US government officials punish whistleblowers (this man released tapes of their coercion) ever since POTUS Nixon tried to crush Dr. Daniel Ellsberg concerning Ellsberg's constitutional right to redress grievances against the government.
US government officials punish whistleblowers (this man released tapes of their coercion) ever since POTUS Nixon tried to crush Dr. Daniel Ellsberg concerning Ellsberg's constitutional right to redress grievances against the government.
SCOTUS ruled in favor of the press, but Nixon's cretins still went after Ellsberg, with the judge insisting--for the first time in the history of the US--that motive is irrelevant.
Motive is irrelevant????
A judge tells one of the top experts in the world what the preferences of the public are, and this judge tells Ellsberg about decision-theory.
* Ellsberg's Paradox is famous among PhDs in Economics. It concerns decision-making under uncertainty (risk is when you know the probabilities, uncertainty is when you don't).
Ben Franklin warned if you give up some of your essential liberties to buy more safety, you deserve neither liberty or safety.
Motive is always relevant and material.
There are no exceptions under the constitution.
However, motive is irrelevant under case law, and judicial review replaces constitutional due process with case law, so that the US legal system resembles the Starred Chamber of England up to the 1640s, when it was removed in England.
Some of the colonies in the US didn't remove their Starred Chambers in the 1640s, and it appears a couple of 'states' didn't remove their Starred Chambers after the US and State Constitutions were ratified.
Specifically, the three states that are commonwealths, but were colonies at the time of the Revolution (VA, MA, PA), insist that being a commonwealth implies they can proceed with laws and legal proceedings that existed when colonies, unless a statute is passed that forbids.
Therefore, in those three states the provisions of their constitutions are applicable in their legal systems only if the provisions existed during the colonial days. Only a judge, or appellate judges, can decide what is constitutional, so that the public has no power at all.
My friend first told me about that Commonwealth states (those that were British colonies) were evil without an explanation. I still don't understand this "Starred Chamber of England". Does this have anything to do with common law practices, judicial precedents vs. legislated laws? Sounds a little like SC Justice Ketanji saying she decides cases based on what lawyers present in the case rather than precedents or laws- seems like that's why she has a hard time deciding who is a woman until she hears a case that sways her opinion.
Maybe Trump will tell those federal agents FAFO.
Then this man will be released very quickly.
US government officials punish whistleblowers (this man released tapes of their coercion) ever since POTUS Nixon tried to crush Dr. Daniel Ellsberg concerning Ellsberg's constitutional right to redress grievances against the government.
SCOTUS ruled in favor of the press, but Nixon's cretins still went after Ellsberg, with the judge insisting--for the first time in the history of the US--that motive is irrelevant.
Motive is irrelevant????
A judge tells one of the top experts in the world what the preferences of the public are, and this judge tells Ellsberg about decision-theory.
* Ellsberg's Paradox is famous among PhDs in Economics. It concerns decision-making under uncertainty (risk is when you know the probabilities, uncertainty is when you don't).
Ben Franklin warned if you give up some of your essential liberties to buy more safety, you deserve neither liberty or safety.
Motive is always relevant and material.
There are no exceptions under the constitution.
However, motive is irrelevant under case law, and judicial review replaces constitutional due process with case law, so that the US legal system resembles the Starred Chamber of England up to the 1640s, when it was removed in England.
Some of the colonies in the US didn't remove their Starred Chambers in the 1640s, and it appears a couple of 'states' didn't remove their Starred Chambers after the US and State Constitutions were ratified.
Specifically, the three states that are commonwealths, but were colonies at the time of the Revolution (VA, MA, PA), insist that being a commonwealth implies they can proceed with laws and legal proceedings that existed when colonies, unless a statute is passed that forbids.
Therefore, in those three states the provisions of their constitutions are applicable in their legal systems only if the provisions existed during the colonial days. Only a judge, or appellate judges, can decide what is constitutional, so that the public has no power at all.
My friend first told me about that Commonwealth states (those that were British colonies) were evil without an explanation. I still don't understand this "Starred Chamber of England". Does this have anything to do with common law practices, judicial precedents vs. legislated laws? Sounds a little like SC Justice Ketanji saying she decides cases based on what lawyers present in the case rather than precedents or laws- seems like that's why she has a hard time deciding who is a woman until she hears a case that sways her opinion.