• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

DOJ Wants to Suspend Certain Constitutional Rights During Coronavirus Emergency

TU Curmudgeon

TU Curmudgeon

B.A. (Sarc), LLb. (Lex Sarcasus), PhD (Sarc.)
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 7, 2018
Messages
62,513
Reaction score
19,312
Location
Lower Mainland of BC
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
From Rolling Stone

DOJ Wants to Suspend Certain Constitutional Rights During Coronavirus Emergency
​

The Trump Department of Justice has asked Congress to craft legislation allowing chief judges to indefinitely hold people without trial and suspend other constitutionally-protected rights during coronavirus and other emergencies, according to a report by Politico’s Betsy Woodruff Swan.

While the asks from the Department of Justice will likely not come to fruition with a Democratically-controlled House of Representatives, they demonstrate how much this White House has a frightening disregard for rights enumerated in the Constitution.

The DOJ has requested Congress allow any chief judge of a district court to pause court proceedings “whenever the district court is fully or partially closed by virtue of any natural disaster, civil disobedience, or other emergency situation,” according to draft language obtained by Politico. This would be applicable to “any statutes or rules of procedure otherwise affecting pre-arrest, post-arrest, pre-trial, trial, and post-trial procedures in criminal and juvenile proceedings and all civil processes and proceedings.” They justify this by saying currently judges can pause judicial proceedings in an emergency but that new legislation would allow them to apply it “in a consistent manner.”

But the Constitution grants citizens habeas corpus which gives arrestees the right to appear in front of a judge and ask to be released before trial. Enacting legislation like the DOJ wants would essentially suspend habeas corpus indefinitely until the emergency ended. Further, DOJ asked Congress to suspend the statute of limitations on criminal investigations and civil proceedings during the emergency until a year after it ended.

COMMENT:-

Of course, everything that you read in "Rolling Stone" is a complete lie - right?

PS - If that legislation were to be passed, then the courts could not overturn it because the courts would be closed.
​
 
TU Curmudgeon said:
From Rolling Stone

DOJ Wants to Suspend Certain Constitutional Rights During Coronavirus Emergency
​

The Trump Department of Justice has asked Congress to craft legislation allowing chief judges to indefinitely hold people without trial and suspend other constitutionally-protected rights during coronavirus and other emergencies, according to a report by Politico’s Betsy Woodruff Swan.

While the asks from the Department of Justice will likely not come to fruition with a Democratically-controlled House of Representatives, they demonstrate how much this White House has a frightening disregard for rights enumerated in the Constitution.

The DOJ has requested Congress allow any chief judge of a district court to pause court proceedings “whenever the district court is fully or partially closed by virtue of any natural disaster, civil disobedience, or other emergency situation,” according to draft language obtained by Politico. This would be applicable to “any statutes or rules of procedure otherwise affecting pre-arrest, post-arrest, pre-trial, trial, and post-trial procedures in criminal and juvenile proceedings and all civil processes and proceedings.” They justify this by saying currently judges can pause judicial proceedings in an emergency but that new legislation would allow them to apply it “in a consistent manner.”

But the Constitution grants citizens habeas corpus which gives arrestees the right to appear in front of a judge and ask to be released before trial. Enacting legislation like the DOJ wants would essentially suspend habeas corpus indefinitely until the emergency ended. Further, DOJ asked Congress to suspend the statute of limitations on criminal investigations and civil proceedings during the emergency until a year after it ended.

COMMENT:-

Of course, everything that you read in "Rolling Stone" is a complete lie - right?

PS - If that legislation were to be passed, then the courts could not overturn it because the courts would be closed.
​
Click to expand...

Wouldn't that mean that trumps statute of limitiations wouldn't run out as soon?
 
Do we want the courts to release murderers and rapists onto the streets?

What good would that do?
 
TU Curmudgeon said:
From Rolling Stone

DOJ Wants to Suspend Certain Constitutional Rights During Coronavirus Emergency
​

The Trump Department of Justice has asked Congress to craft legislation allowing chief judges to indefinitely hold people without trial and suspend other constitutionally-protected rights during coronavirus and other emergencies, according to a report by Politico’s Betsy Woodruff Swan.

While the asks from the Department of Justice will likely not come to fruition with a Democratically-controlled House of Representatives, they demonstrate how much this White House has a frightening disregard for rights enumerated in the Constitution.

The DOJ has requested Congress allow any chief judge of a district court to pause court proceedings “whenever the district court is fully or partially closed by virtue of any natural disaster, civil disobedience, or other emergency situation,” according to draft language obtained by Politico. This would be applicable to “any statutes or rules of procedure otherwise affecting pre-arrest, post-arrest, pre-trial, trial, and post-trial procedures in criminal and juvenile proceedings and all civil processes and proceedings.” They justify this by saying currently judges can pause judicial proceedings in an emergency but that new legislation would allow them to apply it “in a consistent manner.”

But the Constitution grants citizens habeas corpus which gives arrestees the right to appear in front of a judge and ask to be released before trial. Enacting legislation like the DOJ wants would essentially suspend habeas corpus indefinitely until the emergency ended. Further, DOJ asked Congress to suspend the statute of limitations on criminal investigations and civil proceedings during the emergency until a year after it ended.

COMMENT:-

Of course, everything that you read in "Rolling Stone" is a complete lie - right?

PS - If that legislation were to be passed, then the courts could not overturn it because the courts would be closed.
​
Click to expand...

While this is a terrible idea that should be opposed vigorously, for many different reasons . . .

True to form, you've still managed to slip into ridiculous hyperbole and just plain falsehood about it.

If this passes in its current form, which it will not, it would NOT close the courts.

That is such a ridiculous misreading of what even you posted to describe it, I can't help but think it's intentional. If not intentional, it's profoundly incompetent.
 
Harshaw said:
While this is a terrible idea that should be opposed vigorously, for many different reasons . . .

True to form, you've still managed to slip into ridiculous hyperbole and just plain falsehood about it.

If this passes in its current form, which it will not, it would NOT close the courts.

That is such a ridiculous misreading of what even you posted to describe it, I can't help but think it's intentional. If not intentional, it's profoundly incompetent.
Click to expand...

"...the people who were put in the camps then were Communists. Who cared about them? We knew it, it was printed in the newspapers. Who raised their voice, maybe the Confessing Church? We thought: Communists, those opponents of religion, those enemies of Christians—"should I be my brother's keeper?"

Then they got rid of the sick, the so-called incurables. I remember a conversation I had with a person who claimed to be a Christian. He said: Perhaps it's right, these incurably sick people just cost the state money, they are just a burden to themselves and to others. Isn't it best for all concerned if they are taken out of the middle [of society]? Only then did the church as such take note.

Then we started talking, until our voices were again silenced in public. Can we say, we aren't guilty/responsible?

The persecution of the Jews, the way we treated the occupied countries, or the things in Greece, in Poland, in Czechoslovakia or in Holland, that were written in the newspapers. … I believe, we Confessing-Church-Christians have every reason to say: mea culpa, mea culpa! We can talk ourselves out of it with the excuse that it would have cost me my head if I had spoken out.

We preferred to keep silent. We are certainly not without guilt/fault, and I ask myself again and again, what would have happened, if in the year 1933 or 1934—there must have been a possibility—14,000 Protestant pastors and all Protestant communities in Germany had defended the truth until their deaths? If we had said back then, it is not right when Hermann Göring simply puts 100,000 Communists in the concentration camps, in order to let them die. I can imagine that perhaps 30,000 to 40,000 Protestant Christians would have had their heads cut off, but I can also imagine that we would have rescued 30–40,000 million [sic] people, because that is what it is costing us now."
-Pastor Martin Niemöller (6 January 1946)

"First they came for the Communists
And I did not speak out
Because I was not a Communist

Then they came for the Socialists
And I did not speak out
Because I was not a Socialist

Then they came for the trade unionists
And I did not speak out
Because I was not a trade unionist

Then they came for the Jews
And I did not speak out
Because I was not a Jew

Then they came for me
And there was no one left
To speak out for me"
- Holocaust Memorial Day Trust

"Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty"
-(invented quote often attributed to) Thomas Jefferson

"The condition upon which God hath given liberty to man is eternal vigilance."
- John Philpot Curran (Dublin, 1790)
 
TU Curmudgeon said:
"...the people who were put in the camps then were Communists. Who cared about them? We knew it, it was printed in the newspapers. Who raised their voice, maybe the Confessing Church? We thought: Communists, those opponents of religion, those enemies of Christians—"should I be my brother's keeper?"

Then they got rid of the sick, the so-called incurables. I remember a conversation I had with a person who claimed to be a Christian. He said: Perhaps it's right, these incurably sick people just cost the state money, they are just a burden to themselves and to others. Isn't it best for all concerned if they are taken out of the middle [of society]? Only then did the church as such take note.

Then we started talking, until our voices were again silenced in public. Can we say, we aren't guilty/responsible?

The persecution of the Jews, the way we treated the occupied countries, or the things in Greece, in Poland, in Czechoslovakia or in Holland, that were written in the newspapers. … I believe, we Confessing-Church-Christians have every reason to say: mea culpa, mea culpa! We can talk ourselves out of it with the excuse that it would have cost me my head if I had spoken out.

We preferred to keep silent. We are certainly not without guilt/fault, and I ask myself again and again, what would have happened, if in the year 1933 or 1934—there must have been a possibility—14,000 Protestant pastors and all Protestant communities in Germany had defended the truth until their deaths? If we had said back then, it is not right when Hermann Göring simply puts 100,000 Communists in the concentration camps, in order to let them die. I can imagine that perhaps 30,000 to 40,000 Protestant Christians would have had their heads cut off, but I can also imagine that we would have rescued 30–40,000 million [sic] people, because that is what it is costing us now."
-Pastor Martin Niemöller (6 January 1946)

"First they came for the Communists
And I did not speak out
Because I was not a Communist

Then they came for the Socialists
And I did not speak out
Because I was not a Socialist

Then they came for the trade unionists
And I did not speak out
Because I was not a trade unionist

Then they came for the Jews
And I did not speak out
Because I was not a Jew

Then they came for me
And there was no one left
To speak out for me"
- Holocaust Memorial Day Trust

"Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty"
-(invented quote often attributed to) Thomas Jefferson

"The condition upon which God hath given liberty to man is eternal vigilance."
- John Philpot Curran (Dublin, 1790)
Click to expand...

1) None of this has anything to do with what I said.

2) It pretends I didn't say what I very explicitly did:

Harshaw said:
While this is a terrible idea that should be opposed vigorously, for many different reasons . . .
Click to expand...

But you know that already. You're just that virulently, continuously, compulsively dishonest.
 
swing_voter said:
Do we want the courts to release murderers and rapists onto the streets?

What good would that do?
Click to expand...

In line with your position regarding the "presumption of innocence" and since NO ONE is arguing that anyone who has already been convicted of either murder or rape (or any other crime for that matter) be released, why do you oppose the release of people who are **I*N*N*O*C*E*N*T**?
 
Moonglow said:
Give the rich competition.
Click to expand...

If "The Rich" want competition let them buy their own. Taking everyone else's tax money to buy "The Rich" some competition is **S*O*C*I*A*L*I*S*T**.:2razz:
 
The answer is "hell no!"
 
Congress has already suspended the 4th Amendment and Habeas Corpus, years ago. What more do they want?
 
TU Curmudgeon said:
From Rolling Stone

DOJ Wants to Suspend Certain Constitutional Rights During Coronavirus Emergency
​

The Trump Department of Justice has asked Congress to craft legislation allowing chief judges to indefinitely hold people without trial and suspend other constitutionally-protected rights during coronavirus and other emergencies, according to a report by Politico’s Betsy Woodruff Swan.

While the asks from the Department of Justice will likely not come to fruition with a Democratically-controlled House of Representatives, they demonstrate how much this White House has a frightening disregard for rights enumerated in the Constitution.

The DOJ has requested Congress allow any chief judge of a district court to pause court proceedings “whenever the district court is fully or partially closed by virtue of any natural disaster, civil disobedience, or other emergency situation,” according to draft language obtained by Politico. This would be applicable to “any statutes or rules of procedure otherwise affecting pre-arrest, post-arrest, pre-trial, trial, and post-trial procedures in criminal and juvenile proceedings and all civil processes and proceedings.” They justify this by saying currently judges can pause judicial proceedings in an emergency but that new legislation would allow them to apply it “in a consistent manner.”

But the Constitution grants citizens habeas corpus which gives arrestees the right to appear in front of a judge and ask to be released before trial. Enacting legislation like the DOJ wants would essentially suspend habeas corpus indefinitely until the emergency ended. Further, DOJ asked Congress to suspend the statute of limitations on criminal investigations and civil proceedings during the emergency until a year after it ended.

COMMENT:-

Of course, everything that you read in "Rolling Stone" is a complete lie - right?

PS - If that legislation were to be passed, then the courts could not overturn it because the courts would be closed.
​
Click to expand...

Looks to me like you are far too late.

You said:

"currently judges can pause judicial proceedings in an emergency"

But this is currently the law.

The martial law concept in the United States is closely tied with the right of habeas corpus, which is, in essence, the right to a hearing on lawful imprisonment, or more broadly, the supervision of law enforcement by the judiciary. The ability to suspend habeas corpus is related to the imposition of martial law.[1] Article 1, Section 9 of the US Constitution states, "The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it." There have been many instances of the use of the military within the borders of the United States, such as during the Whiskey Rebellion and in the South during the Civil Rights Movement, but these acts are not tantamount to a declaration of martial law. The distinction must be made as clear as that between martial law and military justice: deployment of troops does not necessarily mean that the civil courts cannot function, and that is one of the keys, as the Supreme Court noted, to martial law.

In United States law, martial law is limited by several court decisions that were handed down between the American Civil War and World War II. In 1878, Congress passed the Posse Comitatus Act, which forbids U.S. military involvement in domestic law enforcement without congressional approval.

Throughout United States history are several examples of the imposition of martial law, aside from that during the Civil War.
Click to expand...

Martial law in the United States - Wikipedia
 
Robertinfremont said:
Looks to me like you are far too late.

You said:

"currently judges can pause judicial proceedings in an emergency"

But this is currently the law.



Martial law in the United States - Wikipedia
Click to expand...

That is the case IF "Martial Law" has been declared - this does not apply.

It is also the case if "The Executive Branch" tells a specific case can not be proceeded with due to "National Security Reasons" (and there is no obligation on the Executive Branch to detail what the "National Security Reasons" are) - this also does not apply.

What Mr. Trump wanted was to be able to jail anyone for any reason and without having to tell anyone why they had jailed that person or running any chance that the courts would order the person released because they were being jailed without "due cause".
 
TU Curmudgeon said:
That is the case IF "Martial Law" has been declared - this does not apply.

It is also the case if "The Executive Branch" tells a specific case can not be proceeded with due to "National Security Reasons" (and there is no obligation on the Executive Branch to detail what the "National Security Reasons" are) - this also does not apply.

What Mr. Trump wanted was to be able to jail anyone for any reason and without having to tell anyone why they had jailed that person or running any chance that the courts would order the person released because they were being jailed without "due cause".
Click to expand...

Not without martial law sir.
 
Robertinfremont said:
Thanks for the laugh. I am serious, that is prime comedy.
Click to expand...

You should laugh your way back in history to the Iran-Contra affair and discover Barr's role in that fiasco. That would require informing yourself, so it probably won't happen.
 
Robertinfremont said:
Not without martial law sir.
Click to expand...

Indeed, but that is the situation that Mr. Trump WANTED to change by having Congress pass legislation that would enable the jailing of anyone for any reason and without having to tell anyone why they had jailed that person or running any chance that the courts would order the person released because they were being jailed without "due cause".

It is still possible to frustrate the habeus corpus laws by forbidding a court to hear such an application "on National Security grounds" BUT it doesn't look so good if you do that and it looks like what you are actually doing is conducting an "unlawful detention". If you manage to get a law passed that allows you to jail anyone for any reason and without having to tell anyone why they had jailed that person or running any chance that the courts would order the person released because they were being jailed without "due cause" then the detention is no longer an "unlawful detention" and the habeus corpus laws simply do not apply so you don't have to justify why the person is being jailed to anyone.
 
TU Curmudgeon said:
Indeed, but that is the situation that Mr. Trump WANTED to change by having Congress pass legislation that would enable the jailing of anyone for any reason and without having to tell anyone why they had jailed that person or running any chance that the courts would order the person released because they were being jailed without "due cause".

It is still possible to frustrate the habeus corpus laws by forbidding a court to hear such an application "on National Security grounds" BUT it doesn't look so good if you do that and it looks like what you are actually doing is conducting an "unlawful detention". If you manage to get a law passed that allows you to jail anyone for any reason and without having to tell anyone why they had jailed that person or running any chance that the courts would order the person released because they were being jailed without "due cause" then the detention is no longer an "unlawful detention" and the habeus corpus laws simply do not apply so you don't have to justify why the person is being jailed to anyone.
Click to expand...

What you describe in your first paragraph is the situation today in this country. It has been that way for quite a few years, before Trump took office.

Since Bush and Obama, Habeas Corpus has been suspended. Congress and POTUS sign off on that every year with every NDAA bill. If the Executive asserts that Joe Blow is a terrorist suspect, he can be held indefinitely. Any judicial review does not come into play.
 
swing_voter said:
Do we want the courts to release murderers and rapists onto the streets?

What good would that do?
Click to expand...

Sooo...according to the wisdom in your statement, our choices based on AG Barr's idea of 'Murica are either to either
dispense with our constitutionally protected rights, or be over run by murders and rapists? What are you smokin?
 
Harshaw said:
While this is a terrible idea that should be opposed vigorously, for many different reasons . . .

True to form, you've still managed to slip into ridiculous hyperbole and just plain falsehood about it.

If this passes in its current form, which it will not, it would NOT close the courts.

That is such a ridiculous misreading of what even you posted to describe it, I can't help but think it's intentional. If not intentional, it's profoundly incompetent.
Click to expand...

Editorial comments aside, let's simply focus on the overt anti-American attack on our Constitutionally guaranteed rights proposed by Barr.
As pointed out by Moonglow, Barr's photograph will in the future be printed next to that of another Republican Traitor, John Mitchell who acted as President Richard Nixon's enforcer and liar in chief.
 
Thoreau72 said:
What you describe in your first paragraph is the situation today in this country. It has been that way for quite a few years, before Trump took office.

Since Bush and Obama, Habeas Corpus has been suspended. Congress and POTUS sign off on that every year with every NDAA bill. If the Executive asserts that Joe Blow is a terrorist suspect, he can be held indefinitely. Any judicial review does not come into play.
Click to expand...

After reading

Update (12/19): Congress yesterday scrapped an amendment to the NDAA which would have explicitly barred U.S. citizens detained in the U.S. from being held indefinitely, as we detail below. Instead, Congress settled on language stating that nothing in the 2001 Authorization for the Use of Military Force or in last year’s NDAA can be construed to deny habeas corpus or Constitutional rights to anyone in the U.S. That new provision doesn’t appear to do much, as the Supreme Court has already determined that all people have the right to challenge their detention in court. And it doesn’t explicitly address the issue of who can be detained in the U.S. without trial.
(emphasis added)
[SOURCE]
​

I have to conclude that your post is rather lacking in contact with reality.

PS - POGO (Convair XFY) was a "neat concept" that just didn't work out in practice.
 
TU Curmudgeon said:
From Rolling Stone

DOJ Wants to Suspend Certain Constitutional Rights During Coronavirus Emergency
​

The Trump Department of Justice has asked Congress to craft legislation allowing chief judges to indefinitely hold people without trial and suspend other constitutionally-protected rights during coronavirus and other emergencies, according to a report by Politico’s Betsy Woodruff Swan.

While the asks from the Department of Justice will likely not come to fruition with a Democratically-controlled House of Representatives, they demonstrate how much this White House has a frightening disregard for rights enumerated in the Constitution.

The DOJ has requested Congress allow any chief judge of a district court to pause court proceedings “whenever the district court is fully or partially closed by virtue of any natural disaster, civil disobedience, or other emergency situation,” according to draft language obtained by Politico. This would be applicable to “any statutes or rules of procedure otherwise affecting pre-arrest, post-arrest, pre-trial, trial, and post-trial procedures in criminal and juvenile proceedings and all civil processes and proceedings.” They justify this by saying currently judges can pause judicial proceedings in an emergency but that new legislation would allow them to apply it “in a consistent manner.”

But the Constitution grants citizens habeas corpus which gives arrestees the right to appear in front of a judge and ask to be released before trial. Enacting legislation like the DOJ wants would essentially suspend habeas corpus indefinitely until the emergency ended. Further, DOJ asked Congress to suspend the statute of limitations on criminal investigations and civil proceedings during the emergency until a year after it ended.

COMMENT:-

Of course, everything that you read in "Rolling Stone" is a complete lie - right?

PS - If that legislation were to be passed, then the courts could not overturn it because the courts would be closed.
​
Click to expand...

Carlin was right. These are not Constitutional Rights, part of the highest law of the land. They are temporary privileges that can be set aside by fiat.
 
dcaraz said:
Editorial comments aside, let's simply focus on the overt anti-American attack on our Constitutionally guaranteed rights proposed by Barr.
As pointed out by Moonglow, Barr's photograph will in the future be printed next to that of another Republican Traitor, John Mitchell who acted as President Richard Nixon's enforcer and liar in chief.
Click to expand...

Apparently you, too, need to have the first thing I said put in large bold:

Harshaw said:
While this is a terrible idea that should be opposed vigorously, for many different reasons . . .
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom