well,Jacmore obfuscation from you,as usual! Besides,I do trust Glenn's Law-expertise over your emotional stuff by a Country-mile! Your questions indicate how uninformed in US-Customs and Laws you really are! And,read the whole Article, don't cherrypick like you usually do!
.....................................The second issue dogging the Colorado decision is that rebellion and insurrection against the United States is a federal crime. Trump has not been tried or convicted of any such crime. To say “we all know he’s guilty from what we’ve read online” is not how the American justice system is supposed to work.
For a state court judge and then the supreme court of that state to, in effect, convict him of that crime without a jury or even a trial on that crime, but instead as an ancillary issue in a different kind of proceeding, is unfair. It’s a backdoor insurrection conviction.
As such, it’s probably a violation of another key element of the 14th Amendment, the Due Process Clause. That clause declares that no state shall “deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.”
Unlike the insurrection clause, the Due Process Clause has been applied thousands of times.
Now, let’s forget about the legalisms for a moment. The Supreme Court is always conscious that its power is like gasoline in a gas tank. The more of it they use, the less of it they have. They’re still smarting from criticism over the 5-4 decision in Bush v. Gore back in 2000. Chief Justice Roberts is especially wary about overreaching by the Court.
Their instinct will be to let the people, not the courts, decide Trump’s fitness for office. They’ll reverse the Colorado decision not on substantive grounds that he did not engage in an insurrection, but on Due Process grounds that he never got his day in court.
That would effectively end the matter. Even the most serious of the criminal cases against Trump do not charge him with insurrection. So, he probably won’t get his day in court on the insurrection crime because he’s never been charged with it.
What he will get is his day at the polls next Nov. 5. That’s as it should be. This is too important for judges to decide. It’s a matter for the people.
Glenn Beaton practiced law in the federal courts, including the Supreme Court. The views herein are his alone, and should not be attributed to any other person or organization.
most likely promising the Saudi that they would restrict the Drilling for Oil and Gas in the USA even more! Needing more Oil from the Saudi and the Emirates,with more Kickback to certain Circles in the US!
Well,Muammar of Libya thought different with his all-Female Bodyguard-Corps! How effective they would have been in actual Combat is another matter. As for Transgenders,would they actually end up in Combat-situations,owing to their constant need for medical attention?
Freedom of speech means freedom from interference, suppression or punitive action by the government—and nothing else. It does not mean the right to demand the financial support or the material means to express your views at the expense of other men who may not wish to support you. Freedom of speech includes the freedom not to agree, not to listen and not to support one’s own antagonists. A “right” does not include the material implementation of that right by other men; it includes only the freedom to earn that implementation by one’s own effort. Private citizens cannot use physical force or coercion; they cannot censor or suppress anyone’s views or publications. Only the government can do so. And censorship is a concept that pertains only to governmental action.
“The Fascist New Frontier,” The Ayn Rand Column, 106 While people are clamoring about “economic rights,” the concept of political rights is vanishing. It is forgotten that the right of free speech means the freedom to advocate one’s views and to bear the possible consequences, including disagreement with others, opposition, unpopularity and lack of support. The political function of “the right of free speech” is to protect dissenters and unpopular minorities from forcible suppression—not to guarantee them the support, advantages and rewards of a popularity they have not gained.
The Bill of Rights reads: “Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press . . . .” It does not demand that private citizens provide a microphone for the man who advocates their destruction, or a passkey for the burglar who seeks to rob them, or a knife for the murderer who wants to cut their throats.
online today!Conrad73 Blog Comments (2,492)
RE: Why do so many people not understand that the usa is a constitutional federal republic?
Have you ever read it?