Merged Due process in the US

Hercules56 said:
Officials under Trump can be held in contempt of court and put in jail and fined, if held in contempt.
Click to expand...
Who will enforce any criminal penalty? Enforcement of federal court orders is the role of the U.S. Marshalls, who are controlled by the executive. What if the President simply orders the Marshalls not to enforce any order against anyone in his administration? What if the President simply pardons anyone held in criminal contempt for acting under his corrupt direction? What if the President threatens to arrest and detain any judge that upholds a conviction against any of his officers? The people currently carrying out these atrocities certainly show no sign of being cowed by prospective legal liability.
 
JayUtah said:
Who will enforce any criminal penalty? Enforcement of federal court orders is the role of the U.S. Marshalls, who are controlled by the executive. What if the President simply orders the Marshalls not to enforce any order against anyone in his administration? What if the President simply pardons anyone held in criminal contempt for acting under his corrupt direction? What if the President threatens to arrest and detain any judge that upholds a conviction against any of his officers? The people currently carrying out these atrocities certainly show no sign of being cowed by prospective legal liability.
Click to expand...
As you stated 2 weeks ago, POTUS may not be able to pardon someone found in contempt of court.
 
JayUtah said:
Who will enforce any criminal penalty? Enforcement of federal court orders is the role of the U.S. Marshalls, who are controlled by the executive. What if the President simply orders the Marshalls not to enforce any order against anyone in his administration? What if the President simply pardons anyone held in criminal contempt for acting under his corrupt direction? What if the President threatens to arrest and detain any judge that upholds a conviction against any of his officers? The people currently carrying out these atrocities certainly show no sign of being cowed by prospective legal liability.
Click to expand...
To which department do the Marshalls report?
 
JayUtah said:
Who will enforce any criminal penalty? Enforcement of federal court orders is the role of the U.S. Marshalls, who are controlled by the executive. What if the President simply orders the Marshalls not to enforce any order against anyone in his administration? What if the President simply pardons anyone held in criminal contempt for acting under his corrupt direction? What if the President threatens to arrest and detain any judge that upholds a conviction against any of his officers? The people currently carrying out these atrocities certainly show no sign of being cowed by prospective legal liability.
Click to expand...
Pluss America will never hold people accountable for following illegal orders from the president. We saw that clearly with the Bush Torture programs, and should expect no difference here.
 
JayUtah said:
That was a very long shot. In any case, what if the President simply orders the Marshalls not to enforce any finding of contempt?
Click to expand...
Then our only recourse is a new Federal law giving the courts enforcement powers seperate from the executive branch. Or impeachment.
 
Hercules56 said:
Then our only recourse is a new Federal law giving the courts enforcement powers seperate from the executive branch. Or impeachment.
Click to expand...
And again, it's well and good to propose a better world in which things might be better. What do you suggest we do in the real world, when all the formalisms you seem to have so much faith in are being systematically ignored?
 
Jack by the hedge said:
Department of Justwatchus.
Click to expand...
In cases where federal marshals fail to act to enforce court orders (or contempt of court findings), courts can turn to state and local law enforcement agencies.

Federal judges have the authority to deputize state law enforcement officers to carry out federal court orders, particularly in cases of contempt or defiance by federal officials. State attorneys general, governors, and local sheriffs can be called upon to enforce judicial rulings.

The use of state law enforcement to enforce federal court orders has happened before. In high-profile cases involving civil rights enforcement and desegregation orders, federal courts have relied on state and local law enforcement—sometimes even deploying the National Guard.

Legal Remedies when the Trump Administration Ignores Federal Court Orders – AZ Public Health Association

azpha.org azpha.org
 
If a Federal judge orders ICE to remove certain illegals from detention, and ICE refuses, judge can hold ICE in contempt and order the Federal Marshalls to enforce his court order.

If the Federal Marshalls are ordered by the DOJ to not comply, judge can then deputize State officers to enforce his order.

And then we have have civil war. :)
 
Hercules56 said:
If a Federal judge orders ICE to remove certain illegals from detention, and ICE refuses, judge can hold ICE in contempt and order the Federal Marshalls to enforce his court order.

If the Federal Marshalls are ordered by the DOJ to not comply, judge can then
deputize State officers to enforce his order.
And then we have have civil war. :)
Click to expand...
And when they refuse?

Cops tend to be a bit on the conservative side.

You know whose DoJ ◊◊◊◊◊◊ up? Merrick Garland's. Now we have this idiot again.
 
Hercules56 said:
Then they will be fired.
Click to expand...
By whom?

And do you really think federal officers are going to allow some state leos to arrest anyone in this corrupt administration?

I think I heard Olbermann theorize that Stephen Miller might be a martyr for the cause and allow himself to be arrested in order to stir up the maga idiot base, and the rest of the trumpublic party.
 
Last edited:
Resume said:
I don't know about other blue states but in Illinois, the governor doesn't have that power. He can fire the Director of State Police, but not individuals.
Click to expand...
That's universally true for any elected official, and mostly true for many appointed officials. In my state, the governor can't even fire a member of the school board. Elected officials may be removed generally only by impeachment or by a recall election if the law that elected them provides for it.
 
Somewhere several pages back in this hurricane of a thread, a poster said "I understand the concern over illegal immigration."

I don't. As far back as I can recall, the USA, like every other country, has had people crossing its borders informally, i.e., illegally. In my youth, we called them wetbacks. Now and then, some politician might harrumph about the wetback problem -- he might even try out calling it a crisis. Then we all went on with our American lives.

In the last several years, the MAGApublicans have managed to inflame their mudsill followers with shrieks about criminal hordes invading and devastating our spacious skies & fruity plains, and b'god they're making evil hay out of it.

All of it lies, flung around like ◊◊◊◊ from a monkey cage. Unfortunately, their stupid whoppers delight the Magats and inflame them to support a criminal regime.

Worse, much worse, far too many people who should know better have also bought this despicable line, and try to argue from it as if it meant something real.

Illegal immigration, even in large numbers, continues to be a normal situation. In plain language, it's not a big deal.
 
I Am The Scum said:
Why does this bother you so much? You act like these people are loafing around in your house with their feet on the coffee table.
Click to expand...
Its an important distinction.

Some folks talk like they have some sort of universal God-given right to be present in the USA.
 
Hercules56 said:
Its an important distinction.

Some folks talk like they have some sort of universal God-given right to be present in the USA.
Click to expand...
Exactly no one has that right. We need to get people to understand it. When they get to deporting citizens people will understand that no one has a god given right to be in the US.
 
Hercules56 said:
Wrong.

US citizens have that right.

Especially naturally-born US citizens.
Click to expand...
Not god given, it was given by the constitution in principle but that is a meaningless document now.

And really if it was a god given right then you have real issues with the concentration camps during WWII and of course all the US born citizens deported during operation wetback. Violating the word of god is setting you up for divine punishment.
 
Hercules56 said:
You forget the fact that non-citizens have NO RIGHT to be in this country.
Click to expand...

The derivation of the political philosophy that recognizes you as a rights-holding individual, if it is of liberal democracy we speak, is in principle universal in nature. The US Supreme Court has ruled several times that people on US soil have a right to due process. Skip the long arguments, this is because they share the same general foundation as you as a rights-holding individual. TL;DR: Created equal, but not a citizen.

Unsanctioned migration is a fact of life the world over, and in any representative account, it is driven by need and the desire for prosperity and security, not by criminal intent. "Pilgrims" and "Thanksgiving" ring a bell?

I'd like to repeat that: not by criminal intent. As you know, the crime rate of illegal immigrants, and immigrants in general, is lower than that of the US-born. Further, illegal immigrants pay social security and income taxes, yet cannot benefit from those contributions, making their labor constitute a form of donation to, and not a draining of, public resources.

So much for the heat in the debate; it is blow-dried bloviation. Better to offer turkey and pumpkin.

The proper manner in which to address the phenomenon of unsanctioned migration, "illegal" being a dog whistle if ever there was one, is a combination of efficient administration in the granting or denial of applications, a greater tolerance for seasonal migratory flows of clear mutual benefit (the historical loss of which greatly contributes to the contemporary rise in illegal migration), and the humane treatment of people who are only trying to make a living... in a country founded on immigration. Once processed, may administrative justice take its proper course.
 
Last edited:
Hlafordlaes said:
The derivation of the political philosophy that recognizes you as a rights-holding individual, if it is of liberal democracy we speak, is in principle universal in nature. The US Supreme Court has ruled several times that people on US soil have a right to due process. Skip the long arguments, this is because they share the same general foundation as you as a rights-holding individual....
Click to expand...
Agreed.
 
Hercules56 said:
Wrong.

US citizens have that right.
Click to expand...
For now, under current legal interpretation. The 14th amendment grands citizenship. But the Constitution doesn't say what a citizen is or define the rights of a citizen. That comes from international law, which in turn is based on something called the law of nations, which is one of the texts the Framers understood and drew upon. It is these extra-American sources, not the Constitution, that establishes the doctrine of the right to remain. What will you do when the Trump administration declares its own definition of "citizen?"

Hercules56 said:
Especially naturally-born US citizens.
Click to expand...
That matters literally only if you want to be President. Nowhere else in the Constitution is any such distinction mentioned. In fact, the Constitution rather wants to say the opposite. "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside." (U.S. Const. Amend. 14 § 1.) There is no special higher grade of uber-citizenship that exists for people who became citizens via birth. The Constitution says plainly that birthright citizens and naturalized citizens are the same thing.

Yet the Trump administration is talking about having authority to denaturalize citizens and to define birthright citizenship in a way that adds new criteria not found in the Constitution or law. And in fact the first U.S. citizens have already been renditioned.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom