  In Deference to the return of urlLink Adam " Big Pimpin'"  Unikowsky to the world of blogging,  i thought i would respond to his most recent post on procedural vs substantive due process,  as it pertains to jury nullification.  Now i'm a big believer in Jury Null,  as well as procedural due process.  How?  well i think that jury nullification is part of the system,
 a final check on government so to speak:  that even after passing through all three branches of government,  if a law is so sucky ( although perhaps not unconstitutional)  then nobody will be convicted.  yes,  its not a perfect check,  but its an approximation,  and probably a pretty decent one too.  As for lying under oath;  screw you,  you lying sack of lying liar's lies.  ( i just wanted to say that,
 don't take it personal)  1)  you give ok analysis,  but don't pretend its Kantian.  Kant said you should tell the Nazis that you are hiding jews.  he hated lies.  a lot.  2)  as for the analysis you gave,
 "
 Sure,  it ostensibly represents the will of the majority of citizens,  and if you dislike the law,  you could theoretically punt the legislators from office.  However,  in the real world,  laws are drafted by corrupt,  clueless,  and frequently stupid legislators.  The public is frequently completely unaware of the implications of new laws that are enacted.  Most of the time they are totally apathetic,  or influenced by a government that actively misleads them.
 "
 This distrust of the populace rings in many of your posts.  But you don't have a right to agree with everything government does.  you ahve a right to have your voice in governmnet.  but just because you disagree with a few things,  or many things,  or even all things that your government passes,
 doesn't mean you are being ruled sans consent.  Specifically,  you seem to hate the anti- marijuana laws.  few people agree with you more than i do.  i hate them.  they are stupid,  innane,  idiotic,  orcish ( where's my thesaurus?
 However,
 it is YOUR obligation to convince people and legislators that they are wrong.  The world doesn't revolve around your ideas of good/ bad governance.  It becomes the individual's responsibility to act to change a government when you see something wrong with it.  that's part of what a representative democracy does.  Think about a government which works on substantive due process.  everytime someone comes foreward with a new claim,  theory,  idea about what it would entail,  the government would change,  meaning that very few laws would be enforced fairly also,  if you believe in favoring substantive due process over procedural due process,
 you are not favoring "  my own sense of substantive moral justice"  over " the obscure rider that former segregationist Trent Lott tacked onto the budget in committee"  you are,  instead favoring 250 million individual views about what substantive moral justice is ( especially from all those people you seem to think are totally inept,  uneducated,  ralph wiggums in the USA)  PRocedural justice attempts to create a system of moral justice which is applied equally to everyone.
 I guess it seems to me like you're saying at the same time,
 1)
 Americans,  in particular,  and people at large,  in general,
 are stupid,
 and 2)  we need to trust those same stupid people to make the right desicions regarding jury nullification,  self- government and 'substantive due process. ' seems to me that the only way to ensure that is with a firm system of procedural justice.
