|
Real0ne -> RE: Trump pardoning Arpaio (8/26/2017 1:27:39 PM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Nnanji
quote:
ORIGINAL: MrRodgers
quote:
ORIGINAL: Nnanji
On the contrary, you're making things up again. Sheriff Arpaio, as the highest elected official in the county with over 35 years of law enforcement experience made that determination and performed to his conscience. Too, it too bad the pardon came now so that an appeal couldn't determine if a more reasonable court might agree. Also, if you have read a lot, as you say, then you know that the judge in the case didn't agree with the charges the prosecutors brought forth but had no say in that issue.
Peoples' rights are being violated regularly in the US. So you get to pick when law enforcement gets to use their experience and operate in 'good conscience' even if in the case of the court, the sheriff...went to far.
In the end, it doesn't matter what peripheral issues were involved. The court ruled just like all other courts, even the courts for which you seem to hold no prejudice.
That's just one of the real problems of the right today, having this consistent urge to look (at anything and as far back as necessary) at the politics of the courts and law to justify your the cherry picking.
See this is how your brain sees conspiracies. Where...anywhere...did I say anything like what you are arguing? I corrected a misstatement by you. Which, probably was going toward a conspiracy. Your argument here is pure BS.
LE is limited to operating UNDER positive law, not his conscience in the manner in which you are using the word conscience, anything outside of positive law is extraconstitution and crashes the corporate veil.
Yes not only cherry picking but word smithing, [making shit up] is precisely what these courts do when they want to hang someone and they cant quite get precedence to fit.
In fact law today, such as due process, is still acknowledged by scrotum from the way back machine, it has to be that way or no law will have standing, and we would have chaos. case in point, hurtado
In this country written constitutions were deemed essential to protect the rights and liberties of the people against the encroachments of power delegated to their governments, and the provisions of Magna Charta were incorporated into Bills of *532 Rights. They were limitations upon all the powers of government, legislative as well as executive and judicial.
*543 "The words due `process of law' were undoubtedly intended," said this court, in Murray's Lessees v. Hoboken, &c., "to convey the same meaning as the words `by the law of the land' in Magna Charta." That the one is the equivalent of the other was recognized in Davidson v. New Orleans, 96 U.S. 97. See also 2 Kent, 13; 2 Story Const. § 1789; Cooley's Const. Lim. 353; Pomeroy's Const. Law, § 245; Greene v. Briggs, 1 Curtis, 325. Whether the phrase in our American constitutions, national or State, be "law of the land" or "due process of law," it means in every case the same thing. Cooley's Const. Lim. 352.
To these considerations may be added others of very great significance. When the Fourteenth Amendment was adopted, all the States of the Union, some in terms, all substantially, declared, in their constitutions, that no person shall be deprived *557 of life, liberty, or property, otherwise than "by the judgment of his peers, or the law of the land," or "without due process of law." When that Amendment was adopted, the constitution of each State, with few exceptions, contained, and still contains, a Bill of Rights, enumerating the rights of life, liberty and property which cannot be impaired or destroyed by the legislative department.
However several states run with probable suspicion to pad the revenue stream, especially in traffic cases.
"No man's life, liberty, or property is safe while the legislature is in session" Mark Twain
|
|
|
|
