Posted on 10/21/2014 3:23:02 PM PDT by smoothsailing
Lawful incarceration brings about the necessary withdrawal or limitation of many privileges and rights, a retraction justified by the considerations underlying our penal system. Among those so limited is the otherwise unqualified right given by § 272 of the Judicial Code, 28 U.S.C. § 394, to parties in all the courts of the United States to "plead and manage 286*286 their own causes personally."
See also:
These are landmark Habeas cases.
I am not saying they are not limited. I am saying that it is not as limited as much as most people think. Look up thread. Many think prisoners have no rights. That’s not true. It’s a matter of degrees.
When I addressed the right to petition earlier it was not intended to apply just to appeals or writs. I meant it in the most general sense, including to the executive and legislative branches.
Goddard College should be burned to the ground.A collective of treasonous idiotic whacko leftists.
“Freaky” Mumia is no longer on death row.
Celebrity has its privileges.
Rendell is a Democrat. Lie is what Democrats do. Only a fool would believe a Democrat.
What you and LurkingLibertarian are missing is an explicit provision in both the Bill of Rights and in the Fourteenth Amendment which says that no one "may be deprived of Life, Liberty or Property without Due Process." The clear contrapositive of that statement is that anyone may be deprived of life, liberty or property after due process. You lose your 2nd, 3rd, 4th, and some of your 5th, 6th, and 1st Amendment rights as an administrative result of incarceration. You may lose additional rights -- including First Amendment rights as a result of statutory penalties explicit in your sentence, or in the general circumstances spelled out in the criminal or US code.
It is a mistaken belief of libertarians and criminal defense attorneys that prisoners retain certain Constitutional rights which can never be revoked. No court has ever ruled that. The closest they've come is in saying that restrictions on habeas have to be very closely guarded. The quote given in the Kentucky circuit case by LurkingLibertarian is Obiter Dicta of an Appeals Court ruling, and is neither case law, nor the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States. It's wishful thinking on the part of prisoners' rights advocates to believe otherwise.
Not sure who all believes what you said in the second para. I dont. Of course things like searches are at the discretion of correctional officials even for parolees. One example.
I mentioned the first amendment and gave an examples of what is and what is not restricted citing the standard courts have established.
Don’t think much in conflict here.
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.