Jury Nullification & the Consent of the Governed

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, –That whenever any . . . “

~     ~     ~

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Read full transcript HERE
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

~     ~     ~

‘i’ believe this “consent of the governed” begins with the Legislature and passes through the Grand Jury on it’s way to it’s final destination, the Trial Jury, where that jury’s final decision includes the Right to withdraw consent and Nullify the law for/in that particular case;

~     ~     ~

To deny any man the right to be fully heard with regards to any part of the process by which a law is created and eventually executed is to deny man the Right to consent, or more importantly, to deny consent to a law or it’s application at any particular time against any particular person within the context of any particular situation.

~     ~     ~

‘i’ believe it to be self-evident that “man” has a Right to be fully heard through all phases of this process, without exception, and to be denied said Right is to rush a man to judgment.

~     ~     ~

‘i’ believe a Trial Jury has the final vote on whether or not a law, code or statute is consented to or not, whereby, the Jury, at the final moment, can withdraw consent.

~     ~     ~

‘i’ believe a Try-all by an Impartial Jury of one’s Peers ,

with the inherent authority of Jury Nullification ,

to be the Ultimate Consent,

to the application of any man-made “law”,

or denial thereof

~     ~     ~

Man’s pre-contitutional Rights, such as those previously secured by the Bible and the Magna Carta, as well as the pre-constitutional American Common Law continue to be secured by the 9th Article (amendment) of the U.S. Bill of Rights and many of the several State’s Bills of Rights.

For example – Jury Nullification is a pre-constitutional Right
See the Bushel’s Case (1670) 124 E.R. 1006

The famous English decision on the role of juries
This case did also confirm that the Court of Common Pleas could issue a writ of Habeas Corpus in ordinary criminal cases.

Bushel’s Case arose from a previous case (The King v. Penn and Mead or Trial of Penn and Mead, 6 How. 951) involving two Quakers charged with unlawful assemblyWilliam Penn (the future founder of Pennsylvania) and William Mead. They had been arrested in August 1670 for violating the Conventicle Act, which forbade religious assemblies of more than five people outside the auspices of the Church of England. The jury found the two “guilty of speaking in Gracechurch Street” but refused to add “to an unlawful assembly”. The infuriated judge charged the jury that they “shall not be dismissed until we have a verdict that the court will accept”.[2]

The jury modified the verdict to “guilty of speaking to an assembly in Gracechurch Street”, whereupon the judge had them locked up overnight without food, water or heat. The judge ordered Penn bound and gagged. Penn protested, shouting to the jury, “You are Englishmen, mind your Privilege, give not away your Right”, to which juror Edward Bushel replied, “Nor shall we ever do.”[2] Finally, after a two-day fast, the jury returned a not guilty verdict. The judge fined the jury for contempt of court for returning a verdict contrary to their own findings of fact and removed them to prison until the fine was paid. Penn protested that this violated Magna Carta and was forcibly removed from the court.[2]

Edward Bushel, a member of the jury, nonetheless refused to pay the fine.

~     ~     ~

Click HERE for more info of Try-alls by Jury
Click HERE for more on Jury of your Peers
Click HERE for more on Jury Nullification