150
()
posted ago by warezit ago by warezit +150 / -0
Comments (19)
sorted by:
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
13
BrockCage 13 points ago +13 / -0

1st amendment violation by banning his right to peacefully assemble

1
FireannDireach 1 point ago +3 / -2

Sorry, no.

DC has no law or rule on the books that forbids banishment, and they banished an anti-abortion protestor several years ago. States have used banishment for pedos and druggies all the time, if their state constitution allows it. A lot don't.

And don't start about Federal, banishment Federally only covers being banished from the country, they don't have jurisdiction over states. (It's unconstitutional to banish someone from the country if they're a US citizen.)

You want it to be a 1st amendment case, but it's not. I'm not saying that like a smug liberal, it's just how it works. Want to change it, move to DC and get elected to office that can help change it, or vote out those who won't change it.

2
MrsNesbitt 2 points ago +2 / -0

DC has no constitution and no statutes covering banishment, IIRC.

If that's still the case, where's the legal basis for the order?

-2
FireannDireach -2 points ago +1 / -3

There's no law or rules stopping a judge from doing it.

A judge in his/her court is basically an emperor. If there's no rules forbidding it, they're free to do as they wish, and the local authorities have to uphold it. If the DC judge says he's banished, then he can be arrested on sight before the deadline of the order.

6
BrockCage 6 points ago +6 / -0

Thats the point, its clearly anti-1st amendment no law or judges ruling will change the fact its unconstitutional