What "judicial decree"? We're talking about your juror's oath to judge a case on the law as written and the facts in evidence.
Do you mean to say that an oath to do those things is against the Constitution?
BTW, I would love to see a lawyer question jurors "Will you regard the text of the Constitution of the United States as the supreme law of the land, all other statutes and judicial decrees notwithstanding?"
Are you comfortable with 12 random people making that judgment? Do you think they know the Constitution well enough to say one way or the other?
I'm sure most judges would fabricate some excuse to cite such a lawyer for contempt, but I see no way such a question would not be legitimate without acknowledging a desire for jurors to act illegitimately (contrary to the Constitution).
Sounds like you're certain that the whole orchestra is out of tune, except for you.
If there would be any conflict between doing such things and the Constitution, then yes. Such conflicts may not exist in general, but certainly could exist in specific cases.
Are you comfortable with 12 random people making that judgment? Do you think they know the Constitution well enough to say one way or the other?
The Constitution is neither long nor complex. What are long and complex are the illegitimate rationalizations used by violators to justify their actions.