• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Merged Due process in the US

The thing is that Dredd is absolutely honest, balanced, and incorruptible. He even chose to take the Long Walk when he felt unable to fulfill his duties correctly.
 
malbui said:
The thing is that Dredd is absolutely honest, balanced, and incorruptible. He even chose to take the Long Walk when he felt unable to fulfill his duties correctly.
Click to expand...

I have a mental image of Judge Trumpp making his final exit from Mega City One in his Law Golf Cart.
 
Darat said:
We were always told that the USA had powerful checks and balances, that our non-codified constitution was inferior to the USA one - what happened?
Click to expand...
That question begs another. Who was trying to push that? The people on the side that has been systematically working to undermine them for the entire lives of most people?
 
Darat said:
We were always told that the USA had powerful checks and balances, that our non-codified constitution was inferior to the USA one - what happened?
Click to expand...
The major flaw in the U.S. Constitution is that the power of its checks and balances is proportional to the broad-strokes amount of Institutionalism present at any time across all three branches. The Founders simply didn't anticipate a situation where a large number of officers in all three branches would be unwilling to put the institutions above their own desires.
 
Darat said:
We were always told that the USA had powerful checks and balances, that our non-codified constitution was inferior to the USA one - what happened?
Click to expand...
The US constitution is heavily based on the English non-constitution as it stood in 1770 and has implemented almost none of the advances the British system made since then.
 
Tero said:
Denaturalizing:
"Yet only 102 such cases were brought, according to a current administration official with every reason to maximize the numbers. And although no publicly available source indicates the number of denaturalizations that actually occurred, the answer seems likely to be very few, as the administration has been unwilling to disclose the number of cases it won."
Click to expand...
The weakness in the case is
However, the legal reality is that once you’ve obtained citizenship, you have a constitutional right to keep it — a principle affirmed by a
Supreme Court decision nearly 60 years ago.
Click to expand...
I am sure many women felt assured of their right to terminate a pregnancy on the basis of a supreme court decision fifty years earlier.
 
theprestige said:
The question then becomes whether this applies citizenship fraudulently obtained.
Click to expand...
While this is not related in content to the Roe decision, it certainly seems relevant to note that these days long standing Constitutional judgments cannot be counted on, given how ready our current Supreme Court seems to be to overturn or simply ignore prior decisions, and to do the President's bidding.

If the principle of a citizen's right to all the rights of a citizen, including that of defending oneself against accusations of fraudulent citizenship, is nullified, citizenship itself is nullified, as anyone accused of fraudulent citizenship would lose his citizenship by default, guilty until proven innocent, and not even guaranteed a forum in which to do the proving.
 
On the first of May, Donald Trump's government attorneys (DHS/DOJ et al.) wrote that "The United States does not have constructive custody of the terrorists in El Salvador." They went on to claim that because the US does not have custody, the US also has no jurisdiction over those it shipped off to prison in El Salvador:
Those aliens are in the custody of a foreign nation pursuant to its laws. The United States does not have custody so there is no jurisdiction.
Click to expand...
El Salvador has now contradicted those attorneys. With my highlighting:
The actions of the State of El Salvador have been limited to the implementation of a bilateral cooperation mechanism with another State, through which it has facilitated the use of the Salvadoran prison infrastructure for the custody of persons detained within the scope of the justice system and law enforcement of that other State. In this context, the jurisdiction and legal responsibility for these persons lie exclusively with the competent foreign authorities, by virtue of international agreements signed and in accordance with the principles of sovereignty and international cooperation in criminal matters.
Click to expand...
Yesterday, District Judge Stephanie Gallagher issued an order quoting the above and requiring the DHS/DOJ (et al.) attorneys to explain themselves "no later than Tuesday, July 15, 2025."
In status reports submitted pursuant to this Court’s June 5, 2025 Order, Defendants have repeatedly skirted this Court’s directive to provide information regarding the steps they have taken and will take to facilitate the return of Cristian to the United States. Instead, Defendants have repeatedly made oblique references to their request of “assistance” from the U.S. Department of State (DOS), which has “enter[ed] into negotiations to facilitate Cristian’s return” and “assumed responsibility on behalf of the U.S. Government for…diplomatic discussions with El Salvador.” Assuming the Government of El Salvador provided truthful information to the UN, no “diplomatic discussions” should be required here because El Salvador has no sovereign interest in Cristian’s continued confinement in that country. This Court directs Defendants to explain their position that “diplomatic discussions” involving the DOS are required to facilitate Cristian’s return to the United States in compliance with this Court’s Order. Defendants should provide their response no later than Tuesday, July 15, 2025.
Click to expand...
tl/dr: The judge is not happy with the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, et al.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom