Gerrymander based on ideology instead of race

[govshill2]

Neither of which define or mention presumption of innocence. It is assumed by interpreters, but it isn't actually there.


Caselaw, not statute, and those cases were 107 years, and 190 years, too late.


They are assumed to encompass it, but the exact wording that defines presumption of innocence is not present in US statute, hence the requirement for the Miranda warning.

"Neither of which define or mention presumption of innocence. It is assumed by interpreters, but it isn't actually there."

well if there's no presumption of innocence, why would there be due process?  

[DBCowboy]

"Neither of which define or mention presumption of innocence. It is assumed by interpreters, but it isn't actually there."

well if there's no presumption of innocence, why would there be due process?  

I can't like anymore so 

And  ​​​​​​​

[chr0naut]

List of the United States treaties - Wikipedia

United States Treaties and Other International Agreements (U.S.T.) - Library of Congress

A list of treaties, eh?
Where's the treaty with another country that says we can't blow drug runners out of the Gulf of America?
Where's the treaty saying we can't seize "shadow fleet" oil tankers ?

Of course there is no treaty or law granting the USA the authority to use lethal force without judicial process. It was a totally illegal act.

Also, only the USA calls it the Gulf of America, and that is only on a few US digital maps. Internationally, it is called the Gulf of Mexico. The rename is as fake as a FIFA peace prize.

The USA has sufficient coastal waters to intercept the alleged drug boats legally, in their own waters.

What international law that the US is party to says we can't interdict oil going to Cuba via the shadow fleet smugglers?

There are no such international nor US laws that legalise such acts. It is not illegal for ships to transport shipments of oil between countries. However, it is illegal for people and groups to steal things that do not legitimately belong to them.

Was it a violation of international law when Cuba shot up that speedboat out of Florida in February? When they shot down two Brothers to the Rescue planes in 1996?

Yes.

However, the Cubans have claimed that they were only returning fire, which is a valid legal defence under US law, but is not a valid legal justification under the laws of many countries. It is a valid legal defence under Article 51 of the UN Charter.

[chr0naut]

"Due process" is a concept.

What isn't?

The legislature determines what the process is.

The Constitution is part of, and is supposed to sit above, the more mundane legislature, but it is legislature.

But there has been others of the 'more mundane' legislature, such as the 1807 Insurrection Act (which is also contrary to the Posse Comitatus Act), the FISA Act of 1978, the Missouri Compromise, the Segregationist Acts etc. which have been sometimes (and arbitrarily) placed above the Constitution. Some have been resolved and struck down, but some remain.

The whole idea that the Constitution can be suspended under martial law, war and domestic strife is massively unconstitutional.

It is "due" because the legislature has decided that is the process that's due.
The legislature made that determination, and due process has been followed by the Feds and by state and local officials - with some exceptions, which result in cases being overturned.

Harte

Due process is vitally important for legal justice.

For instance if one were to execute a prisoner before finding them not guilty, it would be egg on everyone's face.

Perhaps that is why it would be a really good idea to document some important bits of 'due process' in the Constitution, eh?

[chr0naut]

"Neither of which define or mention presumption of innocence. It is assumed by interpreters, but it isn't actually there."

well if there's no presumption of innocence, why would there be due process?  

Harte was suggesting that there was no due process in the US Constitution, which I disagreed with.

In the process I pointed out that the US Constitution is not 'magical infallible statute' and has serious omissions (such as the absence of assurance of presumption of innocence until proven guilty in a court of law).

But, due process and presumption of innocence are different concepts.

[andy06shake]

You mean like the Trump Arch that's under construction in DC?
LMFAO

Harte

You mean the thing that will look like half a McDonald's arch? 

Might wanna lose all the daft ostentatiousness.

Just a thought...

[Harte]

What isn't?


The Constitution is part of, and is supposed to sit above, the more mundane legislature, but it is legislature.

But there has been others of the 'more mundane' legislature, such as the 1807 Insurrection Act (which is also contrary to the Posse Comitatus Act), the FISA Act of 1978, the Missouri Compromise, the Segregationist Acts etc. which have been sometimes (and arbitrarily) placed above the Constitution. Some have been resolved and struck down, but some remain.

The whole idea that the Constitution can be suspended under martial law, war and domestic strife is massively unconstitutional.


Due process is vitally important for legal justice.

For instance if one were to execute a prisoner before finding them not guilty, it would be egg on everyone's face.

Perhaps that is why it would be a really good idea to document some important bits of 'due process' in the Constitution, eh?

The Constitution recognizes due process as a process that is due.
The process that is due is determined by the legislature, obviously. That is, the Constitution says nothing about what that process is.
SCOTUS has found multiple times that the immigration laws are constitutional.
You don't like the law? Get it changed, but don't lie about taking people without due process.

Harte

[Harte]

Harte was suggesting that there was no due process in the US Constitution, which I disagreed with.

In the process I pointed out that the US Constitution is not 'magical infallible statute' and has serious omissions (such as the absence of assurance of presumption of innocence until proven guilty in a court of law).

But, due process and presumption of innocence are different concepts.

The phrase stems from an 1895 SCOTUS ruling. Directly related to due process, but only regarding court decisions, not arrest or detainment decisions.

https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/156/432/

Harte

[BeyondKnowledge]

But does the Constitution of the USA apply to occupants of the land area or legal citizens of the USA? If it applies to all occupants, all an invading army would need to do would be actually set foot on the land and they would have all the rights of USA citizens under the Constitution. Would due process apply to them?

Many think this has already happened.

[chr0naut]

The Constitution recognizes due process as a process that is due.

{sarcasm}
No, a thing is a thing? Really?
{/sarcasm}

Thank you for that gem.

The process that is due is determined by the legislature, obviously. That is, the Constitution says says nothing about what that process is.

You seem to have differing ideas as to what I do, in regard to the definition of "due process", so, I looked up a dictionary definition:

due process
noun

1: a course of formal proceedings (such as legal proceedings) carried out regularly and in accordance with established rules and principles called also procedural due process

2: a judicial requirement that enacted laws may not contain provisions that result in the unfair, arbitrary, or unreasonable treatment of an individual

- Merriam Webster Dictionary

You see, when the US Constitution says how everyone is supposed to do things, it is defining the procedure of specific processes and is compliant with both the above written definitions of "due process".

When the US Constitution says, for instance, that Congress has the exclusive power to raise revenue, impose tariffs and authorize Federal spending, that is due process.

In that regard, the US Constitution is entirely "due process", as is the statute (legislature) that underlies it. The US Constitution is legislature, too, just like the statute (legislature) that underlies the it.

The US Constitution is supposed to be the supreme law above other US laws. The whole body of law is legislature, and the whole body of law is also due process.

SCOTUS has found multiple times that the immigration laws are constitutional.
You don't like the law? Get it changed, but don't lie about taking people without due process.

Harte

The US Supreme Court frequently strikes down specific state immigration laws and has blocked or altered how the executive branch enforces certain immigration policies.

Immigration law and the Supreme Court

* Limits on Indefinite Detention (Zadvydas v. Davis): SCOTUS ruled that ICE cannot detain noncitizens indefinitely after a final removal order. The Court established a presumptively reasonable six-month limit, after which the government must release the individual if there is no significant likelihood of removal in the foreseeable future.

* Courthouse Arrest Protections (State & Local Orders): While not direct SCOTUS rulings, federal and state courts (such as recent actions in New York City) have blocked ICE from making targeted, warrantless arrests inside and immediately around immigration courthouses, as this interferes with due process and access to the courts.

The worst Supreme Court case you’ve never heard of, and what it tells us about Trump’s immigration enforcement - SCOTUSblog