That's a standard, all-purpose, hardcore lawyer rule btw.
Has never been held to apply to a non lawyer.
Biden issues pre-emptive pardons in final hours for Anthony Fauci, Liz Cheney, Milley and others
- Thread starter Mr.Gr33k
- Start date
Has never been held to apply to a non lawyer.
I know you went to a lot of trouble to research this, but Cheney's conversations with Cassidy Hutchinson are problematic. There was an Ethics Complaint from the Republican House and there is enough to question Cheney's discussions with Hutchinson. Some might have the opinion that is not substantive, but it is within the House's authority.
By the way, saying something should be investigated is not declaring someone is guilty. Hyperbole from Trump or Republicans and conversely Democrats doesn't change this simple notion. Additionally, my opinion or anyone else's that investigators would likely not be able to prove Cheney violated any law or bar ethics standard is a moot point.
Last edited:
Fifth amendment of the Constitution for anyone who is wondering.
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
Annotations to the amendment.
https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/amendment-5/
Last edited:
Not really, I knew most of it from reading in the past, it took about 10 minutes to find it again and compose that post.
If you want copies of text messages between Hutchinson, Farah and Cheney on the matter and would like to discuss their content that was released by the House, I believe I remember where I saw them as well.
It is not, you are correct, but if someone is not suspected of being guilty of something why call for an investigtion.
Because there's a process whether we agree with it or not. There's a process whether it's political or not.
At the time on these pages, I found Cassidy Hutchinson's testimony problematic. Liz Cheney's engagement with Hutchinson was probably imprudent.
Last edited:
There seems to be some question whether someone can take the Fifth if they themselves are not on trial. The idea that someone would be required to speak freely and openly when they have been pardoned for an alleged crime has been thrown around in recent years.
In practice, I think politicos are very well-versed and well-coached on how to evade answering questions.
Miranda was made in the 1970's IIRC. Time to chuck that out as well.
How about Brown v Ohio Board of Education? 1950's IIRC. Chuck it out as well.
Any legal decision made more than 6 months ago is crap, right?
Your problem is this: The 1898 decision applies currently relevant law to a currently relevant fact situation. There was an immigration law framework in place by the 1890's - albeit not one that we would be comfortable with today. So the argument that the 14A was just to assure former slaves that they were full citizens in the late 1860's and irrelevant after that time doesn't work.
So you say that hordes of brown people are going to sneak in and reproduce and subvert the integrity of the country and undermine its immigration system. Well, substitute the word "yellow" for the word brown and that's very similar to the argument used in 1898. Not much has changed.
You say "There are more browns coming in than yellows in 1898. It's a god damn crisis!" And I say: "Maybe time for a constitutional amendment then. You know how to do that, huh?"
Because the disturbing thing about what Trump has done is that it has bypassed all legislative debate and avoided the deliberately high hurdle to instituting constitutional amendments. Now you have a situation where the constitution is / isn't whatever the Big Man says it is from week to week - kinda like Putin's Russia or Kim's North Korea.
We don't want that, do we?
After all, we know how much Republicans protect the constitution...... (except when it comes to fucking over women and non whites, I guess).
Until June 26, 2000, a person who was in custody and being subjected to police interrogation did not have a Constitutional right to be given Miranda warnings.
It was then added as a section of the Fifth Amendment (5.4.7.3)
https://www.fletc.gov/sites/default...t/5th-amendment/newestconstitutionalright.pdf
You should be more prudent with your use of quotations. It could be implied that you are quoting me. Of course, we know you are not quoting me.
From your post, one would get the mistaken idea that it is horrible and unprecedented that an Executive Order be issued and reviewed by the Supreme Court. Many times EOs are testing the boundaries of Executive authority as well as demonstrating a President's priorities. The EOs are often deemed invalid by the Court.
PS- As a sidebar, it's fun to watch some of our members twist themselves into strict constitutionalists.
Last edited:
??Are you talking USA or Canadian law? In USA you cannot add sections to a constitutional amendment. It would have to be it's own amendment passed by 3/4 of the states.
Miranda warnings were declared constitutional in 1966 Miranda v Arizona. There have been minor adjustments to Miranda since (eg the suspect has to explicitly say "I'm not talking" or that they invoking miranda or want an attorney or things to that effect. )
Legal language was not added to the Fifth Amendment of the Constitution. Rather the Supreme Court reaffirmed Miranda warnings are necessary under the Fifth's right against self-incrimination.
Many EO's are challenged for being an improper or unreasonable exercise of the discretion delegated to the administration by the legislative branch. That is a standard challenge and very familiar and often successful.You should be more prudent with your use of quotations. It could be implied that you are quoting me. Of course, we know you are not quoting me.
From your post, one would get the mistaken idea that it is horrible and unprecedented that an Executive Order be issued and reviewed by the Supreme Court. Many times EOs are testing the boundaries of Executive authority as well as demonstrating a President's priorities. The EOs are often deemed invalid by the Court.
PS- As a sidebar, it's fun to watch some of our members twist themselves into strict constitutionalists.
However, I am not aware that any prior EO has blatantly - given the current overwhelming majority judicial and academic precedent - ignored the constitution on a major and fundamental tenet of law, as has this one. There is a large difference between the 2 categories that perhaps you overlook.
But I am always more than glad to assist, Earp.
Then it should be straightforward for the Supreme Court to reverse the Executive Order. Seems like a whole lot of fussing over something that will resolve itself in a short matter of time.
Last edited:
Before he even gets to that, how about he just narrow it down to "Guilty of what" first?
I assume this is all operating under the old "Clinton rules" ("We know they are guilty, we just have to figure out of what.") but maybe they've gotten a bit less ridiculous and now have actual, specific accusations.
Now, now.
Don't confuse him with facts.
"Vibes speak louder than actions" is the whole deal here, as you know.
What are you basing that on?
It's not in the text. The text just says "subject to the jurisdiction".
Originialism says that the plain meaning of the text is what matters.
The plain meaning is, of course, whatever the supreme court decides it is.
That's the glory of "originalism".
To create a political narrative.
Also to inconvenience and intimidate that person.
Possibly to bankrupt them as well in some cases.
To intimidate others who are not guilty so they don't get in your way in the future when you want to do things.
Knowing that even legal action in opposition will make life very hard for you will stop lots of people from even trying.
("Pour encourager les autres," as someone once put it.)
All kinds of reasons, as you can see.
