and to top it all off, we have so-called Justice Thomas informing the public, in defense of his criminal behavior, that he was following the "advice" of some unnamed person,,(presumably, another member of this disgusting pseudo-profession) and this from a "Justice of the Supreme Court"! This is going from the merely disgusting, to the completely farcical.
Apparently, a majority of Americans are in a trance. A good portion of the rest wish to perpetuate and perpetrate a criminal and archaic rule of the rich and powerful all these many centuries after the church and the kings formed an unholy alliance. I have to agree with we're Fu-ked. I'm not deaf and blind, or so stupid as not to notice, but unfortunately too old and too tired to aid the just cause!
The first thing that needs to be changed about the constitution you are recommending is the name. Of course we need to correct the problems with our system, but you will have an impossible battle to get most people to consider reading a document that uses the words socialism and communism. We have been indoctrinated from an early age to reject those words without being taught what they actually mean. Our educational system needs to expand the teaching of world geography and social studies in the early grades that includes studying other forms of government. Our students should learn the pros and cons of democratic socialism or social democratic republics, and compare them with our system in high school. I feel the change in the spirit and mood of the country, but we're not there yet. That is why DeSantis and other stakeholders who want to maintain their status are desperately focusing on public education and book banning to keep the old order and class system in place.
Nothing to add that’s superior to the “seven evils,” but they remind me of Mussolini’s fascism--indoctrination, nationalist imperialism (make Italy great again), attempted insurrection, & a rigged judicial system (his declaration he is above the law, giving amnesty to criminals connected to his own criminality, and “Mussolini is always right”). And, as it happens, the king and the pope were his players.
I usually don't talk this way, or think this way. I'm no lawyer. But this has been on my mind for a very long time, and yesterday it just came out in words. US Law really does suck because anyone who knows how to game it is able to do it with impunity. Talk me down.
When it comes to crime, Justice John Roberts thinks milk comes from the grocery store. The case Roberts ruled on was In re JODY TREMAYNE WAFER , and involved a habeas corpus defense by a person charged with cannabis possession. The defense was based on an assertion that the government failed to follow due process when it made cannabis a Schedule 1 drug. Roberts ruled on a series of technicalities, mostly skirting the fundamental assertion by the defendant on due process grounds.
What Roberts is- and much of legal America are- missing is the connection between the law and the crime. The law was created to address a crime. That is why it is called, “Criminal Law”. However, history is full of unjust laws, i.e. laws that do not have a fundamental crime as its reason to exist. From Jim Crow laws to civil forfeiture laws to stop and frisk laws to censorship laws, jurists have felt compelled to honor these laws’ constitutional origins whether they are just or not. This brings up the question of whether it is the duty of a jurist to solely interpret the law, or to also struggle to determine how justice is best served. The mainstream consensus is the former. Jurists commonly rule unjustly, saying the law ties their hands with respect to justice. How many profoundly sincere defenses are disallowed in court every day because the law says, “no”?
In criminal law, there must exist a fundamental definition of the word ‘crime’, and Cornell Law School provides one:
“Crime is behavior, either by act or omission, defined by statutory or common law as deserving of punishment or penalty.”
Mirriam-Webster dictionary gives two meanings:
1 : an illegal act for which someone can be punished by the government especially : a gross violation of law
2 : a grave offense especially against morality
The real crime here is in giving the law jurisdiction over the meaning of a word- ‘crime’- that defines itself. This is not fundamental, any more than the Doctrine of Discovery is fundamental Indian law- another judicial crime.
A crime is ultimately a behavior (agreement with Cornell LS on that point). Crimes can exist without laws; so how can the meaning of the word ‘crime’ be based upon the word, ‘law’? Any law that does not reflect this basic fact, or, as in the case of the Doctrine of Discovery, obfuscates it, is what should be ruled unconstitutional. Politically-motivated, unjust laws are commonly emplaced into government, and the federal cannabis law is also one of those.
Milk (crime) had to exist on the farm before it ever made it to the store (law). Crimes are not derived from laws. It is the other way around. Diligently worked Due Process begins at the beginning, and therefore must determine whether an underlying crime has occurred in order for a law to be applied.
The problem is, then, that there needs to be either a more basic meaning to the word ‘crime’, or another word must be used in its place. Until this happens, criminal law is, by definition, fundamentally flawed.
Because of the foregoing, Chief Justice John Roberts, by denying relief in In re JODY TREMAYNE WAFER, has again done an egregious disservice to the cause of Justice. The leaders of jurisprudence must make ungrounded laws illegal. In addition to interpreting the law, Judges must also make a determined effort to find a basis for it. Otherwise, remedies to injustice are absent.
Penalties are “legal”, societal-level crimes; but because they are assaults against other persons, they are crimes nonetheless. Is it not the ultimate duty of an honest judge to protect innocent people from civil and criminal punishment? Should this not be the real motivation behind honest prosecutors’ cases? How many legal judgements today fail this fundamental test? Jurisprudence has a heavy responsibility to honor justice over compliance. Again, justice’ meaning is in the word itself, and it is a word that is misused in courtrooms, legislatures, and among enforcement groups on a daily basis.
A law is a reaction to a crime, and is a means for a political power outcome that deters crime. Laws that create crimes attempt to deter non-criminal behavior. Despite it being unfashionable today, Judges are empowered to make this distinction. An unconstitutional law is one without a basis in a crime. Before there were laws, there were crimes.
and to top it all off, we have so-called Justice Thomas informing the public, in defense of his criminal behavior, that he was following the "advice" of some unnamed person,,(presumably, another member of this disgusting pseudo-profession) and this from a "Justice of the Supreme Court"! This is going from the merely disgusting, to the completely farcical.
Apparently, a majority of Americans are in a trance. A good portion of the rest wish to perpetuate and perpetrate a criminal and archaic rule of the rich and powerful all these many centuries after the church and the kings formed an unholy alliance. I have to agree with we're Fu-ked. I'm not deaf and blind, or so stupid as not to notice, but unfortunately too old and too tired to aid the just cause!
The first thing that needs to be changed about the constitution you are recommending is the name. Of course we need to correct the problems with our system, but you will have an impossible battle to get most people to consider reading a document that uses the words socialism and communism. We have been indoctrinated from an early age to reject those words without being taught what they actually mean. Our educational system needs to expand the teaching of world geography and social studies in the early grades that includes studying other forms of government. Our students should learn the pros and cons of democratic socialism or social democratic republics, and compare them with our system in high school. I feel the change in the spirit and mood of the country, but we're not there yet. That is why DeSantis and other stakeholders who want to maintain their status are desperately focusing on public education and book banning to keep the old order and class system in place.
Nothing to add that’s superior to the “seven evils,” but they remind me of Mussolini’s fascism--indoctrination, nationalist imperialism (make Italy great again), attempted insurrection, & a rigged judicial system (his declaration he is above the law, giving amnesty to criminals connected to his own criminality, and “Mussolini is always right”). And, as it happens, the king and the pope were his players.
I usually don't talk this way, or think this way. I'm no lawyer. But this has been on my mind for a very long time, and yesterday it just came out in words. US Law really does suck because anyone who knows how to game it is able to do it with impunity. Talk me down.
When it comes to crime, Justice John Roberts thinks milk comes from the grocery store. The case Roberts ruled on was In re JODY TREMAYNE WAFER , and involved a habeas corpus defense by a person charged with cannabis possession. The defense was based on an assertion that the government failed to follow due process when it made cannabis a Schedule 1 drug. Roberts ruled on a series of technicalities, mostly skirting the fundamental assertion by the defendant on due process grounds.
What Roberts is- and much of legal America are- missing is the connection between the law and the crime. The law was created to address a crime. That is why it is called, “Criminal Law”. However, history is full of unjust laws, i.e. laws that do not have a fundamental crime as its reason to exist. From Jim Crow laws to civil forfeiture laws to stop and frisk laws to censorship laws, jurists have felt compelled to honor these laws’ constitutional origins whether they are just or not. This brings up the question of whether it is the duty of a jurist to solely interpret the law, or to also struggle to determine how justice is best served. The mainstream consensus is the former. Jurists commonly rule unjustly, saying the law ties their hands with respect to justice. How many profoundly sincere defenses are disallowed in court every day because the law says, “no”?
In criminal law, there must exist a fundamental definition of the word ‘crime’, and Cornell Law School provides one:
“Crime is behavior, either by act or omission, defined by statutory or common law as deserving of punishment or penalty.”
Mirriam-Webster dictionary gives two meanings:
1 : an illegal act for which someone can be punished by the government especially : a gross violation of law
2 : a grave offense especially against morality
The real crime here is in giving the law jurisdiction over the meaning of a word- ‘crime’- that defines itself. This is not fundamental, any more than the Doctrine of Discovery is fundamental Indian law- another judicial crime.
A crime is ultimately a behavior (agreement with Cornell LS on that point). Crimes can exist without laws; so how can the meaning of the word ‘crime’ be based upon the word, ‘law’? Any law that does not reflect this basic fact, or, as in the case of the Doctrine of Discovery, obfuscates it, is what should be ruled unconstitutional. Politically-motivated, unjust laws are commonly emplaced into government, and the federal cannabis law is also one of those.
Milk (crime) had to exist on the farm before it ever made it to the store (law). Crimes are not derived from laws. It is the other way around. Diligently worked Due Process begins at the beginning, and therefore must determine whether an underlying crime has occurred in order for a law to be applied.
The problem is, then, that there needs to be either a more basic meaning to the word ‘crime’, or another word must be used in its place. Until this happens, criminal law is, by definition, fundamentally flawed.
Because of the foregoing, Chief Justice John Roberts, by denying relief in In re JODY TREMAYNE WAFER, has again done an egregious disservice to the cause of Justice. The leaders of jurisprudence must make ungrounded laws illegal. In addition to interpreting the law, Judges must also make a determined effort to find a basis for it. Otherwise, remedies to injustice are absent.
Penalties are “legal”, societal-level crimes; but because they are assaults against other persons, they are crimes nonetheless. Is it not the ultimate duty of an honest judge to protect innocent people from civil and criminal punishment? Should this not be the real motivation behind honest prosecutors’ cases? How many legal judgements today fail this fundamental test? Jurisprudence has a heavy responsibility to honor justice over compliance. Again, justice’ meaning is in the word itself, and it is a word that is misused in courtrooms, legislatures, and among enforcement groups on a daily basis.
A law is a reaction to a crime, and is a means for a political power outcome that deters crime. Laws that create crimes attempt to deter non-criminal behavior. Despite it being unfashionable today, Judges are empowered to make this distinction. An unconstitutional law is one without a basis in a crime. Before there were laws, there were crimes.