That would mean it's INTRA-State & not INTER_State, usually precluding federal involvement. Like "Interstate flight to avoid prosecution" is a federal crime where simply running from the police is not a federal crime if state borders are not crossed.
Yes it would be a problem but I doubt we could get Congress to involve the FBI if no state borders are crossed.
I would favor that but I don't think any State would pass such a law to guarantee federal rights??...but maybe I'm wrong. (as I said, I'm not an attty or AUSA)
There is always a danger but there is also a danger if we do nothing. (Look at what's going on now)
So anyone arrested by the locals for disturbing the peace has had the First Amendment rights violated by the police?
Tell you what....Make that argument to the judge & see where it gets you.
....(SLAM!!)
Also very likely.
Well, from your explanation of things, a federal law would only prevent the actions you wish it to if the persons committing those actions crossed state lines. Thus, a state law would not be guaranteeing federal laws so much as extending them to the more local level...
Well, I view the danger presented by doing something to be far more serious than the "danger" (which I do not view as a danger at all) of doing nothing. And no, I haven't looked closely (or much at all) at what is going on now.
Of course other determinants would be required.
Ah. I sense an another entire topic potential here. Thanks for the clarification.
Such could be argued, and in many cases is (I would think).
Tell you what....Make that argument to the judge & see where it gets you.
Due to the hour & my condition (Flu) I will only respond to a few of your points in this post.
As far as your above statement is concerned, anything at all can be argued in court. The rub is what argument the judge or jury will "Buy". If you argued your thoughts (about disturbing the peace requiring violence on the part of a defendant........I think you would be laughed right out of court & directly into the slammer!
(Example: you & I have had a verbal fight so I park my car outside your bedroom window at 2:00am & lean on the horn for an hour straight. The police come & tell me to stop but I say...."Since I haven't committed any acts of violence, you can't arrest me for disturbing the peace.)
Any criminal legal proceedings will ultimately end up in court to decide the "facts.", unless of course a plea deal is entered into.
The court trial, with judge or Magistrate, is the whole ball of wax....Everything else is just preliminary window dressing & jockeying for position by both the defendant & prosecution.
A defendant can argue anything he wants.....I'm innocent because I was wearing shined shoes!....The judge/jury will decide which side they believe.
I do understand what you are saying but don't think any state legislature will pass state laws against federal violations. (it may even violate the "Double Jeopardy" provisions of the 5th amendment. Again, I'm not a lawyer so I ould well be wrong here????
Valid point...but I still am not giving up on the idea that a very carefully drawn & implemented law could protect our rights while not damaging them. This legislation would be right on the edge & require careful watchfulness, but may still be better than doing nothing.
They say a picture is worth a 1000 words. look at this picture of protesters. On the right, protesters with home made signs. On the left sheeple's with signs made by a pro Obama care organization. Who are the grass roots concerned Americans and who are the Orchestrated (fake) lockstep socialist Obamacrats?
Orchestrated by healthcareforamericanow.org
All of these pictures came from a demonstration in Denver. Notice the difference?
Quite possibly. I don't know.
