http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/…

It was supposed to be just another federal drug prosecution.  The federal prosecutors introduced evidence that the man on trial was involved in the black market drug trade.  The defense attorney said the government agents entrapped his client.  And then the twelve citizen-jurors retired to deliberate the outcome of the case.

But then something unusual happened.  The jury sent a note to the trial judge with the following query: Since the Constitution needed to be amended in 1919 to authorize federal criminal prosecutions for manufacturing and smuggling alcohol, a juror wanted to know from the judge where “is the constitutional grant of authority to ban mere possession of cocaine today?”

That’s a fair question.  It is a point that has been made in Cato’s publications ( go here (pdf) and here (pdf)) and a point that has been made by Justice Clarence Thomas, among many others.  Federal District Court Judge William Young was startled.  He says he has been on the bench for 30 years and has never faced a situation where a juror was challenging the legitimacy of a criminal law.  Young tried to assure the jury that the federal drug laws are constitutional because the Supreme Court has interpreted the commerce clause quite expansively.  When the jury sent out more notes about a juror that wasn’t going to sign off on an unconstitutional prosecution, Young halted the proceedings to identify the ”problem juror.”  Once discovered, that juror was replaced with an alternate–over the objections of defense counsel.  Shortly thereafter, the new jury returned with guilty verdicts on several cocaine-related charges.

It is an extraordinary thing for a judge to meddle with the jury in the middle of its deliberations.  So, to justify his removal of the “problem juror,” a man named Thomas Eddlem, Judge Young issued a 40-page memorandum of law (pdf).  I happen to know and respect Judge Young.  I invited him to speak here at Cato about the awful federal sentencing guidelines, but his legal memorandum in this case is remarkably thin.  I will briefly respond to his substantive arguments below.

1.  Court precedents say jurors have no right to nullify.  Well, yes, that is undeniable.   But that’s like someone saying in 1950 that court precedents tell us that  ”separate, but equal” is the law of the land–go read Plessy v. Ferguson. The real question is whether those court rulings are truly consistent with the Constitution.  I would also point out that even though many modern court rulings express hostility toward jury nullification, no court has yet dared try to reverse a not guilty verdict or attempt to punish any juror who cast a not guilty vote in a jury room where the result was deadlock (not an untoward outcome, by the way).  Judges do remove jurors from time to time, but there is no punishment.  At least not yet.

2.  Judge Young writes, “The impropriety of nullification emanates from the notion that ours is ‘a government of laws and not of men,’” and he attributes that proposition to our second president, John Adams, who also authored the Massachusetts Constitution.  The quote is accurate, but Young is mixing up legal principles and does not know Adams well enough.  Like so many of America’s early leaders, John Adams was a strong proponent of jury nullification.  Here’s Adams: “It is not only the juror’s right, but his duty, to find the verdict according to his own best understanding, judgment, and conscience, though in direct opposition to the direction of the court.” C.F. Adams, “The Works of John Adams,” 253-255 (1856)(emphasis added).

3.  Jury nullification undermines the rule of law. This is simply another variation of objection #2 above.  There is a logical fallacy to this objection.  Jury nullification is assumed to be improper–so it undermines “the law.”  It is like saying a presidential pardon undermines the “rule of law.”  But if the president has the power to pardon, and he does, he can exercise it (though we may or may not like the result in particular cases).  This is the way in which to understand jury nullification.  The framers of the American Constitution considered it to be part and parcel of what a criminal jury trial was all about.  Some state constitutions, such as Indiana, Maryland and Oregon, explicitly provide that juries have the power to judge the law and the facts in criminal cases.  Judges are the ones that have undermined the “rule of law” by pretending those provisions mean the opposite of what they say.

Judge Young expressed alarm about the recent Time magazine article by David Simon and his The Wire colleagues that calls for jury nullification in drug cases.  But that article has revived a debate that we should all welcome.  For much more on this subject, go here, here, here, and here.

Some other jury nullification quotes:

The jury has the right to determine both the law and the facts. -Samuel Chase, U.S. Supreme Court Justice / 1796

The jury has the power to bring a verdict in the teeth of both law and fact. -Oliver Wendell Holmes, U.S. Supreme Court Justice / 1920

The jury has a right to judge both the law as well as the fact in controversy. -John Jay, U.S. Supreme Court Justice / 1794

I consider trial by jury as the only anchor ever yet imagined by man, by which a government can be held to the principles of its constitution. -Thomas Jefferson / 1789

… or Secession Day or antiauthoritarian day or …

A few articles to check out while waiting for the hotdogs and burgers to cook.

A Fresh Look at Holidays - Butler Shaffer

Just how far we have contorted our thinking about “independence day” is reflected in most people’s thinking about fireworks. Like private gun-ownership, our personal use of fireworks represents too much power in the hands of individuals. And so, we confine ourselves to the absurdity of having the state celebrate our liberty and independence for us!

July 4th In Bizarro World - Manuel Lora

What follows are just a few of the July 4th lies and errors that we are supposed to blindly accept:

• The military is glorious, its heroes heroic, and our support is patriotic
• Freedom is about authority
• The police keep us safe and have a duty to protect us
• We are better off now than when the war on drugs started decades ago
• Continually increasing prices is a product of the market and thus the central bank must control credit and the money supply
• With proper reform, government can become efficient, especially if we elect the right leaders
• The Constitution gives people rights
• The government has been formed by the consent of the governed
• Without the state regulating/subsidizing/taxing/prohibiting activity or industry X, said industry or activity would be produced in quantities and/or qualities that are too high or too low; or would run rampant, cartelize and monopolize the market; or would not survive in a predatory competitive environment
• The more politically democratic things are, the better for everyone
• No matter what the cost to the public, protecting the children/our veterans/our senior citizens/our teachers is always the number one priority
• The free movement of goods and people destroys jobs and threatens our standard of living
• Businesses have no incentives to keep their customers safe; licenses ensure fair practices
• The law may occasionally be wrong, but it should nonetheless be followed always
• We must forever give up essential liberties to guarantee safety: it’s for your own good

Happy Secession Day! - Thomas DiLorenzo

That’s what Thomas Jefferson would be celebrating today. Unlike so many Americans, he would not be celebrating the American empire, with its “unitary executive,” swarms of tax-collecting bureaucrats, its militarization of society, protectionism, economic fascism, suspension of habeas corpus, domestic spying, etc., etc. The Hamiltonian republic that we now live under, which is celebrated by the liberal/left and neocons alike, is the opposite of Jefferson’s dream of an “empire of liberty.”

And of course there is the Decleration of Independence. Agreed upon on July 2nd and officially recognized on the 4th.

I’d imagine if you watch mises.org or lewrockwell.com today you’ll get plenty of other articles on the topic of freedom, secession, etc.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/…

Former Prince George’s County homeland security official Keith A. Washington was sentenced to 45 years in prison yesterday for fatally shooting one unarmed furniture deliveryman and wounding another at his Accokeek home last year.

Circuit Court Judge Michael P. Whalen said the evidence contradicted Washington’s claim that he was under attack by the two larger men when he opened fire. “There wasn’t one discernible injury [on Washington] to any of the medical personnel who examined him,” said the judge, who imposed a term five years longer than prosecutors had sought.

Washington, who was also a county police officer at the time of the shooting, addressed the court for more than 10 minutes, apologizing to his family and friends for putting them through what he called a “spectacle.” He spoke of his effort to live with “courage and integrity,” and he cited historical figures, including Sojourner Truth, W.E.B. DuBois, Crispus Attucks, Thomas Jefferson and George Washington.

Washington, 46, admitted no wrongdoing. At one point, he turned to Marilynn Clark, mother of slain deliveryman Brandon Clark, and said, “I did not murder your son.”

Several months after the shooting, Washington left his homeland security post, and he was later granted medical disability from the police force. His disability benefits and police pension are not affected by his convictions, county spokesman John Erzen said.

We get to pay for him to stay in prison and we get to pay his family his pension. The victim’s family victimized twice more.

http://www.cnn.com/…

Ralph Nader is entering the presidential race as an independent, he announced Sunday, saying it is time for a “Jeffersonian revolution.” “In the last few years, big money and the closing down of Washington against citizen groups prevent us from trying to improve our country. And I want everybody to have the right and opportunity to improve their country,” he told reporters after an appearance announcing his candidacy on NBC’s “Meet the Press.”

Asked why he should be president, the longtime consumer advocate said, “Because I got things done.” He cited a 40-year record, which he said includes saving “millions of lives,” bringing about stricter protection for food and water and fighting corporate control over Washington.

This marks his fourth straight White House bid — fifth if his 1992 write-in campaign is included.

Nader said Thomas Jefferson believed that “when you lose your government, you’ve got to go into the electoral arena.”

“A Jeffersonian revolution is needed in this country,” he said.

Nader told NBC that great changes in U.S. history have come “through little parties that never won any national election.”

Long-shot GOP contender Mike Huckabee said Nader’s entry would probably help his party.

“I think it always would probably pull votes away from the Democrats and not the Republicans, so naturally, Republicans would welcome his entry into the race,” Huckabee said Sunday on CNN.

But Nader — citing the Republican Party’s economic policies, the Iraq war, and other issues — told NBC, “If the Democrats can’t landslide the Republicans this year, they ought to just wrap up, close down, emerge in a different form.”

Nader’s entry into the race did not come as a surprise to political watchers.

On Sunday, Sen. Barack Obama criticized him. “My sense is that Mr. Nader is somebody who, if you don’t listen and adopt all of his policies, thinks you’re not substantive,” Obama told reporters when asked about Nader’s possible candidacy.

I’ve told people at work that the D’s should be able to “landslide the R’s this year” but I don’t underestimate the D’s ability to lose. Seems Nader is in agreement and Obama and the D’s are too. They don’t like Nader just as the R’s don’t like Paul. Now that Paul has effectively ruled out a 3rd party run and with Nader running… the R’s must be happy as a pig in shit. What the D’s need to do is make sure that Obama is the nominee because Nader’s anti-war position vs a Hillary ticket could do the most damage to the Democratic party I think.

There is a part of me that would love to see a Hillary (D), McCain (R), Paul (L), Nader (G) showdown but I don’t see Paul considering a LP ticket run unless he looses his seat in congress and at this point it looks like Obama will get the Democrat ticket. How if only Nader would be given a spot in debates and understand he should be fighting the Leviathan and not the people.

http://www.usadaily.com/…

At a Ron Paul rally in Ft. Lee today several dozen supporters braved the cold air and held campaign signs and American flags for motorists approaching the George Washington Bridge and traveling on Lemoine Avenue. (Ron Paul was not present at the rally).

After the rally, Ron Paul supporters headed to Monument Park on Palisade Avenue where in November 1776 General George Washington began his famous retreat which culminated on Christmas day crossing the Delaware River. Monument Park is the only park in the United States dedicated to the soldiers of the American Revolution.

Dr. Murray Sabrin emceed the Monument Park rally on this anniversary of the Bill of Rights (1791). New Jersey was the first state to ratify the Bill of Rights on November 20, 1789.

Assemblyman Mike Doherty who has endorsed Ron Paul for President and introduced him at the Philadelphia rally last month gave an impassioned talk about why Ron is the best candidate for president. Ron Paul, Doherty pointed out, will protect U.S. borders, abolish the income tax, cut unnecessary and unconstitutional spending, defend the U.S. dollar, and protect U.S. sovereignty.

High school student and LewRockwell.com blogger Max Raskin told the gathering why all young people should rally behind Ron Paul. “Its simple”, said Max, “The welfare-warfare state is unsustainable and his generation will have to pay an enormous amount of taxes to foot the bills.” Max urged everyone to help get Ron Paul’s message out to all young people in New Jersey so he can win the February 5th primary.

xyz and I were two of those several dozen. First I’d like to say it was damn cold yesterday. My tea turned to iced tea in less than 10 minutes and of course it had to be breezy and there was ice everywhere. But that didn’t stop the 40+ of us (as I counted while we rallied on the Route 95 overpass). We spent an hour waving signs and flags and xyz and I handed out copies of the Manhattan LP’s Serf City. The one thing not reported by USADaily was how Doherty also talked a good minute on how he doesn’t want a candidate who wears dresses and how Ron Paul would never wear a dress.

As for the NYC Ron Paul HQ party: It went well. Not as many people showed up as we expected but it was respectable. Given that it was below freezing and sleeting I’m a bit surprised we had the turnout we did. It was a special night though. We had a projector connected up and displaying RonPaul2008.com when it broke $12 million. The video below captured the excitement.

There were two camera crews there from the news media. One was NY1 and I was told the other was CNN. A quick search of NY1.com however doesn’t produce anything at the time of posting. xyz and I left at 2:30AM to catch the 2:50AM bus home. When I purchased a bus ticket for xyz with a $5 bill I received my change for the $3.40 ticket. Appropriately the one dollar coin it gave me was from the new president series, Thomas Jefferson.

UPDATE:

Here are some photos from the party… including xyz getting a backrub and another video.