You can see the efforts of the 10th Amendment movement in dozens of states here

I can’t italicize my comments, therefore I capitalize. Even if I wanted to shout, why do you care? Maybe we all ought to be doing some more intelligent shouting in this country instead of running with the same old PC rhetoric that has gotten us nowhere. The first words of my response to your comments will be in caps so please consider that I am not shouting.

You said: “But, you’re also right that the people, in their role as juries, have a right to nullify. And it happens. And, I encourage that.”

YEAH RIGHT… if an attorney attempted to tell a jury of this right he’d be cited for contempt , if not jailed. The only time this happens is when a properly informed/educated potential juror denies his intent to ignore the directions of the judge (when the jury is charged with rendering a verdict) during voir dire and, one who will inform the rest of the jury of this right during deliberations. One can only imagine how many simple drug possession for one’s own use cases would be thrown out if “it happens” as you say and believe it does. You “encourage that”? How so? Are you an attorney giving that encouragement or a a juror who is informing others?

You said: “But to babble on about misinformation makes you sound like a fool. There’s no conspiracy here. Just a plain reading of the constitution.”

I NEVER SAID that there was a conspiracy. I am saying that there is citizen ignorance. Unfortunately, one needs a few more words to get the concept understood by those unaware of it. One man’s “babble” may be another’s Bible. Think what you will; I will risk appearing a fool rather than remain silent and miss the chance to educate someone.

You said: “By the way, when have you ever, ever seen a judge (the courts) going out and actually enforcing laws through the police power like you’ve stated? Answer? Never. The courts don’t police. Try again.”

HAVE YOU EVER HEARD of an injunction? Parole? Probation? There are many examples of the courts both punishing crime but also enFORCING the law by monitoring the actions of the accused. The courts most certainly DO police. You may reference “The Cyclopedic Law Dictionary” Second Edition by James C. Cahill, Callaghan & Company, 1922 The second edition was needed because the actual printing plates of the first edition literally were worn out due to the popularity of such an “exhaustive collection of legal maxims”. Under “Police” it describes both the “administrative” (cops) and the “judiciary” (courts) police.

Mr. Grady, I don’t understand your hostility. To what do you owe your superior intellect and resulting disdain for reasoned debate? I have studied the Constitution, Articles of Confederation, Convention Notes, Federalist Papers, ratification documents, The Magna Charta (no, it is NOT a misspelling), and numerous other sources of American and English history and law for over 8 years. I am an autodidact with a thirst for knowledge. Do you even know what that is? I hardy need to “try again”; some people are just ineducable!

Here’s the thing – Judge Napolitano is absolutely correct. All you need to do is read the constitution and it spells out exactly what he said there.

But, you’re also right that the people, in their role as juries, have a right to nullify. And it happens. And, I encourage that.

But to babble on about misinformation makes you sound like a fool. There’s no conspiracy here. Just a plain reading of the constitution.

By the way, when have you ever, ever seen a judge (the courts) going out and actually enforcing laws through the police power like you’ve stated?

Answer? Never. The courts don’t police. Try again.

THIS IS NOT ELEMENTARY—- IT IS WRONG!

The president and the courts have “police” powers, those of enforcement and punishment.
The Congress has legislative power; they can formulate laws.

THUS, THERE ARE ONLY TWO BRANCHES OF FORMAL OR SPECIFICALLY ORGANIZED GOVERNMENT.

The PEOPLE of the juries are those who have the responsibility, and the right, to dictate whether the laws are Constitutional or not. There are many Supreme Court cases where the justices have confirmed that the jury has the right to decide on the law as well as the facts of the case. It was custom and assumed in early America jurisprudence. The jury has the ULTIMATE power as they are the sovereign. This is where the term jury nullification came from. They did not “nullify” a verdict. They refused to convict if they felt the law was improper or in any way unconstitutional. Judges are to act as referees in the courtroom; they are to insure against improper conduct on both sides. Judges do not have the rights that you, and every other dang school, scholar, and so-called expert professes. The three branches of government are the executive (president & courts), the Congress (Senate & House), and THE PEOPLE (petit and Grand juries & electors). Those with the ULTIMATE power in a democratic republic are the PEOPLE. The ONLY bulwark against the tyranny of government is not the press; it is the citizen participating in self governance, by way of the jury and elections, who guards against the usurpations of liberty that our founding fathers feared when creating this magnificent masterpiece called the Constitution.

How can I possibly support The Tenth Amendment Center when it actually weakens the knowledge of the American citizen with such misinformation? Must we change the wording to “the People, and the states respectively” so all can see that even the States answer to the people in this Republic? Shame on you all for not knowing better!