Dude knows his shit. What a tenacious man.
:eek:
Guy knows his stuff. Well spoken.
Wow… Thank you for posting that.
Beware the “jailhouse lawyer.” They have plenty of time to research their subject and tend to be highly motivated and passionate. :laugh:
Combine those factors with someone of reasonable intellect and in possession of effective rhetorical skills, and you are facing a formidable adversary.
He makes a good point. They aren’t victims until you have been convicted of a crime. Good stuff.
Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk 2
Damn! So why is he homeless?
There’s some semantic gamesmenship going on here. If my wife is lying in the hospital clinging to life after being brutally beaten and raped, is she not a “victim” regardless of whether the perpetrator has been arrested, charged, tried, convicted, and sentenced?
Similarly, if my house has been destroyed by arson or my livelihood destroyed through identity theft or fraud, am I less a victim of a crime until someone has been convicted?
I won’t pretend to be an attorney but, strictly from a layman’s perspective, there appears to be some sophistry and specious reasoning at work here.
I think the point is that your right to having suspect(s) face speedy trial does not negate the suspect(s) having a right to establish a defense for themselves.
Where was he going on the whole states’ rights thing at the beginning? What was that about secession? Was that court precedent or his beliefs or what? States’ rights? There is a definite reservation of power away from the fed, though. There are certain things the state has jurisdiction over as opposed to the fed, unfortunately that’s currently vastly ignored but it is still true. Was he challenging that?
I might’ve made a mistake. I don’t think he’s “homeless” per se, but he is voluntarily unemployed, so that he can devote his days to picketing the SCOTUS to take up his case.
This guy needs to teach classes.
Sorry, but I couldn’t listen after the whole diatribe on States Rights. His “theory” sounds intelligent but it is unsubstantiated by the actual words of the Founding Fathers and more importantly, the words of the State conventions that made the document the law of the land.
The States ratified the Constitution not the “people” via some popular vote. Some States also only ratified under the condition they could withdraw.
Also, the Constitution really isn’t what the Founders said it was but rather what the States who ratified it think it is. Read the Virginia ratification debates. Many people had a BIG problem with the preamble saying “We the People” rather than “We the States”.
I have the highest veneration for those gentlemen; but, sir, give me leave to demand, What right had they to say, We, the people? My political curiosity, exclusive of my anxious solicitude for the public welfare, leads me to ask, Who authorized them to speak the language of, We, the people, instead of, We, the states? States are the characteristics and the soul of a confederation. If the states be not the agents of this compact, it must be one great, consolidated, national government, of the people of all the states. - Patrick Henry 1788
Hell, just look at the wording in the little known preable to the Bill of Rights:
THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution.
It is in that context that we have the proceeding Amendments. The States refused to ratify unless they were promised an immediate Bill of Rights at the first congress under the new government.
“If you cannot bedazzle them with your brilliance then befuddle them with your bullshit.”
It was pointed out to me by another member (via pm) that there is a valid legal distinction between an injured party being “a victim” of a crime and being “the victim” of the person accused of the crime until such time as that person is adjudicated and found guilty, when the above distinction dissolves in the eyes of the law.
But until that time, the rights of a victim should not trump the rights of the accused, who should be considered innocent until proven guilty. Both victim and accused should be afforded protections under the law.