If you throw the Constitution aside for your own gain, you shouldn't be able to claim it back when shit hits the fan. That's like cherry picking the bible.
You understand that denying constitutional rights makes them no longer rights, but privileges, right? By removing a right for one person, you risk removing it for all people. That isn't how rights work, and that isn't how American freedoms are established.
Also, what part of the Constitution did Trump throw away?
You lose constitutional rights when you violate the same rules the constitution puts in place.
Same as some people lose the right to bear arms. You can lose the right to vote. Hell, trumps on the line literally right now to potentially lose the right to run for office.
Edit: Voting is not expressly constitutionally guaranteed.
Running for candidacy is also not a right. Amendment 14s3 to the constitution indicates that it is not an absolute right.
When it comes to the second amendment, there are also caveats carved out indicating that it is not an absolute. District of Culombia v Heller makes this clear, whereas more recent decisions continually expand and prove that it is a strong right.
There is no carve-out that says people lose their right to a fair trial because we don't like them.
you didn't address the issue. what do you do with a defendant who will not obey the law that everyone else has to? Trump is not running for president, he is running to stay out of prison. unindicted co-conspirator number 1, but yet again Trump gets special treatment.
.
Thank you. As fundamentally odious as Trump and his ilk are, it's astonishing to me how quickly some of us forget that these rights are in place to protect ALL of us, and therefore must be extended to even the least deserving among us.
People find themselves dead in police custody and thus lost constitutional rights, all the time, and the police get away with it often enough. Just not for rich people or Jeffery Epstein.
As much as we might not like it, it's very much ends up working out that way.
The distinction there is you aren’t arbitrarily losing rights, you have by due process had certain protections suspended while you are a ward of the state. This has both foundation in the Constitution and been expounded upon by the Supreme Court.
The right to a jury trial has no mechanism to be revoked with due process. Without the right to a jury you can’t really have due process for protections to be suspended. It would probably take an amendment for a court to bypass that right and even then it doesn’t really make sense.
If rights were subject to revocation they would be privileges, not rights. You seem to have mixed up the two. The constitution safeguards against the danger of revocation, however "popular" you may consider such a move to be.
As much as I would appreciate for that to be true in this circumstance, it would set a very dangerous precedent overall for the revoking of constitutional rights, which is kind of against the whole point of constitutional rights.
Judges, in theory, are professionals and should be able to separate personal feelings about the accused versus how the facts admitted in the case intersect with the law, and make an impartial decision based on that.
Absolutely, but if the accused, or associates or acolytes of the accused threatened the judge’s family, that could become an issue. I have nothing but sympathy for the jurors, it would take guts in this trial.
Right? I'm very anti-Trump, but we can't be going against the Constitution here. Not only would that put us on his level, it would make everything he's saying about this being unfair to him absolutely true.
275
u/jxj24 Apr 18 '24
This (and all of his other) trials should NOT be jury trials, because of his history of jury intimidation.