......just pass the kind of laws that can neither be observed nor enforced nor objectively interpreted -- and you create a nation of law-breakers --
and you added
That is what it all boils down to. That is where we are.
I don't agree that is where we are but I do agree that we're getting pretty darn close. The unenforceable part has me confused. It sounds more like name calling, not criminalizing.
A strategy that is in use and gaining popularity is jury nullification---
Jury nullification is an act of a jury (its verdict) intended to make an official rule, especially a statute, void in the context of a particular case. In other words, "the process whereby a jury in a criminal case effectively nullifies a law by acquitting a defendant regardless of the weight of evidence against him or her."
A juror is bound only by his/her conscience. There is no law dictating a jurors decision.
I have heard that the IRS doesn't go to a jury trial so I suppose that this process may not apply there.
Any thoughts on the impact if jury nullification were to gain widespread use?
I can tell you with absolute certainty that jurist do not like the idea one little bit as I have personally had more than one heated discussion with them about it. I can also tell you that it is my personal belief that it was the intention of our founders that jurors have exactly the power you describe - to judge both the facts AND the law - and make their judgments accordingly.
Upon reflection, I realized that I didn’t really answer your question in my previous post.
If citizens really understood the powers they have as jurors or the law required judges instruct them as to those powers courtrooms would be vastly different places. There would be, IMHO, far fewer jury trials for one thing.