@no1marauder saidNo 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;
It's called the "5th Amendment".
@Mott-The-Hoople saidTry reading the Due Process Clause.
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;
That members of the military can be charged with crimes without a Grand Jury indictment isn't terribly relevant.
@Mott-The-Hoople saidThere is some adage out there that when authorities are in hot pursuit and the subject does not slow down or stop, get some measures can be taken.
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;
For the record, I am not in agreement with his actions myself. However, he could find some middle ground to get all of you off of his back. I will suggest that they have a huge loudspeaker on the missile shooter in the sky that says pull up and stop, or we will shoot you dead. Then if they do not stop, I would think it would be OK to shoot them dead.
@no1marauder saidMay we stipulate that you are quite liberal, and drugs, and a society full of drugs is not a problem to you. So I think these drug laden boats as we assume they are should be of concern, where you do not think they should be of concern. You are once again, dragging out the constitution digging around like Saghouse foes, to find some nugget, would you love to interpret at your leisure, to buffer your arguments.
Try reading the Due Process Clause.
That members of the military can be charged with crimes without a Grand Jury indictment isn't terribly relevant.
It would be helpful if you would complete your post by saying” however, a president takes an oath to protect the citizens of the United States against Foreign, blah blah blah blah.””””” I think he can use that oath, as you take him up to the Supreme Court!
We can quote things all day, one of which can trump the other and then another and then another. ‘This says this….. that says that’. It is called a can of worms.
@no1marauder saidOh, but they can count on him pardoning them!
His subordinates can't make that claim.
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c99x07ny8lro
@no1marauder saidHow about the boring marauder bringing out the new process clause once again, when we are talking about some Bbrown back heathens in the southern seas about 1000 miles away, they have nothing to do with our Constitution
Try reading the Due Process Clause.
That members of the military can be charged with crimes without a Grand Jury indictment isn't terribly relevant.
oh Lord, if we start having troubles with sugarcane plantations in Venezuela,, marauder will start reading the constitution to them. But he may think he could prevail because they are liberal like he is. They could interpret the constitution like he does. Funny about the Constitution. Ours says for people to leave other people alone. We want the druggies to leave us alone, but you see, Marsyder makes a different interpretation that fits his narrative.
Due Process my ass.
@AverageJoe1 saidBeen settled law for a long time that the DPC applies to aliens the US is claiming jurisdiction over.https://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=4977&context=flr
How about the boring marauder bringing out the new process clause once again, when we are talking about some Bbrown back heathens in the southern seas about 1000 miles away, they have nothing to do with our Constitution
oh Lord, if we start having troubles with sugarcane plantations in Venezuela,, marauder will start reading the constitution to them. But he may thin ...[text shortened]... u see, Marsyder makes a different interpretation that fits his narrative.
Due Process my ass.
@no1marauder saidAre there actually any federal prosecutors left, or has he furloughed all of them?
They wouldn't be prosecuted while he's in office anyway.
@no1marauder saidthis is in the 5th amendment on due process
Try reading the Due Process Clause.
That members of the military can be charged with crimes without a Grand Jury indictment isn't terribly relevant.
read this over and over
"No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime'
due process is not absolute
@no1marauder saidYou got me. I didn’t know we were claiming jurisdiction over savages in the Caribbean. What if they are a threat to our democracy? What if we think they are a threat to our citizens? What if? Or we can be pacifist like you are, and sleepy guys like Joe Biden is, And Trump can just go play some golf. He can let Kamal run things. I’m glad she has a great personality. She would be in charge of a lot of people. Her deadlines to people like Putin would be a lot tougher than Obama’s red line in the sand. What a bunch of sorry ass people.
Been settled law for a long time that the DPC applies to aliens the US is claiming jurisdiction over.https://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=4977&context=flr
@AverageJoe1
“ jurisdiction” . Is everyone else getting as tired as I am of marauder constantly throwing legal terms at all? I thought we were having a friendly chat at the coffee house. Can you imagine the pontificating going on with him when we were all asking for another beer
1 edit
@AverageJoe1
Where is suann we need her?
I’m thinking of taking our chances with those boats in the off chance that we will save 20,000 lives per boat. Let’s go for it. I think they probably know that the blowing up is going on and they are assuming the ridk. Or should I say they are coming to the nuisance
@sonhouse saidYeah, that’s pretty much the edge of the cliff sanity he’s obviously trying to jump off.
6 congress folks said to the US forces to NOT follow ILLEGAL orders.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XAqG8DuaqvY
Karoline Leavitt goes:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XAqG8DuaqvY
Blithely LYING, not including the word ILLEGAL in her screed protecting Trump.
She says Trump NEVER issues illegal orders. So what about those 20 people murdered in boats by the the Vene ...[text shortened]...
Or ordering our MILITARY to attack Chicago? BTW courts have ALREADY said those orders ARE illegal.