|
Real0ne -> RE: More Liberal Democrat Government Please! (7/26/2013 6:29:38 PM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Phydeaux
Cut the federal government....
Nope, (sorta), Long term yeh, in many cases you will find that the federal gub tramples on states rights in your favor! Can you believe that? Look up 1983, its pretty broad.
Its all gub man! The state to the individual is far more encroaching on the the you or I than the feds ever will be on the states.
Government has literally claimed all rights known ot man and the only way you get any is to fight them tooth and nail and go broke in the process even if you know how to litigate the matters yourself.
They are the best organized extortion racket I have seen to date. Make the mob look micro and they dont have to kill as many people (at least within the US) to do it.
oops orwell -1, 1983
http://www.constitution.org/brief/forsythe_42-1983.htm
A GUIDE TO CIVIL RIGHTS LIABILITY UNDER 42 U.S.C. § 1983:
AN OVERVIEW OF SUPREME COURT AND ELEVENTH CIRCUIT PRECEDENT
IAN D. FORSYTHE
I. INTRODUCTION AND HISTORY
42 U.S.C. § 1983, commonly referred to as "section 1983" provides:
Every person who under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory or the District of Columbia, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, Suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress, except that in any action brought against a judicial officer for an act or omission taken in such officer's judicial capacity, injunctive relief shall not be granted unless a declaratory decree was violated or declaratory relief was unavailable. For the purposes of this section, any Act of Congress applicable exclusively to the District of Columbia shall be considered to be a statute of the District of Columbia.
Now that sounds easy on its face but its not.
One good thing however is that its in black and white so all these loony gubbermint apologist armchair attorneys cant stand here and try to convince those who are uninformed or have never successfully argued a case in court that any damn thing in print [ Every person who under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory ] IS DA JUDGE DREDD LAW
42 U.S.C. � 1983 (emphasis added).
Section 1983 was enacted on April 20, 1871 as part of the Civil Rights Act of 1871, and is also known as the "Ku Klux Klan Act" because one of its primary purposes was to provide a civil remedy against the abuses that were being committed in the southern states, especially by the Ku Klux Klan. While the existing law protected all citizens in theory, its protection in practice was unavailable to some because those persons charged with the enforcement of the laws were unable or unwilling to do so.[1] The Act was intended to provide a private remedy for such violations of federal law, and has subsequently been interpreted to create a species of tort liability.[2]
The number of cases that have been brought under section 1983 has dramatically increased since 1961 when the Supreme Court decided Monroe v. Pape.[3] In Monroe, the Supreme Court held that a police officer was acting "under color of state law" even though his actions violated state law.[4] This was the first case in which the Supreme Court allowed liability to attach where a government official acted outside the scope of the authority granted to him by state law. Since Monroe v. Pape was decided, an extensive body of law has developed to govern section 1983 claims. This article is intended to provide an overview of that extensive body of law, and will include seminal precedent from the United States Supreme Court and the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals--a comprehensive study of all law related to section 1983 is beyond the scope of this article.
II. ELEMENTS OF A SECTION 1983 CLAIM
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42/chapter-21/subchapter-I
which of course opens a HUGE can of worms as to the distinction between a law and "color" of law.
|
|
|
|
