Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Another Rogue Prosecutor? (Border Patrol Jailings)
Investor's Business Daily ^ | 22 Jan 2007 | Editorial staff

Posted on 01/22/2007 8:26:15 PM PST by Kitten Festival

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 121-132 next last
To: 1rudeboy

"I subscribe to a originalist/textualist interpretation of the Constitution."

Did the invading British soldiers in the War or 1812 have 2nd and 4th Amendment protections?

Who is "We the People"?


41 posted on 01/23/2007 6:09:23 AM PST by EnochPowellWasRight
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: stevie_d_64
"Watch the wording in the State of the Onion address when he talks about Immigration Reform... "

If so, this will be the speech that sinks the chances of a Republican Party majority ever occurring again.
42 posted on 01/23/2007 6:11:18 AM PST by EnochPowellWasRight
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: EndWelfareToday
Interesting, I wasn't aware the word "context" appears in the Constitution. I'll have to read it again. In any case, the word "people" is not interchangeable with "citizen." For example, Article II of the Constitution declares that the President must be a "citizen" of the United States, and a "natural-born" one at that, yet goes on to use the word "person" later. Are you suggesting that the Founding Fathers, who saw fit to distinguish between the two in this section, neglected to do it elsewhere? That, despite their insistence of a difference here, intended the word "person" to expand and contract in whatever fashion someone posting on an Internet forum suggests 200 years in the future?
43 posted on 01/23/2007 6:19:22 AM PST by 1rudeboy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: EnochPowellWasRight

I am unaware of the state of the laws of warfare in 1812. For the record "citizens" is a subset of "people," which is why the Founders distinguished between the two.


44 posted on 01/23/2007 6:21:57 AM PST by 1rudeboy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: CharlesWayneCT

"He was not re-arrested with more drugs."

Here are two sources that say he was:
http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewNation.asp?Page=/Nation/Archive/200612/NAT20061204b.html

"The initial immunity offer covered Aldrete-Davila's illegal entry into the U.S., the drug smuggling and his unlawful flight from the agents to avoid arrest. Sutton expanded the immunity to include a subsequent drug offense, when Aldrete-Davila tried to smuggle another 1,000 pounds of marijuana into the United States."

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=26224

"He showed his gratitude by breaking his immunity agreement in October 2005, when officers say he attempted to smuggle 1,000 pounds of marijuana into America. The prosecution further extended its immunity to this felony and sealed the indictment from jurors."


45 posted on 01/23/2007 6:22:14 AM PST by antisocial (Texas SCV - Deo Vindice)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: 1rudeboy

"I am unaware of the state of the laws of warfare in 1812. "

Ah, but according to your interpretation, they would only be governed by civil law. They weren't citizens, after all. They WERE "people" in the broadest sense. However, they weren't "the people".

"For the record "citizens" is a subset of "people," which is why the Founders distinguished between the two."

No, "Person" may refer to someone who isn't a citizen, but "people" as in "We the People" refers to the Citizens of the United States collectively.


46 posted on 01/23/2007 6:25:09 AM PST by EnochPowellWasRight
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: CharlesWayneCT
"OK. Let me understand the conspiracy. Sutton grants immunity to a drug dealer (fact)."

Let's just go back to that beginning in the interest of law and order.

What Sutton should have done was when he KNEW the location of the Drug Smuggler (and he did)..was to issue a warrant for his arrest and extradite him back to the US.

They had the evidence he was a drug smuggler, but chose instead, to make an example of two of our Border Patrolmen in lieu of letting a big time DRUG smuggler go free.

If that didn't send a clear signal that something is rotten in Denmark than nothing does...

Sutton should be fired for making that deal, even if our BP are never pardoned!

sw

47 posted on 01/23/2007 6:25:52 AM PST by spectre (Spectre's wife)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: EnochPowellWasRight
Ah, but according to your interpretation, they would only be governed by civil law.

You are about as aware of my "interpretation" as you are of what I'm wearing. Is this another one of those penumbra-thingies, or just a strawman?

48 posted on 01/23/2007 6:27:22 AM PST by 1rudeboy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: CharlesWayneCT
"No, I believe an officer of the court/federal prosecuter,"

The defense attorney is an "officer of the court" too.

A federal prosecutor is just a lawyer working for the government. If we are to believe everything they say without question, I suppose trials are a waste of time. Someone like Mr. Sutton may CLAIM something is a fact, but it may not be a fact.

In short, lawyers lie for a living.
49 posted on 01/23/2007 6:27:34 AM PST by EnochPowellWasRight
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: 1rudeboy
"You are about as aware of my "interpretation" as you are of what I'm wearing. "

It's the logical extension of your argument that "the people" is all persons residing - even temporarily - within the United States. It's not my fault if you don't care for the direction your own argument leads.

" Is this another one of those penumbra-thingies, or just a strawman?"

The "penumbra" would be coming from your side in this argument. I find no verbiage in the US Constitution that would lead me to believe that "the people" is intended to be other than "We the People".
50 posted on 01/23/2007 6:30:15 AM PST by EnochPowellWasRight
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: Kitten Festival

Yes,

Prosecutros should have psychological screenings. You have egomaniacal lawyers who are drunk with their own power.


51 posted on 01/23/2007 6:33:33 AM PST by longtermmemmory (VOTE! http://www.senate.gov and http://www.house.gov)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: EnochPowellWasRight
If so, this will be the speech that sinks the chances of a Republican Party majority ever occurring again.

Good. I'm tired of the do nothing spineless Republicans having control. I want conservatives running the nation. I am a conservative first. A Republican second. I am a disenfranchised member of the Republican Party. My vote doesn't count. My representatives don't do what they promise when they blow their conservative smoke up my arse and I'm sick of it. So far Tancredo is the only candidate with the intestinal fortitude to say what is on his mind without regard for what the thought police and social engineers think. That alone gets him my vote.

Both Bushes got my votes because they were the lesser of two evils. Neither have the guts to do what is needed to protect the United States of America from our enemies. Pussy-footen around with terrorists is only making them bolder. KILL EM and imprison anyone in this nation that aides and abets our enemies.

You all wish to watch 40 minutes of propaganda this evening? Have fun. In my book there is an old saying, "Money talks and BS walks" and "Actions speak louder than words." Bush's actions are not enough. People aren't against the war on terror. We are against the war the way it's being waged. I for one think that for every attack the followers of Islam wage against American interest we should in turn utterly destroy one of their Holiest sites beginning with Mecca. I also think that anyone that tries to cross our borders illegally should be shot on the spot. No questions asked.

I am tired of watching the nation 200+ years of ancestors have fought and died for being destroyed.

Sorry for the rant.

TANCREDO '08

52 posted on 01/23/2007 6:34:22 AM PST by EndWelfareToday (Live free and keep what you earn.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: EnochPowellWasRight
I'll ask a second time. If "people/persons" only refers to citizens of the United States "collectively" (your term), then why did the Founders distinguish between the two elsewhere in the text?

As far as the Constitution, as Supreme Law of the Land, applying to every person withing its jurisdiction, that's not penumbra-speak.

53 posted on 01/23/2007 6:34:25 AM PST by 1rudeboy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: stevie_d_64
What is ironic (not sure if its a big surprise or not) is that this DA actually went to Mexico (foriegn soil) to actually seek out, investigate, meet with, and guarantee immunity to this "drug dealing smuggler" for his "testimony" to prosecute these two BP guys...

I think this shows bad faith on the part of the prosecutor. Does anyone thing that the illegal would say anything contrary to what the prosecutor has coached him on? This case stinks to high-heavens.

If Bush doesn't pardon the two agents, then I will agree with the Democrats: George Bush is the worst president we have ever had.

Bush is supposed to be such a Christian, where is his sense of justice? A man's character is judged on his actions, not his rhetoric.

Sign me - Disgusted at our justice system and with President Bush.

54 posted on 01/23/2007 6:36:33 AM PST by A. Patriot (CZ 52's ROCK)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: norton

Do you know how LIMITED the choices are in the lawyer appointment pool?

It is very likely GWBush appointed him as a part of a mass hiring.


55 posted on 01/23/2007 6:40:45 AM PST by longtermmemmory (VOTE! http://www.senate.gov and http://www.house.gov)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: 1rudeboy

"If "people/persons" only refers to citizens of the United States "collectively" (your term), then why did the Founders distinguish between the two elsewhere in the text?"

A Person is an individual regardless of citizenship. "The people" refers to the citizens as individuals. Simple, no?

"As far as the Constitution, as Supreme Law of the Land, applying to every person withing its jurisdiction, that's not penumbra-speak."

So, it DOES protect an invading army in your world....


56 posted on 01/23/2007 6:41:17 AM PST by EnochPowellWasRight
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]

To: CharlesWayneCT
When the two agents testified that they could NOT identify the man who ran from the van, that ended any chance of prosecution. You can't prosecute a man if you can't even identify him.

If they can't identify the man who ran off, what makes you think this guy is the one? Just because he says so? You are willing to believe the word of a felon, not a prosecutor, the prosecutor only knows what the felon drug running, illegal, lawbreaking SOB told him. There is no PROOF these agents commited any crime except failure to report a shooting which calls for 5 days suspension. This is a railroad job pure and simple, in the name of open borders and a North American Union, it is plain to anyone who can think. Of course the OB crowd has never thought things through or they wouldn't be for open borders.

57 posted on 01/23/2007 6:42:03 AM PST by calex59
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: trumandogz
The 4th covers people not just citizens.

BS! The proper phrase is "the people", meaning the people of these United States, meaning US Citizens. Blackbird.

58 posted on 01/23/2007 6:44:20 AM PST by BlackbirdSST (Stay out of the Bushes, unless you're RINO hunting!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: longtermmemmory
"It is very likely GWBush appointed him as a part of a mass hiring."

Sutton is on the AG's advisory committee and was the Policy Coordinator for the Bush-Cheney transition team for the DOJ. He served as Criminal Justice Policy Director for Governor George W. Bush prior to that.

http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/txw/us_attorney/

Not exactly a name picked out of a list to fill a slot.
59 posted on 01/23/2007 6:44:33 AM PST by EnochPowellWasRight
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]

To: 1rudeboy
Forgive me 1rudeboy. I was under the impression you were educated and capable of having a comprehensive view of the US Constitution. It's now obvious to me that you are not capable of (to coin a phrase) "seeing the forest for the trees."

Enjoy your bliss and please... Don't vote!
60 posted on 01/23/2007 6:46:46 AM PST by EndWelfareToday (Live free and keep what you earn.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 121-132 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson