Jan 6 panel ignores U.S. Constitution

https://www.newsmax.com/newsfront/al...19/id/1101120/


maybe this one will work, or the following


https://www.washingtontimes.com/news...ttees-trump-r/

You asked me once what my solution to this problem is. Here it is "stay in your country and apply for asylum before you come to this country". Anybody showing up at our border without proof of persecution looking only for a better economic situation, which is not a reason to grant asylum, will be turned away and if found in the country illegally, deported. Originally Posted by HedonistForever

This is a candidate for "worst idea of 2022".

It would go something like this:

"Please fill out the following form. Attach your proof of persecution, along with 2 signed
references from those that have persecuted you. Send it to PO Box 0000, Alexandria VA.
A reply will be returned within a year. Good luck in the meantime".


Immigration.....a complex issue. You could "compare" it to a situation like the national parks. Too many visitors will destroy the very thing that makes them special and make people want to visit.

Levi, as long as you acknowledge it from both sides old timer, you get zero argument from me. But if you want to bitch about the left without acknowledging the biggest shit stain on the right (Trump), I think that is silly.

... Originally Posted by Lucas McCain

Lol. Deshowitz portrays it as a "protest" in the aforementioned article. Storming the capital and chasing down the congress kind of throws his argument out the window. Unless of course you are still intoxicated by Tanning lotion man.



Antifa and BLM should revisit some of MLK's wisdom's about protests. His prediction that retribution from the Rumplicans is coming is likely.

[QUOTE=VitaMan;1063054882]This is a candidate for "worst idea of 2022".

It would go something like this:

"Please fill out the following form. Attach your proof of persecution, along with 2 signed
references from those that have persecuted you. Send it to PO Box 0000, Alexandria VA.
A reply will be returned within a year. Good luck in the meantime".


Immigration.....a complex issue. You could "compare" it to a situation like the national parks. Too many visitors will destroy the very thing that makes them special and make people want to visit. [/QUOTE]
That's stupid analogy. I compare immigration to a Burglar breaking into a house. He didn't knock and he wasn't invited. Therefore it becomes a crime.

Nothing about illegal immigration in that paragraph.

Nothing about illegal immigration in that paragraph. Originally Posted by VitaMan

Yeah but you think Immigration is a Complex issue. It's doesn't have to be if Government Officials used good judgement.

This is a candidate for "worst idea of 2022".

It would go something like this:

"Please fill out the following form. Attach your proof of persecution, along with 2 signed
references from those that have persecuted you. Send it to PO Box 0000, Alexandria VA.
A reply will be returned within a year. Good luck in the meantime".


Immigration.....a complex issue. You could "compare" it to a situation like the national parks. Too many visitors will destroy the very thing that makes them special and make people want to visit. Originally Posted by VitaMan

Or, we could just follow the letter of the law.


https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1158


(b)(1)

In general

(A)

Eligibility

The Secretary of Homeland Security or the Attorney General may grant asylum to an alien who has applied for asylum in accordance with the requirements and procedures established by the Secretary of Homeland Security or the Attorney General under this section if the Secretary of Homeland Security or the Attorney General determines that such alien is a refugee within the meaning of section 1101(a)(42)(A) of this title.


(B)

Burden of proof

(i)

In general

The burden of proof is on the applicant to establish that the applicant is a refugee, within the meaning of section 1101(a)(42)(A) of this title. To establish that the applicant is a refugee within the meaning of such section, the applicant must establish that race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion was or will be at least one central reason for persecuting the applicant.


(ii)

Sustaining burden

The testimony of the applicant may be sufficient to sustain the applicant’s burden without corroboration, but only if the applicant satisfies the trier of fact that the applicant’s testimony is credible, is persuasive, and refers to specific facts sufficient to demonstrate that the applicant is a refugee. In determining whether the applicant has met the applicant’s burden, the trier of fact may weigh the credible testimony along with other evidence of record. Where the trier of fact determines that the applicant should provide evidence that corroborates otherwise credible testimony, such evidence must be provided unless the applicant does not have the evidence and cannot reasonably obtain the evidence.


(iii)

Credibility determination

Considering the totality of the circumstances, and all relevant factors, a trier of fact may base a credibility determination on the demeanor, candor, or responsiveness of the applicant or witness, the inherent plausibility of the applicant’s or witness’s account, the consistency between the applicant’s or witness’s written and oral statements (whenever made and whether or not under oath, and considering the circumstances under which the statements were made), the internal consistency of each such statement, the consistency of such statements with other evidence of record (including the reports of the Department of State on country conditions), and any inaccuracies or falsehoods in such statements, without regard to whether an inconsistency, inaccuracy, or falsehood goes to the heart of the applicant’s claim, or any other relevant factor. There is no presumption of credibility, however, if no adverse credibility determination is explicitly made, the applicant or witness shall have a rebuttable presumption of credibility on appeal.

Dershowitz's whole argument is supposedly based on his claim that the panel is using a "bill of attainder", which is prohibited by the Constitution.

1 First off, this wasn't a trial. So no cross examination. Most of the testimony came from Republicans. No witnesses were excluded. After the committee chair wouldn't allow election deniers on the panel, McCarthy chose not to add three Republicans (3 McCarthy already had joint approval w/the Democratic chair)

2 A referral isn't a demand. The DOJ will decide whether to prosecute or not. Congress does not decide who the DOJ will prosecute.

3 Most importantly, there is no "bill of attainder" involved here.

"Supreme Court cases have given broad and generous meaning to the constitutional protection against bills of attainder by interpreting it to ban not only legislation imposing a death sentence, as the term was used at English common law, but also legislation that imposes other forms of punishment on specific persons without trial.1 However, the Court has emphasized that legislation does not violate the Bill of Attainder Clause simply because it places legal burdens on a specific individual or group.2 Rather, as discussed in more detail below, a bill of attainder must also inflict punishment.3 Another key feature of a bill of attainder is that it applies retroactively: the Supreme Court has held that the Bill of Attainder Clause does not apply to legislation that is intended to prevent future action rather than to punish past action.4 The Court has also held that the prohibition on bills of attainder does not safeguard the states against allegedly punitive federal legislation5 and does not protect U.S. citizens who commit crimes abroad and face trial in other jurisdictions.6 Overall, the Supreme Court’s decisions suggest that the Court has applied the Bill of Attainder Clause to prevent legislatures from circumventing the courts by punishing people without due process of law."

https://constitution.congress.gov/br...ALDE_00013187/

There is no legislation involved in a referral and no punishment without due process.
No Bill of Attainder Clause activity whatsoever

https://www.newsmax.com/newsfront/al...19/id/1101120/


maybe this one will work, or the following


https://www.washingtontimes.com/news...ttees-trump-r/ Originally Posted by farmstud60

Dershowitz's whole argument is supposedly based on his claim that the panel is using a "bill of attainder", which is prohibited by the Constitution.

1 First off, this wasn't a trial. So no cross examination. Most of the testimony came from Republicans. No witnesses were excluded. After the committee chair wouldn't allow election deniers on the panel, McCarthy chose not to add three Republicans (3 McCarthy already had joint approval w/the Democratic chair)

2 A referral isn't a demand. The DOJ will decide whether to prosecute or not. Congress does not decide who the DOJ will prosecute.

3 Most importantly, there is no "bill of attainder" involved here.

"Supreme Court cases have given broad and generous meaning to the constitutional protection against bills of attainder by interpreting it to ban not only legislation imposing a death sentence, as the term was used at English common law, but also legislation that imposes other forms of punishment on specific persons without trial.1 However, the Court has emphasized that legislation does not violate the Bill of Attainder Clause simply because it places legal burdens on a specific individual or group.2 Rather, as discussed in more detail below, a bill of attainder must also inflict punishment.3 Another key feature of a bill of attainder is that it applies retroactively: the Supreme Court has held that the Bill of Attainder Clause does not apply to legislation that is intended to prevent future action rather than to punish past action.4 The Court has also held that the prohibition on bills of attainder does not safeguard the states against allegedly punitive federal legislation5 and does not protect U.S. citizens who commit crimes abroad and face trial in other jurisdictions.6 Overall, the Supreme Court’s decisions suggest that the Court has applied the Bill of Attainder Clause to prevent legislatures from circumventing the courts by punishing people without due process of law."

https://constitution.congress.gov/br...ALDE_00013187/

There is no legislation involved in a referral and no punishment without due process.
No Bill of Attainder Clause activity whatsoever Originally Posted by Tigbitties38

hope you don't mind but i'll stick with the opinion of a educated law professor rather than a layman who thinks he can "quick read" an article on the topic and understand it in all it's complexity.


Alan Dershowitz dismisses Jan. 6 committee’s Trump referral: ‘Worthless piece of paper’

just in case you didn't know, Dershowtiz is a life long Democrat who is on record as voting for Clinton in 2016 and Biden in 2020. he has ZERO political reasons to defend Trump.

Not all educated law professors agree with Alan Dershowitz.

Not all educated law professors agree with Alan Dershowitz. Originally Posted by EdBeaver

find one. and post it. btw Jamie Raskin who is a ranking Dem on the committee who is a lawyer who was instructed in Law school by Dershowitz and in another interview was singled out by Dershowtiz as "should know better".



as for Lizzie Gurl ..



"Look, I'm an anti-Trump Democrat," said Dershowitz. "I'm going to vote for his opponent in the next election, as I did twice before, but I put civil liberties in the Constitution before I put politics and partisanship, and Liz Cheney doesn't do that. She has switched allegiance, and she puts that before any constitutional right."

Alan was on team Trump and team Epstein. Originally Posted by WTF

no he wasn't. he was not on team epstein.



virginia giuffre withdrew her lawsuit claiming mistaken identity.

You're right. It is his opinion. If you read the link I provided, you'd see a key ingredient is congress "punishing" someone. That's not included by the committee.
Anyway,you don't have take my opinion.
What other legal experts have weighed in on this on Dershowitz's side?

PS What record is he on for voting for Clinton and Biden? No written record exists. Plus Dershowitz claimed lying to the FBI isn't a crime. The court system, along with most Constitutional experts disagreed.

hope you don't mind but i'll stick with the opinion of a educated law professor rather than a layman who thinks he can "quick read" an article on the topic and understand it in all it's complexity.


Alan Dershowitz dismisses Jan. 6 committee’s Trump referral: ‘Worthless piece of paper’

just in case you didn't know, Dershowtiz is a life long Democrat who is on record as voting for Clinton in 2016 and Biden in 2020. he has ZERO political reasons to defend Trump. Originally Posted by The_Waco_Kid

You're right. It is his expert legal opinion. If you read the link I provided, you'd see a key ingredient is congress "punishing" someone. That's not included by the committee.
Anyway,you don't have take my opinion.
What other legal experts have weighed in on this on Dershowitz's side?


so you admit the committee is trying to "punish" Trump



thank you valued poster


PS What record is he on for voting for Clinton and Biden? No written record exists. Plus Dershowitz claimed lying to the FBI isn't a crime. The court system, along with most Constitutional experts disagreed. Originally Posted by Tigbitties38

he said so. like me saying i voted for Trump. like you saying you didn't.



"Look, I'm an anti-Trump Democrat," said Dershowitz. "I'm going to vote for his opponent in the next election, as I did twice before, but I put civil liberties in the Constitution before I put politics and partisanship, and Liz Cheney doesn't do that. She has switched allegiance, and she puts that before any constitutional right."



is Dershowitz lying? why would he? prove he's lying.


show me other legal experts disputing what Dershowitz claims, that Congress has authority to charge anyone with a crime. i'll wait.