It is absolutely a mixed bag. Ideally, jury nullification would never be used, because none of our laws would be unjust or improper to apply.

But, we have had “Fugitive Slave Acts” on our books for the majority of our history: acts that criminalize providing aid and assistance to escaped slaves, or failing to deliver them to their “owners”.

We cannot pretend our legislature has never been corrupt, or will never be corrupt in the future. Jury Nullification is an important check on an out-of-control legislature.

There were no founding fathers who wrote a document to include this “ultimate check”.

“We The People”. The first three words establish the philosophical model of the constitution. “We The People” willed it into existence.

The 6th Amendment guarantees the right to a trial by a jury of the accused’s peers. Not the judicial branch of the government. Not the government in general. It guarantees the right of the accused to take the case directly to a quorum of 12 members of “We The People”.

The founding fathers did write a document that included this ultimate check.

A judge would merely be a steward conducting proceedings and a jury would just mete out justice based on the vibe of the matters before them.

They do. Generally, the “vibe” is that legislated law is just and proper, and the jury should apply it as written. Generally, jury nullification is not a factor.

But we are contemplating the special case. Here, we are not constrained to the general case. Here, we are considerong the conditions under which the law itself is determined to be unjust, such as the “Fugitive Slave Laws” we actually had on our books. Here, we can consider a corrupt legislature enacting unjust laws.

Are we forced to jail an abolitionist for aiding and abetting a former slave in escaping his “owner”? Are We The People truly compelled to abide by the evil acts of a reprehensible legislature?

We are not.

The fact that justice won’t always be done is not in any way a justification for rendering the unjust verdict demanded by a corrupt legislature.

As I’ve said elsewhere, this is just made up poppycock that sounds nice.

What does the phrase “We The People” mean, as used in the preamble of the constitution?

This is basic, foundational stuff we are talking about here. The fundamental concepts of democracy. Those aren’t just fun, patriotic words; they have actual meanings. Our government does not arise from “divine right” or “ancestral claims”. It exists because We The People willed it into existence. We willed into existence the right of the accused to be judged not by agents of the government, but by the peers of the accused. The same “We The People” who conveyed a tiny portion of their powers to allow the United States government to come into existence are charged also with wielding their power in determining the guilt or innocence of the accused.

You suggestion that the jury is beholden to the legislature is offensive. Your suggestion that “We The People” are legally and constitutionally obligated to enforce unjust laws promulgated by a corrupt legislature is absolutely galling. Made up poppycock that sounds nice? This is a core tenet of democracy we are talking about here.

I have asked you, repeatedly, to provide the constitutional basis for your claims, as I have repeatedly provided for mine. The closest you have come to any sort of support for your position is this statement:

Any observer can see that the jury is in place to provide a check against the judiciary and the executive.

That is not in any way a reasonable, rational argument.

You seem to be suggesting that moral considerations are not relevant to legal proceedings, yet simultaneously arguing that jurors should refuse to convict on moral grounds.

This is correct. There is no paradox here; no hypocrisy.

“We The People” empower the constitution. The Constitution empowers the government. The government has only the law; it does not have any sort of moral code. The government cannot consider moral principals in the application of law.

The juror is not a member of the government. The juror is a member of “We The People”; a peer of the accused.

Where the juror is convinced that the legislature did not appropriately consider the specific circumstance of the accused, the juror is constitutionally permitted to return a “just” verdict, consistent with their own morality.

While a judge can be legally obligated to issue a ruling inconsistent with his own moral code, a jury is NEVER obligated to return a verdict they believe to be unjust.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tetraphobia

Seems more like a call for a Democratic version of the GOP’s Tea Party than “giving up” or “defeatism”.

Call it the “Guillotine Party” for the applicable social precedent.

Any observer can see that the jury is in place to provide a check against the judiciary and the executive.

You started with:

ensures that a corrupt court can not make arbitrary pronouncements of guilt.

And now you’ve added a check against a corrupt executive. 2/3 of the way there.

There’s a well established system with which to check the legislature.

There are well established system with which to check both the executive and the judicial branches, yet you have now acknowledged the jury serves as an additional check on both.

This doesn’t require jury nullification. The intention of the voting populace is encoded in these things called laws.

Actually, no. The “voting populace” is not the legislature. The legislature writes the laws.

You’ve acknowledged the possibility of corruption in the courts; you’ve acknowledged the possibility of corruption in the executive branch. Despite there being clear checks and balances on both branches, you’ve acknowledged that the jury also serves a role against these corruptions.

I’m going to ask again, though: What is the constitutional basis for the jury’s check on the judicial branch and the executive branch? What is the constitutional basis for any of the jury’s powers?

What constitutional basis is there for your claim that the jury must support the legislature?

You don’t like the idea of living in a broken society so you’re trying to support your belief that there’s a mechanism in place to fix it all. Of course a jury is supposed to enforce unjust laws.

Ok. Then let’s not fuck around with hypotheticals, and go straight to the “Fugitive Slave Act of 1850”.

A law enforcement agent in a northern, free state, who failed to arrest an escaped slave, faced 6 months imprisonment and a $38,000 fine (in 2025 dollars)

Obviously, this law was unjust. While it was on the books, we lived in a “broken society”.

You’re a northern juror. The accused is a cop who, you come to believe has not only failed to arrest an escaped slave, but went on to assist them in fleeing to Canada.

Do you stand by your assertion that you, the juror are “supposed to enforce unjust laws”?

Comically, in my first post I said that this is where these discussions usually end up.

The other day, I took a walk around my block, and I swear, every dog in the neighborhood picked that day to shit near the sidewalk. I didn’t actually see any shit, but I smelled hidden shit in front of the Jenkin’s place, at the corner store. I stopped to tie my shoe in front of the Smith’s home, and it was overpowering. One of those damn dogs even broke into my breezeway and shat somewhere that I still haven’t found. It wasn’t until I took off my shoes and went in the house that I stopped smelling shit.

Too subtle?

These discussions end up at the legislative branch, because you’ve accepted the other major roles of the juror. They are a check on judicial power over the accused. They are a check on executive power over the accused. The constitution does not explicitly provide these judicial and executive powers over the accused to the juror, nor does it explicitly deny them.

The constitution does not explicitly provide legislative powers over the accused to the juror, nor does it explicitly deny them. I asked above for the “constitutional basis” for the distinction between the jury’s executive, judicial, and legislative functions: There is none. There is no constitutional justification for the distinctions you are making here.

The juror is allowed to determine that the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850 is the product of a corrupt legislature, and refuse to enforce it against the accused.

The juror is allowed to determine that the legislature failed to consider the accused’s specific circumstances when it was creating a law, and refuse to enforce that unjust law against the accused. This is a power that the jury possesses.

I wouldn’t say it that way, but I won’t say that is an inaccurate summarization.

Our other conversation is a far more productive avenue of approach.

There’s this whole other process to ensure that laws are not corrupt nor incompetent nor maliciously applied

And there is a whole process for ensuring the courts are not corrupt or malicious as well: the appellate process.

Yet, you allowed for a layperson jury to perform an additional check on the judicial branch.

What is the constitutional basis for your allowance of this check against the courts? How is this check restricted to only the courts, and not to the legislature or the executive?

It’s antithetical to the democratic process to propose that 12 people can subvert the intentions of the voting populace.

Those 12 people are members of the voting populace. A random selection in unanimous agreement on a particular application of the law.

They aren’t subverting the intentions of the voting populace. They are applying the intention of the voting populace to the particular circumstances of the case.

If laws are unjust then the system is broken.

How should a jury operate in a broken system? If the laws are unjust, is the jury supposed to enforce that the injustice, or are they supposed to provide a remedy to that injustice?

I am able to support my claim, and I am doing so in our other conversation. The basis of my claim here relies on an understanding of the purpose and need for a layperson jury. My claim here arises naturally from that underlying point, which is better developed in our other thread.

You’re getting warmer. You’ve contemplated a corrupt court.

Let’s move our hypothetical corruption to another branch: is our layperson jury supposed to apply laws written by a corrupt or incompetent legislature?

Is our layperson jury supposed to enforce laws maliciously applied by the executive?

You’re acting like you found some defensible loophole but your cageyness means you know it won’t work if the facts were laid out before jury selection.

I addressed that fact in the very beginning. The judge is bound by the doctrine of separation of powers. The judge must assume that legislated law is valid unless it is demonstrated to conflict with superior law, such as the constitution. The judge cannot exercise any powers reserved to the legislature. Empaneling a juror they know to be willing to exercise a legislative power would violate the separation of powers doctrine. The judge can’t do that.

The judge also cannot prohibit a juror from deciding a case on the basis that the legislature failed to adequately consider the accused’s situation. Doing so is unconstitutional: it makes the juror an agent of the government, rather than a peer of the accused.

The jury is not the only entity empowered to ignore the legislature. “Pardons” are an important executive check on an out-of-touch legislature. The unlimited power to acquit is the same thing.

This “loophole” as you call it is perfectly defensible. As a juror, I will be compelled to make statements under penalty of perjury. How would you convict me for answering “No” to the question at hand?

You’re not confused. You’re thinking too deep.

This is the birthright citizenship clause:

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.

This is the entirety of what he cares about:

subject to the jurisdiction thereof

That’s it. He doesn’t care about any other part of the 14th amendment. He doesn’t care whether the kids are citizens or not. Nothing about those kids is relevant at all. The ruling he wants is entirely on those five words.

Ruled in his favor, those five words give him everything he needs to start a shooting war on the southern border.

What do I need to elaborate? My beliefs are based entirely on the law. I hold no beliefs that would prevent me from making a decision on anything but the law.

I can make that statement under penalty of perjury. If you want to claim it is a lie, make your case. I am confident I can convince my own jury that I am speaking the truth.

Its not about the kids.

It’s about whether the parents are owed due process in the courts. Its about whether the people taking action against immigrants will be judges, prosecutors, and cops, or soldiers, sailors, airmen, and Marines.

Absolutely not.

True. But a judge can do that. A professional judge, who understands the laws he is applying.

Give your reasoning for a layperson jury.

It was designed to intentionally slow down

This myth is one of my pet peeves. The rate of typing was not the cause of jamming.

The proximity of sequential typebars was the problem. Two adjacent typebars pressed simultaneously would jam at the very beginning of their stroke. To type adjacent keys, the first key would have to retract completely before the second key could start to be pressed. Otherwise, they struck eachother in flight.

Put 3 or 4 bars between sequential letters, and their “flight” paths only intersect at the very end of their strokes: you can start pressing the second key before the first has even hit the paper, because it will bounce out of the way before the second one gets close. QWERTY enabled good typists to have three or four typebars “in flight” simultaneously, greatly increasing their rate of typing.

QWERTY wasn’t designed to slow down typists. It enabled them to type much faster.

Your conclusions are correct, of course: It’s not great for modern devices where keystrokes don’t interfere with eachother. It’s just the oft-repeated “intentionally slow down typists” claim that drives me nuts.

That’s just semantics. Jurors participate for a reason.

Enlighten me. What do you think that reason is?

From where I’m sitting, you have dismissed the entire purpose of a layperson jury as “semantics”, so I would really like to know what “reason” you are talking about.

The kind of people who are not “subject to the jurisdiction” of the US include agents of a foreign government, such as diplomats… or invading soldiers.

That’s the problem here: He is trying to put “immigrants” in the same category as “enemy combatants”.