|
|
| Arizona Brewergration overturned (952748) | |
 |
|
| Home > OTChat | |
[ Post a New Response | Return to the Index ]
|
| (952748) | |
Arizona Brewergration overturned |
|
|
Posted by Spider-Pig on Mon Jun 25 10:27:37 2012 Not fully, but partially. |
|
|
| (952794) | |
Re: Arizona Brewergration modified |
|
|
Posted by SLRT on Mon Jun 25 12:10:08 2012, in response to Arizona Brewergration overturned, posted by Spider-Pig on Mon Jun 25 10:27:37 2012. It's kind of complicated, but the portions making federal non-crimes crimes was overturned, but the court found it acceptable for police to ask about immigration status and hold suspects without warrant who can not produce ID while the state authorities contact the INS.Or that's the way I understand it. |
|
|
| (952798) | |
I CALLED IT! |
|
|
Posted by Spider-Pig on Mon Jun 25 12:21:21 2012, in response to Re: Arizona Brewergration modified, posted by SLRT on Mon Jun 25 12:10:08 2012. http://www.subchat.com/otchat/read.asp?Id=610496 |
|
|
| (952800) | |
Re: Arizona Brewergration modified |
|
|
Posted by bingbong on Mon Jun 25 12:23:00 2012, in response to Re: Arizona Brewergration modified, posted by SLRT on Mon Jun 25 12:10:08 2012. The requirement to carry or produce paperwork WRT immigration status was revoked. They can ask, but can't really act on it unless they are arresting someone for a significant crime not related to immigration status. They cannot arrest anyone for immigration violations. They effectively neutralized that stupid law and put immigration enforcement back where it belongs, the hands of the Federal government. |
|
|
| (952810) | |
Re: Arizona Brewergration modified |
|
|
Posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Mon Jun 25 12:49:07 2012, in response to Re: Arizona Brewergration modified, posted by SLRT on Mon Jun 25 12:10:08 2012. Which is exactly how most legal experts predicted the court would decide. What you failed to include was that no enforcement mechanism was overturned, the court simply stated that the federal government has sole jurisdiction on said issues and the state could not overlap.The provision upheld was huge. It means many other states will begin implementing similar regulations. |
|
|
| (952848) | |
Re: I CALLED IT! |
|
|
Posted by SLRT on Mon Jun 25 13:38:39 2012, in response to I CALLED IT!, posted by Spider-Pig on Mon Jun 25 12:21:21 2012. But the Court didn't rule on double jeopardy; they ruled based on the Supremacy Clause."If they ruled on double jeopardy, it would be HUGE news. We allow double jeopardy in this country all the time, where there is a state acquittal and then the Federal Government steps in and tries the same case again, often under civil rights law. Seems like double jeopardy to me (being twice put in jeopardy for the same crime), but lawyers like Ed Koch say "it's two different sovereigns." |
|
|
| (952853) | |
Re: I CALLED IT! |
|
|
Posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Mon Jun 25 13:40:28 2012, in response to Re: I CALLED IT!, posted by SLRT on Mon Jun 25 13:38:39 2012. That's not double jeopardy. You can't charge someone with a crime twice in the same jurisdiction. |
|
|
| (952858) | |
Re: I CALLED IT! |
|
|
Posted by SLRT on Mon Jun 25 13:46:22 2012, in response to Re: I CALLED IT!, posted by SLRT on Mon Jun 25 13:38:39 2012. Or where a person is acquitted of the criminal charge, then sued in civil court for the offense he was acquitted of.I know that double jeopardy could probably be said not to exist because the person is not "subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb" because a civil court can't deprive you of life (that is, of freedom if not actual life), only of property. But it still feels like double jeopardy (as in O.J. Simpson) because you are setting up a logical fallacy: you are sued for the results of committing a crime which a criminal court couldn't prove you committed. |
|
|
| (952864) | |
Re: I CALLED IT! |
|
|
Posted by SLRT on Mon Jun 25 13:51:22 2012, in response to Re: I CALLED IT!, posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Mon Jun 25 13:40:28 2012. That's the "dual sovereign" excuse. You're saying that TWO different powers can try you for aspects of a single offense committed in ONE jurisdiction. It puts you "twice in jeopardy," the Constitution doesn't say anywhere that you can be twice in jeopardy for the same offense if two different courts want a bite of you.If they were honest, they'd admit that the local-federal jurisdiction thing was intended to deal with dishonest juries at the local level; but nothing stops them from essentially nullifying a verdict that someone doesn't like. |
|
|
| (952872) | |
Re: I CALLED IT! |
|
|
Posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Mon Jun 25 13:58:45 2012, in response to Re: I CALLED IT!, posted by SLRT on Mon Jun 25 13:51:22 2012. You're saying that TWO different powers can try you for aspects of a single offense committed in ONE jurisdiction.No, I (and the Constitution) are saying that a single jurisdiction cannot try a defendant twice for the same crime. Dual sovereignty explicitly divides jurisdiction and thus the double jeopardy clause does not apply. This has been the practice since the 1790's, but has only within the last 60 or so years been noteworthy, as the federal government creates it's own criminal laws outside state jurisdictions. |
|
|
| (952876) | |
Re: I CALLED IT! |
|
|
Posted by SLRT on Mon Jun 25 14:02:25 2012, in response to Re: I CALLED IT!, posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Mon Jun 25 13:58:45 2012. It would feel less like double jeopardy if they tried the all offenses at the same before the same jury. Instead, they usually wait to see what the state trial does before they invoke a federal trial.It's a fig leaf for double jeopardy. |
|
|
| (952888) | |
Re: I CALLED IT! |
|
|
Posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Mon Jun 25 14:21:40 2012, in response to Re: I CALLED IT!, posted by SLRT on Mon Jun 25 14:02:25 2012. Can't do that because each jurisdiction has different rules and different objectives. A crime at a state level may not call for the death penalty, but on the federal level could. In many cases, federal criminal prosecutors have lower burdens of evidence to meet to garner convictions. Which is why they usually let the states go first. |
|
|
| (952900) | |
Re: I CALLED IT! |
|
|
Posted by SLRT on Mon Jun 25 15:00:58 2012, in response to Re: I CALLED IT!, posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Mon Jun 25 14:21:40 2012. Like I said, a fig leaf. Two bites of the apple. Having someone defend himself at trial, get an acquittal and the government says: "Wait! We're not done with you yet!"These "scholarly explanations" are simply perfume on a pig. |
|
|
| (952912) | |
Re: I CALLED IT! |
|
|
Posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Mon Jun 25 15:20:00 2012, in response to Re: I CALLED IT!, posted by SLRT on Mon Jun 25 15:00:58 2012. Law is all about the details. You can't ignore law because you don't like it. If this is really that bad, pass a constitutional amendment revoking dual sovereignty. |
|
|
| (952914) | |
Re: I CALLED IT! |
|
|
Posted by SLRT on Mon Jun 25 15:24:16 2012, in response to Re: I CALLED IT!, posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Mon Jun 25 15:20:00 2012. Show me where the Constitution applies dual sovereignty to criminal jeopardy. |
|
|
| (953117) | |
Re: I CALLED IT! |
|
|
Posted by Spider-Pig on Tue Jun 26 00:43:46 2012, in response to Re: I CALLED IT!, posted by SLRT on Mon Jun 25 13:38:39 2012. I know that know but I didn't know it at the time. |
|
|
| (953118) | |
Re: I CALLED IT! |
|
|
Posted by Spider-Pig on Tue Jun 26 00:52:05 2012, in response to Re: I CALLED IT!, posted by Spider-Pig on Tue Jun 26 00:43:46 2012. I mean I know that NOW (damn autocorrect). |
|
|
| (953120) | |
Re: I CALLED IT! |
|
|
Posted by Spider-Pig on Tue Jun 26 00:57:13 2012, in response to Re: I CALLED IT!, posted by SLRT on Mon Jun 25 13:51:22 2012. The fifth amendment was originally intended to apply solely to the federal government, not to the states and didn't apply to the states until 1969. |
|
|
| (953147) | |
Re: I CALLED IT! |
|
|
Posted by AlM on Tue Jun 26 09:36:49 2012, in response to Re: I CALLED IT!, posted by Spider-Pig on Tue Jun 26 00:57:13 2012. ???Before 1969, you could be held in contempt for refusing to testify at a state trial where you were the defendant? That sounds odd. Miranda may have broadened people's 5th amendment rights, but surely they had some rights even with regard to states before then. |
|
|
| (953150) | |
Re: I CALLED IT! |
|
|
Posted by SLRT on Tue Jun 26 09:50:58 2012, in response to Re: I CALLED IT!, posted by AlM on Tue Jun 26 09:36:49 2012. After the 14th Amendment was passed there was an extended period and a number of cases in which there was confusion about dual sovereignty. Eventually a number of case decisions stripped away the federal-state duality until double jeopardy in criminal trial seems to be the major one still standing.An interesting application, now ended, of this "two masters" theory involved people who were given immunity to testify in state cases in order to convict others (typically corruption cases), thereby incriminating themselves. Then the Feds would prosecute the person on his own testimony, saying that he only have STATE immunity. This was known as the "silver platter" doctrine, but the Feds' case was being handed to them on a silver platter. |
|
|
| (953151) | |
Re: I CALLED IT! |
|
|
Posted by SLRT on Tue Jun 26 09:56:30 2012, in response to Re: I CALLED IT!, posted by SLRT on Tue Jun 26 09:50:58 2012. ...as the Fed's case... [Can't blame it on auto-correct] |
|
|
| (953154) | |
Re: I CALLED IT! |
|
|
Posted by Spider-Pig on Tue Jun 26 10:23:13 2012, in response to Re: I CALLED IT!, posted by AlM on Tue Jun 26 09:36:49 2012. Before 1969, you could be held in contempt for refusing to testify at a state trial where you were the defendant? That sounds odd.I was referring specifically to double jeopardy. I am often unclear when phone-posting. Sorry. |
|
|
| (953156) | |
Re: I CALLED IT! |
|
|
Posted by Spider-Pig on Tue Jun 26 10:25:27 2012, in response to Re: I CALLED IT!, posted by AlM on Tue Jun 26 09:36:49 2012. Benton v. Maryland, 395 U.S. 784 (1969) |
|
|
| (953157) | |
Re: I CALLED IT! |
|
|
Posted by alm on Tue Jun 26 10:38:38 2012, in response to Re: I CALLED IT!, posted by Spider-Pig on Tue Jun 26 10:23:13 2012. Ok, thanks. |
|
|