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

To: JLS
You clearly do not understand government, why the US Constitution was written and what it means or you would not type such silliness.

Now I get a lecture from the Constitutional scholar who wrote:

...the US Constitution explicitly in the Bill of Rights guarrantees that the representatives of the public including the person you were talking too, the press, has the right to know the name of the accuser...

Still waiting (three days now?) for you to show this explicit guarantee from the Bill of Rights.

You clearly do not comprehend what others write very well or you'd understand that I wrote is about stages which precede the filing of charges, indictments, and even trial. Prosecutors take filing of charges pretty seriously, which is why they investigate before filing them. How long did it take from the original complaint to the day charges were actually filed in this case?

You were very good in using bold in your previous response. Using bold and typing QED, does not change what the plain words you copy say.

Thanks. It was offered to help disabuse your misunderstanding (more like complete lack of understanding) of what rape shield laws actually include. Re-read what I posted as it relates to what you said. "Shall be withheld" and "requires... to delete" are unambiguous, particularly in the context offered: with respect to public inspection.

Do you remember writing this?

"Rape shield" laws say that past sexual history can not be brought into evidence by the defense. It shields from the jury some of the past behavior of the victim because it might be too prejudical. It does not say the public can not know the name of the victim.

That QED was given for a reason. Now go to your room and find the explicit Constitutional guarantee that an accuser's name must be disclosed publicly or even to the press before I give you another one.

335 posted on 07/28/2003 1:59:18 PM PDT by the infidel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 334 | View Replies ]


To: the infidel
Now go to your room and find the explicit Constitutional guarantee that an accuser's name must be disclosed publicly or even to the press

Ground ball to the right side.

Sixth Amendment:

" In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial

(public, i.e., open to the public, which has always and everywhere been taken to include the press, cf. First Amendment)

... to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor

(i.e., the defendant at his or her PUBLIC TRIAL must be able to find from among the general population witnesses who may have information favorable to his defense, this is impossible without the name of his or her accuser being public).

"Rape shield" laws are facially unconstitutional, since they eliminate the protection that Amendment VI offers the defendant.

337 posted on 07/28/2003 2:34:30 PM PDT by Jim Noble
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 335 | View Replies ]

To: the infidel
Well I guess I will just take my B- and run. Afterall, I guess that old saying that you could indict a ham sandwich was invited out of thin air and you big government trusters are right and we can always trust the ethics of the state. BTW, do you split time between here and DU where you are more comfortable?
352 posted on 07/28/2003 3:52:38 PM PDT by JLS
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 335 | View Replies ]

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