1. Juries do not have the power to nullify laws. They have the power to nullify the application of a law in a particular case.
If prosecution of a law is predictably hampered due to a reasonable probability of a mistrial, then the juries who acquitted in the past have effectively nullified that law.
2. The judical power of the U.S. is vested in one Supreme Court and the other courts are inferior to it.
Inferior judges are only bound by laws which are enacted pursuant to the Constitution. Everyone's oath to the Constitution is his own to carry out as he sees fit. Judicial tyranny by the Supreme Court does not excuse one's own oath and his own conscience and the judgement of his peers.
3. Bush is enforcing a law that was enacted by your duly elected representatives. Laws are enacted by the will of the people through their representatives.
That would be the essence of the republican form of government, but we are not just a republic, we are a constitutional republic.
4. Whether you and I may like it or not, the Supreme Court believes that the production, possession and sale of drugs in one state that would allow such activity, creates an undue burden on states that would choose to criminalize the production, possession and sale of drugs.
Actually, that's not true. Read the relevant cases. Even non-commercial growing in one's own home is considered economic activity within the reach of the federal government, with no consideration to the inalienable right of liberty in the absence of infringing someone else's rights.
This conflict between the states provides the Legislature the opportunity to create legislation to promote "the general welfare" and to "regulate commerce between the states".
That quote is not in the Constitution, it is the power to regulate commerce among the several states, that is, acts of commerce that occur between actors in two different states, not simple individual activity that has some second or third order economic effect that propagates across state lines. With this interpretation, there is no act you could possibly commit that would not be within the scope of Leviathan's powers, and thus the whole idea of limited, enumerated powers is rendered null at the judiciary's discretion.
A president that ignored that position of the other two branches of government is acting as a dictator.
A president that carries out unconstitutional, rights-violating laws is complicit in tyranny. Which would you rather be?
Also, I don't quite get why you're here preaching that we should acquiesce to the establishment's interpretation of the Constitution, no matter how wrong it may be, simply because they have the reins of power. Isn't Dr. Paul's belief that the establishment has perverted and subverted the Constitution and that we should be returning to a strict textual reading of it?
