From: (Frank=A0Gilliland)
On Tue, 26 Apr 2005 22:20:28 -0400, "BobC" wrote
in :
(How about Constitutional Law? )

How about it? Although it has fallen by the

wayside during the Bush administration, there

is nothing I suggested that would deprive

anyone of their Constitutional rights. I'm not a

court and I don't execute due process. But if I

have good reason to believe that someone is

violating a law then I don't keep my mouth

shut because of some whacko's ultra-literal

interpretation of the Constitution. Due process

is not pre-empted by a presumption of

innocence -- OTOH, due process must be

initiated before it can occur, and reasonable

suspicion is enough to begin that process.

That's the law. If you don't like it, work to

change it. If you don't then quit whining and

learn to live with the system the way it is.

Fwiw, Due Process (according to the Supreme Court) is a difficult thing
to define. It has been said DP is merely the law of the land. The Fifth
and Fourteenth Amendments refer only to federal agency protection with
regards to DP. DP is basically how and why laws are enforced, and
questions "Is the law fair?" as in "does a law presume guilt?" The end
result is the law (as it applies to all persons) must be clear and
concise and it absolutely MUST have a presumption of innocence to comply
with Due Process.