You can donate the two bits to FR.
Lawyer Grant asked, "If the judge were to instruct you that the Second Amendment of the United States Constitution and Article 2, Section 13 of the Constitution of Colorado are applicable to this case, would you be able to follow that instruction?"
Aside from the fact that he is quite probably in contempt of court for putting words in the judge's mouth, he's quite obviously asking (prospective!) jurors to judge the Constitutionality of the ordinance that his client admitted violating. One would assume he'd have tried to make the same argument in trial, had he been allowed to do so.
The problem is that jurors are not empowered by the state or US Constitution to make such a judgement. That power is granted to the state and Federal judiciaries, respectively.
The judge in this case is permitted to determine whether Constitutional arguments are germane to the case at hand, just as he is permitted to sustain or overrule objections, or rule on the admissibility of evidence.
In this case Constitutional arguments are not germane to whether Stanley violated an established criminal ordinance. In a criminal trial, established ordinances must be and are assumed to be Constitutional.
A criminal trial is not supposed to determine the Constitutionality of the law under which the charges were made. That sort of legal power lies in the hands of the appelate courts.
"Usurpation" occurs when a body undertakes to exercise a power that does not properly belong to it. By stupidly attempting to turn a criminal trial into a trial of the Constitutionality of the ordinance, they were asking the court to usurp the powers of the appelate courts.
You can donate the two bits to FR. Lawyer Grant asked, "If the judge were to instruct you that the Second Amendment of the United States Constitution and Article 2, Section 13 of the Constitution of Colorado are applicable to this case, would you be able to follow that instruction?" Aside from the fact that he is quite probably in contempt of court for putting words in the judge's mouth, he's quite obviously asking (prospective!) jurors to judge the Constitutionality of the ordinance that his client admitted violating.
--- Not at all. His intial hypothetical, -- IF -- , makes both your arguments obviously specious. - Sorry.
- He was One would assume he'd have tried to make the same argument in trial, had he been allowed to do so.
So what? Is making such an argument 'usurping the constitution?
The problem is that jurors are not empowered by the state or US Constitution to make such a judgement. That power is granted to the state and Federal judiciaries, respectively.
NOT true. See the quotes below from three USSC justices.
The judge in this case is permitted to determine whether Constitutional arguments are germane to the case at hand, just as he is permitted to sustain or overrule objections, or rule on the admissibility of evidence.
-- Not true. He is preventing the defendant a legitimate defense. He can instruct the jury as to his opinion, but he cannot direct a verdict.
In this case Constitutional arguments are not germane to whether Stanley violated an established criminal ordinance. In a criminal trial, established ordinances must be and are assumed to be Constitutional.
Your assurtations are just theory, like your 'usurption' fantasy.
A criminal trial is not supposed to determine the Constitutionality of the law under which the charges were made. That sort of legal power lies in the hands of the appelate courts.
-- Again, see below. -- Three Chief Justices disagree.
"Usurpation" occurs when a body undertakes to exercise a power that does not properly belong to it. By stupidly attempting to turn a criminal trial into a trial of the Constitutionality of the ordinance, they were asking the court to usurp the powers of the appelate courts.
Yep, as suspected, even you can't maintain that the constitution is being 'usurped'. -- The 'powers' of the court are not either. - They must obey the constitution themselves, as Art. VI, paragraph 2 makes clear.
Thanks for your amusing efforts. They were worth the two bits, but that's about all.
The Justices quotes, thanks to the Oldfart:
"The jury has a right to judge both the law as well as the fact in controversy." John Jay, 1st Chief Justice U.S. Supreme Court, 1789.
"The jury has the right to determine both the law and the facts" Samuel Chase, U.S. Supreme Court Justice 1796.
"The jury has the power to bring a verdict in the teeth of both law and fact." Oliver Wendell Holmes, U.S. Supreme Court Justice, 1902