man to prison than vote to free that man, just becuase you think the law should be fixed by someone else. that is sick and is of the same mind set that allowed law abiding germans to ignore the rounding up of the jews by hitler. just wait until it is your problem

for some reason, I bet you would not want to be in prison for an un-just law. I bet you would not want to wait for our failed legislature, and revisionist judges to fix the problem.

you are not fit to serve on anyting but a Stalinist kangoroo court “jury”.

[Lucius Cornelius Sulla]

I think the problem here is one of legitimacy of the system. If you live in a legitimate state you obey ALL the laws, whatever your personal beliefs. If you feel strongly that the laws are wrong, you use Constitutional methods to get them changed. If the government becomes illegitimate (like Germany in the 1930’s), you are morally free to do anything that is not disproportional to avoid the law, and overthrow the government. While there are tremendous warning signs in the current situation, I believe that the Constitutional government of the US is still a legitimate state, and will obey the laws.