And one more thing: That same 6th Circuit decision points out that "...the drafters of the Constitution clearly intended [the right of trial by jury] to protect the accused from oppression by the Government. ("The guarantees of jury trial in the Federal and State Constitutions reflect a profound judgment about the way in which law should be enforced and justice administered. A right to jury trial is granted to criminal defendants in order to prevent oppression by the Government."). The Founding Fathers knew that, absent jury nullification, judicial tyranny not only was a possibility, but was a reality in the colonial experience. Although we may view ourselves as living in more civilized times, there is obviously no reason to believe the need for this protection has been eliminated. Judicial and prosecutorial excesses still occur, and Congress is not yet an infallible body incapable of making tyrannical laws." The fact that Mike, et al. consider this Constitutionally guaranteed protection of citizens from their government "despotic and most heinous" is curious, to say the least.

First of all, the quote was poorly (if at all) researched; it is actually a sentence from Plucknett's "Concise History of Common Law", and it refers to a 1544 jury verdict in Britain. (Note also that the "next three centuries" expired 150 years ago.) The 6th Circuit quoted it in reference to a 1980 decision, so here, it's totally out of context. Second, Abby is correct, administrative cases are not judicial cases. This is an important separation-of-powers issue -- if any administrative law judge were allowed to subpoena the President, he would spend all his time traveling from state to state responding to stupid complaints, and this particular stupid complaint has been answered dozens of times. The birthers need to give it a rest. Third, what "good comments" are we talking about -- confusing Keynesians with Kenyans?