Analytics

Sunday, July 9, 2017

Post #3282 M

Quote of the Day

The shortest and surest way to live with honor in the world 
is to be in reality what we would appear to be.
Socrates  

Tweet of the Day




























Image of the Day

Erin ("Joanie Cunningham") Moran?
via Twitter thread

Unconstitutional Anti-Competitive Business Restrictions



Is Socialism A Dictatorship?




Amash on Kate's Law: Thumbs UP!

I voted no on #HR3004, Kate's Law.
This bill is narrower than other recent bills that also have been called "Kate's Law."
This version of Kate's Law changes the maximum possible punishments for some individuals convicted of re-entering the United States illegally and changes the procedures for prosecuting illegal re-entry. My concern with this bill stems from a provision that denies Fifth Amendment due process to certain criminal defendants.
As its text makes clear, the Fifth Amendment applies explicitly to all "person[s]" within the United States, including suspected illegal aliens who are arrested, charged, and tried within the United States. [More precisely, this amendment secures the rights of individuals under U.S. jurisdiction by identifying limits on the government’s power.] The Constitution uses the word "citizen" in other provisions whenever that word is intended. This interpretation of the Constitution's applicability is shared by the Supreme Court, including among the conservative justices.
Under current law, it is illegal to re-enter the United States if you have an outstanding order of removal. The removal order is an element of the crime, and a defendant may challenge the validity of the order, but only in limited circumstances. To challenge the validity of a removal order under current law, the defendant must show that she has used up all other opportunities to challenge the order, she has been denied her right to have a judge review her case, and the removal order was "fundamentally unfair."
This bill unconstitutionally eliminates the opportunity for those charged with illegal re-entry to challenge the validity of a removal order. As noted above, the removal order is an element of the crime. In our criminal justice system, a person cannot be convicted of a crime unless the prosecution proves every element beyond a reasonable doubt.
If a defendant never has a meaningful opportunity to have a judge review her removal order and, under this bill, she is prohibited from challenging her removal order during the criminal proceedings for illegal re-entry, then she could be convicted of a felony without ever having had the chance to challenge whether the order to remove her—which is an element of the crime!—was legally valid. As the Supreme Court held in United States v. Mendoza-Lopez, 481 U.S. 828 (1987), this would be a violation of the defendant's due process rights.
Under current removal procedures, this circumstance may be rare, but that is irrelevant to the fact that the Constitution secures the defendant's rights when this circumstance does arise.
It passed 257-167.

Facebook Corner

(Reason).  Gary Johnson's back! So, are libertarians greeting the two-time former Libertarian Party nominee for president with open arms? Not unanimously, no. http://reason.com/blog/2017/06/30/libertarians-still-arguing-about-gary-jo
 Johnson ran the shittiest campaign ever; he violated basic libertarian principles, e.g., on the Nazi cake conscription policy. He seemed more focused on luring progressives than disaffected right-libertarians in the Paul/Amash/Massie camp. I mean, when Johnson only wins 3% of the vote against the 2 worst candidates of all time, after a promising double-digit start, he really messed up--and if you don't see that, you're in denial.

Inspirational




Extending the Family




Political Cartoon


Courtesy of Bob Gorrell via Townhall

Musical Interlude: My Favorite Vocalists


Neil Diamond, "This Time"



Posted by at
Labels: , , , , , , ,