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
-
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...
-
After a very long hiatus, I've been reinfected with the photography bug thanks to acquiring a new digital SLR (some of my recent work i...
-
New York City has lowest crime rate . Good, now maybe I can finally get somebody to buy that bridge I purchased last year.
-
Apparently both the Privacy Commissioner of Canada and Facebook intend to hold separate press conferences tomorrow to discuss the outcome of...
-
You have to tell your client if the prosecutor is prosecuting you too .
-
Google has just launced "Latitude", which uses the GPS on your smartphone to share your location with your friends. Though it look...
-
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...
-
I've been overwhelmed by the number of questions I've received in response to " Ask the privacy lawyer ". Some of them are...
-
How in the world do you break into a house and cut the clothes off the person living there without waking her?
-
According to the Edmonton Journal, Frank Work is stepping down as the information and Privacy Commissioner of Alberta. He has held the offic...