Posted on 12/01/2017 11:09:45 AM PST by SoFloFreeper
I know, right? I think she wears a cape, I just know it! I’m scared.
The only claim I have made, directly regarding Flynn, is that same one the FBI makes........he lied.
I assumed that any reader of my comments was familiar with the concepts of due process, appeals, or not, included.
Whether the Executive branch chooses to obey any law, passed by Congress, is their prerogative and their peril. Ignoring a law, even a bad law, does not make a law unconstitutional.
You claim constitutionality is based on merits.... Who ultimately determines those merits? You? Me? Jefferson? Better take a closer look at the Constitution..... That would be exclusive to the Supreme Court.
You can opine what you want about Jefferson, but his opinion about constitutionality has no legal weight, never did. As President he could choose to enforce or not any law, and possibly also have been subject to impeachment.
You refer to Jefferson, his disdain for the Judiciary branch was well known. How ironic that his effort to pidgeon-hole Marshall as a Supreme Court judge led to Marbury vs. Madison and established the Supreme Court at its present stature as the final step in judicial review.
Trump was the best choice as President. The Republican agenda is the best course.
Committed a crime? No evidence, no opinion.
Trump needs to finish his term. I never thought America wasn’t great. No need to regain something we didn’t lose.
According to Gregg Jarrett, nobody has ever been prosecuted under the Logan Act of 1799. New York Federal Court has already determined in 1964, that its unconstitutional, and Jarrett says it specifically violates the 1st Amendment. Jarrett: “If candidate Trump had somebody reach out to the Russians or any foreign government during a campaign, where’s the crime? There’s no statute that makes that against the law.” Obama did it as a candidate, as have many others who don’t specifically have a background/experience in foreign relations in order to build up their chances to get elected.
Jarrett is correct. No one has ever been prosecuted under it, and in addition to the Sixth Amendment issues brought up in the 1964 case, there are indeed significant First Amendment issues as well.
The Supreme Court has repeatedly outlined that criminal statutes cannot have vague and undefined terms that do not put citizens on notice as to what conduct is prohibited.
To satisfy due process, “a penal statute [must] define the criminal offense [1] with sufficient definiteness that ordinary people can understand what conduct is prohibited and [2] in a manner that does not encourage arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement.” Kolender v. Lawson, 461 U. S. 352 (1983).
The Logan Act, as written fails the vagueness test. It doesn’t take a legal scholar to see why. That’s the point the Court in 1964 made.
In addition, first amendment jurisprudence has radically changed what was in place in 1799. The Logan act targets speech based on content. Content restrictions are subject to strict scrutiny. It is extraordinarily difficult for any governmental regulation that targets the content of speech to survive strict scrutiny.
Only those regulations that are absolutely necessary and narrowly tailored (with the least restrictive means possible) to achieve a compelling governmental interest can survive such scrutiny. In fact, in the entire history of First Amendment jurisprudence, on only two occasions has a content based regulation survived Supreme Court review on a First Amendment challenge.
The Logan act is breathtakingly broad in scope and is certainly not the least restrictive means that its stated goals could be accomplished.
So yes, it probably violates the First Amendment in addition to the Sixth.
Thank you for your excellent comments on the subject.
Like it or not, the Supreme Court is reality.
My first experience with the Supreme Court was in the early 60’s. As we drove into California we were greeted by a huge billboard that said “Impeach Earl Warren”.
Of course they are contaminated by politics, look at the way Ginsburg rants about Trump, etc.
All our complaints are not going to change anything..... Marbury vs. Madison....
Obama directly flew to the Middle East to talk to foreign state leaders in 2008 only as a mere presidential candidate so he’s in “violation” of the Logan Act. The Logan Act is a joke.
No one has ever been convicted for a Logan Act violation in 220 years. Trump is not going to get convicted for this idiocy, especially as an incoming president not now not never.
Xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Barack Hussein Bin Soetoro is violating the Logan act in China right now.
Great opinions on Logan Act
I thought this was interesting. Section 8a of Flynn’s plea agreement, the section about cooperating with the special counsel’s office, it states:
“your client acknowledges that your client’s cooperation may include, but will not necessarily be limited to: answering questions; providing sworn written statements; taking government-administered polygraph examination(s); and participating in covert law enforcement activities.”
Then it talks about cooperation regarding any crimes he knows about, and turning over any evidence he has.
Thanks. Yes, This is the kind of police state coercion/ abuse of the individual citizen that evil dictatorships are famous for
Yeah, I almost did a follow up “she=he” post but didn’t bother. :)
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.