I could really use a miracle of help... To keep it as brief as possible for the sake of a comment; in PA, I feel I'm being completely set up, arrested, pfa charge (that was so lopsided in my favor but still ruled against me), next have a trial coming and they're going to try and throw me in prison for years. It's because my ex and her daughter are victims of a sex and child trafficking organization and I was trying to help them get out. I have tons of evidence that proves I haven't lied about a thing and have proved their words and claims to be false. I can't afford a lawyer. This is soooo not right in every way. I don't get in trouble ever, have tons of evidence in my favor and against their claims, and they're still just trampling over me like I'm garbage. 🙏
What chaps me is when the Supreme Court makes a clear ruling and as a few years pass lower courts chisel on the ruling with each case changing one little thing - I was involved in a case where the supreme courts ruling was very clear - however the lower appellate courts started modifying the original ruling so much the lawyers were afraid that our side would get penalized with attorneys fees if we went forward... so what good is president if a lower court can change the holding of the supreme court...
But, neither precedent nor judicial opinions are "law," are they? And, if anyone claims they are, where in our organic, foundational, supreme laws is that power enumerated to the judiciary? Serious question. I can't find it anywhere I've looked. Same for exclusions from constitutional authority for "compelling governmental," or "public safety," interests or even, "national security," etc. If anyone has references, I'm all ears.
No, precedent is not law. It is a foundation by which the court bases its opinion and subsequently, its ruling. It's only a foundation, not an absolute. This is what separates statutory law apart from common law.
Buck v. Bell, 274 U.S. 200 (1927), is a decision of the United States Supreme Court, written by Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr., in which the Court ruled that a state statute permitting compulsory sterilization of the unfit, including the intellectually disabled, "for the protection and health of the state" did not violate the Due Process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. The Supreme Court has never expressly overturned Buck v. Bell.
The only standard of review of constitutionally secured rights/liberties is Strict. Shall not be infringed/abridged means the government has no lawful authority to diminish, condense, reduce, lessen, etc. (it's a very long list) the scope of any of our rights in any way.
RKBA. asking your opinion, did you feel like I did, 3 Lawyers trying to one up the McDonald CASE. The case is simple thay went back to Original wording, ( Right of the people to keep and Bear ARMS shall not be INFRINGED............ No STATE, No CITY, No COUNTY can INFRINGE on those right all Mc Donald case was about a SECURITY Guard wanting to take his GUN home, he could carry gun at work place, could not have gun at home, GANGS had control of area around his home. The GANGS with all types of ILLEGAL firearms basically had become Judge, Jury, and EXACUTIONER all he was asking for, is being able to protect himself in his HOME and Property, Right to keep ARMS at home and no Government shall infringe
@@rkba4923 your right If I used that term my bad. Chicago was preventing anyone from having firearms anywhere Even your private Property the second Amendment, so well, writing Then you bring in the 4th Amendment Right of people to be SECURE in their HOUSES, unreasonable search and seizure, the Court have ruled again and again that a man ( persons) home is his Castle. Hense, the Castle doctrine Was born. Right's to stand your ground, on your OWN property. Let me ask you are you for more Government restrictions on you rights to Arms, or less just asking your opinion. Want to know where you stand on Second Amendment rights. Thank you You seem very knowledgeable in your writing.
@@rp1645 I think what arms I keep and bear as I go about pursuing Life, Liberty and Happiness, and how I bear them, is outside the lawful Subject Matter Jurisdiction of any level of government in the Republic. "Shall not be infringed" is a supreme Law injunction against any government officer in the Republic. Hope that clarifies my position for you.
We're not talking about "our government" when people talk about "our government". "Our government" was hijacked by terrorists until the American people decided to wake up but it's too late. Nobody can reverse it now. Trump is just buying time. America is DEAD MEAT. Why? Because she decided partying and decadence was more important than making sure the dummies above were doing their freaking jobs which we now know they WEREN'T EITHER.
I want my name off of my ghosting mean childrens birth certificates. Never been done. Anyone brave enough to help estranged parents out? EXCELLENT ESTRANGED Parent here!...I DID NOT DESERVE THIS..... I REFUSE TO REMAIN A VICTIM.
ALL ATTORNEYS SHOULD BE STRIPPED OF THEIR NOBILITY TITLE AND THE GUILTY ONES HUNG NAKED IN PUBLIC FOR ALL TO SEE STARTING AT THE TOP ALL THE WAY DOWN TO THE SCUMBAG 'ESQUIRE" ACROSS THE STREET!!! ATTORNEYS RIPPED OFF THE AMERICAN PEOPLE AND OUR CHILDREN OF OUR NATION!!!
No. Precedent is a decision that these days one moron makes against your rights then more morons think it's the right decision that was made and they keep on that corrupt path.
I'm not any kind of legal scholar, just a small exposure to the system, but isn't there a concept called "on all fours," which makes the matter of precedent a bit easier to untangle?
Interesting comments in regards to the McDonald v Chicago case, I wonder how their comments would change in light of NYSRPA v Bruen that is clearly precedent setting.
Critique: Too much of it is, unfortunately, lawyer-speak. Short Interpretation: Judges invoke precedents as in "it was previously ruled" and the current case is "reaffirmed" due to details being similar enough. Precedence (previous ruling) is generally followed unless some detail can be pointed out to make an exception or exemption and a new ruling made (new precedence). Precedence can be overturned (invalidated) if information comes to light that such-and-such ruling was base on faulty or missing information (false premise, false evidence, or misunderstanding of the law for example). Precedence need not be invoked, but rather a habit of judges and lawyers to help support their position in a case.
Why is someone that is not allowed to have weapons (criminal/mental health issues) but are allowed to vote for or even hold government positions that employ lethal force? (Police/military)
One reason you have to continually litigate the same thing over and over is because of the individual case or controversy involved in fresh cases. Lower courts can’t (Okay, shouldn’t) make an advisory opinion/holding. The courts have to let it come to them that each issue can be processed on the merits or at least be evaluated in terms of clearly established law from the Supreme Court. Sometimes judges see it coming and in some cases they would hold a case until a case that has been accepted by the Supreme Court is resolved by that Court. If it’s something that has a strong procedural aspect, for example Saucier v Katz or Pearson v Callahan the courts seem to fall in line with the new procedures. You can see this by checking the filing dates. After Saucier, both prongs of the Saucier Test, After Pearson, not always both prongs...
5:58 Second Amendment Analysis: This is one of the more complicated topics, as it straddles the border between Constitutional Right and a felony. Carrying an unlicensed concealed weapon is a felony, which is at odds with Right to Bear Arms. The gun falls under the category of contraband (illegal, unless licensed) but enjoys Constitutional Right level status (second only to Right to Free Speech). It helped win the War of Independence for the colonists and lawmakers of the United States of America, fighting off a tyrannical king in England. But It is a contraband and why it has Constitutional Right level status. It has very strict regulations because it's a deadly weapon. You need a permit/license from the police, then a background check when you go to purchase the weapon. While it's possible to say all that is unconstitutional (point of contention), in practice it's still a deadly weapon. In a civilized culture, it's not all that useful. A deadly toy for adults who haven't grown up or a deadly tool for criminals. Even in the hands of law enforcement, it can lead to homicide by police and criminal charges pressed against the officer. Which is why even with Constitutional Right level status, its restrictions are enforced rather than restrictions removed.
It's not their speech. What you're hearing that bothers you has to do with the mic used. There is a reason people spend hundreds of dollars on microphones.
iTunes: podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/deep-dive-with-the-institute-for-justice/id1480726134
Spotify: open.spotify.com/show/35xKoi0948xMAEW45Wzga7
Google: www.google.com/podcasts?feed=aHR0cHM6Ly9pai5vcmcvZmVlZC9kZWVwLWRpdmUv
Sticher: www.stitcher.com/podcast/institute-for-justice-2/deep-dive-with-the-institute-for-justice?refid=stpr
I could really use a miracle of help... To keep it as brief as possible for the sake of a comment; in PA, I feel I'm being completely set up, arrested, pfa charge (that was so lopsided in my favor but still ruled against me), next have a trial coming and they're going to try and throw me in prison for years. It's because my ex and her daughter are victims of a sex and child trafficking organization and I was trying to help them get out. I have tons of evidence that proves I haven't lied about a thing and have proved their words and claims to be false. I can't afford a lawyer. This is soooo not right in every way. I don't get in trouble ever, have tons of evidence in my favor and against their claims, and they're still just trampling over me like I'm garbage. 🙏
Precedent is so easy to explain. Trump is the precedent and Biden wants to be the next precedent
Wow someone watched soul man
It's sad that it seems most people actually don't understand precedent.
16:37 I expect you to honor your Oath of fidelity to the COTUS and disagree with the wrong precedent, judge.
Contempt
LAW----- .LAND-AIR-WATER . Were is the BAR
What chaps me is when the Supreme Court makes a clear ruling and as a few years pass lower courts chisel on the ruling with each case changing one little thing - I was involved in a case where the supreme courts ruling was very clear - however the lower appellate courts started modifying the original ruling so much the lawyers were afraid that our side would get penalized with attorneys fees if we went forward... so what good is president if a lower court can change the holding of the supreme court...
Is that legislation from the judge or the bench; modifying the rules at will despite a Federal Order? re precedents.
But, neither precedent nor judicial opinions are "law," are they? And, if anyone claims they are, where in our organic, foundational, supreme laws is that power enumerated to the judiciary? Serious question. I can't find it anywhere I've looked. Same for exclusions from constitutional authority for "compelling governmental," or "public safety," interests or even, "national security," etc. If anyone has references, I'm all ears.
Precedent is not law perse but anti American traitors are using it as a means to our end and acting like it is.
No, precedent is not law. It is a foundation by which the court bases its opinion and subsequently, its ruling. It's only a foundation, not an absolute.
This is what separates statutory law apart from common law.
Buck v. Bell, 274 U.S. 200 (1927), is a decision of the United States Supreme Court, written by Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr., in which the Court ruled that a state statute permitting compulsory sterilization of the unfit, including the intellectually disabled, "for the protection and health of the state" did not violate the Due Process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. The Supreme Court has never expressly overturned Buck v. Bell.
That's some third reich stuff there buddy! D:
Duly noted! Yet I am the paranoid one in my set! Wow! 😊 Thanks
The only standard of review of constitutionally secured rights/liberties is Strict. Shall not be infringed/abridged means the government has no lawful authority to diminish, condense, reduce, lessen, etc. (it's a very long list) the scope of any of our rights in any way.
RKBA.
asking your opinion, did you feel like I did, 3 Lawyers trying to one up the McDonald CASE. The case is simple thay went back to Original wording, ( Right of the people to keep and Bear ARMS
shall not be INFRINGED............
No STATE, No CITY, No COUNTY
can INFRINGE on those right
all Mc Donald case was about a SECURITY Guard wanting to take his GUN home, he could carry gun at work place, could not have gun at home, GANGS had control of area around his home. The GANGS with all types of ILLEGAL firearms basically had become Judge, Jury, and EXACUTIONER
all he was asking for, is being able to protect himself in his HOME and Property,
Right to keep ARMS at home
and no Government shall infringe
@@rp1645 I haven't been able to locate the phrase, "in the home" in the 2nd Amendment.
@@rkba4923 your right
If I used that term my bad.
Chicago was preventing anyone from having firearms anywhere
Even your private Property the second Amendment, so well, writing
Then you bring in the
4th Amendment
Right of people to be SECURE in their HOUSES, unreasonable search and seizure, the Court have ruled again and again that a man ( persons) home is his Castle. Hense, the Castle doctrine
Was born. Right's to stand your ground, on your OWN property.
Let me ask you are you for more Government restrictions on you rights to Arms, or less just asking your opinion. Want to know where you stand on Second Amendment rights. Thank you
You seem very knowledgeable
in your writing.
@@rp1645 I think what arms I keep and bear as I go about pursuing Life, Liberty and Happiness, and how I bear them, is outside the lawful Subject Matter Jurisdiction of any level of government in the Republic. "Shall not be infringed" is a supreme Law injunction against any government officer in the Republic. Hope that clarifies my position for you.
We're not talking about "our government" when people talk about "our government". "Our government" was hijacked by terrorists until the American people decided to wake up but it's too late. Nobody can reverse it now. Trump is just buying time. America is DEAD MEAT. Why? Because she decided partying and decadence was more important than making sure the dummies above were doing their freaking jobs which we now know they WEREN'T EITHER.
I want my name off of my ghosting mean childrens birth certificates. Never been done. Anyone brave enough to help estranged parents out? EXCELLENT ESTRANGED Parent here!...I DID NOT DESERVE THIS..... I REFUSE TO REMAIN A VICTIM.
ALL ATTORNEYS SHOULD BE STRIPPED OF THEIR NOBILITY TITLE AND THE GUILTY ONES HUNG NAKED IN PUBLIC FOR ALL TO SEE STARTING AT THE TOP ALL THE WAY DOWN TO THE SCUMBAG 'ESQUIRE" ACROSS THE STREET!!! ATTORNEYS RIPPED OFF THE AMERICAN PEOPLE AND OUR CHILDREN OF OUR NATION!!!
So precedent sounds like it is another name for dictum, or writ of mandamus. An opinion from a higher Court to a lower court.
Is that right??
No. Precedent is a decision that these days one moron makes against your rights then more morons think it's the right decision that was made and they keep on that corrupt path.
Great speakers and host, fantastic content
America is GONE. Law is MOOT. Game OVER.
It's so sad to see with my own sad eyes!
@@inksosadstonewell4831 Church of the Lord Jesus Christ in Splendora Texas is our only hope. There's no where else clean with true love.
I'm not any kind of legal scholar, just a small exposure to the system, but isn't there a concept called "on all fours," which makes the matter of precedent a bit easier to untangle?
Interesting comments in regards to the McDonald v Chicago case, I wonder how their comments would change in light of NYSRPA v Bruen that is clearly precedent setting.
Critique: Too much of it is, unfortunately, lawyer-speak. Short Interpretation: Judges invoke precedents as in "it was previously ruled" and the current case is "reaffirmed" due to details being similar enough. Precedence (previous ruling) is generally followed unless some detail can be pointed out to make an exception or exemption and a new ruling made (new precedence). Precedence can be overturned (invalidated) if information comes to light that such-and-such ruling was base on faulty or missing information (false premise, false evidence, or misunderstanding of the law for example). Precedence need not be invoked, but rather a habit of judges and lawyers to help support their position in a case.
Any law of major importance needs to be voted on by WE THE PEOPLE not by a person or group of people that is ellegal.
Hmmm we force 12 years of school citizens, the citizens should know a few of the basic laws like murder.
Back in America that was the case but no more. They train Antifa in public school now days.
@@SailingSarah and the Proud Boys, Patriot Prayer, Michigan (etc) Militia(s), Boogaloo Bois...
How are government buildings allowed to unarm us??? Thats against 2nd amendment?
Why is someone that is not allowed to have weapons (criminal/mental health issues) but are allowed to vote for or even hold government positions that employ lethal force? (Police/military)
What if it’s the court doing the wrong thing?? Lol
Stop the abuse of citizens who are being treated with electronic weapons and being tortured
Thanks for this forum.
One reason you have to continually litigate the same thing over and over is because of the individual case or controversy involved in fresh cases. Lower courts can’t (Okay, shouldn’t) make an advisory opinion/holding. The courts have to let it come to them that each issue can be processed on the merits or at least be evaluated in terms of clearly established law from the Supreme Court. Sometimes judges see it coming and in some cases they would hold a case until a case that has been accepted by the Supreme Court is resolved by that Court.
If it’s something that has a strong procedural aspect, for example Saucier v Katz or Pearson v Callahan the courts seem to fall in line with the new procedures. You can see this by checking the filing dates. After Saucier, both prongs of the Saucier Test, After Pearson, not always both prongs...
Thanks. What did I learn? I need more input.
Are you guys on podcasting 2.0 apps?
only a lawyer would not understand "how" civil rights apply to the states.
That's because rights are supposed to be enforced first and foremost but the communists are winning and rights are being IGNORED.
RALEIGH NC 💜
Dwamn she fine
5:58 Second Amendment Analysis: This is one of the more complicated topics, as it straddles the border between Constitutional Right and a felony. Carrying an unlicensed concealed weapon is a felony, which is at odds with Right to Bear Arms. The gun falls under the category of contraband (illegal, unless licensed) but enjoys Constitutional Right level status (second only to Right to Free Speech). It helped win the War of Independence for the colonists and lawmakers of the United States of America, fighting off a tyrannical king in England. But It is a contraband and why it has Constitutional Right level status. It has very strict regulations because it's a deadly weapon. You need a permit/license from the police, then a background check when you go to purchase the weapon. While it's possible to say all that is unconstitutional (point of contention), in practice it's still a deadly weapon. In a civilized culture, it's not all that useful. A deadly toy for adults who haven't grown up or a deadly tool for criminals. Even in the hands of law enforcement, it can lead to homicide by police and criminal charges pressed against the officer. Which is why even with Constitutional Right level status, its restrictions are enforced rather than restrictions removed.
18:57 gestalt
Thank you for your vocabulary choices :-0)
woman ure beautiful like whoa..and speak straight top English...fluent and confident..I hope that had something to do with the topic though..
Shall not infringe fed boi
A cop yells, "Stop resisting!" as they grab you.
Worse, he's undercover so you think he's impersonating
Trey Gowdy
#FREEBLINDJUSTICE.
Could you please send the presenter to a speech therapist.
It's not their speech. What you're hearing that bothers you has to do with the mic used. There is a reason people spend hundreds of dollars on microphones.