Man arrested for promoting jury nullification wins federal case

If the whole community believes X is not a crime and willing to nullify the law as juries, certainly they will elect a prosecutor who thinks the same.

For the first part, that is an oath, may I ask if any judge has ever been prosecuted for being just and this breaking the law? Which law?

For the second, it is not a question of opposition. It is not reasonable or logical no matter the mental gymnasics and legal bullshit you legalists try to apply to it (you are so deep in legality you have forgotten reason). There is no such thing as an unnatural person. A corporation is an entity with specific defintions. The reason behind this mental gymnastics is precisely what you noted: rights. But if you follow logic and reason companies have absolutley no rights whatsoever, only obligations and privileges that allow them to participate in commerce. However, stipulatig that somehow they are partially persons because people operate them and they derive those people's rights allows them to argue against their obligations because of inerited rights. This is what I meant by a veil of theatrics to acheive your underlying goal.

Under a government of the people,for the people and by the people, the people's understand of what could reasonably be considered a person trumps every other argument. A reasonable person would not consider walmart or cpac a person or to have rights of a person because people operate it. Companies were around long before the USA was a country and this stipulation was never made before because it is hilariously illogical.

If you want corporations to have specific privileges, legislate that as such, meaning unlike rights they are not irrevocable by the government and contingent on the fulfillment of their obligations.

Take a billboard paid for by a company for example, the company has no rights to free speech. However the individuals that run it can run the billboard as individuals on behalf of the company, accepting responsibility as individuals under law (typically the CEO would).

> Why should it be any different if you happened to have purchased that house through a corporation?

It is different because you chose to make it different and relinquished any rights of ownership as an individual. You now should pay corporate taxes and nullification of your incorporation means the government gets your house. If you don't like that, buy it as a person. Thank you for bringing this up, do you know about the home ownership, housing price and homeless catastrophe that is unflolding? This is the cause. Corporations are buying houses left and right and taking advantage of home owner rights to do so. A city should be able to ban corporate owned housing but since they are persons that is impossible unless done at the federal level and even then it must pass a supreme court challenge. As a result corporations enjoy personhood rights more than most americans.

When you forgot reason, you tolerated corruption at the foundation of the whole system.

No, they are police, prosecutors and judges. And that is one of the problems with the US system of justice. Justice is supposed to be blind. As it works now, the white upper class kid gets a slap on the wrist after raping an unconscious woman, while the black kids go to prison for minor possession. And since the people in charge don’t have worry about the laws being applied to them, they introduce outrageous laws. The governor never has to worry about his daughter going to prison when she needs an abortion.

Some people would say that when a judge has to "stretch and squeeze" a law it's a failing of the lawmaking process.

And if elected lawmakers produce a clear and unambiguous law with a manifestly unjust outcome, to get that fixed society should turn to lawmakers rather than judges.

> There are many flavours of representative democracy. It depend what is being represented. In the British system that’s constituencies. In proportional systems, that’s political parties. Neither are particularly more or less inherently legitimate IMHO.

I would consider 10% of a country voting for a party as first preference but less than 0.7% of parliament seats (by which I mean a single seat) being allocated to them (as was the case in Australia until the last election where it's still around 2% representation) to be unrepresentative by any reasonable definition of the word. Whether you feel that the voting system in your country needs to be purely representative in order to be legitimate is a philosophical question and whether you feel that an unrepresentative system is legitimate is a separate discussion.

Whether you think parties should be entrenched or not (I'm not particularly fond of the idea), it is literally not representing the public votes. This is because Australia has winner-takes-all electorates and. You can have electorate systems that don't have one-seat electorates. Winner-takes-all electorates lead to this problem.

> I think would clearly ludicrous to argue that the British people do not consent to their system of government.

I would think it to be naive to argue that every election is a referendum on the fundamental system of government in the country where no party is running on such a platform and there are many factors making it essentially untenable to even attempt to have a third party push the issue.

I suspect few British people would say their government is illegitimate but I also suspect very few would say "I have a continuing and active choice in the fundamental way political power is structured in my country, above voting for individual political parties."