Folks be all blowed up in Boston...
04-22-2013 | 09:48 AM
#221
FBI/Law Enforcement doesn't have to release ****. Evidence is for the court of law to decide, not the court of public opinion. The right of the accused to a fair trial supersedes your right to information.
After he is found guilty, then you can look through all the evidence and declare a conspiracy.
After he is found guilty, then you can look through all the evidence and declare a conspiracy.
Reply
1
1
04-22-2013 | 10:16 AM
#222
FBI/Law Enforcement doesn't have to release ****. Evidence is for the court of law to decide, not the court of public opinion. The right of the accused to a fair trial supersedes your right to information.
After he is found guilty, then you can look through all the evidence and declare a conspiracy.
After he is found guilty, then you can look through all the evidence and declare a conspiracy.
Reply
0
0
04-22-2013 | 11:01 AM
#223
Senior Member
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 1,112
Total Cats: 35
From: Pennsylvania
infowars.com has new information updated almost hourly as stuff surfaces... idk how credible any of it is, but it IS very interesting... none of this makes any sense yet... i guess we will find out as soon as someone is able to piece it all together
Reply
0
0
04-22-2013 | 11:28 AM
#228
Senior Member
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 1,112
Total Cats: 35
From: Pennsylvania
thats like, doing roadwork ON the day that a parade is going on, on the same street..
well... if you arent in pittsburgh...
Reply
0
0
04-22-2013 | 12:52 PM
#233
Elite Member
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 6,420
Total Cats: 84
Reply
0
0
04-22-2013 | 04:31 PM
#237
Thread Starter
Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 33,519
Total Cats: 6,917
From: Chicago. (The less-murder part.)
I should have been more specific.
The court hates legislation which is ambiguous and broadly defined.
Within the US legal system, the law as a whole is actually derived from three separate sources.
The first source of law is the Constitution itself, which includes the Bill of Rights and all subsequent amendments. On the whole, the Constitution is generally held to be an absolute. The role of the Supreme Court here is to INTERPRET the constitution, to determine how it applies to a given situation. Often, this means that the Court must attempt to divine the INTENT of the Constitution in some way, because of some fact which exists today but was absent in the late 1700s.
For instance, does an email constitute "writing" for the purpose of entering into a contract? In the 18th century, there was only form of writing in common use, and it involved an ink pen and paper. Today, however, we might consider an email to be functionally equivalent to writing a letter and dropping it into the mail, insofar as these technologies have replaced pen-and-ink for the purpose of everyday business transactions. On the other hand, can one truly "posses" an email in the same way as a signed letter received in the mail? An email has no physical form- in this way it might be considered to be "speech" rather than "writing." And yet, what happens when an email is printed? Then, as now, no means exists to directly and precisely transform speech into writing. But electronic communication, by its very nature, is easily committed to paper.
The second source of law is the various courts themselves, though what is known as the Common Law. This concept dates all the way back to Medieval England, and is designed to ensure uniformity of the application of law by considering past decisions in future rulings.
The third source of law is legislation passed by the Congress. The Constitution grants Congress the authority to enact new laws, which is what happens when Congress passes something like a gun control measure, a law concerning gay marriage, a law prohibiting the sale of narcotic substances, a law enacting a social-welfare program, etc.
The Supreme Court is tasked with the review of these laws. It may determine, for instance, that a certain law passed by congress is in conflict with some specific protection within the Constitution, and it may strike down that law on those grounds. It may also determine that a law is unfair because it is too vague or too broad in scope, and strike it down in that way.
This is the source of law, and the form of Court authority, which will be at issue here.
The court hates legislation which is ambiguous and broadly defined.
Within the US legal system, the law as a whole is actually derived from three separate sources.
The first source of law is the Constitution itself, which includes the Bill of Rights and all subsequent amendments. On the whole, the Constitution is generally held to be an absolute. The role of the Supreme Court here is to INTERPRET the constitution, to determine how it applies to a given situation. Often, this means that the Court must attempt to divine the INTENT of the Constitution in some way, because of some fact which exists today but was absent in the late 1700s.
For instance, does an email constitute "writing" for the purpose of entering into a contract? In the 18th century, there was only form of writing in common use, and it involved an ink pen and paper. Today, however, we might consider an email to be functionally equivalent to writing a letter and dropping it into the mail, insofar as these technologies have replaced pen-and-ink for the purpose of everyday business transactions. On the other hand, can one truly "posses" an email in the same way as a signed letter received in the mail? An email has no physical form- in this way it might be considered to be "speech" rather than "writing." And yet, what happens when an email is printed? Then, as now, no means exists to directly and precisely transform speech into writing. But electronic communication, by its very nature, is easily committed to paper.
The second source of law is the various courts themselves, though what is known as the Common Law. This concept dates all the way back to Medieval England, and is designed to ensure uniformity of the application of law by considering past decisions in future rulings.
The third source of law is legislation passed by the Congress. The Constitution grants Congress the authority to enact new laws, which is what happens when Congress passes something like a gun control measure, a law concerning gay marriage, a law prohibiting the sale of narcotic substances, a law enacting a social-welfare program, etc.
The Supreme Court is tasked with the review of these laws. It may determine, for instance, that a certain law passed by congress is in conflict with some specific protection within the Constitution, and it may strike down that law on those grounds. It may also determine that a law is unfair because it is too vague or too broad in scope, and strike it down in that way.
This is the source of law, and the form of Court authority, which will be at issue here.
Reply
0
0
