Tweet
I found this: http://tinyurl.com/9oooa2s quite interesting.
The basic situation is that the National Defense Authorization Act included provisions which would allow the indefinite detention of US citizens for conduct protected under the 1st Amendment.
Several caveats:
1. Obviously this is not precedential, but it might be influential right now - and since it was almost immediately appealed and may very well be fast-tracked it could become more influential and maybe eventually precedential for us.
2. This is not a RKBA case and I fully understand that.
But I found the judge's discussion of standing to be interesting and the interaction with the 5th Amendment at least somewhat interesting and am wondering if some of the ruling might be useful in a case such as Haynie/Richards?
I'm not sufficiently legally sophisticated to know if this is beneficial and if it is clearly not relevant to 2A cases I would ask that this thread be deleted rather than moved.
Yes, it is interesting from a 1A standpoint and obviously goes to the Obama administration's respect for the Constitution, but I think that any discussion in a political thread would be insufferably boring and the conclusion is obvious anyway (or at least would be assumed to be so by each side).
Edit: I dunno if anyone is actually looking at this, but if not, this particular quote from the summary of the ruling looked particularly interesting to me:
Note that the judge effectively says that if attorneys and judges have trouble figuring out what a statute means and what could be felonious behavior, then how is an individual going to know what is legal? So in this case the plaintiffs have not even been arrested and got standing and the judge said that the individual is going to have trouble figuring out the law - and it is arguably thus unconstitutionally vague?
Maybe I'm wrong, but that seems to this non-lawyer to be at least a part of the ruling - and it sure sounds to me like it should be interesting for Haynie/Richards.
But I'm no lawyer so I could be way wrong.
The basic situation is that the National Defense Authorization Act included provisions which would allow the indefinite detention of US citizens for conduct protected under the 1st Amendment.
Several caveats:
1. Obviously this is not precedential, but it might be influential right now - and since it was almost immediately appealed and may very well be fast-tracked it could become more influential and maybe eventually precedential for us.
2. This is not a RKBA case and I fully understand that.
But I found the judge's discussion of standing to be interesting and the interaction with the 5th Amendment at least somewhat interesting and am wondering if some of the ruling might be useful in a case such as Haynie/Richards?
I'm not sufficiently legally sophisticated to know if this is beneficial and if it is clearly not relevant to 2A cases I would ask that this thread be deleted rather than moved.
Yes, it is interesting from a 1A standpoint and obviously goes to the Obama administration's respect for the Constitution, but I think that any discussion in a political thread would be insufferably boring and the conclusion is obvious anyway (or at least would be assumed to be so by each side).
Edit: I dunno if anyone is actually looking at this, but if not, this particular quote from the summary of the ruling looked particularly interesting to me:
A key question throughout these proceedings has been, however, precisely what the statute means--what and whose activities it is meant to cover. That is no small question bandied about amongst lawyers and a judge steeped in arcane questions of constitutional law; it is a question of defining an individual’s core liberties. The due process rights guaranteed by the Fifth Amendment require that an individual understand what conduct might subject him or her to criminal or civil penalties.
Maybe I'm wrong, but that seems to this non-lawyer to be at least a part of the ruling - and it sure sounds to me like it should be interesting for Haynie/Richards.
But I'm no lawyer so I could be way wrong.
