Nullification: The Rightful Remedy

[Working Poor]

This video by John Birch society presents states right to nullify unconstitutional laws. It is 41 minutes long but hopefully you can find the time to watch at least part of it. You might find it interesting enough to watch it all the way thru.

In this lecture presentation, constitutional scholar and educator Robert Brown discusses the constitutional concept of nullification; including: what it is and isn’t, the origins of it, what the Founders said about it, and how the states can use it today to rein in big government and stop unconstitutional federal actions.

This lecture is an excellent educational resource intended for both citizens and their elected officials, especially state legislators. Watch and share it with others.

Visit jbs.org/nullify for more information and resources about nullification.

[WisconsinLiberty]

[mt4rp]

More on nullification:
https://fija.org/

[osan]

I have what I suspect is a procedural question on nullification, perhaps with a few aspects on the matter.

Imagine a jury well-informed and empaneled to judge a serious matter, let us say a drug possession charge. The case is sent to them for a verdict and being well-informed, they rapidly come to "not guilty". But being not just well-informed, but good people, it becomes their intent to take further action by not only announcing "not guilty", but to notify the court that through this verdict it is their explicit intention to declare the statute(s) in question as invalid and thereby void and without force of Law in the spirit of the long-standing Marbury decision.

My first question is whether they are procedurally entitled to do this, which I suspect they are, but my ignorance on the matter restricts my assuming it.

My second question is that, assuming the right exists, does there exist any race condition in terms of the order in which the announcements are made? That is, should the verdict be read first? I ask because considering a potentially explosive announcement, might a judge interrupt a foreman's announcement in the attempt to forestall what he sees coming down the pike, so to speak?

Consider the hypothetical drug case, above. We, the jury, find the defendant not guilty on all counts. FURTHERMORE, we come to this verdict based on our finding that every statute in the originall charges as set forth in this trial to be in violation of the immutable Law of the Land as set forth in <cite> of the Constitution of the United States of America, and hereby declare every said statute as cited in the original charge to be null. void, and without force of Law. So say we all."

Dollars to doughnuts this would freak a judge right out of his frock. Were this to become a phenomenon, does a judge hold the authority to interrupt a foreman in his pronouncement of verdict for the purpose of staving off such potentially "disruptive" actions by juries that are well-informed and have the guts to do as specified above?

So imagine that the foreman begins with the declaration of nullification prior to the verdict. Could the judge, seeing what is coming, stop the foreman and declare a mistrial, or is he constrained to shut his noise and leave the jury free to proceed to to its intended end? If so, then I would contend that the verdict must always come first for the sake of the defendant's security. If not, then I suppose either order would be acceptable, though this does not address an activist judge's improper interruption and making an invalid declaration of mistrial (or what have you) for his misbegotten sense of preserving what he believes to be proper in the face of the jury's contrary position on the matter.

Last question: does there exist any site that educates on and advocates for the nullification of non-Law statutes?

[Bern]

... take further action by not only announcing "not guilty", but to notify the court that through this verdict it is their explicit intention to declare the statute(s) in question as invalid ...

That's not how this works. If a jury has a conviction that a defendant violated an unjust law, they just return a not guilty verdict no matter how much the judge cajoles them. If the jury's judgement is broadly shared by folks, the law cannot be enforced in practice.

... Last question: does there exist any site that educates on and advocates for the nullification of non-Law statutes?

As mentioned above: fija.org

[osan]

That's not how this works. If a jury has a conviction that a defendant violated an unjust law, they just return a not guilty verdict no matter how much the judge cajoles them.

So I then take you to mean that a jury is disallowed such a diatribe?

[Bern]

So I then take you to mean that a jury is disallowed such a diatribe?

Correct. Juries don't get podiums.

[osan]

Correct. Juries don't get podiums.

I guess they could take it to the press... not that media can be trusted.