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.
