:: Kelly found that Acosta’s due process rights had been violated ::
Let’s take a look, shall we?
The 5th Amendment to the US Constitution:
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
And, what crime was Acosta “held accountable for” such that his due process rights were trampled. Was he deprived of life, liberty or property?
And, even Kelly KNOWS [presuming he went to law school] that the 1st ten amendments were EQUAL AND UNSEVERABLE at the time of ratification. The 1st nor the 5th “over rule” any of the Articles in the Constitution.
And Kelly was appointed by Trump. I wonder about his other decisions.