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.
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.
It's not unconstitutional. The only jurisdiction in DC is their district laws, and they have no law against it. Federal law doesn't have jurisdiction at that level. If they did, the states that have it specifically in their state constitutions wouldn't, because they would have been challenged in SCOTUS.
If you google "banishment' and "states", you'll find this to be true. Try this one:
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.
DC has no constitution and no statutes covering banishment, IIRC.
If that's still the case, where's the legal basis for the order?
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.
Thats the point, its clearly anti-1st amendment no law or judges ruling will change the fact its unconstitutional
It's not unconstitutional. The only jurisdiction in DC is their district laws, and they have no law against it. Federal law doesn't have jurisdiction at that level. If they did, the states that have it specifically in their state constitutions wouldn't, because they would have been challenged in SCOTUS.
If you google "banishment' and "states", you'll find this to be true. Try this one:
https://law.jrank.org/pages/4646/Banishment.html
It states the US Constitution does not forbid it, and it was challenged as recently as 2000, when they upheld it's use in specific circumstances.
If you want to argue it, go to SCOTUS. As of 2000, they disagree with you.