Ret. Marine Absolutely Owns CNN Anchor On 2nd Amendment and Nullification!
Wyoming Bill Would Nullify Obama Gun Control, Jail Feds
Jan 12, 2013
As the Obama administration plots various assaults on gun rights by “executive order” and legislation, proposals described as “very extreme” even by some Democrats, state lawmakers in Wyoming have another idea. Republican legislators are rallying behind nullification legislation that would void unconstitutional infringements on the right to keep and bear arms, even providing prison time for any federal agents who may try to enforce Washington, D.C., gun control in the state. Lawmakers expect it to pass.
The new bill, H.B. 0104 or the “Firearms Protection Act,” would nullify any new federal infringements on the constitutionally protected gun rights of state residents — who enjoy some of the lowest crime rates while being among the most heavily armed people in America. Unconstitutional federal gun registration schemes, as well as restrictions on semi-automatic guns or standard-capacity magazines, would also be nullified under the legislation.
There are teeth in the proposed law too: Any federal official attempting to enforce unconstitutional statutes or decrees infringing on gun rights passed after January 1 of this year would be charged with a felony. If convicted, criminal officials would be punished by up to five years in state prison and a $5,000 fine. The legislation also authorizes the state attorney general to defend citizens of Wyoming if federal authorities seek prosecutions under unconstitutional gun control rules.
At least eight state representatives and two state senators have already sponsored the legislation. And nationwide, support for similar measures is exploding. “We want to get things ahead of the game,” Republican state Rep. Kendell Kroeker, the primary sponsor of the bill, told the Huffington Post. “We take the Second Amendment seriously in Wyoming…. If the federal government is going to pass laws taking back our rights, it is our right as a state to defend those rights.”
Citing his oath to support and defend the U.S. and state constitutions, state Rep. Kroeker has been a leader in standing against lawless usurpations of power by the federal government. In a previous session, he introduced legislation to increase the use of gold as currency in the state, for example. “I take an oath to uphold, support and defend the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of Wyoming,” Kroeker continued, telling reporters that his constituents and activists nationwide were thrilled by the move. “I believe it is my duty to take that oath seriously.”
In a separate interview with the Associated Press, the liberty-minded lawmaker noted that there are “a lot of people” who would seek to take all of Americans’ guns — at least if they could. The only thing restraining them, Kroeker said, is public opposition as well as other lawmakers who take their oaths seriously and are concerned about protecting the people’s unalienable rights.
“We’re a sovereign state with our own constitutional form of government,” he told the AP. “We’ve got a right to make our laws, and if the federal government is going to try to enforce unconstitutional laws on our people and take away the rights of Wyoming citizens, then we as a state are going to step up and make that a crime.”
“It says that your one size fits all solution doesn’t comport to what a vast majority of the state believes,” Sen. Hicks told the paper about the message federal politicians should be taking from the legislation, telling other reporters that state lawmakers were receiving e-mails in support of the bill from all across America and that citizens were urging their own states to take similar action. “I don’t think this is controversial in Wyoming at all…. I fully expect this bill to pass.”
According to the liberty-minded state senator, even if Congress refuses to budge, the administration is determined to restrict gun ownership by presidential decree. “I think that’s the biggest threat we’re facing,” he told the AP. Sen. Hicks also said that his constituents were “absolutely terrified” about threats from Washington to assault gun rights — especially Vice President Joe Biden’s pledge this week to implement the lawless attack by executive order.
“They are very, very upset that we’re going to see some level of federal takeover of our weapons and abuse of our rights given to us by the Second Amendment,” the state senator was quoted as saying, referring to his constituents. “Also, that the federal government will bypass our legislative officials and confiscate our weapons through executive order. This gives citizens of the Western United States a great deal of concern.”
The AP, in an uncharacteristically honest assessment, pointed out that Wyoming has one of the highest rates of per-capita gun ownership in America, and that it also has among the lowest levels of gun violence. “Part of it’s our culture,” Hicks explained. “Our kids grow up around firearms, and they also grow up hunting, and they know what the consequences are of taking a life. And they know at an early age, whether you hunt or fish, that there’s consequences from pulling that trigger. We’re not insulated from the real world in Wyoming.”
At least one Democrat, Rep. James Byrd, has already expressed his opposition to the plan. “If you want to pick a fight with the feds, let’s pick a fight with the feds that’s about something that means something,” he was quoted as saying by the AP while claiming to be a staunch supporter of the Second Amendment. It was not immediately clear why Byrd thought the unalienable right to keep and bear arms — enshrined in both the Wyoming and U.S. constitutions — was not meaningful.
Predictably, Obama apparatchiks funded by billionaire statist George Soros are already crying foul, too. The far-left “Think Progress” blog, for example, claimed that nullification would be unconstitutional. “The constitution actually stipulates that federal law ‘shall be the supreme law of the land,’” Annie-Rose Strasser alleged falsely, without pointing out the constitutional stipulation that federal laws must be “made in pursuance” with the Constitution. It was not clear whether the writer was simply ignorant of American history and the U.S. Constitution, or whether the false statements were deliberate lies in an effort to confuse readers.
Some analysts quoted in the establishment press, also presumably unfamiliar with history or the U.S. Constitution, have claimed that states may not nullify unconstitutional federal usurpations as well. Of course, American history is replete with examples of nullification — Wisconsin nullified a federal statute purporting to require the return of escaped slaves to their masters, for example. Even Founding Fathers like Thomas Jefferson helped states void unconstitutional legislation in the early years of the Republic.
More recently, states all across America have been putting their foot down. Even causes traditionally associated with liberals, such as marijuana legalization, have succeeded through nullification — Colorado and Washington state both legalized the controversial plant in November, and many other states have approved it for medical use in spite of unconstitutional federal statutes. Conservatives and libertarians have also been relying on nullification, especially in recent years.
As the increasingly out-of-control federal government tries to restrict more and more of Americans’ unalienable rights — with the Second Amendment just the latest target — state lawmakers all across the country are taking action. A bill just introduced in Indiana known as the Firearm Freedom Act, for instance, would also protect the rights of gun owners to be free from federal regulations if the gun was produced and purchased in the state. Similar legislation has already been adopted in other states.
Meanwhile, law-enforcement officials, such as sheriffs and police chiefs, are also developing legal strategies to protect gun rights in their jurisdictions, with some lobbying for nullification measuresas well. As The New American reported this week, while the Obama administration seeks to severely infringe on the Second Amendment, talk of mass resistance nationwide is growing in tandem. The president may believe he can violate the Constitution by decree, but it appears that many states have had just about enough of the lawlessness. If Congress refuses to rein in the out-of-control administration, state governments may have to do it instead.
Yoohoo, Go Utah!
28 out of 29 Utah sheriffs have signed a letter to Obama proclaiming they are willing to trade their lives to uphold the traditional interpretation of the Constitution. [They specifically mentioned the Second Amendment and said they will refuse to enforce gun confiscation.] CNS News 2013 Jan 22 (Cached)
As state lawmakers all across America craft nullification legislation to defy unconstitutional federal gun-control schemes and sheriffs openly vow to protect the Second Amendment regardless of what Obama or Congress say, municipal and county governments are getting involved in the action, too. In fact, in recent weeks, several local governments have unanimously approved ordinances and resolutions nullifying any and all lawless restrictions on gun rights.
At least two counties so far, one in North Carolina and another in Indiana, recently adopted ordinances nullifying every infringement on the unalienable human right to keep and bear arms. Municipal governments are jumping on the bandwagon as well, with Gilberton Borough in Pennsylvania adopting on January 24 the "Second Amendment Preservation Resolution" proposed by liberty-minded Police Chief Mark Kessler.
Analysts and activists, meanwhile, expect that trend to continue accelerating as extremists in Washington, D.C., and some state capitals openly threaten to impose further violations of the Constitution in defiance of their oath of office. Nationwide, activists are applauding officials at all levels of government who are rising up and putting their foot down, vowing to defend the Second Amendment rights of Americans no matter what decrees or pretended acts of legislation may be issued to the contrary.
Most recently, commissioners in Franklin County, Indiana, voted unanimously this week to approve the “Second Amendment Preservation Ordinance.” The popular measure exempts all law-abiding residents of the southeastern Indiana county from unconstitutional federal gun control, including past, current, and future restrictions, according to the text of the strongly worded ordinance.
“All federal acts, laws, orders, rules or regulations regarding firearms are a violation of the 2nd Amendment,”reads the simple but powerful measure. “It shall be the duty of the Sheriff of this County to take all measures as may be necessary to prevent the enforcement of any federal acts, laws, orders, rules, or regulations in violation of the 2nd Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.”
Hundreds of sheriffs nationwide, of course, have already openly announced their intention to defy any federal restrictions on gun rights, and a powerful new coalition just formed to recruit even more. Echoing state-level nullification efforts that are spreading like wildfire across America, the county ordinance in Indiana goes on to explain in clear language the rationale behind the lawful resistance: Unconstitutional infringements on unalienable rights are totally illegitimate and must be treated as such.
“The Franklin County Board of Commissioners declares that all federal acts, laws, orders, rules, regulations – past, present or future – in violation of the 2nd Amendment to the Constitution of the United States are not authorized by the Constitution of the United States and violate its true meaning and intent as given by the Founders and Ratifiers,” the county law states. Therefore, all such measures “are hereby declared to be invalid in this county, shall not be recognized by this county, are specifically rejected by this county, and shall be considered null and void and of no effect in this county.”
Analysts noted that the ordinance represents “an extremely strong stand” in defense of the Second Amendment. And that is exactly what county commissioners intended. “The citizens of Franklin County take the Constitution seriously and the State and Federal government need to do so as well,” said County Commissioner Scott McDonough, who joined all of his fellow commissioners voting in favor of the powerful stand against lawless tyranny. A legal expert quoted by the Associated Press said the law is legitimate unless and until it is successfully challenged in court.
Last month, meanwhile, Beaufort County, North Carolina, became the first county in America to officially nullify restrictions on the Second Amendment. In a unanimous vote, the board of commissioners approved a resolution calling on the governor and the state legislature to “immediately pass an act to nullify the implementation within the State of North Carolina of any federal law, executive order or regulations restricting the right to keep and bear arms.”
More news w/ Gilberton Borough, Pennsylvania Police Chief Mark Kessler. http://freedomoutpost.com/2013/02/po...-against-feds/
http://arisingrepublic.com/If you wish to be a part of his “reserve force,” or if you are not in the area and wish to donate to the Gilberton Borough Police Department, you can contact Chief Kessler via snail mail, email or phone.
Attn: Chief Of Police
Gilberton Borough Police Department
2710 Main street
Mahanoy Plane, Pa 17949
UPDATE: Kessler will be interviewed on Arising Republic Radio on Friday, February 22, 2013 at 9pm EST. Calls will be taken.
Anyone wanna toss out some good questions regarding constitutionality of some laws for him to field?
"Sorry, guys, the rebellion is off. We couldn't get a rebellion permit."
"What is this, a home owner's association? Why the need to try and control other people's behavior?"
Is Nullification Unconstitutional?
(Who cares, right?)
by Tom Woods.
Now on some level, we shouldn’t care: resisting violent people who claim the right to expropriate you and force you around is a natural right, and doesn’t rely on any parchment guarantee.
But I for one prefer to address my opponents from every angle I can, including their own.
These days we’re seeing a lot of newspaper columns condemning the idea of state nullification of unconstitutional federal laws. A common claim is that nullification is “unconstitutional.” I’ve addressed this claim in bits and pieces elsewhere, but I figured I’d write up one post I can use to counter this argument once and for all.
The most common claim, which one hears quite a bit from law professors (this is not meant as a compliment), is that the Supremacy Clause precludes nullification. “Federal law trumps state law” is the (rather inane) way we hear the principle expressed these days.
What the Supremacy Clause actually says is: “This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof…shall be the supreme law of the land.”
In other words, the standard law-school response deletes the most significant words of the whole clause. It’s safe to assume that Thomas Jefferson was not unaware of, and did not deny, the Supremacy Clause. His point was that only the Constitution and laws which shall be made in pursuance thereof shall be the supreme law of the land. Citing the Supremacy Clause merely begs the question. A nullifying state maintains that a given law is not “in pursuance thereof” and therefore that the Supremacy Clause does not apply in the first place.
Such critics are expecting us to believe that the states would have ratified a Constitution with a Supremacy Clause that said, in effect, “This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof, plus any old laws we may choose to pass, whether constitutional or not, shall be the supreme law of the land.”
Hamilton himself explained at New York’s ratifying convention that while on the one hand “acts of the United States … will be absolutely obligatory as to all the proper objects and powers of the general government,” at the same time “the laws of Congress are restricted to a certain sphere, and when they depart from this sphere, they are no longer supreme or binding.” In Federalist 33, Hamilton noted that the clause “expressly confines this supremacy to laws made pursuant to the Constitution.”
At North Carolina’s ratifying convention, James Iredell told the delegates that when “Congress passes a law consistent with the Constitution, it is to be binding on the people. If Congress, under pretense of executing one power, should, in fact, usurp another, they will violate the Constitution.” In December 1787 Roger Sherman observed that an “excellency of the constitution” was that “when the government of the united States acts within its proper bounds it will be the interest of the legislatures of the particular States to Support it, but when it leaps over those bounds and interferes with the rights of the State governments they will be powerful enough to check it.”
Another argument against the constitutionality of nullification is that the Constitution nowhere mentions it.
This is an odd complaint, coming as it usually does from those who in any other circumstance do not seem especially concerned to find express constitutional sanction for particular government policies.
The mere fact that a state’s reserved right to obstruct the enforcement of an unconstitutional law is not expressly stated in the Constitution does not mean the right does not exist. The Constitution is supposed to establish a federal government of enumerated powers, with the remainder reserved to the states or the people. Essentially nothing the states do is authorized in the federal Constitution, since enumerating the states’ powers is not the purpose of and is alien to the structure of that document.
James Madison urged that the true meaning of the Constitution was to be found in the state ratifying conventions, for it was there that the people, assembled in convention, were instructed with regard to what the new document meant. Jefferson spoke likewise: should you wish to know the meaning of the Constitution, consult the words of its friends.
Federalist supporters of the Constitution at the Virginia ratifying convention of 1788 assured Virginians that they would be “exonerated” should the federal government attempt to impose “any supplementary condition” upon them – in other words, if it tried to exercise a power over and above the ones the states had delegated to it. Virginians were given this interpretation of the Constitution by members of the five-man commission that was to draft Virginia’s ratification instrument. Patrick Henry, John Taylor, and later Jefferson himself elaborated on these safeguards that Virginians had been assured of at their ratifying convention.
Nullification derives from the (surely correct) “compact theory” of the Union, to which no full-fledged alternative appears to have been offered until as late as the 1830s. That compact theory, in turn, derives from and implies the following:
1) The states preceded the Union. The Declaration of Independence speaks of “free and independent states” (and by “states” it means places like Spain and France) that “have full power to levy war, conclude peace, contract alliances, establish commerce, and to do all other acts and things which independent states may of right do.” The British acknowledged the independence not of a single blob, but of a group of states, which they proceeded to list one by one.
The states performed activities that we associate with sovereignty. Massachusetts, Connecticut, and South Carolina outfitted ships to cruise against the British. It was the troops of Connecticut that took Ticonderoga. In New Hampshire, the executive was authorized to issue letters of marque and reprisal. In 1776 it was declared that the crime of treason would be thought of as being perpetrated not against the states united into an indivisible blob, but against the states individually.
Article II of the Articles of Confederation says the states “retain their sovereignty, freedom, and independence”; they must have enjoyed that sovereignty in the past in order for them to “retain” it in 1781 when the Articles were officially adopted. The ratification of the Constitution was accomplished not by a single, national vote, but by the individual ratifications of the various states, each assembled in convention.
2) In the American system no government is sovereign, not the federal government and not the states. The peoples of the states are the sovereigns. It is they who apportion powers between themselves, their state governments, and the federal government. In doing so they are not impairing their sovereignty in any way. To the contrary, they are exercising it.
3) Since the peoples of the states are the sovereigns, then when the federal government exercises a power of dubious constitutionality on a matter of great importance, it is they themselves who are the proper disputants, as they review whether their agent was intended to hold such a power. No other arrangement makes sense. No one asks his agent whether the agent has or should have such-and-such power. In other words, the very nature of sovereignty, and of the American system itself, is such that the sovereigns must retain the power to restrain the agent they themselves created. James Madison explains this clearly in the famous Virginia Report of 1800:
The resolution [of 1798] of the General Assembly [of Virginia] relates to those great and extraordinary cases, in which all the forms of the Constitution may prove ineffectual against infractions dangerous to the essential right of the parties to it. The resolution supposes that dangerous powers not delegated, may not only be usurped and executed by the other departments, but that the Judicial Department also may exercise or sanction dangerous powers beyond the grant of the Constitution; and consequently that the ultimate right of the parties to the Constitution, to judge whether the compact has been dangerously violated, must extend to violations by one delegated authority, as well as by another, by the judiciary, as well as by the executive, or the legislature.
In other words, the courts have their role, but in “great and extraordinary cases” it would be absurd for the states, the fundamental building blocks of the United States, not to be able to defend themselves against the exercise of usurped power. The logic of sovereignty and the American Union demand it.
And as for “but Madison later claimed he never supported nullification!” see myNullificationFAQ.com, and/or pages 288-290 of my book Nullification.
Both chambers of Missouri's state legislature passed a bill with a huge veto-proof majority. [The bill nullifies unconstitutional federal gun laws, including those that impose special taxes, track ownership, or confiscate firearms. Missouri reserves the right to determine the constitutionality of such laws.] TAC 2013 May 9 (Cached)
Arizona Legislation Tells NSA “You’re Not Welcome Here.” [If passed, the Fourth Amendment Protection Act will prevent local agencies from providing water and electricity, prohibit the use of evidence in court if gathered without a warrant, block universities from serving as NSA research facilities, and penalize corporations that try to fill NSA needs withheld by the state.] 10th Amendment Center 2013 Dec 9 (Cached)
What is Jury Nullification?
“Jury nullification is the act of a criminal trial jury in refusing to convict on conscientious grounds in spite of proof of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, because they think the law is unjust, the law is misapplied, or the punishment is inappropriate.”
“Juries have always had [a political] role. That’s what the founders intended to protect in the 6th Amendment, and that’s what’s guaranteed in the constitutions of all 50 states.”
“The understanding of the phrase ‘judges of both fact and law’ has changed over the years because our understanding of where the law comes from has changed. Back in that period of history, people believed in natural law doctrine. That was the generally accepted view of where the law comes from. Law was considered part of natural science to be discovered.”
“Today we have a much more technocratic understanding of the law. Natural law doctrine has given way to a positive, formalistic conception of law. But under natural law doctrine when you say the jury is the finder of fact and law, it means they can determine where justice lies, because justice is what the law was. It was the understanding of what was just that was their understanding of the law.”
“Today judges tell jurors to commit injustice in the name of law, and we call that progress.”
Top 3 Common Objections to Nullification
1) Doesn’t jury nullification undermine rule of law?“No. Jury nullification is a part of our law. It’s part of the checks and balances in our constitutional system. Just as pardon power is used by governors and the president, juries have the power to bring back acquittals.”
3) Doesn’t jury nullification violates the jurors’ oath?“If there’s any problem, the problem is the way with which these oaths are written. The problem is not with the ability of jurors to vote according to their conscience.”
Kirsten displayed this pre-Civil War know-your-rights flyer, urging Northern abolitionists not talk to police tasked with enforcing fugitive slave laws. She highlights famous Shadrack Minkins fugitive slave case and others where Northern prosecutors repeatedly failed to secure convictions under these onerous laws.
Re: “Disingenuous Fact Finding”
“I’d like to reframe something that Clay [Conrad] said. He referred to jury nullification as ‘disingenuous fact finding.’ I’d like to suggest an alternative framing. I consider it a genuine finding that a law applied in a case at hand is wrong. The true disingenuous of the system is from laws that redefine vices, which harm nobody, as crimes. Crimes are actually things that harm people or property. And further disingenuousness comes from judges who explicitly misinform jurors of their rights.”
Jury nullification really should be a tool that we use to provide relief from the War on Drugs and to protect all of our rights. And the fact that we’re not makes me a little nuts. It boggles my mind. But it is indeed a tool for policy change, and we can see that because two constitutional amendments were helped along to their final passage through jury nullification.”
“The highest and best purpose of the independent jury is to protect each other from the unjust laws and abusive prosecutions imposed by government.”
What’s at Stake?
“What is at stake is huge. You can save reputations. You can save relationships. You can save people’s livelihood or property. You can save their educations, because they might not be able to get a student loan if convicted. You can save their freedom, and you can in fact save their life. (Even if it’s not a death penalty case people get killed in prison.) You cannot be required to check your conscience at the courthouse door. No victim means no crime. If there is no victim, then the law is wrong. The person is not guilty.”
Jury Duty Tips
“For starters, [a jury] hero simply shows up for service. Instead of tossing the summons in the trash like about 70% of us do, she seizes the opportunity to do what is perhaps the single most important and powerful thing an individual citizen can do to stop the War on Drugs. To put it another way, being a trial juror is the most important and powerful political position any of us will likely hold in our entire lives.”
“Instead of using jury selection as an opportunity to expound on her views as a proud drug policy reformer, our hero chooses a path that is more likely to help set free a drug war prisoner and make a powerful public statement.”
“For my money, the two articles that present the most clear-minded strategic approach to being an intelligent and conscientious juror are Clay Conrad’s article A Guide to Surviving as a Juror and an article called Jury Nullification: The Top Secret Constitutional Right [PDF] by Prof. James Duane.”
“Our movie will borrow lots of tips from these articles which show you how to answer prosecutors’ and judges’ question truthfully and improve your odds of getting selected. My favorite tip is from Clay’s article. He says if, for example, you’re asked in a drug case ‘Would you be able to put your opinions aside and vote guilty?’ The correct answer is ‘yes.’ Of course you ‘could’ vote guilty. Just like you ‘could’ shove your arm down a garbage disposal, that doesn’t mean you’re legally committed to doing so! [Audience laughter.] You can always change your mind later.”
“The key to improving your odds of getting picked for the jury is to always present yourself as having an open mind, or perhaps even a mind that maybe hasn’t yet given a whole lot of thought to the issue.”
Just Say “Not Guilty”
“The judge and jury won’t make it easy [to vote 'not guilty']. Our hero will have to stick to her guns and she’s going to have to resist saying anything that smacks of any knowledge of jury nullification.”
“So what can our hero reasonably do to persuade other jurors to vote ‘not guilty’ when there doesn’t seem to be much reasonable doubt about technical guilt? Maybe she could try to open up some doubt about the trustworthiness of witness who cut a deal with the prosecutor to betray their partner? Or maybe she could even try to cast doubt on the political motivators of the ambitious lead prosecutor? But even if she can’t convince anybody to change their mind. Even if she’s all alone, our hero will stick to her guns and vote her conscience and calmly repeat ‘Not Guilty.’”
What if the government retaliates against me for nullifying?
Jesse Stout: How would you advise someone who has been contacted by the government after nullifying. I have a close friend who recently successfully hung a federal drug sales jury. He called me and I congratulated him on exercising this constitutional right. And only a few weeks later he called to say “The FBI is called me. They want to talk about my jury service,” and I was curious what our experts on the panel would advise we tell people who are concerned about the government tampering, interfering, or trying to retaliate against someone who’s exercising this important right?
Clay Conrad: First, nobody should ever talk to the FBI unless you are subpoenaed to a grand jury. [Audience applause.]. And even then you should talk to a lawyer before you do so. Anything you say can be used against you, of course. Not only that, but any statements you make might be deemed a false statement and then can be used to indict you. That’s how they got Martha Stewart, and she can probably afford better lawyers than anybody in this room. So when the FBI comes knocking at your door, unless your child has been kidnapped, you probably want to say “No comment.”
Lindsay Lasalle: Is it the case that people who’ve nullified and have been public about it, has there been any legal repercussions for any of those individuals?
Clay Conrad: The short answer is “no.” There was a woman named Laura Kriho that some of you might know about. She’s from Colorado. She was charged after her jury duty with perjury for allegedly not being candid during jury selection. That case was thrown out on appeal because she was honest in answering the questions she was asked. She didn’t lie. They were upset that she didn’t volunteer information that the prosecutors felt she knew they wanted to know.
Audience Heckler: So they suck at voir dire and it’s her fault?
Clay Conrad: Exactly! They didn’t ask the right questions, because they were afraid A) they were going to put ideas into the minds of the jurors and B) they didn’t want to offend anybody. So they didn’t ask penetrating questions. She didn’t volunteer information. That’s okay. You don’t have to volunteer anything. During jury selection you have to tell the truth. You don’t have to volunteer anything. You don’t have to be any more specific than the question demands.
If they say, “Could you do something?” Yeah. “Would you do something?” I don’t know; I haven’t seen the evidence yet. But you don’t have to be any more specific than the question demands. You don’t have to volunteer anything. Now if they ask “Have you ever attended a drug reform conference,” you would have to say “yes.” My personal feeling is if I were on jury duty I’d continue to be vague. If they did nail me then I’d probably make a short two or three sentence speech in order to infect the rest of the juror pool.
Tim Lynch: Clay Conrad has in his book an entire chapter addressing the problem of racist verdicts, which is a common objection that does come up, and I’ll let Clay address that. But the quick response is that to use Clay’s words, juries are sometimes scapegoated because there’s a potential for abuse there.
We have to remember that police officers have discretion to make arrests. Sometimes that discretion is abused. Prosecutors have discretion about whether they bring charges and how many types of charges, so prosecutorial power can also be abused.
We don’t take away the government’s power, because their powers have the potential for abuse. But when people talk about juries and their potential for abuse they want to take away the jury’s prerogative for leniency, so we have to put that into perspective.
Now are juries perfect? Of course not. Is jury nullification perfect? Of course not. Any power, any prerogative can be abused. But I will say that a panel of twelve diverse citizens acting through deliberation are less likely to abuse their power than the judge, or the prosecutor, or the police. That they are more likely to act in the interest of justice than one person or a small group of like-minded people acting in the privacy of a closed office that would be my judgement.
So I would say out of all the actors in the criminal justice system, the jury is the least racist—and that is backed up in death penalty cases. Where it has been shown that a black man is more likely to be sentenced to death for killing a white man than in any other situation because he’s more likely to be prosecuted and charged with a capital offense, the discretion is almost always on the part of the prosecutor. Maybe a small percentage [of the discretion] is on the part of juries, but it’s very small compared to the discretion the prosecutor tends to have and the impact the prosecutor has in that disparity.
Read more http://www.lewrockwell.com/2013/12/s...on-is-the-way/
The True Duty of a Jury
I would still vote to dismantle the system of aggressive violence (and only for that purpose).
Secondly, please read A Guide to Surviving as a Juror. It teaches you how to prevent the government from throwing you out as a juror. Basically, just say: No, Not guilty. They can legally do nothing about it. But they will not seat you as a juror if they suspect that you know the truth about your real power as a juror.
So read the guide.
Good luck, and God bless you.
People who support nullification are neo-confederates.
Walter Williams on Nullification, Secession and More
tu ne cede malis, sed contra audentior ito · fiat justitia, ruat caelum · sic semper tyrannis
The Bastiat Collection - FREE PDF
- "When law and morality are in contradiction to each other, the citizen finds himself in the cruel alternative of either losing his moral sense, or of losing his respect for the law."
- The Law (p. 54)
- "Government is that great fiction, through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else."
- Government (p. 99)
- "[W]ar is always begun in the interest of the few, and at the expense of the many."
- Economic Sophisms - Second Series (p. 312)
- "There are two principles that can never be reconciled - Liberty and Constraint."
- Harmonies of Political Economy - Book One (p. 447)
Also of interest ...
WARNING: Nullification Is Catching OnOriginally Posted by Tom Woods
... NOT "Interview with a Zombie" ...
... GunnyFreedom cameo @ 6:05 ...
Last edited by Occam's Banana; 01-26-2014 at 01:05 AM.
Changed the last paragraph of the amendment as follows:
"A Federal Law can be repealed in general via majority vote in a national referendum, or via vote of majority of the states via either state legislatures, or state referendums."