Only in America

It would be readily apparent that the judges in the district courts and even the lower level clerks and secretaries have developed a distain for the Administration's track record and handles them accordingly.

 

Are you a USAnian, and cool with saying "unexplained nuance" when I point to an article and paragraph of our founding document?

this paragraph here

I'm not saying the judges aren't losing patience or developing disdain, but they still somehow have to make rulings that take the constitution into account, and that may involve some not-so-easy calls.

 

I'm well aware of what that paragraph means... Had you formalized it into an argument that the administration is likely to use in the context of this particular discussion it'd be more helpful of you and less lazy of you.

Specifically, the adminstration's claim that federal law enforcement agents have total immunity when operating in states and that the states have no legal right to investigate murders commited by federal agents against the state's own citizens in their state...

We aren't talking about interstate commerce here, we're talking about unlawful detention at scale (kidnapping), breaking and entering without a warrant and committing murder and then preventing their investigation (accessory to murder after the fact).

The supremacy clause was written for the benefit of law and order, not to entirely eliminate the constituitional rights of everyone in this country who crosses paths with untrained federal agents who are hiding their identity while being led by a DHS secretary who started crying in a congressional hearing because politicians were mad that she had no idea what Habaus Corpus means.

 

Yep... And he may well have a corrupt Supreme Court nullifying the Constitution every chance they get, but most cases will never rise up to that level and thus far the lower courts have not backed down much and remain relatively unified. Meanwhile SCOTUS has assured that soon as the Trump era ends their careers as judges will also end.

 

I had a friend who actually went through the Border Patrol Academy in 1979. It took 16 weeks instead of the 47 days as reported for the same training today.

He says that the rules for federal agents only protect them only if they acted w I thin the law and regulations of the US Code if Federal Regulations.

The law provides no protection for those who acts on a "frolic of their own."

 

But I thought if Trump and SCOTUS says that he has the power to be king, then absolute immunity for his gestapo is possible, right? Lol...

 

Right. We are talking illegal immigration which IS federal. Some people are jumping to conclusions, saying murder before incidents are fully investigated.

 

Only the jury in a court trial has to abide by the innocent before proven guilty assumption of innocence.

The prosecutors and individuals witnesses upon viewing the multiple videos can and assign guilt on their own judgement,

Even the judge in the trial is free to have the opinion that the defendant is guilty before proven innocent.

 

The facts make clear that this is in no way justified because its simply picking up people who are here illegally!

Mass incarceration of US citizens and immigrants in squalid conditions with no health care or right to an attorney even though almost all the US citizens and immigrants they're picking up have no criminal record and are lawfully going through the immigration process is very clearly not an action taken to stop illegal immigration, it's an action of hatred to normalize the revocation of the rights US citizens and legal immigrants based on their ethnicity.

And when it comes to murder... If cops shoot you in the back 10 times while they're dog piling you and you have no gun because they already took it away even though you've not committed a significant crime and there's a half dozen videos documenting it and elite law enforcement officers across the country condemn it as cops commiting a homicide then we should just believe you and all the other iditos who are lying to us about what the videos show?

Or in the case of Renee Good where cops across the cournty condemmed it as murder by out of control cops not following basic training at at all... Yet again this nullification of our constitutional rights is suppoesdly ok to you because you're part of their army of brain dead cowards saying we can't ever believe our eyes and ears in all those videos and that its not cold blooded murder until its investigated and then you cheer them on when they say there's no reason to investigate?

I get it, you're proving to everyone on PriusChat that you have no basic decency, no moral character and are a disgrace to what's meaningful and valuable about humanity. Goodbye @Prodigyplace you're going on my ignore list so I never have to see your wretched, vile and disgusting view of the world ever again!

 

In one post you refer to it as unexplained nuance and in this one you're well aware of what the paragraph means. My choice to add nothing more to what the paragraph itself says wasn't to be obscure or lazy. I was replying to a specific claim in a specific post, and not to any of:

Those are all topics I agree are at play in Mpls. But the one post I specifically replied to was this one:

A constitution that worked as you say might be an ok constitution to have, but the lawyers are going to have to draft their arguments based on the one we've actually got. That it makes the federal constitution, treaties, and laws supreme, and binds all state judges to them, notwithstanding any contrary thing in any state constitution or law, isn't some kind of unexplained nuance, it's what the words on the page flat-out say.

I'm not saying good state lawyers can't find successful ways to argue the litany of specific grievances you listed above. I hope they can. But I'll be surprised if they get anywhere by claiming "the states rule of law precedes the rule of law at the federal level. It doesn't work the other way around". I hope they will work a bit harder than that.

 

We aren't talking about a scenario that holds/upholds the "federal constitution, treaties, and laws supreme, and binds all state judges to them" we're talking about a convicted felon who as POTUS is agressively nullifying all of that in criminal ways, which requires the courts to intervene in ways that give broad authority for the states to protect and defend our country... Already, the ability of the US justice department to give orders to the courts to abide by without question or further investigation no longer carries the weight it once did.

 

You're right: it ain't a 'scenario' that does that.

It's the plain words of the US Constitution.

You and I don't disagree about the mischief the felon in office is doing.

I'm not sure whether we agree or disagree on whether we ourselves need to disregard the constitution in order to address the mischief.

 

The point is the Constitution we live under is not stagnant, it's a living document/process of evaluation/methodology that adapts and evolves as circumstances dictate. And it's quite clear that when Trump and his ilk are no longer in power there is going to be a massive sea-change in our country that will redefine the separation of powers in ways that will prevent the consolidation of them:

SCOTUS will no longer be a bribery for life position, congress will no longer be a sideshow of taxing and spending as POTUS sees fit and as the intent desired by General Washington, the executive branch will return to a mostly ceremonial position of representing the country as the other two separate but equal powers require.

 

There are people in some schools of constitutional interpretation who sound pretty much just like you there, and people in other schools who insist, say, that they have to rely on 'original intent' (and then engage in arguments about the 'original intent' so tendentious as to end up amounting to the same thing).

Still, people in all these interpretive schools have tried to maintain that words mean things and that there are some limits on how far it makes sense to bend the words that are there (without, say, passing an amendment—the way it was designed to adapt and evolve).

If there were no such limits, what would be the point of having a constitution?

I don't think "the supremacy clause now means the states' laws take precedence" would be an argument kindly received in any of the existing schools of constitutional interpretation.