slug.com slug.com

2 2

The Constitution means your political opponents get due process too-
[reason.com]

These days, it's the political left who seek to dissolve due process more so than the right. Don't believe me? Just think MeToo movement...

SpikeTalon 10 Feb 21
Share

Be part of the movement!

Welcome to the community for those who value free speech, evidence and civil discourse.

Create your free account

2 comments

Feel free to reply to any comment by clicking the "Reply" button.

1

Comments, like the facts that matter, can be ignored, or sent down the memory hole, to protect and serve the plebs, and other willfully ignorant servants.

Valid point.

1

"The Constitution is not a guarantor of positive rights (free health care or college tuition), but the ultimate defense of negative rights—the right to be left alone from government intrusion."

That is simply false. The Bill of Rights (written by a member of the cult at the time) guarantees absolutely nothing, it is vaguely written, and they are vaguely interpretable messages that can be interpreted in almost any way possible, and yet even the most absurd interpretations tend to oppose the messages in the body of the 1787 Constitution.

Example:

"To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions:"

If the one in charge, this so-called President (of what exactly?) claims that protesters protesting taxation without representation constitute an "insurrection," then King George can order anyone he wants to join his Standing Army to then invade the former independent State, formerly under the common law, to suppress that insurrection. What happened to the Bill of Rights before the protest, during the protest, and after the invasion of Pennsylvania to enforce the payment of the National extortion fee, a fee which had to be enforced so as to create and maintain the demand for the First Bank of the United States counterfeit money printing con game?

The Constitution affords the criminal dictator the excuse to steal anything anybody is still able to produce under a tyrannical government, the plan works so well the communists copied it.

And people today, "educated" in "Public Schools," still parrot the lies as if somehow repeating the same lies enough times will make them true. Give the criminals in fake government office even more power, because they claim that more power is needed to "protect and serve" the people, and this time for-sure the transfer of power from those who are still able to produce anything worth stealing to those who steal anything of value produced, will, this time that transfer of power will, for sure, stop those who steal this way, stop them in their tracks for good, even though every time it was tried in the past made the problem worse, not better.

Left, Right, whatever, it is the same lies, same cause for a return to actual law: accurate accountability of the facts that matter in any case processed universally the way that the process works to reach the goal of finding and employing the truth.

The Conviction Factory, The Collapse of America's Criminal Courts, by Roger Roots
Page 40
Private Prosecutors
"For decades before and after the Revolution, the adjudication of criminals in America was governed primarily by the rule of private prosecution: (1) victims of serious crimes approached a community grand jury, (2) the grand jury investigated the matter and issued an indictment only if it concluded that a crime should be charged, and (3) the victim himself or his representative (generally an attorney but sometimes a state attorney general) prosecuted the defendant before a petit jury of twelve men. Criminal actions were only a step away from civil actions - the only material difference being that criminal claims ostensibly involved an interest of the public at large as well as the victim. Private prosecutors acted under authority of the people and in the name of the state - but for their own vindication. The very term "prosecutor" meant criminal plaintiff and implied a private person. A government prosecutor was referred to as an attorney general and was a rare phenomenon in criminal cases at the time of the nation's founding. When a private individual prosecuted an action in the name of the state, the attorney general was required to allow the prosecutor to use his name - even if the attorney general himself did not approve of the action.
Private prosecution meant that criminal cases were for the most part limited by the need of crime victims for vindication. Crime victims held the keys to a potential defendant's fate and often negotiated the settlement of criminal cases. After a case was initiated in the name of the people, however, private prosecutors were prohibited from withdrawing the action pursuant to private agreement with the defendant. Court intervention was occasionally required to compel injured crime victims to appear against offenders in court and "not to make bargains to allow [defendants] to escape conviction, if they...repair the injury."

You can include a link to this post in your posts and comments by including the text q:79055
Slug does not evaluate or guarantee the accuracy of any content. Read full disclaimer.