Replies

I agree with you that a jury, as part of the Judicial process and branch, can, and should consider jury nullification as a proper act in extreme cases.
If they were twelve people serving on an Executive branch committee, board or regulatory body and the issue was settled by properly adopted Law they would then, however, be violating their oath of office.

-------------------------------

Lots of qualifing words there KC. -- Who is to decide what's an 'extreme case'? -- And your second 'point' is totally over my head. - Please explain.

I guess I should have said that the concurance of twelve makes it an extreme necessity or the well held position of less than twelve makes it a hung jury.

First off, read my #30 to Texaggie79 wherein I discuss duties of branches and office holders versus private citizens. I do not agree that each and any public official of any branch can fail to do their sworn duty and always have refuge of saying it was their own personal interpretation of the Constitution that allowed them that discretion. I agree that rather than enforce an improper law, whether it be improper under the Constitution or under matters of higher law, and official may resign and thereby hold the correct ground.

To me, jury nullification for constitutional reasons is allowable as the duties of a juror call for Adjudication in the larger sense. Likewise, executive branch duties of an AG do not allow for willful failure to fairly and evenly execute the laws, even for matters of conscience or personal interpretations of the constitution. The remedy in that case is recusal or resignation.

I guess my second point you refer to is best explained by restating it:
If they were twelve people serving on an Executive branch committee, board or regulatory body and the issue was settled by properly adopted Law they would then, however, be violating their oath of office.

I am contrasting a jury of twelve (serving for the Judiciary function) with an Executive office or board of twelve (or any number). To have equality under the law; to have the absence of arbitrary power or arbitrary application of power, the executive official or board must enforce all law evenly and without recourse to personal feelings or opinion. Likewise, to have fair judgement under the Law and constitution the accused must have a Judge or Jury free to judge them under the Whole law, which also includes the Constitutions of the State and Nation.