- Joined
- Jun 23, 2009
- Messages
- 133,631
- Reaction score
- 30,937
- Location
- Bagdad, La.
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Very Conservative
:roll:
Listen, while you are on your high horse, you should shout to our entire court system that they've been doing subpoenas wrong. But yeah, that's just liberal tyranny. Conservatives had no part in developing this country's legal system over the last couple centuries.
I hope the courts rule in favor of the churches. Mainly just subscribing to the thread but also stating which side of the line I am on. I am transgender and support the churches rights to preach what they believe as long as it isnt telling people to go out and hurt other people and the churches shouldnt have to provide their sermons.
Is it a Conservative political lizard imposing tyranny on the local churches, or a Liberal political lizard?
Greetings, Amandi. :2wave:
Whatever happened to the separation of State and Church? Can the Church demand that the State produce whatever papers they might like to see?
"No conservative judges or lawyers or legislators have ever existed, and that's why no court system in America applies the probable cause test to subpoenas!"
Internet Conservatives, 2014
My friend, the 4th Amendment has two clauses. One covers "unreasonable searches and seizures" and the other covers warrants. A subpoena is covered by the first clause and the "reasonableness" standard applies. As it says right in the link you provided (but apparently didn't read) a subpoena can be quashed on Constitutional grounds.
Of course they can be. However, subpoenas for all sorts of communication are regularly issued in civil cases, and while sometimes the other party can fight a subpoena, they seldom win when they are fighting a subpoena for public communication. This is being made into much more than it is. There is a legal fight between the city and some churches over an ordinance and a petition to remove it. It is perfectly normal for both sides to subpoena communications as part of the discovery process. When the church subpoena's a local government for public transcripts in a civil matter are they violating the separation of church and state?
Why would the city want or need transcripts of sermons discussing homosexuality?
If the suit is with regard to an investigation as to whether signatures were collected illegally then a subpoena requesting "all sermons mentioning homosexuality" would be way, way too broad.
My question is intended to find out how any words spoken in a church can be the basis of any discrimination case. Actions? Perhaps. Do you often ignore questions when responding to someone?
The purpose of the subpoenas is determine if both the pastors and the congregants were aware of the law when they gathered and submitted the signatures. We already know that at least one of these pastors provided training to his congregation. What the City Attorney can derive from that is that the congregants knowingly gathered invalid signatures and the pastors knowingly submitted a petition in which over half the signatures were invalid which could both be crimes. Anyway, I don't see how the pastors have any legal ground to stand on in this case. Their legal argument basically amounts to 'no take backsies' and the first thing the City Attorney is going to do is ask for dismissal since they know they don't have enough valid signatures to re-instate the petition.
This isn't a discrimination case.
It's called, "tyranny". Liberal tyranny, to be more precise.
My friend, the 4th Amendment has two clauses. One covers "unreasonable searches and seizures" and the other covers warrants. A subpoena is covered by the first clause and the "reasonableness" standard applies. As it says right in the link you provided (but apparently didn't read) a subpoena can be quashed on Constitutional grounds.
Thanks, that is more information than I had gathered.
It may well be way too broad. Opposing council regularly asks for way more that what probably pertains to a case. If that is what is going on here, then they will easily be able to get it thrown out. There is nothing at all abnormal about what is going on. This is how the discovery process works in the majority of cases. If those churches are being persecuted they should call up the local ACLU.
Is it a Conservative political lizard imposing tyranny on the local churches, or a Liberal political lizard?
My friend, the 4th Amendment has two clauses. One covers "unreasonable searches and seizures" and the other covers warrants. A subpoena is covered by the first clause and the "reasonableness" standard applies. As it says right in the link you provided (but apparently didn't read) a subpoena can be quashed on Constitutional grounds.
In a political climate like we have today it's just plain stupid to make such a broad based request. I can't imagine that a reasonable attorney, especially one with a political interest at stake, would head down this path if their motivation was really to gather evidence. Attacking religious institutions (or even giving that impression) is generally a really bad political strategy.
A subpoena duces tecum is niether a search nor a seizure. Why is it those who talk the most about the constitution tend to know the least?
We would benefit from having more people in our government who are more concerned about upholding the law than the next election cycle.
Google "subpoena probable cause" and tell me probable cause is required for any and all subpoenas.
For that to happen.We would benefit from having more people in our government who are more concerned about upholding the law than the next election cycle.
I believe that if you do a little looking around you'll find that subpoenas are pretty much always subject to a "reasonableness" standard. I'd recommend starting with Boyd v US
And I believe if you re-read the thread, you'll find that you are attacking a straw man here since the exact phrasing being discussed was probable cause.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?