Are you able to look up a law, understand what it says, cite it, and then provide some reasonable interpretation of it?

[msc545]

I ask this because many people on here apparently think they know what the law is and go ahead and express that, providing their own self-serving interpretation of what it actually says. I am not a lawyer, nor do I pretend to be one. But I can look up a law. I can read the text. I can understand what is said. I can even cite it properly. At least as a layman, I can provide some reasonable interpretation of my own understanding of it. That may not be completely correct, but again, I am not a lawyer. When I really need a correct interpretation, I ask a lawyer. I don't say I know.

So let's see if you can do the same. It's pretty basic stuff:

1. Look up the law regarding Due Process in the United States.
2. Repeat the text of the Law itself.

3. Cite the law properly so somebody else can look it up.

4. Provide a reasonable interpretation of the law that is consistent with your understanding of it AND with the actual text of the law.

[loveslongnails]

Looking it up and citing it is the easy part; interpreting it is for the lawyers and the courts. That's where it gets messy.

I'm not a lawyer either, but here's an understandable example. Let's say for example, a law was written 250 years ago that says: "No person residing in the United States or any of its territories or possessions, shall be deported from its boundaries without due process as defined by law, to include a hearing before a magistrate, judge or jury, and and a judgement to be rendered per trial, within 72 hours of said person's arraignment".

Where's the first problem? You might say "the definition of residing", but is it? It's actually the definition of "person", and it just gets worse from there. This is probably what Shakespeare was referring to about 440 years ago when he said: "The first thing we do is kill all the lawyers".

[Chazmatazz269]

Absolutely. Any dumbsh*t can do that.
Every single precedence in the history of man’s law is merely an interpretation of existing legislation or the lack thereof. Any f*ckwit with an opinion on any legal matter can do exactly what judges do every single day.
Are you aware that MANY jurisdictions don’t even require that a person has ANY education, training or experience in law to perform as a judge? No joke. Look it up.
You should probably sit down for this next bit. Of the 114 SCOTUS judges in the history of the highest court in the land, less than half have had law degrees.
All you need to interpret the law in the US is a friend in a position of power to appoint you to the bench.
Take some time to let that unfortunate reality sink in. Then go ahead and tell us more about how little we know about the law. 😂😂😂

[msmissydc]

"No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation"

U. S. Const. amend. V. (1791). Fifth Amendment. constitution.congress.gov/.../

I leave the explanation to the U. S. citizens, even if some of them think, they are the only ones this amendment applies to.

[msmissydc]

I think you use the year of ratification not proposal although I am not 100% sure on this. This should be APA by the way others might look different.

[RandomGirl42]

I do know some laws, like it's illegal to give booze to a moose in Fairbanks, Alaska. Which is a good idea 'cuz they're mean drunks.

[exitseven]

@RandomGirl42 I knew some jack rabbits on Nantucket that once you got a few drinks in them were funny as hell

[RandomGirl42]

@exitseven 🤣🤣🤣

[exitseven]

Due Process as described in the fourth and fifteenth amendment is informing persons of the charges against them and affording them a chance to defend themselves against the charges. In the case of a suspected bank robber the state must prove that the bank robber did commit the crime which they are charged. The defendant has the opportunity to prove their innocence.

[msc545]

Who in the United States is entitled to due process?

[exitseven]

citizens.

[msc545]

Well, that's wrong on its face. It's not just citizens. It's every single person under the jurisdiction of the United States. I know you don't like that. You think it's wrong somehow. But it doesn't matter what you think. What matters is what the law is.

[exitseven]

When the constitution was written there was no concept of citizenship. Nowhere in the 5th amendment is a mention of citizenship. It was a non entity. Now all of a sudden it is an issue, It may be decided by the supreme court just like birthright citizenship will be challenged because when it was put into law it was for a different purpose than to do an end run aroundf our laws.

[msc545]

It doesn't matter whether citizenship was mentioned in the Fifth Amendment previously. You have been told multiple times here that due process is given to every single person under the jurisdiction of the United States. That includes illegal immigrants as well. I realize these are people that you seriously want to punish, but you can't punish them without due process, and no amount of twisting and turning and wishing and hoping is going to change that. That is the law.

[msc545]

Not a single person except you is arguing that you have to be a citizen to receive due process. That is something we give to everyone.

[Chazmatazz269]

@msc545, you went from admitting that you don’t know the law well enough to dictate it to others in your question to declaring with absolute certainty that you are right and someone who interprets the law differently is absolutely wrong. Take some time to reevaluate.

[msc545]

@Chazmatazz269 even I know that there is nothing in any of the mentions of due process in the Constitution that says anything about citizens. This is something that Exit made up because it's his wish that it would be only citizens so he can punish people who are not citizens. It's not going to happen.

[Agape93]

Yeap. There's a pedophile on here for example who keeps admitting to fucking a minor, but keeps calling it slander or defamation if anyone repeats what he said. He's a moron.

[slatyb]

Yes, I can do that. But the language is specialized and beyond most people's reading ability.

[msc545]

The language can be very difficult for some people, but I think that if one doesn't understand something, the best thing one can do is to perhaps copy the entire thing, put it into an AI, and ask the AI to simplify it. That may lead to some errors, admittedly, but at least you'll have probably have a better idea of what it means after the AI has had a chance to look at it. Conversely, you could look up most of it in a dictionary or encyclopedia again to gain an understanding of it, and that actually may be more accurate than the AI. In any event, just discarding something or ignoring it because you don't understand it can be really problematic, and it may deprive you of important knowledge that you could have otherwise had.

[DryGermanGuy]

In my language and with our lawbooks I can, although it is often tedious and boring.

[midnightmoon05]

Not at all… I hate reading especially reading about laws. Law school is not for me.
i just make sure I know what to do when if I do break a “law”

[msc545]

I've never met anybody that was willing to openly admit that they hate reading. I take it you hate school too?

[midnightmoon05]

Yes. I failed a few classes and not ashamed to admit to my teen kids. In fact kinda proud… I’m more successful because I didn’t like school.
You might have a good laugh if you know my profession

[msc545]

I don't know your profession. What is it?

[midnightmoon05]

School teacher

[msc545]

I see. What subject do you teach?

[midnightmoon05]

Primary school- k-5… so core classes…
Now in kindergarten… more like babysitting.

[msc545]

I guess you don't really need to be able to read to teach kids at that level. However, have you considered taking some remedial reading classes so you can learn to read yourself? I don't blame you for hating it if you can't do it, but if you could do it, I think a whole new world would open up for you.

[midnightmoon05]

Thank you for your suggestions 😊.
My little sister who I raised is an excellent reader and very smart… book smart… so there. I am living a much happier life through life experiences vs. reading.

Perhaps. One should say I am ignorant… I am glad I failed those classes and not brain washed by so call books.

[msc545]

Suite yourself. You are missing out on a tremendous amount of good stuff.

[midnightmoon05]

Good stuff? Enjoy. 👍
And peace.

[msc545]

It might almost be worth it if it brings you peace.

[Kingofkings1992]

I could, but why would I?

[NathanDavis]

Yes.