Trump Quotes the US Constitution

[trouble13]

Oddly enough I do

The purpose of criminal justice is to convict the guilty and acquit the innocent
In civil justice, it is to rule in favor of the wronged party

If the evidence shows guilt/fault, the court must rule accordingly

In the case of Trumps 58? case no (I think we've all lost count), no evidence has actually been present

Sure, Trump's followers have reeled of many accusations of wrong doing, but inside the court room, where it's an offence to give false witness, Trump's lawyers are uniformly quiet on this.


I think you need to look at the facts before judging, and not pre-judge and then look for facts to back your prejudice.

Serious question for you
Would you treat a justice system fairly that is unfairly selective about how they dispense their justice? Jury nullification is a tool given to us as a check on judges.

 

[Rich2018]

I am unaware of anyone who has ever suggested a traffic stop is a treasonous act.

Are you really not reading or are you just being obtuse ?

Please explain how you come to believe that it has been suggested that a traffic stop is treasonous when it was specifically stated that it was not

As above:


"No it can't because any (that word again) command or order (such as those given by a group attempting an overthrow (or coup) of a legitimately elected government, would come with a threat of force
Indeed, as discussed, this would also apply from the coup attempt right down to a mundane police traffic stop (which in case you need reminding, is NOT a treasonous act)"


Please re-read and focus of the bolded part, and in particular the word in enlarged font size so even you cannot claim to have missed it

What you're doing a piss-poor job of explaining is why this eliminates a threat of force from being an element of treason. As I pointed out, threatened use of force is an element of many crimes, even though the police are implicitly threatening the use of force in any non-consensual encounter they have.

No you're just playing dumb

That a mundane police traffic stop also carries with it a threat of force, is to illustrate how common such implied threats are, and therefore cannot be used as a qualifier for something like a military coup

I never said that. I said that treason consists only of levying war against the United States or in aiding her enemies to do the same. This is spelled out in the Constitution and are the only things that can be regarded as treason. If you can make a case that a bloodless coup is waging war or aiding the enemies of the United States to wage war against them, then go nuts. If you can't, then it's not treason. Period.

So, in your opinion, is a bloodless coup (with absolutely no violence), by a group within the military, deposing a legitimately elected government, treasonous or not ?

 

[Rich2018]

Serious question for you
Would you treat a justice system fairly that is unfairly selective about how they dispense their justice? Jury nullification is a tool given to us as a check on judges.

I would change the US justice system but it would require a Constitutional Amendment. I would dispense with trial by jury, and if you know anything about criminal justice, replace the adversarial system we currently have with an inquisitorial system.

The justice system in the USA is not fair and does need to be changed. The replaacement of trial by jury would be a great step towards creating fairness.

 

[trouble13]

I would change the US justice system but it would require a Constitutional Amendment. I would dispense with trial by jury, and if you know anything about criminal justice, replace the adversarial system we currently have with an inquisitorial system.

The justice system in the USA is not fair and does need to be changed. The replaacement of trial by jury would be a great step towards creating fairness.

I disagree with your solution but completely respect your perspective if that makes sense.

I agree that reforms are needed but I want them to be more adversarial, not less. The judicial branch is much too cozy with the state for my comfort.

 

[Buckeyes85]

No, but such differences are nominal. What we have now is radical changes to the issuance and validation of ballots in several states. Those differences are much more substantial and lead to various states using systems that, arguably, impacted the parity with systems in other states. I’m not sure that such radical differences are unconstitutional but they do constitute a difference between the states that SCOTUS should have looked at.

In short, the unequivocal and undeniable answer is "No."
What you imply, and for which there is literally no support is that one "state" has standing and a right to sue another "state" when they don't like the way the other state ran its election. Can you even comprehend what that would lead to- you the party of supposed states rights?

 

[Lutherf]

In short, the unequivocal and undeniable answer is "No."
What you imply, and for which there is literally no support is that one "state" has standing and a right to sue another "state" when they don't like the way the other state ran its election. Can you even comprehend what that would lead to- you the party of supposed states rights?

When one or more states is allowing ballots to bee cast without verification of the voters identification, without validation of the voter's registration, without validation that the voter actually requested the ballot, much less filled it out themselves, then that state is playing by a COMPLETELY different set of rules than all the other states and their process needs to be challenged. If we don't allow a legal challenge to a situation like that then the states that choose to play by the rules have no recourse whatsoever outside of things we REALLY don't want to have to do.

-edit-

Let me put it this way. If the argument is that Texas (or any other state) has no standing to object to the practices regarding voting in another state then doesn't that COMPLETELY invalidate the 1965 Voting Rights Act? If no state can unjustly disenfranchise a voter then the opposite must also be true and no state can unjustly allow indiscriminate casting of votes.

 

[Robertinfremont]

Trump should have taken Mr. Khan up on his offer......

That is when Hillary lost. The mighty Muslin did not stop Trump.

 

[Robertinfremont]

In short, the unequivocal and undeniable answer is "No."
What you imply, and for which there is literally no support is that one "state" has standing and a right to sue another "state" when they don't like the way the other state ran its election. Can you even comprehend what that would lead to- you the party of supposed states rights?

This may be a first to read any Democrat admit states have rights.

 

[Rich2018]

I disagree with your solution but completely respect your perspective if that makes sense.

I agree that reforms are needed but I want them to be more adversarial, not less. The judicial branch is much too cozy with the state for my comfort.

Well take a look at the adversarial system - two men are tried for murder, one is on benefit, the other a billionaire
The billionaire hire an expensive firm of lawyers at $20,000 p/day, the guy on benefit gets an over-worked public defender who gives him maybe an hour before going to trial
Do you you think for a moment that equality in justice ?

Take a look at the Inquisitorial system - the judges do the examining, the lawyers just present the witnesses and evidence
The judges give each side an equal hearing

In the case of civil law (like tax fraud) the judges are well trained/experienced in tax law and can't be bamboozled by a sharp mouthed lawyer would would otherwise confuse the hell out of John Doe jury member

I have said that if I were guilty of a crime, I'd want an expensive lawyer to confuse an honest, but simple jury
If I were innocent, no way would I trust my life to 12 ordinary guys off the street who most likely don't want to be there in the first place.

 

[Rexedgar]

That is when Hillary lost. The mighty Muslin did not stop Trump.

RIF, you’re getting your sheets confused with the Constitution!

muslin

Muslim

 

[Robertinfremont]

Well take a look at the adversarial system - two men are tried for murder, one is on benefit, the other a billionaire
The billionaire hire an expensive firm of lawyers at $20,000 p/day, the guy on benefit gets an over-worked public defender who gives him maybe an hour before going to trial
Do you you think for a moment that equality in justice ?

Take a look at the Inquisitorial system - the judges do the examining, the lawyers just present the witnesses and evidence
The judges give each side an equal hearing

In the case of civil law (like tax fraud) the judges are well trained/experienced in tax law and can't be bamboozled by a sharp mouthed lawyer would would otherwise confuse the hell out of John Doe jury member

I have said that if I were guilty of a crime, I'd want an expensive lawyer to confuse an honest, but simple jury
If I were innocent, no way would I trust my life to 12 ordinary guys off the street who most likely don't want to be there in the first place.

Very rich people get convicted for crimes. Are you suggesting the arch criminal gats a super lawyer for him? Madoff comes to mind.

 

[Rich2018]

Very rich people get convicted for crimes. Are you suggesting the arch criminal gats a super lawyer for him? Madoff comes to mind.

Don't be naive

And even if they are tried, what chances do you give them versus the man on benefits tried for a similar crime ?

Very rich people rarely get convicted

And even if convicted, they get the most lenient of sentences.

 

[Grizzly Adams]

Are you really not reading or are you just being obtuse ?

Please explain how you come to believe that it has been suggested that a traffic stop is treasonous when it was specifically stated that it was not

I just ****ing said no one suggested a traffic stop was treasonous. It's RIGHT THERE in the quote: "I am unaware of anyone who has ever suggested a traffic stop is a treasonous act. "

You have no grounds to criticize anyone for not reading.

No you're just playing dumb

That a mundane police traffic stop also carries with it a threat of force, is to illustrate how common such implied threats are, and therefore cannot be used as a qualifier for something like a military coup

Why?

So, in your opinion, is a bloodless coup (with absolutely no violence), by a group within the military, deposing a legitimately elected government, treasonous or not ?

If it is levying war against the United States or aiding her enemies in their capacity to do the same, it is treason. If you can make that case in a particular military coup, go for it. If you can't, it's not treason.

 

[trouble13]

Well take a look at the adversarial system - two men are tried for murder, one is on benefit, the other a billionaire
The billionaire hire an expensive firm of lawyers at $20,000 p/day, the guy on benefit gets an over-worked public defender who gives him maybe an hour before going to trial
Do you you think for a moment that equality in justice ?

Take a look at the Inquisitorial system - the judges do the examining, the lawyers just present the witnesses and evidence
The judges give each side an equal hearing

In the case of civil law (like tax fraud) the judges are well trained/experienced in tax law and can't be bamboozled by a sharp mouthed lawyer would would otherwise confuse the hell out of John Doe jury member

I have said that if I were guilty of a crime, I'd want an expensive lawyer to confuse an honest, but simple jury
If I were innocent, no way would I trust my life to 12 ordinary guys off the street who most likely don't want to be there in the first place.

If the verdict contradicts the opinion of the accused, who arribertrates it under the system you purpose?

 

[pinqy]

Let me put it this way. If the argument is that Texas (or any other state) has no standing to object to the practices regarding voting in another state then doesn't that COMPLETELY invalidate the 1965 Voting Rights Act?

Ummm no. How would it?

If no state can unjustly disenfranchise a voter then the opposite must also be true and no state can unjustly allow indiscriminate casting of votes.

Even if that is true, in neither case can one state sue another over the issue. The DoJ can prosecute a state for violating Federal election laws, and residents of a state can sue over their rights being violated, but one state can't sue another state when itself has not been affected.

 

[Jason Warfield]

So if Alabama decides to allow slavery then does that effect any other states?

In case I am repeating an already stated rebuttal, my apologies...

Slavery was a national issue that required an amendment to the Constitution. As such, if Alabama decides to allow slavery, it is NOT a state to state controversy or issue, but one that is direct violation of a national law. See the difference?

 

[Vadinho]

Lets face it, the way we run national elections is a joke no matter which side of the aisle you are on. This time the GOP lost, in 2000, we lost. It is absurd to have 50 different standards for voting and qualifying eligible voters. I believe that a reasonable person would argue that one single standard for national elections would be a very wise thing to pursue. The constitution though prohibits it so states large and small need to come together and agree to amend it to make this process more efficient, secure and accurate. The first thing I would suggest is to create a national ID out of the SS number database. Make this system totally secure, accurate and tamper proof. If we can all get credit cards online in a secure fashion, I know we can fix the SS database to eliminate old numbers, fake ones, duplicates, etc. Start with that and then use that ID to vote.

 

[Rich2018]

If the verdict contradicts the opinion of the accused, who arribertrates it under the system you purpose?

Sorry but I don't understand what you're asking

If the verdict returned by the bench is guilty when the accused please not-guilty, who arbitrates ?

 

[Rich2018]

I just ****ing said no one suggested a traffic stop was treasonous..."

More playing dumb, now with a hint a faux outrage
You said:

I am unaware of anyone who has ever suggested a traffic stop is a treasonous act

Which by implication suggests you think that my posts DID somehow suggest there was some connection between a humble police traffic stop and treason. Confoimed by what you said in post #171 :

Which then suggests that getting pulled over for speeding is treason

At best you contradict yourself, at worst, you've been caught in a blatant lie.

You have no grounds to criticize anyone for not reading.

Your blatant lie, see above

Why?

Why what ?

Are you denying that even a commonplace, mundane police traffic stop is not accompanied with a threat of force ?

If it is levying war against the United States or aiding her enemies in their capacity to do the same, it is treason. If you can make that case in a particular military coup, go for it. If you can't, it's not treason.

So is a group from within the military, staging a bloodless coup (where no-one is hurt), to depose a legitimately elected US government, and impose a military dictatorship, an act of "levying war" and thus an act of treason in your mind ?

Just answer the damned question for once.[/QUOTE]

 

[trouble13]

Sorry but I don't understand what you're asking

If the verdict returned by the bench is guilty when the accused please not-guilty, who arbitrates ?

My appologies I was drinking when i posted that and after reading it I am not entirely clear on what I was asking you either.

As a general statement I don't like the concept of a judge being on either side. He is there to make sure that each side has the opportunity to present their side of the argument and do so while staying within the parameters of the law.

 

[Casper]

Trump does not give a chit about the Constitution and his followers calling for Martial Law proves they support this for the USA"

 

[Rich2018]

My appologies I was drinking when i posted that and after reading it I am not entirely clear on what I was asking you either.

As a general statement I don't like the concept of a judge being on either side. He is there to make sure that each side has the opportunity to present their side of the argument and do so while staying within the parameters of the law.

That is the role of a judge in an adversarial system, but not in an inquisitorial system of justice.

 

[Rich2018]

Trump does not give a chit about the Constitution and his followers calling for Martial Law proves they support this for the USA"
View attachment 67309316

Donald Trump believes in one man one vote.

And he's the man.

 

[trouble13]

That is the role of a judge in an adversarial system, but not in an inquisitorial system of justice.

Who keeps things fair in an inquistoral system?

 

[Rich2018]

Who keeps things fair in an inquistoral system?

The bench of judges, they run the court

It's a bit like a jury trial but with a jury made up of appointed judges and the jurors/judges asking the questions

How could it be unfair ?