Should Constitutional principles of legal rights apply only in courts of law??

[com7fy8]

In TLK's thread >

Oregon Rep. Mike Nearman booted from House for planning armed protest. | Christian Forums

we are talking about an Oregon state representative who got caught helping protestors invade the Oregon Capitol. And he has been tried by his colleagues and rejected from their legislature.

I have not read what he has to say to speak for himself.

If we go by the Constitution, an accused person gets to represent himself or herself, I think.

So, what does he have to say about it? I intend to try to read something about this, right now.

First of all, this was a state congressional hearing, not a court of law.

Ok, thank you. As part of dealing with the question of this thread, I'd appreciate it if you share how you apply this.

Do you apply this to rights we are supposed to have? Do you mean our rights are a certain way in a legal proceeding, but do not have to be that way for other things?

For example, would it be ethically and morally ok to not presume a person innocent during a congressional hearing because it is not a law of court proceeding?

 

[TLK Valentine]

Well, let us remember that the Constitutional principles as outlined in the Bill of Rights are not a list of what we are allowed to do, but of what the government is prohibited from doing. The language is very clear in that regard.

This is important because it means that the our Constitution is only meant to protect our rights from the government.

Your rights are protected from private parties (for example, your boss or place of employment) by applicable federal and state laws... not the Constitution itself (although those laws must themselves be in line with the Constitution)

As for a Congressional hearing, most legislative houses (local, state, and federal) are governed by their own set of parliamentary rules and procedures which may be in line with the spirit of the Constitution, although not necessarily the letter.

Finally, in the case of a certain Congressional hearing, the "defendant" was never in jeopardy of losing life or liberty, but rather a hearing to determine whether the man's actions (which were never in dispute in the first place) merited the revocation of his privilege (not a right) of serving as a state rep.

The hearing itself was conducted according to the rules of parliamentary procedure, and the final vote was 59-1 "guilty," with the man himself casting the only "not guilty" vote.

I can't think of any Constitutional principle that allows the accused to actually serve on his own jury... can you?

 

[98cwitr]

We have two other branches apart from the Judicial branch, and the Constitution constrains them as well. So yes, Constitutional principles apply to all forms of government, including state and local.

 

[Arcangl86]

For some reason, this is a big issue, with people not understanding what the Constituion actually protects people from. It's provides what are called negative rights, not positive rights. It prevents the government from doing something, but not guarenting something. We see this the most with free speech. The state cannot restrict speech, but neither do they have to guarantee that private actors cannot restrict speech.

 

[GreekOrthodox]

\

Do you apply this to rights we are supposed to have? Do you mean our rights are a certain way in a legal proceeding, but do not have to be that way for other things?

For example, would it be ethically and morally ok to not presume a person innocent during a congressional hearing because it is not a law of court proceeding?

Arcangl86 is correct, this has to do with what the government is restricted from doing.

"Congress shall make no law ...or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, ..."

Second the presumption of innocence is a legal principle that every person accused of any crime is considered innocent until proven guilty.

He has not been accused of a crime in a court of law. Those members voted to remove him from his office. If I am a member of an organization and do or say something against the rules of the organization, they can remove me as a member. So for example, I am a member of my HOA board. Even though the president and I live next door to each other, we're not to discuss anything with the HOA without the rest of the board present. If someone finds out that we have plotted (because that sounds nefarious!) to support a raise in the HOA fees, we could both be kicked off the board for violating the board's rules, not the first amendment.

 

[com7fy8]

I can't think of any Constitutional principle that allows the accused to actually serve on his own jury... can you?

a jury of fifty, at that!

So yes, Constitutional principles apply to all forms of government, including state and local.

what the Constituion actually protects people from. It's provides what are called negative rights, not positive rights. It prevents the government from doing something, but not guarenting something.

this has to do with what the government is restricted from doing.

"Congress shall make no law ...or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, ..."

Thank you all for joining in and taking the time. So, practically it is clear how the Constitution limits government.

Now, a point I am getting at is I think there are underlying principles which have had something to do with these requirements which the Constitution puts on the United States government.

And therefore are there things which need to be rights in how we personally relate with each other . . . in any country??

For one example, we have what >

Second the presumption of innocence is a legal principle that every person accused of any crime is considered innocent until proven guilty.

In my everyday conversation and in my thinking, should I have a love principle that disciplines me to give any person the benefit of the doubt until I find out what is really true about that person or something about him or her?

Presumption of innocence might be a legal item, but should it also be in some way a love principle?

 

[GreekOrthodox]

In my everyday conversation and in my thinking, should I have a love principle that disciplines me to give any person the benefit of the doubt until I find out what is really true about that person or something about him or her?

Presumption of innocence might be a legal item, but should it also be in some way a love principle?

Forgiveness rather than presumption of guilt or innocence is the Christian thing to do.

For Orthodox, the night before the start of Lent, we have a service called Forgiveness Vespers. At the end of the service is a procession where each person comes up to the priest and says, "Forgive me", the priest then answers "As God forgives, so I forgive". Then the person stands next to the priest. The next person goes to the priest, then to the person standing next to them and the greeting is repeated until each person has requested and received forgiveness from everyone at the service. When I was in seminary, this involved about 200 people and is extremely humbling.

 

[98cwitr]

Presumption of innocence might be a legal item, but should it also be in some way a love principle?

According to Scripture, love always trusts. If trust is broken, can one have love?

 

[essentialsaltes]

Like impeachment, these internal legislative censurings and bootings are political, rather than judicial, events.

 

[durangodawood]

We have two other branches apart from the Judicial branch, and the Constitution constrains them as well. So yes, Constitutional principles apply to all forms of government, including state and local.

How do you justify incorporation of the bill of rights to the states? Originally, the US Constitution set boundaries on the fed govt only, with each state having its own constitution. I presume you reject that.

 

[Arcangl86]

In my everyday conversation and in my thinking, should I have a love principle that disciplines me to give any person the benefit of the doubt until I find out what is really true about that person or something about him or her?

Presumption of innocence might be a legal item, but should it also be in some way a love principle?

That principle has been part of Western Christianity since at least the Reformation.

 

[essentialsaltes]

Nearman is also facing criminal charges, where he will have all of his judicial rights at trial.

Nearman, 57, now faces criminal charges for his role in allegedly allowing the rioters to breach the Oregon Capitol, Marion County District Attorney Paige E. Clarkson announced Friday. The GOP lawmaker has been charged with misdemeanor counts of first-degree official misconduct and second-degree criminal trespass, according to court documents.

 

[98cwitr]

How do you justify incorporation of the bill of rights to the states? Originally, the US Constitution set boundaries on the fed govt only, with each state having its own constitution. I presume you reject that.

Three ways:

1. Because the state constitutions affirm the bill of rights in their own constitutions

2. Via ratification of the US Constitution by the states

3. Supremacy Clause

 

[durangodawood]

Three ways:

1. Because the state constitutions affirm the bill of rights in their own constitutions

2. Via ratification of the US Constitution by the states

3. Supremacy Clause

1. Hit and miss. In CA for example, a citizen relies entirely on the US Const for gun rights.

2. Ratification doesnt incorporate the US Const to the state level. Its just approval of the fed level constitution.

3. The supremacy of amendments that explicitly restrict the scope of congress still allows all kinds of leeway for the states.

 

[com7fy8]

According to Scripture, love always trusts. If trust is broken, can one have love?

Which scripture are you thinking of, please?

I think you are referring to 1 Corinthians 13:7.

So, I would appreciate it if you share how you understood this means to love and relate.

 

[98cwitr]

1. Hit and miss. In CA for example, a citizen relies entirely on the US Const for gun rights.

2. Ratification doesnt incorporate the US Const to the state level. Its just approval of the fed level constitution.

3. The supremacy of amendments that explicitly restrict the scope of congress still allows all kinds of leeway for the states.

1. Not true: Article III, Section 1 of the CA Constitution states: "The State of California is an inseparable part of the United States of America, and the United States Constitution is the supreme law of the land."

2. Approval for what exactly? It does demonstrate a State's approval of the amendment(s) ratified.

3. ...apart from the amendment itself, sure, but States are not permitted to simply ignore US Constitutional amendments; even if they don't ratify them. If they do, there are consequences and force applied against their non-compliance.

 

[98cwitr]

Which scripture are you thinking of, please?

I think you are referring to 1 Corinthians 13:7.

So, I would appreciate it if you share how you understood this means to love and relate.

Yes, that is the Scripture in mind. Simply put, it stands in my mind to mean that love without trust isn't love at all. There is no "unless" loophole found in Scripture. "Always" means always.

 

[durangodawood]

1. Not true: Article III, Section 1 of the CA Constitution states: "The State of California is an inseparable part of the United States of America, and the United States Constitution is the supreme law of the land."

2. Approval for what exactly? It does demonstrate a State's approval of the amendment(s) ratified.

3. ...apart from the amendment itself, sure, but States are not permitted to simply ignore US Constitutional amendments; even if they don't ratify them. If they do, there are consequences and force applied against their non-compliance.

1. Yes. And typically those amendments explicitly restricts the congress, not the state legislatures.

2. Yes most of the bill of rights in that ratified constitution explicitly restrict congress, no the state legislatures.

3. Yes, this required later findings, post civil war, amendment by amendment, that some of them incorporated to the state level. This was not a feature of the constitution from the get go, which makes sense because the constitution was not written that way.

 

[com7fy8]

That principle has been part of Western Christianity since at least the Reformation.

Well, our Apostle Paul says he will not accept an accusation except "By the mouth of two or three witnesses" (in 2 Corinthians 13:1). I can see this could be a way of presuming innocence . . . but with testing. We have trust ready, presumption prepared, but we test and do not trust blindly.

"Test all things; hold fast what is good." (1 Thessalonians 5:21)

So, this was in Christianity while our Apostle Paul was ministering.

 

[TLK Valentine]

Well, our Apostle Paul says he will not accept an accusation except "By the mouth of two or three witnesses" (in 2 Corinthians 13:1).

Paul was, after all, a Pharisee, and as such, observant of the Law -- in this case, Deuteronomy 19:15.

I can see this could be a way of presuming innocence . . . but with testing. We have trust ready, presumption prepared, but we test and do not trust blindly.

And well we shouldn't -- eyewitness testimony is among the least reliable forms of evidence. How many prisoners have been convicted by eyewitnesses, only to be later exonerated by forensic evidence?

You never hear it happening the other way around.