HAD A TRAIN OF THOUGHT running through my mind lately. This article at Forbes puts me in mind of it. It strikes me that the complaint that this action or that by the government is a violation of the Constitution is bootless without some enforcement. It seems as though it must be the duty of an attorney — any attorney, all attorneys — to resist, indeed, to strike back.
Why on earth do lawyers exclude from juries candidates from the pool who know and understand the notion of jury nullification? Would not a counselor to an unjustly-accused, a truly persecuted defendant wish the jury to agree with him? And wouldn’t it make sense that, if somebody came in with that knowledge and belief, there would be a better chance to persuade?
And why do not attorneys (again, assuming this to be their duty to the law under the law and officers of the court) challenge the constitutionality of every law as a matter of best practices?
Why do we always understand it that government officials are immune to prosecution due to sovereign immunity? If an official enforces a law which violates the letter of the Constitution, where is his cover? Should not he be liable for prosecution — individually, privately, not as an officer of the government — under the law which is purported to govern and circumscribe his actions?
Why does not the practice of making several charges in the case of a single act constitute double jeopardy?
Why does not the concept of precedent and stare decisis come under fire when such violates the letter of the Constitution? As I’ve said in other cases, I have two words for you: Dredd Scott. At one time, that was — scorn quotes — “settled law.” Not any more.
Why don’t attorneys police their own number? Why do feckwitted “con-law” professors such as this Seidmann [sic] character not face disbarment procedures? Why aren’t they hounded from their positions — hell, from the country?