United States News
See other United States News Articles
Title: Medical Marijuana Becomes Legal in Ohio; Sets Foundation to Nullify Federal Prohibition in Practice
Source:
Tenth Amendment Center
URL Source: http://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.co ... deral-prohibition-in-practice/
Published: Sep 9, 2016
Author: Mike Maharrey
Post Date: 2016-09-09 21:48:32 by Hondo68
Keywords: marijuana program in Ohio, access medicinal cannabis, Gov. John Kasich signed HB523
Views: 8819
Comments: 60
COLUMBUS, Ohio (Sept. 8, 2016) – Medical marijuana officially became legal in Ohio today, marking the step forward toward nullifying the unconstitutional federal prohibition on cannabis in practice. Rep. Stephen Huffman (R) introduced House Bill 523 (HB523) on April 14. The legislation sets in motion the creation of a limited medical marijuana program in Ohio. There is hereby established a medical marijuana control program in the department of commerce and the state board of pharmacy. The department shall provide for the licensure of medical marijuana cultivators and processors and the licensure of laboratories that test medical marijuana. The board shall provide for the licensure of retail dispensaries and the registration of patients and their caregivers. The department and board shall administer the program. The House passed the bill by a 71-25 margin on May 10. The Senate approved the measure 19-15 on May 25th. The House concurred with Senate amendments 67-29. The new law establishes a limited “seed-to-sale” system for growing, testing and dispensing marijuana. Patients suffering from 20 medical conditions will now be able to access medicinal cannabis with some limitations. The law prohibits smoking marijuana and does not allow for home cultivation of cannabis. The law permits patients to use patches, edibles and vaping products. Although the new law went into effect today, it will take up to two years for the program to get up and running. According to the Columbus Dispatch, “The system will be overseen by Ohio Department of Commerce, Ohio Board of Pharmacy, State Medical Board and an appointed advisory committee. Initial rules will be rolled out later this month, but marijuana is not expected to be available for 18 months to two years.” With passage of the bill, Ohioans for Medical Marijuana dropped its effort to put the issue on the November ballot, citing lack of money and other issues. “This is a joyous day for the thousands of Ohioans who will finally be able to safely access much-needed medicine,” Ohioans for Medical Marijuana spokesman Aaron Marshall said after Gov. John Kasich signed HB523. “We still have much work ahead of us to improve this imperfect law…” According to activists on the ground in Ohio, the success of the program will be determined in large part by the rule-making and implementation process over the next several months. “September 8 is the first step in a long process, and MPP and Ohioans for Medical Marijuana are watching that process closely. Many important policy decisions that will directly affect the success or failure of the system are yet to be made,” a Marijuana Policy Project spokesperson said on the organization’s website. Despite the federal prohibition on marijuana, measures such as HB523 remain perfectly constitutional, and the feds can do little if anything to stop them in practice. EFFECT ON FEDERAL PROHIBITION While somewhat limited, Ohio’s new statute does partially remove one layer of law prohibiting the possession and use of marijuana in the state, but federal prohibition remains in place. Of course, the federal government lacks any constitutional authority to ban or regulate marijuana within the borders of a state, despite the opinion of the politically connected lawyers on the Supreme Court. If you doubt this, ask yourself why it took a constitutional amendment to institute federal alcohol prohibition. While this Ohio law does not alter federal law, it takes an important step toward nullifying in effect the federal ban. FBI statistics show that law enforcement makes approximately 99 of 100 marijuana arrests under state, not federal law. By easing the state laws, the Ohio legislature would remove some of the basis for 99 percent of marijuana arrests. Furthermore, figures indicate it would take 40 percent of the DEA’s yearly-budget just to investigate and raid all of the dispensaries in Los Angeles – a single city in a single state. That doesn’t include the cost of prosecution. The lesson? The feds lack the resources to enforce marijuana prohibition without state assistance. Ohio joins a growing number of states simply ignoring federal prohibition. Colorado, Washington state and Alaska have all legalized both recreational and medical marijuana, and 23 states now allow cannabis for medical use. With nearly half the country legalizing marijuana, the feds find themselves in a position where they simply can’t enforce prohibition any more. The feds need state cooperation to fight the “drug war,” and that has rapidly evaporated in the last few years with state legalization, practically nullifying the ban. “The lesson here is pretty straight forward. When enough people say, ‘No!’ to the federal government, and enough states pass laws backing those people up, there’s not much the feds can do to shove their so-called laws, regulations or mandates down our throats,” Tenth Amendment Center founder and executive director Michael Boldin said. Poster Comment: John Boehner can quit crying now, they legalized his Medical Marijuana. Can you smell the freedom?
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Comments (1-18) not displayed.
.
.
.
#19. To: Deckard (#18)
(Edited)
That is actually all the recognition that you ... It is unfortunate that is all you have to contribute. Who the Hell is Ron Paulo?
Eat shit and die asshole. The only thing you and your asshole canary clan contributes is displaying your fealty to the State and your submissive authority fetish. Keep licking those jack-boots slave You get pissed of so quickly, I enjoy doing that to you.
Assholes like you deserve nothing but contempt and scorn
Feel free; YOU go ahead and waste your life petitioning politicians who don't give a shit about you or liberty. The time for that passed a couple decades ago, as Big Stupid Government passes pay-to-play laws in exchange for bribes faster than we can even begin to repeal them. Time to start ignoring them; we had enough laws for a normal society a hundred years ago - since then most laws are purchased to benefit specific lobbies. Ignore stupid laws from stupid government.
nolu sham dreams on, --- Government legislators, under constitutional restraints, make the laws, and the SCOTUS issues opinions on constitutionality in contested cases, - opinions that are NOT law, and can be reversed. Nolu hates our Constitution and our republican form of government. Both publications are creatures of our legal 'system', which is totally compromised by socialistic law schools, which you have obviously never attended, -- poor soul. Good law for the big govt establishment, and its bootlickers, like you, nolu. Correct, except for your opinion about the basic principles and amendments to our Constitution. Our fundamental rights CANNOT be repealed. -- Your opinion that they can, -- outs you once again as a pathetic socialistic fascist. Thanks.
The camel's nose is under the circus tent. Ohio, with it's once great but now withering cities like Cleveland, Youngstown, Toledo, Dayton and Cincinnati will become a haven for drugged worthless fools. It's a short step from 'medical' weed to weed for everybody! The nation will continue its collapse into the swampy mire of drug culture. Keep an eye on the Philippines and it's new president who has copied a page from Singapore's playbook. He has ordered troops into drug zones and so far has executed over 2,500 druggies. I hope that America doesn't have to go through that in order to clean up it's burgeoning drug addiction. Liberals are a lot like Slinkys, they're good for nothing but they bring a smile to your face as you shove them down the stairs.
All the courts are wrong and we derive our laws from internet crackpots like you. Suuuure we do.
"jury of your peers". Yes your fate is in the hands of us, your fellow internet crackpot peers. Correct, except for your opinion about the basic principles and amendments to our Constitution. Our fundamental rights CANNOT be repealed. -- Your opinion that they can, -- outs you once again as a pathetic socialistic fascist pawn. Thanks. Your sarcastic, but meaningless, babbling is noted, nolu. -- Now, -- go find some more opinionated spam you can use to avoid rational discourse.
Yes your fate is in the hands of us, your fellow internet crackpot peers. Ignorance is bliss. In the MEDICAL MARIJUANA case of Brandon Coats v. DISH Network, LLC in Colorado, the jury did not say anything. The Court upheld a motion to dismiss the Coats' suit for failure to state a claim. The trial Court noted that, "The court cannot grant a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim unless it appears beyond doubt that no set of facts can prove that the plaintiff is entitled to relief." The Court concluded that, "Because the Court finds that use of marijuana, even where such use is in full compliance with Colorado's Medical Marijuana Amendment, is not a lawful activity, Plaintiff's Complaint must be dismissed pursuant to C.R.C.P. 12(b)(5) for failure to state a claim." Brandon Coats was fired and he stayed fired. How did your happy horseshit work out for Brandon Coats?
Any part of the Constitution can be repealed. Such action does depend upon the approval of any crackpot on the internet.
Fixed it. In America we don't do extrajudicial executions - thank God. A government strong enough to impose your standards is strong enough to ban them. Your opinion about the basic principles and amendments to our Constitution is wrong.. Our fundamental rights CANNOT be repealed. They are inalienable, thus any attempt to repeal them would be null and void from inception. -- Your opinion that they can, -- outs you once again as a pathetic socialistic fascist pawn. Your fiat 'decree' makes you to be that crackpot. Thanks.
What a strange and outright bizarre consideration to suggest.
There are no inalienable rights. Amdt 5 explicitly provides for capital punishment. When they execute some halfwit like you, they take away your supposedly inalienable right to life, liberty and the pursuit happiness. The only thing you can pursue is a dirt nap. The Constitution is the highest law. The Declaration of Independence has never been a law. Damn, you truly are bone stupid.
Before it's all over, America will be clamoring for 'judicial' but swift executions of all who sell drugs! Users get six months to change their habits and if they don't they get to join the rat who sold them the poison. No drug problems in Singapore and problems being drastically reduced in the Philippines. Liberals are a lot like Slinkys, they're good for nothing but they bring a smile to your face as you shove them down the stairs.
Like the way you think.
Liberals are a lot like Slinkys, they're good for nothing but they bring a smile to your face as you shove them down the stairs.
Our fundamental rights CANNOT be repealed. They are inalienable, thus any attempt to repeal them would be null and void from inception. Only halfwit like you would think that the 5th Amendment allows capital punishment except in criminal or treasonous cases, --- where, upon conviction, the accused is deemed to have forfeited their otherwise inalienable rights. Never have claimed the Declaration is law, seeing that is an outline of our principles. You, obviously, have no principles, poor soul.
By all means, let's do away with the presumption of innocence, due process...hey what the hell, why not do away with the 4th amendment... Yes, let's become like the other third world nations and execute dealers and stoners all in the name of the glorious war on drugs. How a bout putting a bounty on potheads? I'm sure there are a few here who would relish the idea. On second thought, since you seem to admire authoritarian societies, why don't you move to Singapore or the Philippines? No drug problems in Singapore and problems being drastically reduced in the Philippines. Not a whole lot of problems in Portugal either. What happened when Portugal decriminalized drugs In July 2001, Portugal decriminalized all drugs, including marijuana, cocaine, and heroin. The possession of small quantities of those drugs was shifted to a public health — rather than criminal — issue. Rather than getting arrested for a small amount, you get sent to a "dissuasion commission" where a doctor, lawyer, and social worker prescribe treatment or give you a fine. Mic's Zeeshan Aleem reports that people walk away without a penalty most of the time. Here's what the data says about Portugal's decriminalization: • Drug-related HIV infections have plummeted by over 90% since 2001, according to the drug policy think tank Transform. • Drug-related deaths in Portugal are the second-lowest in the European Union. Just 3 in a million people die of overdoses there, compared with the EU average of 17.3 per million. • The number of adults who have done drugs in the past year has decreased steadily since 2001. • Compared to rest of the EU, young people in Portugal now use the least amount of "legal high" drugs like synthetic marijuana, which are especially dangerous. • The percentage of drug-related offenders in Portuguese prisons fell from 44% in 1999 to 21% in 2012. • The number of people in drug treatment increased 60% from 1998 to 2011, from 23,600 to 38,000. It's fair to visit Singapore and Malaysia where the drug problem is non- existent. These nations make it clear to all who 'visit' that the penalty for dealing or using drugs is death. The new Philippine president has sent the army into the hinterlands to shoot the drug trade rats on sight! The drug epidemic dictates that extreme measures are the only way to combat this infection. Liberals are a lot like Slinkys, they're good for nothing but they bring a smile to your face as you shove them down the stairs.
No they won't - drugs and drug sellers have been around for generations now, but only a rabid fringe is worked up about them. A government strong enough to impose your standards is strong enough to ban them. Hysterical nonsense - almost twice as many people die of influenza and pneumonia as from opioid overdose, but neither you nor anyone else is calling for "extreme measures" there. A government strong enough to impose your standards is strong enough to ban them. No constitutional body is empowered to hold a constitutional amendment to be unconstitutional. There are no rights that cannot be taken away. What does inalienable mean to you????? You have CONSTITUTIONAL rights, alienable and inalienable. You can waive your alienable constitutional rights. You cannot waive your inalienable constitutional rights. Black's Law Dictionary, 6th Ed. Inalienable rights. Rights which can never be abridged because they are so fundamental. Black's Law Dictionary, 6th Ed. Law Dictionary, 2nd Ed., Steven H. Gifis When the government takes away your rights, or holds them forfeit, you neither transfer them nor surrender them. They take them. In capital punishment, they take your life. As you document so well, it does not mean rights that can only be taken away by God. So, there are criminal convictions and otherwise inalienable rights. News flash. Military trials and tribunals are criminal proceedings. In a court-martial, you do not get a jury of your peers, you get a panel appointed by the convening authority. It does not take a unanimous decision to throw your ass in prison, taking away your otherwise inalienable right to liberty and the pursuit of happiness, a two-thirds majority does just fine. In a summary court-martial, you normally do not have a right to a detained attorney. A summary court-martial is a one-officer court, and he may, or may not, be a lawyer. If you are a USN sailor on a ship at sea, the Captain at an Article 15 proceeding may impose a reduction in grade, forfeiture of pay, or restriction on liberty. He can even award bread and water. You have no right to demand trial. Your otherwise inalienable rights are subject to hazard, without a lawyer and without a trial. The CO says you did whatever and awards punishment. And then there is conscription. "Greetings, etc." may be considered an impingement on one's liberty. Refusal to serve may result in prison time and other undesirable things, otherwise inalienable rights notwithstanding. The contention that the people are prohibited from amending the laws any which way they determine that they want, is the ultimate douchebaggery. The people may adopt any laws and government of their choosing. The people need not obtain prior consent of internet wingnuts. The only current limitation set by Article 5 is "no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate." Article 5 can be admended to remove that one restriction if the people so choose. The largest mass execution in the United States followed a military tribunal of indians. Thirty-eight were executed at one time by hanging. Text of Order to General Sibley, St. Paul Minnesota: The other condemned prisoners you will hold subject to further orders, taking care that they neither escape, nor are subjected to any unlawful violence. Abraham Lincoln, President of the United States" The hanging, following trials which condemned over three hundred participants in the 1862 Dakota Conflict, stands as the largest mass execution in American history. Number 2 is the half-dozen hanged in an elevator shaft at Leavenworth during WW2. On September 28, 1862, Colonel Sibley appointed a five-member military commission to "try summarily" Dakota and mixed-bloods for "murder and other outrages" committed against Americans. Whether Sibley had authority to appoint such a commission is a matter of substantial dispute. The commission was convened immediately, meeting in La Bathe's log kitchen near Camp Release. Sixteen trials were conducted the first day... in the six weeks that followed, the military court would try a total of 393 cases, convicting 323 and sentencing 303 to death by hanging. The commission heard nearly forty cases on November 3, the last day it met. In April, 1863, Congress enacted a law providing for the forcible removal from Minnesota of all Sioux. On March 22, 1866, President Andrew Johnson ordered the release of the 177 surviving prisoners. Case 238: Ta-hoh-pe-wa-kan [The complete record of testimony follows.] Louis LaBelle being sworn says-- The prisoner was among those who were on horseback in the battle referred to in case 236-- He had a horse and was up on it when I saw him, belonging to the soldiers. (See case No. 236) [Ta-hoh-pe-wa-kan was found guilty and was sentenced to be hanged.]
Our fundamental rights CANNOT be repealed. They are inalienable, thus any attempt to repeal them would be null and void from inception. Only halfwit like you would think that the 5th Amendment allows capital punishment except in criminal or cases of treason. --- where, upon conviction, the accused is deemed to have forfeited their otherwise inalienable rights. I never have claimed the Declaration is law, seeing that is an outline of our principles. You, obviously, have no principles, poor soul. True enough, -- congrats on your temporary sanity. There you go again, hyping the fact that criminal acts can lead to a forfit of rights. Only halfwit like you would think that the 5th Amendment allows capital punishment except in criminal or treasonous cases, --- where, upon conviction, the accused is deemed to have forfeited their otherwise inalienable rights. So you admit that, legalisticly, there are inalienable rights.. Thanks for conceding my point. I'm agnostic. I've never proposed that any 'God' has anything to do with our rights. -- You're playing the worse kind of word games. -- PLEASE STOP I'm well aware of the temporary suspension of rights while in the military, having served three years. I'd bet you haven't served, and would not, --- even if the draft was reinstated because of a national emergency. Not true. As you admitted just above, we all have fundamental inalienable rights that cannot be amended away. You just can't stop spamming this forum, can you? YOUR LAST PARAGRAPH ABOVE IS SHEER SPAM.. You are one sick puppy. I pity you. Get help.
Drugged up potheads on the highways and in positions where they are controlling the lives of others, like engineers on trains, pilots, school bus drivers, etc. etc. etc. So one idiotic gaggle of people hedonistically satisfying themselves by endangering the rest of us should be 'allowed to do what they want' causing endangerment to others? I don't think so. There are 'some' things to be admired about you Libertarians, but this stand is certainly not one of them. Liberals are a lot like Slinkys, they're good for nothing but they bring a smile to your face as you shove them down the stairs.
I've answered you on this, but it would appear that the only way the drug lords south of the border and the drug-selling pimps in America will dry up is by executing them in large numbers. This society can't take much more of excesses. Liberals are a lot like Slinkys, they're good for nothing but they bring a smile to your face as you shove them down the stairs.
Drugged up potheads on the highways and in positions where they are controlling the lives of others, like engineers on trains, pilots, school bus drivers, etc. etc. etc. We address driving etc. under the influence of the drug alcohol without resorting to any "extreme measures" - we can and should do likewise with respect to other drugs. A government strong enough to impose your standards is strong enough to ban them. What makes you think so? And isn't executing marijuana users an excess? ("if they [users] don't [change their habits] they get to join the rat who sold them the poison") A government strong enough to impose your standards is strong enough to ban them. You have CONSTITUTIONAL rights, alienable and inalienable. You can waive your alienable constitutional rights. You cannot waive your inalienable constitutional rights. Black's Law Dictionary, 6th Ed. Inalienable rights. Rights which can never be abridged because they are so fundamental. Black's Law Dictionary, 6th Ed. Law Dictionary, 2nd Ed., Steven H. Gifis When the government takes away your rights, or holds them forfeit, you neither transfer them nor surrender them. They take them. In capital punishment, they take your life. As you document so well, it does not mean rights that can only be taken away by God. [tpaine] So you admit that, legalisticly, there are inalienable rights.. [tpaine] Thanks for conceding my point. There are alienable CONSTITUTIONAL rights, and there are inalienable CONSTITUTIONAL rights as defined above. They have nothing to do with your mythical inalienable GOD-GIVEN rights which cannot be taken away (life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness). Those do not exist in U.S. law. You can get a passport and seek out an ecclesiastical court. If your point is that you have inalienable CONSTITUTIONAL rights as defined in legal dictionaries, I provided you with the definition to drag you out of ancient times. As for the government taking away your rights, you admit that it does not mean the government cannot take them away, it means that you cannot trasnfer them or give them away. You have given a never ending invocation of the Declaration of Independence. You know, the one that goes, "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights...." Your whole insane argument that a Constitutional Amendment can be struck down as unconstitutional must, of necessity, appeal to some higher power than the Constitution. What is it? Your Imaginary Patriot Court where you sit as Chief Justice? [tpaine #24] Correct, except for your opinion about the basic principles and amendments to our Constitution. Our fundamental rights CANNOT be repealed. Repeated ad nauseam, e.g., [tpaine #37] Our fundamental rights CANNOT be repealed. They are inalienable, thus any attempt to repeal them would be null and void from inception. Your version of inalienable is bullshit, pulled out of your ass. Identify some of these rights that cannot be repealed by Constitutional amendment. If a Constitutional Amendment may be declared null and void, who has the lawful power to declare a provision of the Constitution null and void? What is your source of higher law? In a court-martial, you do not get a jury of your peers, you get a panel appointed by the convening authority. It does not take a unanimous decision to throw your ass in prison, taking away your otherwise inalienable right to liberty and the pursuit of happiness, a two-thirds majority does just fine. In a summary court-martial, you normally do not have a right to a detained attorney. A summary court-martial is a one-officer court, and he may, or may not, be a lawyer. If you are a USN sailor on a ship at sea, the Captain at an Article 15 proceeding may impose a reduction in grade, forfeiture of pay, or restriction on liberty. He can even award bread and water. You have no right to demand trial. Your otherwise inalienable rights are subject to hazard, without a lawyer and without a trial. The CO says you did whatever and awards punishment. And then there is conscription. "Greetings, etc." may be considered an impingement on one's liberty. Refusal to serve may result in prison time and other undesirable things, otherwise inalienable rights notwithstanding. I'm well aware of the temporary suspension of rights while in the military, having served three years. I'd bet you haven't served, and would not, --- even if the draft was reinstated because of a national emergency. There is no temporary suspension of rights while in the military.Try reading the Constitution instead of pulling this shit out out your ass, you ignorant shithead. I am not surprised that you were in the service and don't know shit about military law and military rights. There is no constitutional right to counsel at a Summary Court-Martial under either the Sixth Amendment right to counsel, or the Fifth Amendment due process clause. Of course, there is no right to counsel at an Article 15 proceeding either. Such right does not exist, and your imaginary right is not suspended. You are truly one ignorant whack job. U.S. Const., Art. 1, Sec. 8, Cl. 13. U.S. Const., Art. 1, Sec. 8, Cl. 18. The U.C.M.J is federal statute, found at 10 U.S.C. §§ 801-946. The Manual for Courts-Martial has the force of law and is issued by the President pursuant to 10 U.S.C. 836, UCMJ Art. 36, President may prescribe rules. What an ignorant fuckwit you are. Apparently, the only hashmark you had was on your skivvies. nolu chan, USN (Ret.)
Our fundamental rights CANNOT be repealed. They are inalienable, thus any attempt to repeal them would be null and void from inception. So you admit that, legalisticly, there are inalienable rights.. Thanks for conceding my point. I'm agnostic. I've never proposed that any 'God' has anything to do with our rights. -- You're playing the worse kind of word games. -- And your increasingly foul mouthed response makes it evident that you know, but that's the best you can do.. How weird, as you did, just above. Getting rattled, aintcha? We the people will just ignore such amendments, as we did booze prohibition. I'm well aware of the temporary suspension of rights while in the military, having served three years. I'd bet you haven't served, and would not, --- even if the draft was reinstated because of a national emergency. Very well, you claim to have retired from the navy. No doubt as an officer, correct? -- That's what most of you phonies claim, so forgive my doubt. -- Your lack of any sort of honor, or respect for constitutional law, leads me to this conclusion..
Did you see the photo of the car pulled to the side of the road with a toddler in the backseat, while his grandmother and friend were in a state of unconsciousness in the front seat. Too much drugs. Liberals are a lot like Slinkys, they're good for nothing but they bring a smile to your face as you shove them down the stairs.
Would a Bigger Police State Win the Drug War? Most everyone would agree that China is not a free society. It is ruled by a brutal communist regime, one that has absolutely no regard for civil liberties and such criminal-justice principles as due process of law, trial by jury, right to counsel, and habeas corpus. When the state wants to go after someone, there are no institutional barriers that stand in its way. China has something else: the war on drugs, the same war that the U.S. government has been waging for decades. According to an article in the New York Times, despite a fierce, unrelenting war waged against drugs, drug use in China remains as big a problem as ever. Why is that important to Americans? Two reasons. One, it shows that drug laws are part and parcel of tyrannical regimes. It is only in genuinely free societies that people are free to ingest any substance they want without being punished by the state for it. In other words, the United States has the same type of governmental program as the brutal and tyrannical communist regime in China. Two, the China experience shows Americans that no matter how much more the federal government were to crack down in the war on drugs, it wouldn’t make any difference whatsoever. People would continue to ingest drugs, even while a large percentage of them were being incarcerated or otherwise punished. In other words, if the U.S. government were to impose the same type of totalitarian police state as China as part of the war on drugs, it would destroy freedom without achieving the desired result. Wouldn't this work? Something dramatic rather than the namby-pamby crap our central government dishes out. Fearing execution under the new and tough president Rodrigo Duterte’s rule, at least a thousand drug pushers and users have surrendered themselves to police across Philippines over the past four days to sign a pledge to stop trading and using illegal drugs. Liberals are a lot like Slinkys, they're good for nothing but they bring a smile to your face as you shove them down the stairs.
Did you see the photo of the car pulled to the side of the road with a toddler in the backseat, while his grandmother and friend were in a state of unconsciousness in the front seat. Too much drugs. Nonresponsive. A government strong enough to impose your standards is strong enough to ban them. Wouldn't this work? Something dramatic rather than the namby-pamby crap our central government dishes out. Wow, even China isn't tyrannical enough for you. Scary. A government strong enough to impose your standards is strong enough to ban them. According to the the wingnut tpaine who is incapable of identifying who is empowered to declare a constitutional amendment unconstitutional. Your idiotic version of inalienable rights has been repeatedly cited to the Declaration of Independence for years. That is the one that goes, "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights...." You are free to doubt that the Creator who grants those rights exists. Constitutional rights were not granted by "the Creator." You are unable to rationally discuss CONSTITUTIONAL rights. We the people will just ignore such amendments, as we did booze prohibition. Efforts to have the 18th Amendment declared unconstitutional FAILED spectacularly. Another amendment was required to repeal it. The wingnut fantasy that a part of the Constitution is null and void because people choose to violate it is nonsense. In a court-martial, you do not get a jury of your peers, you get a panel appointed by the convening authority. It does not take a unanimous decision to throw your ass in prison, taking away your otherwise inalienable right to liberty and the pursuit of happiness, a two-thirds majority does just fine. In a summary court-martial, you normally do not have a right to a detained attorney. A summary court-martial is a one-officer court, and he may, or may not, be a lawyer. If you are a USN sailor on a ship at sea, the Captain at an Article 15 proceeding may impose a reduction in grade, forfeiture of pay, or restriction on liberty. He can even award bread and water. You have no right to demand trial. Your otherwise inalienable rights are subject to hazard, without a lawyer and without a trial. The CO says you did whatever and awards punishment. And then there is conscription. "Greetings, etc." may be considered an impingement on one's liberty. Refusal to serve may result in prison time and other undesirable things, otherwise inalienable rights notwithstanding. [tpaine #49] I'm well aware of the temporary suspension of rights while in the military, having served three years. I'd bet you haven't served, and would not, --- even if the draft was reinstated because of a national emergency. You are a fucking idiot. There is no temporary suspension. As with all other claims, your speculative imaginary bullshit is as inaccurate as your other lightweight bullshit. You have proven again and again that you are too dumb, stupid and ignorant to comprehend the Constitution. But you never stop displaying your ignorance for all to see. I never get rattled from playing with my favorite pet plant. Out of kindness, I water you from time to time. A unanimous U.S. Supreme Court stated: Ex Parte Milligan, 71 U.S. 2, 120-21 (1866). There is the tpaine Court of Imaginary Bullshit, and there is the U.S. Supreme Court. The U.S. Supreme Court says that a Summary Court-Martial can take away rights of liberty and property, and no lawyer need be provided. The U.S. Supreme Court further says that the presiding officer acts as judge, factfinder, prosecutor, and defense counsel. There is no such thing as the constitutional rights of service members being "temporarily suspended" while in the military. That is just more of your abysmally uninformed, ignorant bullshit. Your juvenile belief that constitutional amendments may be declared unconstitutional affirms that you either in your second childhood, or that you never escaped the first. U.S. Supreme Court Middendorf v. Henry, 425 U.S. 25 (1976) Syllabus at 425 U.S. 26: 1. There is no Sixth Amendment right to counsel in a summary court-martial.... 2. Nor does the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment require that counsel be provided the accused in a summary court-martial proceeding. Opinion of the Court at 425 U.S. 31-32: Opinion of the Court at 425 U.S. 32: Id. at 33-34: In Ex parte Quirin, 317 U. S. 1, 317 U. S. 40 (1942), it was said that Id. at 425 U. S. 43: However, whether this process embodies a right to counsel depends upon an analysis of the interests of the individual and those of the regime to which he is subject. Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U. S. 539, 418 U. S. 556 (1974). Id. at 425 U. S. 48: Justice Powell, concurring at 425 U.S. 49-51: I recognize, of course, that one's constitutional rights are not surrendered upon entering the Armed Services. But the rights are applied, as this Court often has held, in light of the "unique military exigencies" that necessarily govern many aspects of military service. See Parker v. Levy, supra, at 417 U. S. 758. In recognition of this, since the founding of the Republic, Congress has enacted special legislation applicable only to the Armed Services, [Footnote 2/2] including the current provisions in the Uniform Code of 425 U. S. 51 Military Justice for summary courts-martial. Art. 16(3), UCMJ, 10 U.S.C. § 816(3). The Summary Court-Martial may take away one's right to liberty and property. Pursuant to the Constitution, no counsel is required. The presiding officer need not be an attorney. The presiding officer acts as judge, factfinder, prosecutor, and defense counsel. And the rights to liberty and property get aliened.
Our fundamental rights CANNOT be repealed. They are inalienable.. I'm agnostic. I've never proposed that any 'God' has anything to do with our rights. We agree We the people are the both the source and the power. Congrats on admitting that such efforts were made, and are constitutional in themselves. Very well, you claim to have retired from the navy. No doubt as an officer, correct? -- That's what most of you phonies claim, so forgive my doubt. -- Your lack of any sort of honor, or respect for constitutional law, leads me to this conclusion. Getting rattled, aintcha? The Constitution of the United States is a law for rulers and people, equally in war and in peace, and covers with the shield of its protection all classes of men, at all times, and under all circumstances. No doctrine, involving more pernicious consequences, was ever invented by the wit of man than that any of its provisions can be suspended during any of the great exigencies of government. Such a doctrine leads directly to anarchy or despotism, but the theory of necessity on which it is based is false.... Ex Parte Milligan, 71 U.S. 2, 120-21 (1866). Thanks for making my point… -- Our basic human rights CANNOT be suspended/amended away by 'majority rule', no matter what the supposed necessity. Call it what you will, but service members are governed by the UCMJ, not by our Constitutional rule of law. Never had that belief. I believe that amendments attempting to infringe on our basic human rights are unconstitutional BEFORE THEY ARE ADOPTED.. Ho hum, --- do you ever stop the SPAM????
[tpaine #56] Call it what you will, but service members are governed by the UCMJ, not by our Constitutional rule of law. You stupid bastard, the UCMJ is created by Congress as a Federal law, pursuant to an explicit grant of authority in the Constitution at Article I, Section 8, Clauses 14 and 18. There is no temporary suspension of constitutional rights while in the military. Rights, military and civilian are rooted in the Constitution. The U.C.M.J. (Article 10) is not a statement of military rights, any more than Title 18, U.S.C. vis a statement of civilian rights. Your claiming your stupid bullshit simply reveals you are an ignorant asshole. The U.S. Supreme Court repeated cited the U.S. Constitution when determining the rights of Henry at a Summary Court Martial. U.S. Supreme Court Middendorf v. Henry, 425 U.S. 25 (1976) Syllabus at 425 U.S. 26: 1. There is no Sixth Amendment right to counsel in a summary court-martial.... 2. Nor does the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment require that counsel be provided the accused in a summary court-martial proceeding. Id. at 33-34: In Ex parte Quirin, 317 U. S. 1, 317 U. S. 40 (1942), it was said that Id. at 425 U. S. 43: However, whether this process embodies a right to counsel depends upon an analysis of the interests of the individual and those of the regime to which he is subject. Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U. S. 539, 418 U. S. 556 (1974). Id. at 425 U. S. 48: David A. Schlueter, Military Criminal Justice: Practice and Procedure, Fifth Edition, Lexis Law Publishing, 1999, § 1-1(B) at page 7: As always, I promise to never fail to show you the respect you seserve. Asshole.
Call it what you will, but service members are governed by the UCMJ, not by our Constitutional rule of law. Didn't say it was a statement, I said service members are governed by the UCMJ, not by our Constitutional rule of law. As usual you're playing wordgames in an attempt to put yourself up as some sort of legal expert at LF.. Guess what? No one gives a shit... Find something else to obsess about, you'll feel better if you stop trying to prove nothing here.
[tpaine #56] Call it what you will, but service members are governed by the UCMJ, not by our Constitutional rule of law. [tpaine #58] Call it what you will, but service members are governed by the UCMJ, not by our Constitutional rule of law. [tpaine #58] Didn't say it was a statement, I said service members are governed by the UCMJ, not by our Constitutional rule of law. You stupid bastard, the UCMJ is created by Congress as a Federal law, pursuant to an explicit grant of authority in the Constitution at Article I, Section 8, Clauses 14 and 18. There is no temporary suspension of constitutional rights while in the military. Rights, military and civilian are rooted in the Constitution. The U.C.M.J. (Article 10) is not a statement of military rights, any more than Title 18, U.S.C. vis a statement of civilian rights. Your claiming your stupid bullshit simply reveals you are an ignorant asshole. The U.S. Supreme Court repeated cited the U.S. Constitution when determining the rights of Henry at a Summary Court Martial. U.S. Supreme Court Middendorf v. Henry, 425 U.S. 25 (1976) Syllabus at 425 U.S. 26: 1. There is no Sixth Amendment right to counsel in a summary court-martial.... 2. Nor does the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment require that counsel be provided the accused in a summary court-martial proceeding. Id. at 33-34: In Ex parte Quirin, 317 U. S. 1, 317 U. S. 40 (1942), it was said that Id. at 425 U. S. 43: However, whether this process embodies a right to counsel depends upon an analysis of the interests of the individual and those of the regime to which he is subject. Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U. S. 539, 418 U. S. 556 (1974). Id. at 425 U. S. 48: David A. Schlueter, Military Criminal Justice: Practice and Procedure, Fifth Edition, Lexis Law Publishing, 1999, § 1-1(B) at page 7: As always, I promise to never fail to show you the respect you seserve. Asshole.
Comments (60 - 60) not displayed.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/LatestI give the finger...
#20. To: Gatlin (#19)
It is unfortunate that is all you have to contribute.
“Truth is treason in the empire of lies.” - Ron Paul
"America is at that awkward stage. It's too late to work within the system, but too early to shoot the bastards."
#21. To: Deckard (#20)
#22. To: Gatlin (#21)
“Truth is treason in the empire of lies.” - Ron Paul
"America is at that awkward stage. It's too late to work within the system, but too early to shoot the bastards."
#23. To: misterwhite (#7)
(Edited)
You mean rather than petition Congress to change it? Can we do that with any law or just the laws you don't like?
#24. To: nolu chan, outs himself, -- again. (#15)
-- "The government makes the laws, and they decide what is constitutional."
Tpaine, Chief Justice of the Imaginary Patriot Supreme Court has spoken. It is obvious that when he speaks, nobody that matters listens. --- SCOTUS and other courts use the term good law rather frequently. Either they are all wrong, or tpaine is wrong. --- The tpaine pronouncement also implies that Westlaw and Lexis- Nexis do not know what they are doing or what they are talking about.
Precedential court holdings are good law. They remain good law until they are no longer good law.
tpaine has an amazing observation that SCOTUS opinions can be reversed. How true. And statute laws can be struck down, repealed, abrogated, or derogated. Any provision of the Constitution, including amendments, may be repealed. There is no law that cannot be changed or repealed.
#25. To: hondo68 (#0)
#26. To: tpaine (#24)
Good law for the big govt establishment, and its bootlickers, like you, nolu.
#27. To: nolu chan, tpaine (#26)
(Edited)
we derive our laws from internet crackpots like you
Castle(C), Stein(G), Johnson(L)
#28. To: nolu chan (#26)
tpaine has an amazing observation that SCOTUS opinions can be reversed. How true. And statute laws can be struck down, repealed, abrogated, or derogated. Any provision of the Constitution, including amendments, may be repealed. There is no law that cannot be changed or repealed.
All the courts are wrong and we derive our laws from internet crackpots like you. Suuuure we do.
#29. To: hondo68 (#27)
"jury of your peers".
#30. To: tpaine (#28)
Our fundamental rights CANNOT be repealed.
#31. To: HomerBohn (#25)
so far has executed over 2,500 accused by some of being druggies.
I hope that America doesn't have to go through that
#32. To: nolu chan (#30)
Any part of the Constitution can be repealed. Such action does depend upon the approval of any crackpot on the internet.
#33. To: nolu chan (#30)
Any part of the Constitution can be repealed.
#34. To: tpaine (#32)
Our fundamental rights CANNOT be repealed. They are inalienable, thus any attempt to repeal them would be null and void from inception.
#35. To: ConservingFreedom (#31)
In America we don't do extrajudicial executions - thank God.
#36. To: nolu chan (#34)
#37. To: nolu chan, declares he has no principles. (#34)
There are no inalienable rights. Amdt 5 explicitly provides for capital punishment.
When they execute some halfwit like you, they take away your supposedly inalienable right to life, liberty and the pursuit happiness. The only thing you can pursue is a dirt nap. --- The Constitution is the highest law. The Declaration of Independence has never been a law.
#38. To: HomerBohn (#35)
Before it's all over, America will be clamoring for 'judicial' but swift executions of all who sell drugs! Users get six months to change their habits and if they don't they get to join the rat who sold them the poison.
“Truth is treason in the empire of lies.” - Ron Paul
"America is at that awkward stage. It's too late to work within the system, but too early to shoot the bastards."
#39. To: Deckard (#38)
#40. To: HomerBohn (#35)
Before it's all over, America will be clamoring for 'judicial' but swift executions of all who sell drugs!
#41. To: HomerBohn (#39)
The drug epidemic dictates that extreme measures are the only way to combat this infection.
#42. To: tpaine (#37)
Our fundamental rights CANNOT be repealed. They are inalienable, thus any attempt to repeal them would be null and void from inception.
Only halfwit like you would think that the 5th Amendment allows capital punishment except in criminal or treasonous cases, --- where, upon conviction, the accused is deemed to have forfeited their otherwise inalienable rights.
Alienable constitutional rights. Right to a trial by jury, to counsel, and not to incriminate one's self, and related matters are "alienable constitutional rights" which may be waived whenever assertable. Weck v. District Court of Second Judicial Dist., 158 Colo. 521, 408 P.2d 987, 990. See also inalienable rights.
Unalienable. Inalienable; incapable of being aliened, that is, sold and transferred.
INALIENABLE RIGHTS fundamental rights, including the right to practice religion, freedom of speech, due process, and equal protection of the laws, that cannot be transferred to another nor surrendered except by the person possessing them.
upon conviction, the accused is deemed to have forfeited their otherwise inalienable rights.
"Ordered that of the Indians and Half-breeds sentenced to be hanged by the military commission, composed of Colonel Crooks, Lt. Colonel Marshall, Captain Grant, Captain Bailey, and Lieutenant Olin, and lately sitting in Minnesota, you cause to be executed on Friday the nineteenth day of December, instant, the following names, to wit ...
Prisoner states-- I went with a party which pick up things which the whites left behind.
#43. To: nolu chan (#42)
There are no inalienable rights. Amdt 5 explicitly provides for capital punishment.
When they execute some halfwit like you, they take away your supposedly inalienable right to life, liberty and the pursuit happiness. The only thing you can pursue is a dirt nap. --- The Constitution is the highest law. The Declaration of Independence has never been a law.
No constitutional body is empowered to hold a constitutional amendment to be unconstitutional.
There are no rights that cannot be taken away.
What does inalienable mean to you???? -- You have CONSTITUTIONAL rights, alienable and inalienable. You can waive your alienable constitutional rights. You cannot waive your inalienable constitutional rights. --- Alienable constitutional rights. Right to a trial by jury, to counsel, and not to incriminate one's self, and related matters are "alienable constitutional rights" which may be waived whenever assertable. Weck v. District Court of Second Judicial Dist., 158 Colo. 521, 408 P.2d 987, 990. See also inalienable rights. Black's Law Dictionary, 6th Ed. ----- Unalienable. Inalienable; incapable of being aliened, that is, sold and transferred. --- Inalienable rights. Rights which can never be abridged because they are so fundamental. ---- Black's Law Dictionary, 6th Ed. --- INALIENABLE RIGHTS fundamental rights, including the right to practice religion, freedom of speech, due process, and equal protection of the laws, that cannot be transferred to another nor surrendered except by the person possessing them. Law Dictionary, 2nd Ed., Steven H. Gifis
When the government takes away your rights, or holds them forfeit, you neither transfer them nor surrender them. They take them. In capital punishment, they take your life.
As you document so well, it does not mean rights that can only be taken away by God.
Upon conviction, the accused is deemed to have forfeited their otherwise inalienable rights. So, there are criminal convictions and otherwise inalienable rights. --- News flash. Military trials and tribunals are criminal proceedings. --- In a court-martial, you do not get a jury of your peers, you get a panel appointed by the convening authority. It does not take a unanimous decision to throw your ass in prison, taking away your otherwise inalienable right to liberty and the pursuit of happiness, a two-thirds majority does just fine.-- - In a summary court-martial, you normally do not have a right to a detained attorney. A summary court-martial is a one- officer court, and he may, or may not, be a lawyer. --- If you are a USN sailor on a ship at sea, the Captain at an Article 15 proceeding may impose a reduction in grade, forfeiture of pay, or restriction on liberty. He can even award bread and water. You have no right to demand trial. Your otherwise inalienable rights are subject to hazard, without a lawyer and without a trial. The CO says you did whatever and awards punishment. --- And then there is conscription. "Greetings, etc." may be considered an impingement on one's liberty. Refusal to serve may result in prison time and other undesirable things, otherwise inalienable rights notwithstanding.
The contention that the people are prohibited from amending the laws any which way they determine that they want, is the ultimate douchebaggery.
The people may adopt any laws and government of their choosing. The people need not obtain prior consent of internet wingnuts. --- The only current limitation set by Article 5 is "no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate." Article 5 can be admended to remove that one restriction if the people so choose. ---- The largest mass execution in the United States followed a military tribunal of indians. Thirty-eight were executed at one time by hanging. --- Text of Order to General Sibley, St. Paul Minnesota: --- I "Ordered that of the Indians and Half-breeds sentenced to be hanged by the military commission, composed of Colonel Crooks, Lt. Colonel Marshall, Captain Grant, Captain Bailey, and Lieutenant Olin, and lately sitting in Minnesota, you cause to be executed on Friday the nineteenth day of December, instant, the following names, to wit ... The other condemned prisoners you will hold subject to further orders, taking care that they neither escape, nor are subjected to any unlawful violence. ---- Abraham Lincoln, President of the United States" --- The hanging, following trials which condemned over three hundred participants in the 1862 Dakota Conflict, stands as the largest mass execution in American history. Number 2 is the half-dozen hanged in an elevator shaft at Leavenworth during WW2. ----- On September 28, 1862, Colonel Sibley appointed a five-member military commission to "try summarily" Dakota and mixed- bloods for "murder and other outrages" committed against Americans. Whether Sibley had authority to appoint such a commission is a matter of substantial dispute. The commission was convened immediately, meeting in La Bathe's log kitchen near Camp Release. Sixteen trials were conducted the first day... in the six weeks that followed, the military court would try a total of 393 cases, convicting 323 and sentencing 303 to death by hanging. ----- The commission heard nearly forty cases on November 3, the last day it met. ----- In April, 1863, Congress enacted a law providing for the forcible removal from Minnesota of all Sioux. ---- On March 22, 1866, President Andrew Johnson ordered the release of the 177 surviving prisoners. ---- Case 238: Ta-hoh-pe-wa-kan --- [The complete record of testimony follows.] ---- Prisoner states-- I went with a party which pick up things which the whites left behind. ---- Louis LaBelle being sworn says-- The prisoner was among those who were on horseback in the battle referred to in case 236-- He had a horse and was up on it when I saw him, belonging to the soldiers. (See case No. 236) ---- [Ta-hoh-pe-wa-kan was found guilty and was sentenced to be hanged.]
#44. To: ConservingFreedom (#41)
#45. To: ConservingFreedom (#40)
#46. To: HomerBohn (#44)
'almost twice as many people die of influenza and pneumonia as from opioid overdose, but neither you nor anyone else is calling for "extreme measures" there.'
#47. To: HomerBohn (#45)
This society can't take much more of excesses.
#48. To: tpaine (#43)
What does inalienable mean to you?????
Alienable constitutional rights. Right to a trial by jury, to counsel, and not to incriminate one's self, and related matters are "alienable constitutional rights" which may be waived whenever assertable. Weck v. District Court of Second Judicial Dist., 158 Colo. 521, 408 P.2d 987, 990. See also inalienable rights.
Unalienable. Inalienable; incapable of being aliened, that is, sold and transferred.
INALIENABLE RIGHTS fundamental rights, including the right to practice religion, freedom of speech, due process, and equal protection of the laws, that cannot be transferred to another nor surrendered except by the person possessing them.
When the government takes away your rights, or holds them forfeit, you neither transfer them nor surrender them. They take them. In capital punishment, they take your life.
I'm agnostic. I've never proposed that any 'God' has anything to do with our rights. -- You're playing the worse kind of word games. -- PLEASE STOP
[nolu chan #15] Any provision of the Constitution, including amendments, may be repealed. There is no law that cannot be changed or repealed.
News flash. Military trials and tribunals are criminal proceedings.
The Congress shall have power ... To make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces.
To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof.
I'd bet you haven't served, and would not, --- even if the draft was reinstated because of a national emergency.
#49. To: nolu chan (#48)
Black's Law Dictionary, 6th Ed. --- INALIENABLE RIGHTS fundamental rights, including the right to practice religion, freedom of speech, due process, and equal protection of the laws, that cannot be transferred to another nor surrendered except by the person possessing them. Law Dictionary, 2nd Ed., Steven H. Gifis
You have given a never ending invocation of the Declaration of Independence. You know, the one that goes, "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights...." ---- Your whole insane argument that a Constitutional Amendment can be struck down as unconstitutional must, of necessity, appeal to some higher power than the Constitution.
Your version of inalienable is bullshit, pulled out of your ass. Identify some of these rights that cannot be repealed by Constitutional amendment.
If a Constitutional Amendment may be declared null and void, who has the lawful power to declare a provision of the Constitution null and void? What is your source of higher law?
Military trials and tribunals are criminal proceedings. In a court-martial, you do not get a jury of your peers, you get a panel appointed by the convening authority. It does not take a unanimous decision to throw your ass in prison, taking away your otherwise inalienable right to liberty and the pursuit of happiness, a two-thirds majority does just fine. --- In a summary court-martial, you normally do not have a right to a detained attorney. A summary court-martial is a one-officer court, and he may, or may not, be a lawyer.--- If you are a USN sailor on a ship at sea, the Captain at an Article 15 proceeding may impose a reduction in grade, forfeiture of pay, or restriction on liberty. He can even award bread and water. You have no right to demand trial. Your otherwise inalienable rights are subject to hazard, without a lawyer and without a trial. The CO says you did whatever and awards punishment. ---- And then there is conscription. "Greetings, etc." may be considered an impingement on one's liberty. Refusal to serve may result in prison time and other undesirable things, otherwise inalienable rights notwithstanding.
There is no temporary suspension of rights while in the military.Try reading the Constitution instead of pulling this shit out out your ass, you ignorant shithead.---- What an ignorant fuckwit you are. Apparently, the only hashmark you had was on your skivvies. nolu chan, USN (Ret)
#50. To: ConservingFreedom (#46)
#51. To: HomerBohn, ConservingFreedom (#50)
I've answered you on this, but it would appear that the only way the drug lords south of the border and the drug-selling pimps in America will dry up is by executing them in large numbers.
“Truth is treason in the empire of lies.” - Ron Paul
"America is at that awkward stage. It's too late to work within the system, but too early to shoot the bastards."
#52. To: Deckard (#51)
#53. To: HomerBohn (#50)
'We address driving etc. under the influence of the drug alcohol without resorting to any "extreme measures" - we can and should do likewise with respect to other drugs.'
#54. To: HomerBohn, Deckard (#52)
"despite a fierce, unrelenting war waged against drugs, drug use in China remains as big a problem as ever."
#55. To: tpaine (#49)
[tpaine #49] Our fundamental rights CANNOT be repealed. They are inalienable, thus any attempt to repeal them would be null and void from inception.
[tpaine #49] I'm agnostic. I've never proposed that any 'God' has anything to do with our rights.
If a Constitutional Amendment may be declared null and void, who has the lawful power to declare a provision of the Constitution null and void? What is your source of higher law?
[tpaine #43] I'm well aware of the temporary suspension of rights while in the military, having served three years.
News flash. Military trials and tribunals are criminal proceedings.
Very well, you claim to have retired from the navy. No doubt as an officer, correct? -- That's what most of you phonies claim, so forgive my doubt. -- Your lack of any sort of honor, or respect for constitutional law, leads me to this conclusion..
[tpaine #49] Getting rattled, aintcha?
The Constitution of the United States is a law for rulers and people, equally in war and in peace, and covers with the shield of its protection all classes of men, at all times, and under all circumstances. No doctrine, involving more pernicious consequences, was ever invented by the wit of man than that any of its provisions can be suspended during any of the great exigencies of government. Such a doctrine leads directly to anarchy or despotism, but the theory of necessity on which it is based is false....
Held:
Special courts-martial may award a bad-conduct discharge, up to six months' confinement at hard labor, forfeiture of two-thirds pay per month for six months, and, in the case of an enlisted member, reduction to the lowest pay grade, Art.19, UCMJ, 10 U.S.C. § 819. Article 15 punishment, conducted personally by the accused's commanding officer, is an administrative method of dealing with the most minor offenses. Parker v. Levy, 417 U. S. 733, 417 U. S. 750 (1974).
The summary court-martial occupies a position between informal nonjudicial disposition under Art. 15 and the courtroom-type procedure of the general and special courts-martial. Its purpose, "is to exercise justice promptly for relatively minor offenses under a simple form of procedure." Manual for Courts-Martial 79a (1969) (MCM). It is an informal proceeding conducted by a single commissioned officer with jurisdiction only over noncommissioned officers and other enlisted personnel. Art. 20, UCMJ, 10 U.S.C. § 820. The presiding officer acts as judge, factfinder, prosecutor, and defense counsel. The presiding officer must inform the accused of the charges and the name of the accuser and call all witnesses whom he or the accused desires to call.
The question of whether an accused in a court-martial has a constitutional right to counsel has been much debated, [Footnote 12] and never squarely resolved. See Reid v. Covert, 354 U. S. 1, 354 U. S. 37 (1957). Dicta in Ex parte Milligan, 4 Wall. 2, 71 U. S. 123 (1866), said that
"the framers of the Constitution, doubtless, meant to limit the right of trial by jury, in the sixth amendment to those persons who were subject to indictment or presentment in the fifth."
"'cases arising in the land or naval forces' . . . are expressly excepted from the Fifth Amendment, and are deemed excepted by implication from the Sixth."
We recognize that plaintiffs, who have either been convicted or are due to appear before a summary court-martial, may be subjected to loss of liberty or property, and consequently are entitled to the due process of law guaranteed by the Fifth Amendment.
We therefore agree with the defendants that neither the Sixth nor the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution empowers us to overturn the congressional determination that counsel is not required in summary courts-martial.
The Constitution expressly authorized the Congress to "make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces." Art. I, § 8. Court-martial proceedings, as a primary means for the regulation and discipline of the Armed Forces, were well known to the Founding Fathers. The procedures in such courts were never deemed analogous to, or required to conform with, procedures in civilian courts. One must ignore history, tradition, and practice for two centuries to read into the Constitution, at this late date, a requirement for counsel in the discipline of minor violations of military law.
#56. To: nolu chan, mostly spam again, --- WILL HE EVER STOP? (#55)
Your version of inalienable rights has been repeatedly cited to the Declaration of Independence for years. That is the one that goes, "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights...."
Constitutional rights were not granted by "the Creator.
--- who has the lawful power to declare a provision of the Constitution null and void? What is your source of higher law?
Efforts to have the 18th Amendment declared unconstitutional FAILED spectacularly.
A unanimous U.S. Supreme Court stated:
There is no such thing as the constitutional rights of service members being "temporarily suspended" while in the military.
Your belief that constitutional amendments may be declared unconstitutional, --
U.S. Supreme Court Middendorf v. Henry, 425 U.S. 25 (1976) Syllabus at 425 U.S. 26: Held: 1. There is no Sixth Amendment right to counsel in a summary court-martial.... 2. Nor does the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment require that counsel be provided the accused in a summary court-martial proceeding. Opinion of the Court at 425 U.S. 31-32: Special courts-martial may award a bad-conduct discharge, up to six months' confinement at hard labor, forfeiture of two-thirds pay per month for six months, and, in the case of an enlisted member, reduction to the lowest pay grade, Art.19, UCMJ, 10 U.S.C. § 819. Article 15 punishment, conducted personally by the accused's commanding officer, is an administrative method of dealing with the most minor offenses. Parker v. Levy, 417 U. S. 733, 417 U. S. 750 (1974). Opinion of the Court at 425 U.S. 32: The summary court-martial occupies a position between informal nonjudicial disposition under Art. 15 and the courtroom-type procedure of the general and special courts-martial. Its purpose, "is to exercise justice promptly for relatively minor offenses under a simple form of procedure." Manual for Courts- Martial 79a (1969) (MCM). It is an informal proceeding conducted by a single commissioned officer with jurisdiction only over noncommissioned officers and other enlisted personnel. Art. 20, UCMJ, 10 U.S.C. § 820. The presiding officer acts as judge, factfinder, prosecutor, and defense counsel. The presiding officer must inform the accused of the charges and the name of the accuser and call all witnesses whom he or the accused desires to call. Id. at 33-34: The question of whether an accused in a court-martial has a constitutional right to counsel has been much debated, [Footnote 12] and never squarely resolved. See Reid v. Covert, 354 U. S. 1, 354 U. S. 37 (1957). Dicta in Ex parte Milligan, 4 Wall. 2, 71 U. S. 123 (1866), said that "the framers of the Constitution, doubtless, meant to limit the right of trial by jury, in the sixth amendment to those persons who were subject to indictment or presentment in the fifth." In Ex parte Quirin, 317 U. S. 1, 317 U. S. 40 (1942), it was said that "'cases arising in the land or naval forces' . . . are expressly excepted from the Fifth Amendment, and are deemed excepted by implication from the Sixth." Id. at 425 U. S. 43: We recognize that plaintiffs, who have either been convicted or are due to appear before a summary court-martial, may be subjected to loss of liberty or property, and consequently are entitled to the due process of law guaranteed by the Fifth Amendment. However, whether this process embodies a right to counsel depends upon an analysis of the interests of the individual and those of the regime to which he is subject. Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U. S. 539, 418 U. S. 556 (1974). Id. at 425 U. S. 48: We therefore agree with the defendants that neither the Sixth nor the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution empowers us to overturn the congressional determination that counsel is not required in summary courts-martial. Justice Powell, concurring at 425 U.S. 49-51: The Constitution expressly authorized the Congress to "make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces." Art. I, § 8. Court-martial proceedings, as a primary means for the regulation and discipline of the Armed Forces, were well known to the Founding Fathers. The procedures in such courts were never deemed analogous to, or required to conform with, procedures in civilian courts. One must ignore history, tradition, and practice for two centuries to read into the Constitution, at this late date, a requirement for counsel in the discipline of minor violations of military law. I recognize, of course, that one's constitutional rights are not surrendered upon entering the Armed Services. But the rights are applied, as this Court often has held, in light of the "unique military exigencies" that necessarily govern many aspects of military service. See Parker v. Levy, supra, at 417 U. S. 758. In recognition of this, since the founding of the Republic, Congress has enacted special legislation applicable only to the Armed Services, [Footnote 2/2] including the current provisions in the Uniform Code of 425 U. S. 51 Military Justice for summary courts-martial. Art. 16(3), UCMJ, 10 U.S.C. § 816(3). The Summary Court-Martial may take away one's right to liberty and property. Pursuant to the Constitution, no counsel is required. -----
#57. To: tpaine (#56)
[tpaine #49] I'm well aware of the temporary suspension of rights while in the military, having served three years.
Held:
The question of whether an accused in a court-martial has a constitutional right to counsel has been much debated, [Footnote 12] and never squarely resolved. See Reid v. Covert, 354 U. S. 1, 354 U. S. 37 (1957). Dicta in Ex parte Milligan, 4 Wall. 2, 71 U. S. 123 (1866), said that
"the framers of the Constitution, doubtless, meant to limit the right of trial by jury, in the sixth amendment to those persons who were subject to indictment or presentment in the fifth."
"'cases arising in the land or naval forces' . . . are expressly excepted from the Fifth Amendment, and are deemed excepted by implication from the Sixth."
We recognize that plaintiffs, who have either been convicted or are due to appear before a summary court-martial, may be subjected to loss of liberty or property, and consequently are entitled to the due process of law guaranteed by the Fifth Amendment.
We therefore agree with the defendants that neither the Sixth nor the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution empowers us to overturn the congressional determination that counsel is not required in summary courts-martial.
The Constitution, which sets in motion a system of military criminal justice, also contains specified limitations on government infringement of individual rights. miilitary due process, as it is applied today, recognizes that the protections of the Constitution generally apply with equal force to servicemembers and that the U.C.M.J., the Manual for Courts-Martial, and service regulations may provide greater protections than the Constitution.
#58. To: nolu chan (#57)
--- the UCMJ is created by Congress as a Federal law, pursuant to an explicit grant of authority in the Constitution at Article I, Section 8, Clauses 14 and 18. --- The U.C.M.J. (Article 10) is not a statement of military rights, ---
#59. To: tpaine (#58)
[tpaine #49] I'm well aware of the temporary suspension of rights while in the military, having served three years.
Held:
The question of whether an accused in a court-martial has a constitutional right to counsel has been much debated, [Footnote 12] and never squarely resolved. See Reid v. Covert, 354 U. S. 1, 354 U. S. 37 (1957). Dicta in Ex parte Milligan, 4 Wall. 2, 71 U. S. 123 (1866), said that
"the framers of the Constitution, doubtless, meant to limit the right of trial by jury, in the sixth amendment to those persons who were subject to indictment or presentment in the fifth."
"'cases arising in the land or naval forces' . . . are expressly excepted from the Fifth Amendment, and are deemed excepted by implication from the Sixth."
We recognize that plaintiffs, who have either been convicted or are due to appear before a summary court-martial, may be subjected to loss of liberty or property, and consequently are entitled to the due process of law guaranteed by the Fifth Amendment.
We therefore agree with the defendants that neither the Sixth nor the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution empowers us to overturn the congressional determination that counsel is not required in summary courts-martial.
The Constitution, which sets in motion a system of military criminal justice, also contains specified limitations on government infringement of individual rights. miilitary due process, as it is applied today, recognizes that the protections of the Constitution generally apply with equal force to servicemembers and that the U.C.M.J., the Manual for Courts-Martial, and service regulations may provide greater protections than the Constitution.
.
.
.
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]