So was rural electrification to start with, but it still more than paid for itself. It has also never been easier to bury lines with horizontal boring machines.
Trump will pardon them of all federal crimes. If they are charged by the state, they will use jurisdiction removal and/or supremacy clause to squash it from jeopardy in the state court. Even in the unlikely event both of those fall through, it will take years to wind through that process, and by the time that happens the case will be so cold prosecution cannot follow through (see prosecution of Lon Horiuchi).
The only chance any of them see justice is if the US is invaded. Even in a Nazi/SS scenario, only about 0.03% of the SS were convicted and very few of those the rank and file are analogous to the ICE on the street.
If you mean extra-judicial punishment, then the chance of that is also zero. The bravest we have representing us is on the street, and even of those all they did was shout "murderer" then back off and let their friend bleed out when the police said they were not allowed to render aid. So basically it is safe to say of those of us speaking who were not on the street already, that we would do even less than that.
Best case scenario is the people vote "lets not do that again" and we actually don't. But in no case do the murderers actually find accountability.
> Trump will pardon them of all federal crimes. If they are charged by the state, they will use jurisdiction removal and/or supremacy clause to squash it from jeopardy in the state court.
Removal doesn't change the substantive law applied, only the venue of the trial. Supremacy Clause immunity will be litigated, of course.
> Even in the unlikely event both of those fall through, it will take years to wind through that process, and by the time that happens the case will be so cold prosecution cannot follow through (see prosecution of Lon Horiuchi).
The majority of the delay in the Horiuchi case was the 5 year gap between the events and state charges being filed. If state charges are filed in this case, I don’t see much likelihood there will be that kind of delay first.
The venue moving to a federal court, for a person federally considered pardoned of all federal jeopardy, seems like a problem.
IANAL but I don't see why a federal pardon wouldn't be binding on a federal court when the pardon is for the exact thing being considered (or possibly, a la Hunter Biden, pardoned of everything a federal criminal court could ever consider).
> The venue moving to a federal court, for a person federally considered pardoned of all federal jeopardy, seems like a problem.
Its not. A federal pardon Constitutionally can only affects federal offenses, not state offenses. That Congress has created a mechanism by which federal courts may try some state offenses does not convert them into federal offenses.
> IANAL but I don't see why a federal pardon wouldn't be binding on a federal court
Because the Constitution doesn't give the President the power to pardon anything but offenses against the federal government. It is the sovereign against which an offense is alleged, not the court in which it is tried, that matters.
Yes you and your sister comment are claiming it is only a venue change. A couple points
(1) Per my response to your sister comment[] the inapplicability of federal pardons to cases removed federal courts hasn't actually been decided by the courts. Some scholars seem you are right, although so far I've done the favors for both of you by pulling up the most readily available citation I could find since you furnished none of your own.
(2) Even if you are correct, you are merely moving my goal post of my OG comment claim, which was that there could be jurisdiction removal, to one where you are suggesting it doesn't matter and the goal post is now whether a pardon applies in the case of jurisdiction removal. I find this a doubtful position, as there is a reason why the feds are often desperate to get their cases pulled into federal court, it can't be for nothing.
> I find this a doubtful position, as there is a reason why the feds are often desperate to get their cases pulled into federal court, it can't be for nothing.
The reason is the perception that, in times of high state-federal friction (which is when most attempted state prosecutions of federal agents, and therefore both removal and Supremeacy Clause immunity cases occur) state judges are more likely act with bias against the federal government and federal agent defendants. It’s not because of the fedeal pardon power (which has never been an issue in such cases, as you yourself implicitly note) magically becomes applicable.
There's also an economy of justice concern, since it usually cuts out a couple levels of appeal on federal questions, (instead of trial court, state intermediate appellate court, state supreme court, federal circuit, and US supreme court, the chain is just trial court, federal circuit, US supreme court) and these type of cases always involve federal questions (every case where removal is an issue due to a federal officer being involved is also a case where the parameters of Supremacy Clause immunity are going to be an active issue, and there are possibly other federal issues involved.)
The president can only pardon crimes against the United States. Even if removed to federal court, state charges remain state charges and the judge & jury must follow state laws. Only the venue changes, with the intent being that the federal judge will potentially serve as a more neutral arbiter.
Hmm... this is far outside my domain but apparently there has been no litigation deciding on this yet[].
While no court has conclusively decided this issue, precedent and the structure of the Constitution dictate that answer is “no.” The availability of an immunity defense arising under federal law does not change which sovereign is prosecuting the offense. The president may not pardon such offenses even when they have been removed to federal court. This stands in sharp contrast to convictions under the Assimilative Crimes Act, 18 U.S.C. § 13, which allows federal courts to incorporate state criminal law to cover acts committed on federal land not otherwise covered by federal law (for example, a domestic assault that takes place on a military base), and which may be pardoned by the president. Those are federal offenses—“against the United States”—because the federal statute borrows the law of the state surrounding the federal enclave, and they are prosecuted by the Justice Department. The charging documents themselves arise under federal law for purposes of Article III.
Your and their argument is compelling, but so is the counter argument IMO. Seems like something that might be tested at some point. If you have any further citations where a court has decided on this would love to look over it.
I think the 'good reason' he had was that 7 months ago he was dragged by a car, used a taser twice, and got roughed up.
He probably spent awhile in the hospital pondering what happened. He probably spent time talking to his ICE buddies. About his injuries. About using the taser. About how much he wished he had used his sidearm instead of his taser. And his buddies encouraging him. His buddies encouraging him, "next time don't be so kind with the tazer." He thought about what he would do "next time."
He was fantasizing about "punishing" the guy who dragged him. He fantasized about that for months. He "lost" the last fight and walked away with more injuries than the other guy. Got to even the score.
He evened the score. He won. And he will get away with it.
There is no Karma. He is victorious, and indeed, now placed upon the mantle by the administration as a hero who settled a score against "domestic terrorism."
Can't they do that now? If I think my chosen primary guy is winning in a landslide I could just register for another party I don't like and vote for someone who I think is easier to beat.
You would still forfeit the ability to vote in your primary though. I do think there are people that do this, but most people want to vote in their primary regardless of whether it's a landslide.
Don't worry, some 'insurance' company totally not in cahoots with the authorities will pop up that will post bond for you in exchange for a non-refundable fee of their own. You might have to put up your car or something as collateral though.
Still about the same price as being smuggled in by a coyote. Maybe a slight premium. Only slight effect on illegal immigration. I see this as USA basically trying to get the same 'cut' the coyote does.
You get the money, at least allegedly, returned if it's legal.
----- re: below due to throttling ------
Yes I agree. I only noted what I felt about its effects on illegal immigration.
As for legal immigrants, note my other comment, I think an in-cahoots bond agency that will pop up, collect an annoying but much smaller fee, then let you put up your car or something as collateral.
The bulk of these people are going to not illegally immigrate. They don't need to be smuggled in but they are going to have to pony up a significant amount of money (more than most of them have). All this will do is put a serious dent into the legal immigration, the illegal ones will come anyway because they have a different risk/reward calculation.
And borrowing Donald Trump some money for a few weeks and expecting it back is something that I would not do.
Effectively what this will do is to stop people from those countries from traveling to the US entirely. Which is probably the real goal.
As to your edit:
People flying in from abroad won't have cars available as collateral, and most likely won't be allowed to fly before they put up the bond.
Sure, regardless of availability it is still going to be a massive increase in expenses effectively amounting to collective punishment. If 10% of your countrymen don't return after visiting the USA then the bonds providers are going to charge you at least 10% and probably substantially more.
The entire US immigration schema has always been based on collective punishment. USA requires visa from countries where people have been less likely to return. They have the most onerous scrutiny in places with the lowest compliance rates. If a foreign leader does something we don't like, we might punish their entire population by even banning any of them from easily coming.
I don't agree with the bond personally, nor the idea of collective punishment, I'll just note it follows a principle that is generally followed on the world stage with a few notable exceptions like Svalbard.
Oh no worries. Just speaking for myself that isn't going to happen. Things were bad enough between 2000 and 2007 when I was living on the US border, since then they've gotten so much worse that I wasn't planning on it, even if I'm not required to put up a five figure bond.
Maybe one day the USA will rejoin civilization but there are enough countries to choose from as it is. For me the main yardstick by which I measure how civilized a country is is by observing how the authorities treat people who have little or no power within the system.
Would make a lot of sense for banks just to shut off online/mobile access and switch to in person only. That seems to be the way things are moving with KYC/AML and ensuring there is a material presence of the person in the banking jurisdiction in which they operate. Knowing the password / keys and providing a video 'proof of life' is no longer sufficient to presume you're dealing with the person you think you are and not just sold 'darks'.
I've heard 3rd hand of some banks already doing this in i.e. Armenia where a foreigner can come in and open account easily but they block any online access to lock the control of funds in country to make it harder for the FATF psychopaths to find fodder to clamp down on them.
A single gun is useless yet when a deranged asshole used it against children it stopped ~200 cops for 77 minutes. What a wild world we live in.
Are police more incentivized to protect a nebulous state than literal children who live in their same town and who are under their charge? If so I hope we are figuring out how to fix that.
The big problem is, everyone is so very attached to their comforts in their daily lives that its a big cost for anyone to resort to violence.
This is why I am hoping that Trump will go through with fascist takeover of US, because at a certain point, the economy is going to tank, and then when people start actually hurting, then there will be way less on the line to lose.
reply