Replies

Whatever one thinks of jury nullification, there is a major difference betwen jury nullification in a single case and the Supreme Court simply declaring that a law no longer exists on the basis of their own political preferences (e.g., Roe v. Wade).

Also, when a president or governor refuses to enforce a law, he can be turfed out of office at the next election and replaced with someone who promises to enforce the law. When do we get rid of Stephen Breyer? Only when he chooses to leave or dies. And then, under your system of jurisprudence, we have to hope that his replacement agrees with us politically, since it is his political desires that will govern the decisions he makes.

Pardon me, but I simply don't like that system.

Whatever one thinks of jury nullification, there is a major difference betwen jury nullification in a single case and the Supreme Court simply declaring that a law no longer exists...

You're changing the subject. I addressed your assertion that the language in our state and federal constitutions that refers to inherent and un-enumerated rights is meaningless decoration with no mechanism for enforcement.

In fact, this language lays the foundation for all other declarations in our constitutions. Just about every state constitution begins with declarations something like:

1. The people have all rights 2. The people delegate a few powers to government. 3. The people retain all other rights. 4. The enumeration of a few of these rights does not deny all others retained by the people

Whatever one thinks of jury nullification, there is a major difference betwen jury nullification in a single case and the Supreme Court simply declaring that a law no longer exists on the basis of their own political preferences (e.g., Roe v. Wade).

No, the Supreme Court, in effect, is the supreme jury. They can be overruled by amendments, or fought in court by further state law that skirts their 'declarations'. No one prevents states from prosecuting abortion as murder. -- The USSC said they couldn't declare it to be murder in the first trimester [due process]. - Big difference.

Also, when a president or governor refuses to enforce a law, he can be turfed out of office at the next election and replaced with someone who promises to enforce the law. When do we get rid of Stephen Breyer? Only when he chooses to leave or dies. And then, under your system of jurisprudence, we have to hope that his replacement agrees with us politically, since it is his political desires that will govern the decisions he makes.

False, -- USSC judges can be removed. See Art III, Sec 1, 'good behaviour'.

Pardon me, but I simply don't like that system.

-- Yep, its pretty clear you have major problems with the constitution, as written. Lots of your fellow statists here at FR do. You need help.