The juror and the judge differed on a constitutional interpretation. The judge, by virtue of the power vested in his position, won. The question remains, in a debate over the law and constitution, without far reaching precedent to predetermine the answer, who would win the argument? After all, imagine that you were handed a copy of the federal constitution and asked to justify a federal law against drug distribution. Would your first answer be that it was valid because it affects commerce? Honestly?
Of course, the commentary descends into an argument over the wonderfulness of jury nullification which I've addressed over at CLTV here.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Popular entries
-
Now, here's a tactic I've not yet seen in court (not sure this one will work for us guys).
-
With the price of gas in the modern day, I've looked around at scooters/mopeds a little bit. An interesting thing out there is the 3 whe...
-
April 23, 2004 In this newsletter: T HE COURT DISMISSES CLAIM THAT THE OWNERS OF THE COMEDY CENTRAL INFRINGED RIGHTS WHEN THEY AIRED A CLIP ...
-
I've been overwhelmed by the number of questions I've received in response to " Ask the privacy lawyer ". Some of them are...
-
You too can be a Virginia State Trooper: You get a cool vehicle assigned to you (only the Virginian ones at the beginning). You get to dodge...
-
According to Computerworld Security, Google has started collecting images of European streets for its Street View feature, but is holding of...
-
Y'know, it's kinda cool that the governor is up on his history, but is contemplating a pardon for Billy the Kid really that importa...
-
Apparently both the Privacy Commissioner of Canada and Facebook intend to hold separate press conferences tomorrow to discuss the outcome of...
-
The General Assembly has relented and decided to allow us (at least some of us) to have judges again . As of 01 July 2011 we in the 30th wil...