I was reading this post from Joe and the comments.
Under a myriad of federal laws you need to be arrested to have standing to challenge their constitutionality.
By that point you're just flat boned even if you win and the law is declared unconstitutional.
The comments talk about the barriers to standing a little.
Something simple that could be added...
First we really get hard core on getting jurors fully informed.
Next, if a jury acquits a suspect on the grounds that it's unconstitutional then the law is automatically unconstitutional and void. With caveats: The verdict can be appealed and it automatically has certiorari all the way to the top.
If the law is ultimately decided to be constitutional, the suspect is still acquitted.
And the Supreme Court ruling that it's constitutional doesn't mean the next jury can't nullify it tomorrow and start the process all over again.
"We, The Jury, find this law to be unconstitutional..." should be a valid verdict and it's every citizen's right to declare so.
Under a myriad of federal laws you need to be arrested to have standing to challenge their constitutionality.
By that point you're just flat boned even if you win and the law is declared unconstitutional.
The comments talk about the barriers to standing a little.
Something simple that could be added...
First we really get hard core on getting jurors fully informed.
Next, if a jury acquits a suspect on the grounds that it's unconstitutional then the law is automatically unconstitutional and void. With caveats: The verdict can be appealed and it automatically has certiorari all the way to the top.
If the law is ultimately decided to be constitutional, the suspect is still acquitted.
And the Supreme Court ruling that it's constitutional doesn't mean the next jury can't nullify it tomorrow and start the process all over again.
"We, The Jury, find this law to be unconstitutional..." should be a valid verdict and it's every citizen's right to declare so.