New York legislature passes bill to allow state prosecution of any NY Trump Federal level pardons.

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

ch33zw1z

Lifer
Nov 4, 2004
38,201
18,670
146
Thank you for a wonderful example of how diseased the Republican Party has become.

At this point you are reduced to saying:

1)‘you might be mad when your criminals can’t get away with it’ (lolwut)

2)’the constitution should make sure our criminals can get away with it!’

Seriously, what the fuck happened to you people. When did you go insane.

/thread
 

SlowSpyder

Lifer
Jan 12, 2005
17,305
1,001
126
Use loopholes to try them until you get the verdict you want. And you guys complain about Trump not respecting the constitution. Hilarious.
 

pmv

Lifer
May 30, 2008
13,636
8,522
136
He won't be the first President to pardon his cronies and pals. The whole concept of such pardons seems weird to me.

Though my suspicion is that, unlike certain previous Presidents, Trump won't pardon anyone out of friendship and misplaced loyalty, he'll only do it out of pure self-interest, for those who he thinks will be useful to him or who might somehow incriminate him if they are in trouble.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
85,634
50,860
136
Use loopholes to try them until you get the verdict you want. And you guys complain about Trump not respecting the constitution. Hilarious.

What about the constitution do you think is being disrespected here, specifically? SCOTUS has explicitly held that states and the federal government are both sovereign and therefore can try someone of a crime independently. Why are you mad about the constitution?

The good news here is that because as you know Trump and his associates are totally innocent of any crimes they will surely not be indicted or convicted. :)
 
  • Like
Reactions: nickqt

SlowSpyder

Lifer
Jan 12, 2005
17,305
1,001
126
What about the constitution do you think is being disrespected here, specifically? SCOTUS has explicitly held that states and the federal government are both sovereign and therefore can try someone of a crime independently. Why are you mad about the constitution?

The good news here is that because as you know Trump and his associates are totally innocent of any crimes they will surely not be indicted or convicted. :)


I'm sure this will be a big nothing, more circle jerk material of the day for the left, that's about it. I don't know, keep trying them till you get what you want... totally constitutional.
 

ch33zw1z

Lifer
Nov 4, 2004
38,201
18,670
146
I'm sure this will be a big nothing, more circle jerk material of the day for the left, that's about it. I don't know, keep trying them till you get what you want... totally constitutional.

If you don't think it's constitutional, explain why, like fski asked....
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
85,634
50,860
136
I'm sure this will be a big nothing, more circle jerk material of the day for the left, that's about it.

You seem very worried about a big nothing.

I don't know, keep trying them till you get what you want... totally constitutional.

Yes, the fact that states and the federal government are both sovereign is totally constitutional. Thank you for agreeing.

I thought conservatives were all about state’s rights? How odd. ;)
 
  • Like
Reactions: DarthKyrie

Hayabusa Rider

Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
Jan 26, 2000
50,879
4,266
126
Use loopholes to try them until you get the verdict you want. And you guys complain about Trump not respecting the constitution. Hilarious.

This isn't "loopholes", this is established in the Constitution with individual states having rights. Yes, state rights you Commie :D
 
  • Like
Reactions: DarthKyrie

SlowSpyder

Lifer
Jan 12, 2005
17,305
1,001
126
This isn't "loopholes", this is established in the Constitution with individual states having rights. Yes, state rights you Commie :D


You want states where they can try people until they get the verdict they want? You think that is what states' rights are about?
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
85,634
50,860
136
You want states where they can try people until they get the verdict they want? You think that is what states' rights are about?

He (and I) want states where the federal government doesn’t get to decide if they enforce their criminal laws or not. Do you think the federal president should decide if New York can try someone for murder?

Since Trump is totally innocent though you have nothing to worry about.

Lol.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DarthKyrie

Hayabusa Rider

Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
Jan 26, 2000
50,879
4,266
126
You want states where they can try people until they get the verdict they want? You think that is what states' rights are about?

You don't even know what this is about.

Let me explain how things are, not how you wish them to be. This is not about trying people over and over, this is about the differences between governmental divisions as outlined in the Constitution. If an act is committed in NY and it is a violation of federal law then that person can be prosecuted by say, the SDNY. But under the Constitution if the act is a crime UNDER STATE LAW AS WELL then that person can be tried in state court. THIS IS HOW IT IS ALREADY.

BUT

NY decided that IT, NOT ANY OTHER ENTITY, would not do what IT IS ENTITLED TO AND HAS BEEN. That was corrected and I'll go all caps again because this might work.

EVERY STATE HAS THE INHERENT RIGHT TO PROSECUTE ACTS THAT ARE CRIMINAL ACCORDING TO STATE LAW whether the Feds prosecute or not. This is the absolute right of a state and NY has decided to not limit it's LAWFUL CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS and opt to decide what to do without a blanket exception.

NO STATE CAN TRY FOR A VIOLATION IN ANOTHER and ONCE THE TRIAL IN THE STATE WHERE THAT VIOLATION IS ADJUDICATED THEY CANNOT BE TRIED AGAIN FOR THE SAME OFFENCE.

There is no "over and over until we get what we want", this is plugging the loophole THAT NY ITSELF CREATED.

You have no clue about the issue, the law, or the Constitution nor how it's been done in our system for ages.

Ignorance is your bliss, but it is ignorance.

Debate me on the law, I dare you.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DarthKyrie and pmv

HomerJS

Lifer
Feb 6, 2002
36,732
28,908
136
I'm sure this will be a big nothing, more circle jerk material of the day for the left, that's about it. I don't know, keep trying them till you get what you want... totally constitutional.
You and Trump have one more thing in common. Neither is familiar with the Constitution.

Congratulations. You two make a pretty pair.
 

zinfamous

No Lifer
Jul 12, 2006
111,136
30,085
146
Be careful what you guys get all happy about. This could also be used against a Democrat President's pardons. Unintended consequences. Not even sure if this is constitutional and is of course subject to being challenged in the courts.

lol at Mr Unintended Consequences here gleefully riding along as Trumptards dismantle the pillars of American democracy, claiming "this is all right."
 
  • Like
Reactions: DarthKyrie

hal2kilo

Lifer
Feb 24, 2009
24,222
10,877
136
Thank you for a wonderful example of how diseased the Republican Party has become.

At this point you are reduced to saying:

1)‘you might be mad when your criminals can’t get away with it’ (lolwut)

2)’the constitution should make sure our criminals can get away with it!’

Seriously, what the fuck happened to you people. When did you go insane.
It's the conservative projection of well of course I would pull that off, wouldn't you if you could? Come on, you know you would.
 

thilanliyan

Lifer
Jun 21, 2005
11,944
2,175
126
Be careful what you guys get all happy about. This could also be used against a Democrat President's pardons. Unintended consequences. Not even sure if this is constitutional and is of course subject to being challenged in the courts.
Who cares what party they are from?!! If they're criminals they should do the time!
 

hal2kilo

Lifer
Feb 24, 2009
24,222
10,877
136
He won't be the first President to pardon his cronies and pals. The whole concept of such pardons seems weird to me.

Though my suspicion is that, unlike certain previous Presidents, Trump won't pardon anyone out of friendship and misplaced loyalty, he'll only do it out of pure self-interest, for those who he thinks will be useful to him or who might somehow incriminate him if they are in trouble.
It's all transactional.
 

Hayabusa Rider

Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
Jan 26, 2000
50,879
4,266
126
Be careful what you guys get all happy about. This could also be used against a Democrat President's pardons. Unintended consequences. Not even sure if this is constitutional and is of course subject to being challenged in the courts.

As demonstrated this is Constitutional and has been. States can prosecute an act that is against their laws within their jurisdiction independently of Federal actions. That has been the case and there is no basis for a challenge since whatever state you reside in has had this power as well and all the rest.

Regarding "used against a Democrat Presidental pardon", I hope so. If there is a crime that has been pardoned but the underlying facts warrant it then please, do so.

The ability of states to have their own laws that do not conflict with federal ones or the Constitution is the absolute core principle of "state's rights". A real Conservative, the dead extinct ones would know of this and the basis for which it exists.
 
Mar 11, 2004
23,280
5,721
146
You don't even know what this is about.

Let me explain how things are, not how you wish them to be. This is not about trying people over and over, this is about the differences between governmental divisions as outlined in the Constitution. If an act is committed in NY and it is a violation of federal law then that person can be prosecuted by say, the SDNY. But under the Constitution if the act is a crime UNDER STATE LAW AS WELL then that person can be tried in state court. THIS IS HOW IT IS ALREADY.

BUT

NY decided that IT, NOT ANY OTHER ENTITY, would not do what IT IS ENTITLED TO AND HAS BEEN. That was corrected and I'll go all caps again because this might work.

EVERY STATE HAS THE INHERENT RIGHT TO PROSECUTE ACTS THAT ARE CRIMINAL ACCORDING TO STATE LAW whether the Feds prosecute or not. This is the absolute right of a state and NY has decided to not limit it's LAWFUL CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS and opt to decide what to do without a blanket exception.

NO STATE CAN TRY FOR A VIOLATION IN ANOTHER and ONCE THE TRIAL IN THE STATE WHERE THAT VIOLATION IS ADJUDICATED THEY CANNOT BE TRIED AGAIN FOR THE SAME OFFENCE.

There is no "over and over until we get what we want", this is plugging the loophole THAT NY ITSELF CREATED.

You have no clue about the issue, the law, or the Constitution nor how it's been done in our system for ages.

Ignorance is your bliss, but it is ignorance.

Debate me on the law, I dare you.

You guys are getting played. He knows exactly the situation, he's just making you waste time responding to every stupid argument that he just keeps making over and over and over and over. You can respond to his idiocy without responding to him.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DarthKyrie

DarthKyrie

Golden Member
Jul 11, 2016
1,545
1,305
146
You guys are getting played. He knows exactly the situation, he's just making you waste time responding to every stupid argument that he just keeps making over and over and over and over. You can respond to his idiocy without responding to him.

I've given up trying to reach them. I crack jokes about the stupid shit they believe instead.
 

Jhhnn

IN MEMORIAM
Nov 11, 1999
62,365
14,681
136
NY is unusual in that they had such a double jeopardy statute in the first place. Tim McVeigh's sidekick, Terry Nichols, was prosecuted by Oklahoma even after receiving concurrent life sentences in federal court because they wanted him executed like McVeigh. It didn't work out that way for lack of trying, however. It's not like conservatives rushed to his defense at the time, either.

It's a function of the dual sovereignty principle-

https://criminal.findlaw.com/criminal-rights/charged-twice-in-different-states.html

The only reason Trumpsters are twisted about it is because... Trump, of course. Their Supreme Leader is above the Law. He *is* the Law in their estimation.
 

DarthKyrie

Golden Member
Jul 11, 2016
1,545
1,305
146
NY is unusual in that they had such a double jeopardy statute in the first place. Tim McVeigh's sidekick, Terry Nichols, was prosecuted by Oklahoma even after receiving concurrent life sentences in federal court because they wanted him executed like McVeigh. It didn't work out that way for lack of trying, however. It's not like conservatives rushed to his defense at the time, either.

It's a function of the dual sovereignty principle-

https://criminal.findlaw.com/criminal-rights/charged-twice-in-different-states.html

The only reason Trumpsters are twisted about it is because... Trump, of course. Their Supreme Leader is above the Law.

Don't go confusing them with talking about Dual Sovereignty to them it's same as the 10th Amendment and they are confused on how that actually works.