#Due Process

[liberalsarecool]

You unlit candle.

[theconcealedweapon]

Tell me again. Which side doesn't value the constitution?

[onlytiktoks]

[dandelionsresilience]

The phrase “due process” has been coming up a lot in the news lately, and it seems like way too many people somehow don’t know what it means

I’ve heard people say that only US citizens are entitled to due process. I’ve heard people say that you don’t deserve due process if you’ve broken the law. If you’re in the country illegally, if you’re a member of a gang, if you’ve committed a violent crime. The problem with putting any condition on due process is that

“due process” is just the process of finding stuff out.

Due process is finding out what your name is, your citizenship/legal status, your gang membership, your criminal history. Due process is finding out whether you’ve committed a crime, based on what evidence and defense is presented to a court. (I do believe due process also includes fair sentencing, ie after it’s determined that you have committed a crime, then there’s a process to determine what your punishment should be; but this rant is about the “finding out” part)

If we grant that any particular category of people isn’t entitled to due process in the US, how do we find out whether someone belongs to that category without first applying due process? without due process, police can just point at anyone they want and say “they’re a gang member, arrest them,” and then never check whether they are in fact a gang member.

due process is not some privilege reserved for respectable law-abiding US citizens. due process is how we find out who you are and what you’ve done, instead of just going by “trust me bro.” without due process, there’s nothing to stop you - the person reading this - from being deported on a whim without ever getting a chance to say “but I’m not a criminal”

[technofeudalism]

I'm driving five miles across the city to check out a tip that there's an ICE rendition ongoing. I've got the scanner on the car stereo as I'm about to pull onto the street in question. It’s a quiet neighborhood, small houses on small lots, people walking dogs, the mailman waving, the lawnmowers running, and I hear the dispatcher: "We have an ICE officer over there who's allegedly being surrounded." "On our way," the officer responds.  As a local reporter for a decade now, I've learned that you can hear the cops at their most honest on the scanner. And as I'm hearing that “surrounded” comment I remember what the city's police chief told the city council in January: "We do not do civil detention arrests," Police Chief Paul Saucier said at the time, reassuring them that they wouldn’t be party to the ICE assault Trump was about to unleash. The police, he said, "do not have the authority to affect a civil arrest."  What he didn't say is that if you try to stop the civil arrest, the police will stop you from stopping it.  This morning a few dozen of us here in Worcester Massachusetts got to see that unstated fine print in action firsthand. A woman was led by federal agents in cuffs away from her family, through a throng of community organizers trying to stop it, and into an unmarked car. The local police arrived to prevent the community from protecting their neighbor from an unlawful kidnapping. They succeeded, and in the process arrested two of the people who tried to stop it. I park my car on the edge of the scene and all I can hear are the screams—the deafening desperate screams, from a mother, from her daughter, from the woman holding the daughter's baby. Wordless screams. And then I see the mother, a young woman in a green shirt, wailing, crying, held on either side by menacing white men in tactical vests, black neck warmers pulled over their noses in the style du jour for our secret police forces. Surrounding them are a few dozen community members who were tipped off about the ICE raid and got to it before the police did. Before I arrived, they demanded to see a warrant. The ICE agents refused to provide one, so they created a human chain, which the ICE officers eventually broke through.

[ ... ]

Maydee, still confronting the officers, says "Where is the warrant?" Officer Lugo, according to his nameplate, says "Ma'am we are trying our best but they are federal." Morales again asks for the warrant. "They're federal." "They still need a warrant." Another officer, frustrated, says "They don't need a warrant." Finally, one of them tells the truth. Due process is not a matter they're concerned with. The deportation must proceed. Trying to stop it is the unlawful thing. At this point an ICE agent starts pushing me away, but not very hard. Lazy jabs, his mind elsewhere. Too many people, too much pushing to be done. I return to my pre-push position. I keep filming. I don't know what else to do.   A cop pulls his cruiser behind us—we're boxed in now—and from the intercom says "This is the Worcester Police Department. This is an unlawful assembly, I'm warning you to disperse right now or you will be subject to arrest." On the other side of me, a crackle of the scanner from an officer's vest-mounted radio: "Do I have a car to escort the marshals out of here?" They don't need a warrant but they do need an escort.

i am reposting this without the video because i feel like it needs a post on it's own. look at the images, read the article and then go here to see the videos which are heartbreaking and violent and almost made me sick. this is horrifying in every way imaginable. the community tried to stop this and the police (as expected) straight up stopped them from doing so. this is full blown fascism on your streets.

[rickmctumbleface]

[my-midlife-crisis]

"He hasn't violated any part of the constitution"

So I got this in one of those hit and run TUMBLR messages where the writer sends me a message, blocks me, and then runs away with it's tail between it's legs so I cannot reply.

I would normally post the person's name and the comment but I've grown soft in my old age. I think it's because the person is troubled and quite oblivious of the constitution.

But this gives me another chance to show what the constitution actually says and if i play my cards right maybe the poor person will come across it via another blog.

So, let's get this started, shall we?

He had a person arrested for speaking out against him. That violated Amendment 1.

He kicked a news source out of his news pit because they asked questions too tough for his staff. That also violated Amendment 1.

He gave a list of words that are forbidden to be used in scientific reports. Once again, a violation of Amendment 1.

He openly tried to pass a bill that will allow a group of people to hunt and handle people who are anti-Christian biased. Another violation of Amendment 1.

He has threatened to pull funding to any colleges that allow peaceful protests. That is another violation of Amendment 1.

Ok, what's next?

Let's revisit the man arrested at his own apartment because he spoke against Trump. Then we can discuss the woman that was arrested on the side of the street because she spoke out against Trump. The ICE officers shown no papers that gave them rights to arrest anybody legally. The officers have kicked down doors and arrested people for no real reason. This violates the fourth Amendment.

Let's talk about Due Process.

This is a little tricky but once you understand it... it's not hard to understand.

People have been arrested and sent out of this nation. These people received no trial. This also goes against the constitution.

It goes against the fifth amendment.

and the sixth amendment

and before you claim that they are not legal immigrants (which they were)

There is this part of the constitution...

So in other words, legal or illegal, while in this nation they SHALL RECIEVE DUE PROCESS

ALL OF THOSE PEOPLE WHO HAVE BEEN COLLECTED BY ICE DESERVE DUE PROCESS.

So, to those that claim Trump hasn't violated the constitution... You need to wake up. Because you are next.

Don't believe me??

Here is a video of Trump openly saying that if you have guns and you get into trouble your guns will be removed with out due process... WITH OUT TRIAL

Thanks for playing.

[michaelpaul7]

[nokingsnocrowns]

I.C.E. can kiss my ass

📷 Brooklyn, NY

[crows-are-gathering]

The ramifications of the Supreme Court’s order will be horrifying; it strips away critical due process protections that have been protecting our class members from torture and death,” said Trina Realmuto, executive director of the National Immigration Litigation Alliance, one of the groups that brought the legal challenge.

[kalessinsdaughter]

This is – or should be – the bottom line of any resistance to the ongoing crackdowns on the rights of foreigners in the US, whether they're pro-Palestinian protestors or Venezuelan migrants:

Absolutely everyone has an absolute right to due process.

This is the principle at stake.

Don't be tricked into arguing about whether the accusations against these people are right or wrong: that's a secondary issue, and if you turn this into an argument about innocence versus guilt, you're playing the game Trump wants.

His aim is to turn universal human and civil rights into a privilege for the deserving – and he and his cronies get to arbitrarily decide who counts among the deserving.

And that process starts with tricking you into agreeing that anything other than personhood is a qualifier for the enjoyment of those rights.

If you're not willing to accept a world where ony 'good' people have rights, and where 'bad' people don't deserve protection from oppression and persecution, you have to keep your eye on the ball.

[liberalsarecool]

'Republicans graduating from law schools' have invalidated the Constitution, due process, and habeas corpus all to not offend First Felon and his highly illegal and morally devoid policies.

This is human trafficking. Always a projection.

[onlytiktoks]

[victusinveritas]

Story from The Advocate here.

[saywhat-politics]

"We cannot give everyone a trial," says the president of these United States.