May 2nd 05, 03:43 PM
|
|
|
From:
(For many of the same reasons Bush's Patriot Act is unconstitutional:
you don't have the right to a fair trial or to contest all evidence; the
accused is not afforded the right to be "presumed innocent until proven
guilty"
because guilt is presumed (or, in the words of the FCC, "liability" is
"apparent"); and guilt is determined by the accuser which is a conflict
of interest. )
It's not much different than getting a speeding
ticket.
Correct. Both are NON-criminal matters,
You are presumed guilty by virtue of the
citation, and have to go to court to prove
innocence, if you are so inclined. Nothing
unusual about that.
You have it backwards. There is no "virtue" of being presumed guilty and
never was. The court must prove your guilt, not the other way around.
When you walk into court, you say nothing initially, as it is up to the
other party to prove your guilt. Your entire concept of the justice
system is wrong.
The idea that every law has to have "legal
history" is ludicrous. At some point in history a
precedent has to be set based on little more
than circumstances.
The "precedent" becomes the history and the laws were derived from the
colonist's home land except those deemed to infringe upon the new
concept of freedom they were employing.
(According the the Supreme Court, that's not
"due process of law". )
Not in the sense of a criminal court.
The matters you peak of are non-criminal in nature and in law.
But then again, neither would the handling of
summary offenses such as littering or
speeding.
And freebanding and dxing also would NOT be handled by a criminal court.
|