Asking jurors to interpret the Constitution is not what one is asked to do in a courtroom.
Jurors are asked to decide whether someone is guilty or not guilty of breaking THE LAW.
Up until 1893, judges routinely instructed jurors that they are to judge both the facts of the case and the law as it may or may not apply to the case. Jury nullification. Obviously you side with the parasitical elite government officials, mainstream media and many tenured professors and not with the people whom are the ultimate guardian of their laws.
From post #59, Zon wrote: It seems clear that the judge wants to stifle the case to a simple question of, "did Stanley break the law as it is written?". In other words, the law is the law and that's the end of that issue. ...Now the only question that matters is: did Stanley break the law?
I'd like to read something besides a story from a libertarian web site before I form an opinion.
Yep, you want to make sure you get the appropriate spin and talking points to tow the line.
Exactly. I don't want some hayseed from Penelope, Texas who can barely read to decide on the Constitutionality of Laws. That's the jurisdiction of courts.