Nullification is a check on unconstutional federal laws

[JakeStarkey]

Wrong again...BTW, you still haven't come up with the provision in the Constitution which proscribes your fallacious belief.

I'll give you a hint....There ain't one.

this is so easy. you make a silly op that you can't defend, so you fail in the burden of proof.

the Constitution clearly reflects the supremacy of the national to the state governments.

 

[George Costanza]

The judge's role is that of referee over legal procedure, not deciding the law.

That is precisely what the judge DOES during trial. Juries decide matter of fact, judges decide legal issues.

 

[George Costanza]

Wikipedia.....

Look . . . Dude . . . I'm not saying that jury nullification is something that cannot be done. Of course it can. I'm saying that it rarely (and I mean RARELY) happens.

And again - there is more than one form of jury nullification. The kind the OP is talking about is where the jury disagrees with the law. Good example: someone is charged with possession of less than an ounce of marijuana and the venue for the jury trial is San Francisco. During jury selection, each of the jurors precedes their answers to the voir dire questions with, "Well, like . . . hey, man . . . " I think you get the picture. Cop testifies he caught the defendant with 7 grams of grass and the defendant admitted he had it in his possession, knew what it was and was, in fact, going to smoke it but for the unfortunate interruption by the officer. Defendant doesn't testify. Everybody rests.

Not guilty. Know what would happen? Mistrial.

The kind of jury nullification that can legally happen, and often does, is where the jury doesn't disagree with the law. It isn't the law they are trying to nullify - it's the cops and the way they investigated the case. The OJ Simpson trial is an excellent example.

Getting back to the first situation - I gave you an extreme example in the marijuana case. Take a less glaring example: one juror out of twelve disagrees with the law involved in the case. All of the other 11 jurors vote guilty. The dissenter votes not guilty and is clever enough not to tell the other jurors why he is voting not guilty. Assuming no one rats him out to the judge (which usually happens in a case such as this), the jury would end up hung. Something like this happens much more often than a not guilty verdict. Don't forget - all 12 have to vote not guilty to get an acquittal.

Finding 12 jurors who are all of a frame of mind to nullify a law is virtually impossible - which is one of the main reasons why it almost never happens.

 

[Dr Grump]

The judge's role is that of referee over legal procedure, not deciding the law.

That is precisely what the judge DOES during trial. Juries decide matter of fact, judges decide legal issues.

Dontcha just love Clayton's lawyers....

 

[George Costanza]

The judge's role is that of referee over legal procedure, not deciding the law.

That is precisely what the judge DOES during trial. Juries decide matter of fact, judges decide legal issues.

Dontcha just love Clayton's lawyers....

Right church, but wrong pew.

 

[Liability]

Wrong again...BTW, you still haven't come up with the provision in the Constitution which proscribes your fallacious belief.

I'll give you a hint....There ain't one.

this is so easy. you make a silly op that you can't defend, so you fail in the burden of proof.

the Constitution clearly reflects the supremacy of the national to the state governments.

The "supremacy clause" DOES "clearly" establish one TERM of the agreement which formulated the federal government. And Federal Acts on a matter over which they have been given authority (that whole "limited government" concept involving grants of authority over certain limited and carefully delineated areas) ARE supreme. Even then however, if an enactment otherwise violates the Constitution, it is not supreme over a State enactment on the same general area, since a Federal Law which is NOT in accordance with the Constitution is no law at all.

Guys like you persist in subscribing to the the fallacy that the supremacy clause means that the Federal Government's pronouncements are unquestionable and that the States and the People must kneel before the Federal Laws. But, in truth, they are never unquestionable. And unless they are made "in pursuance of" the Constitution, they can be and should be dismissed as things of absolutely no value or meaning whatsoever.

 

[Liability]

Yes - you are correct, in theory. In actual practice, however, it rarely (and I mean rarely) works that way. I have never seen a jury vote guilty or not guilty in order to "nullify" a law they don't like, even though the facts of the case are totally contrary to their verdict. Never.

You must not have seen the OJ murder case.

OJ was as guilty as guilty could be. The prosecution, inept and bumbling and the judge, a bad joke on the criminal justice system, combined, couldn't counter-balance the facts. The facts were quite clear. Yet the jury nullified the law as it applied to OJ for obviously race-based reasons.

You are correct. However, there is a difference between nullification of a law and nullification of a law as applied. What I was discussing with Dude was the concept of nullification of a law. What you are discussing is nullification of a law as applied.

The law involved in the Simpson case was the law of murder. I'm sure that no member of the Simpson jury had any quarrel with the law of murder. What they had a quarrel with was, as you say, inept prosecution - however I think they were angrier with the police work involved than the actual proscution of the case by the DA's office.

The classic example of jury nullification is a refusal to convict some poor schlep for possession of a small amount of some controlled substance. The prosecution perhaps proves beyond any doubt that the defendant had the stuff in his hand (or in a bag up his ass). But the jury refuses to apply the law and nullifies the law in effect saying, "the law is too stupid for us to saddle anybody with a criminal conviction over it even if the DA proves that the guy did the deed."

There may or there may not be nuanced ways to engage in jury nullification. But I think the whole topic of "nullification" goes off track when we talk about JURY nullification.

The nullification of the new Health Care Law by the STATES is not a matter (imho) of a jury nullification. It's a matter of FEDERALISM.

Since the Federal Government was CREATED by the States and the People, and since in that process of creation the Constitution was crafted to carefully LIMIT the powers and authority of the Federal Government, it follows that ONLY those actions of the Federal Government that fit within the CONFINES of the limits imposed on it by the Constitution are valid. The "laws" passed by the Federal Government that are NOT properly confined to the LIMITED grant of authority given to the Federal Government are invalid. They are no laws at all, in fact. They are void "ab initio."

I don't know that the entire legislation is going to go down. The Acts of congress are usually "severable." Thus, if and when the SCOTUS rules that the Act violates the Constitution in whole or in part, I presume that only those parts that DO violate the Constitution will be struck down (and their enforcement enjoined).

What will GET us to that happy day? States asserting their own sovereignty -- demanding adherence to the terms of the agreement -- and THEIR acts to nullify the "law" to whatever extent they deem to be a transgression of the Constitution. This can then ripen into the kind of "case or controversy" over which the SCOTUS has jurisdiction.

A real Constitutional crisis could arise, however, if the SCOTUS were then to issue a ruling purportedly legitimizing the illegitimate Health Care "Law." For in that case, I have some reason to believe that SOME of the States would fight back by asserting their own sovereignty despite such a SCOTUS "ruling." It is in that sense that I believe the principles of FEDERALISM constitute the final check (short of revolution) on the over reaching of the Federal government.

 

[Oddball]

Likewise, although nullification isn't an acquittal in and of itself, several hung juries often cause prosecutors to go find more productive uses of their time, ergo it ends up as a defacto acquittal.

 

[SpidermanTuba]

Wikipedia.....

Look . . . Dude . . . I'm not saying that jury nullification is something that cannot be done. Of course it can. I'm saying that it rarely (and I mean RARELY) happens.

I actually know someone who nullified a jury. He was on a jury for a marijuana distribution charge involving a young man. The young man was an exemplary student and athlete, and so he just couldn't vote to fuck the kids life up on a stupid marijuana charge. The jury hung on his vote alone.

 

[Oddball]

Wikipedia.....

Look . . . Dude . . . I'm not saying that jury nullification is something that cannot be done. Of course it can. I'm saying that it rarely (and I mean RARELY) happens.

I doesn't happen often enough because jurors are wrongly and purposefully told that they cannot rule on the justness of the laws, and must rule the way the judge tells them to.

This is basically the judicial oligarchy acting as recruiting agent for the prison-industrial complex.

We get out of this mess by passing along the FACT that jurors are completely within their rights as free Americans to find defendants not guilty, when the laws foisted upon we the people are unjust.

Part of that includes the directing people to the Fully Informed Jury Association website, and understanding your rights...Because if you're not willing to exercise your rights, you don't have them.

 

[ihopehefails]

The tenth amendment grants the states the ability to nullify federal laws that are unconstitutional if it chooses to

Sorry but I don't see where it says that in the 10th:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

It says that states have the rights not delegated to Congress, not that states have whatever rights they insist they have.

... because min wage laws are not one of the constitutionally delegated powers to federal government...

WTF? Yes it is. Have you ever heard of the commerce clause?

However, a state law that attempts to regulate interstate commerce (which is trade between state borders)...

Wrong. Interstate commerce is far broader than that.

Its implied because the federal government can pass a law and enforce it in every state jurisdiction and state law always trumps federal law accept when that law is one of the delegated powers in the constitution.

I have heard of the commerce clause and it says that the federal government can regulate trade between states or the movement of goods from one point to another.

 

[ihopehefails]

Wikipedia.....

Look . . . Dude . . . I'm not saying that jury nullification is something that cannot be done. Of course it can. I'm saying that it rarely (and I mean RARELY) happens.

I actually know someone who nullified a jury. He was on a jury for a marijuana distribution charge involving a young man. The young man was an exemplary student and athlete, and so he just couldn't vote to fuck the kids life up on a stupid marijuana charge. The jury hung on his vote alone.

This why jury nullification should be officially restored because it would put a check on over zealous prosecutors.