On some subjects, yes. For example, please state the flaw in the following argument, referring only to the Constitution itself and not to any judicial rulings.
Per Amendment V, it is unlawful for the government to deliberately endanger or damage a person's life or property in any fashion that is not reasonably necessary to carry out its prescribed duties. The government and agents thereof thus have a legal duty to minimize any such risk or damage when carrying out their duties. This duty would apply to searches and seizures as well as anything else the government does.
Per Amendment IV, unreasonable searches and seizures are prohibited, period. For a search to be legitimate, it must be reasonable, which is to say that it must be undertaken in a fashion reasonably calculated to best achieve its objectives, including the minimization of risk or harm to persons and property. If a government agent conducts a search in a fashion that a reasonable person would regard as causing unnecessary risk or harm, such an agent is either violating the Fifth Amendment (if his objectives don't include minimizing harm) or the Fourth Amendment (for not making a reasonable effort to achieve his objectives).
Judges claim that a cop who knocks feebly on a door and announces himself, with no real effort to make himself heard, and who then bashes his way through the door sooner than anyone inside could be expected to open it, acts "reasonably". Such a claim is false, and judges have no authority to make it. The Constitution doesn't specify a minimum volume of announcement, or time between "announcing" and forcing entry. What it requires is that cops make reasonable effort to minimize risk or damage to people or their property. Since the nature of such effort will vary from case to case, the question of whether sufficient reasonable effort has been made in any particular case is a matter of fact, not law. As such, despite judges' efforts to usurp authority on that issue, the matter is one which juries have a right and duty to decide (judges may legitimately determine that a particular cop's actions are so patently unreasonable that the jury shouldn't even see evidence gathered by the cop, but juries retain the right and duty to disregard for themselves evidence gathered in unreasonable fashion even when the mode of gathering is not so patently unreasonable as to justify judicial suppression).
OK, but I feel some "convenient" slack on your side coming...
Per Amendment V, it is unlawful for the government to deliberately endanger or damage a person's life or property in any fashion that is not reasonably necessary to carry out its prescribed duties. The government and agents thereof thus have a legal duty to minimize any such risk or damage when carrying out their duties. This duty would apply to searches and seizures as well as anything else the government does.
THERE IT IS! (I knew it was coming.)
I am to IGNORE any ruling by a court, but proceed with YOUR interpretation of the Constitution instead.
Could such a set-up POSSIBLY cause a problem with fairness and objectivity?
Give me a break...
Such a claim is false, and judges have no authority to make it.
LOL!
According to... wait for it.... YOU!
Everything would be so much simpler if we just put YOU in charge, eh? :-)
Judicial authority isn't a matter of opinion, FRiend. It's CERTAINLY not a matter of whether or not someone agrees with them, least of all you and I.
I have yet to see anything presented on this subject which leads me to view jury nullification as anything other than EXACTLY the behavior we condemn in "activist" judges, only applied in the deliberation chambers by those who haven't been to law school.
It comes down to a few people overriding the Constitutionally established process of creating law, because they are CERTAIN that the law is wrong, for whatever reason. To a liberal, laws are wrong and deserve to be overridden if they're "unfair", or disadvantage minorities, or any other of a million reasons. To a conservative or libertarian, the reasons will be different, but the end result will be the same: trample the law because we don't like it.