Right, that was the “compromise.” Slave states wanted to count slaves as people for representation purposes in the House, and non-slave states objected that since slaves couldn’t vote and weren’t citizens, they shouldn’t count at all in representation. Effectively, the slave states were trying to have their cake and…
Looks like a Class A felony requires a mandatory life sentence, without possibility of parole (except minors):
Totally...and I think courts may sometimes distinguish here between legal residents and undocumented immigrants, in terms of the process due. But, as abortion is concerned, I have a hard time understanding the what material distinction would diminish the right to access abortion services. If any other federal inmate…
Yeah, I’m not really involved much in criminal law myself, so I’m not totally sure of status of punishment enhancements under double jeopardy doctrine. Be that as it may, in Iowa, it looks like the particular enhancements are spelled out with regard to each particular offense
Keep in mind, the 14th amendment does not bind the federal government (i.e. the Trump Administration), it only applies to the states -
“No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or…
Hmm...I don’t think there is any way a court can construe that statute to apply to murder - it does not apply, on its own terms. A court cannot “add” things to a statute that are not there.
Hate crimes in Iowa: “Hate crime means one of the following public offenses when committed against a person or a person s property because of the person s race, color, religion, ancestry, national origin, political affiliation, sex, sexual orientation, age, or disability, or the person s association with a person of a…
I don’t think the ERA would necessarily have solved the problem.
The issue here, as with DACA, is that Executive Orders and other executive branch policy statements put in place by the Obama Administration are vulnerable to immediate nullification by the next administration. Compare that to Obamacare, which the Republican Congress is having a hell of a time getting rid of.
I’m not totally sure that charging a hate crime under Missouri law would accomplish anything.
Hate speech is absolutely protected under the First Amendment.
“Truth is a defense to libel, and it is an affirmative defense.”
Terms like “Racist” and “White Supremacist” are classic examples of opinions that cannot form the basis of a defamation case. This is an obviously frivolous lawsuit.
I agree with you - any criminal defendant that wants a jury trial should get one. But treating the “government” as monolithic misconstrues the issue. That’s just not how separation of powers works. The court and the prosecutor’s office are totally independent of each other, with different interests, goals and…
The issue raised by the OP is whether the judge or the jury should convict - neither of them is the one with the power to charge someone with a crime. That’s the prosecutor
Its a little more complicated than that - Judges determine questions of law, juries determine questions of fact. The theory is that judges are experts in the law but have no more ability to determined the factual events of a given case than anybody else - better to trust 12 people than a single judge in that regard. …
Federal judges are appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate for life. Many state court judges, but not all, are elected (depends on the judge and the state).
Well, I guess since my 3 paragraph post was apparently too arduous for you to read, you didn’t notice that the point of my comment was that, contrary to your assertion that “Free speech means you can’t be jailed for what you say as long as it doesn’t incite violence,” the University does have a First Amendment role in…
Well, yes, after protesters threw a huge tantrum - hence the problem of the “heckler’s veto.”