Armed Polite Society
Main Forums => Politics => Topic started by: AZRedhawk44 on April 08, 2020, 10:08:36 AM
-
In Wickard v Filburn, when Filburn won in District Court, how was the government permitted to appeal the decision in the first place?
Isn't that a violation of the Fifth Amendment "double jeopardy" clause?
What stops government from repeat-appealing any decision they don't like, all the way to SCOTUS, like was done with Filburn?
-
Double jeopardy applies to criminal cases. Filburn was apparently not a criminal case.
-
Double jeopardy applies to criminal cases. Filburn was apparently not a criminal case.
If it wasn't criminal, how can government have standing for a civil case?
Can government sue anyone in civil court?
If Filburn wasn't breaking the law, and wasn't breaking a contract, what grounds was there for a fine or a constraint on his wheat production? Was he breaking a law, or a regulation? How can a regulation be exempt from double jeopardy?
-
So evidently Filburn sued Wickard (the Ag Sec) and won.
I still question the legitimacy of any government branch being able to appeal a lower court decision until they get the decision they want, or reach SCOTUS. Seems if gov gets slapped down, the court system should freeze the issue. Gov court resources are effectively infinite. Much as Filburn and Miller demonstrate, govt appeal ad infinitum results in pro-government decisions. It's tyranny via prosecution.
Which begs the question.... Miller also won at a lower court level, and that was a criminal prosecution. What's the justification for government getting to appeal that?
-
Miller was a criminal case, but he was never tried in a lower court. He sued to have his indictment cancelled. That's what the lower court granted, and that's what went to the Supreme Court. Double jeopardy doesn't say you can't be re-indicted -- it says you can't be tried twice for the same crime.
-
Seems to me the interpretation of the 5th is flawed. The intent is clearly to stop government from abusing the courts in order to bully people. Any time gov gets slapped by the court, gov has to stop.
It's splitting hairs to interpret "crime" as separate from regulation violation or indictment.
-
Seems to me the interpretation of the 5th is flawed. The intent is clearly to stop government from abusing the courts in order to bully people. Any time gov gets slapped by the court, gov has to stop.
It's splitting hairs to interpret "crime" as separate from regulation violation or indictment.
You are assuming the US Justice Department believes it needs to abide by the constitution and valid laws. It has been recently exposed that it does not. Their multiple voilation and actions have been deemed to be merely accidents and just mistakes.
-
You are assuming the US Justice Department believes it needs to abide by the constitution and valid laws. It has been recently exposed that it does not. Their multiple voilation and actions have been deemed to be merely accidents and just mistakes.
We're sorry you caught us doing that and we promise to not do that (let you catch us) again.
-
Interpretation of the Fifth is flawed? Only the Fifth?
MMMBWAH-ha-ha-haaaa!
"...a number of the States having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its [the Federal government's] powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added
That, appearing in the Preamble to the Bill Of Rights, was likewise conveniently ignored.
The bigget flaw in our government's structure is the restrictive way our legal / Court system works.