I still don't quite follow. For those of us that are non-lawyers, what does it mean when "standards of review" are cited as a rationale for upholding a tribunal decision?
How did the laws get approved in the first place. We need to bring the heat on the legislature equally, if not more so like your bringing to the Judiciary. How would can one hold the legislatures ( or whatever Board of Officials) responsible for these ridiculous laws creation accountable?
I'd say most likely a good number of laws became so for 2 reasons. First being a lack of integrity with full blown greed and second those who would benefit from the law has a wad of cash. Simply, the wad of cash fits in the greedy hands of those in the law passing profession that lack any basic integrity.
Exactly +; Why do we pretend our court system is a legitimate organization ? The judicial doesn't work for justice or the rights of citizens. We should have completely scrapped it after qualified immunity
BTW prosecutors and judges are politicians, usually seeking higher office. That is a great reason to do your jury duty and vote your conscience. Why else do we need a jury of, originally, your peers.
Most of your other deep dives where unwatchable boring because of my total indifference to the subject matter. I really don't care abut the licensing process for making a business in DC is or how teachers unions hate competition. Amicus briefs was ok, but I knew most of it already. Now this one, it was really interesting.
To me this goes to show that there is a severe breakdown in understanding the Rights of the People, life and the courts are sooo involved in Admiralty Maritime Commerce Jurisdiction that we are loosing sight of our Rights. For instance, everyone has a drivers license, but the definition of driving is clarified in Federal Law and we are alowing them to take advantage of us. We have a Right to Travel KENT ET AL. vs. DULLES, SECRETARY OF STATE. 357 U.S. 116 (1958) No. 481. Supreme Court of United States. Argued April 10, 1958. Decided June 16, 1958. CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT. {15th Paragraph } The right to travel is a part of the "liberty" of which the citizen cannot be deprived without due process of law under the Fifth Amendment. So much is conceded by the Solicitor General. In Anglo-Saxon law that right was emerging at least as early as the Magna Carta.[12] Chafee, 126*126 Three Human Rights in the Constitution of 1787 (1956), 171-181, 187 et seq., shows how deeply engrained in our history this freedom of movement is. Freedom of movement across frontiers in either direction, and inside frontiers as well, was a part of our heritage. Travel abroad, like travel within the country, may be necessary for a livelihood. It may be as close to the heart of the individual as the choice of what he eats, or wears, or reads. Freedom of movement is basic in our scheme of values. See Crandall v. Nevada, 6 Wall. 35, 44; Williams v. Fears, 179 U. S. 270, 274; Edwards v. California, 314 U. S. 160. "Our nation," wrote Chafee, "has thrived on the principle that, outside areas of plainly harmful conduct, every American is left to shape his own life as he thinks best, do what he pleases, go where he pleases." Id., at 197. Freedom of movement also has large social values. As Chafee put it: The definition of driving is : 18 U.S. Code Part 1, Ch. 2, § 31 - Definitions (6) Motor vehicle. The term “motor vehicle” means every description of carriage or other contrivance propelled or drawn by mechanical power and “used for commercial purposes” on the highways in the transportation of passengers, passengers and property, or property or cargo. (10) Used for commercial purposes.- The term “used for commercial purposes” means the carriage of persons or property for any fare, fee, rate, charge or other consideration, or directly or indirectly in connection with any business, or other undertaking intended for profit. U.S. Code 49, Chapter 131 - General Provisions § 13102. Definitions (14)Motor carrier.- The term “motor carrier” means a person providing motor vehicle transportation for compensation. Are they required to inform us about this ? , if you do you are ignorant.
Drug laws have been "enforced" for how long and haven't stopped anything! How could the government prove it "works"? If I'm in a state that still outlaws marijuana, with the interstate commerce (like the wine case), shouldn't I be allowed to import marijuana from a "legal" state? Most laws are irrational!
me I am a lover of the law (bible) and you dont need a collage degree to love Gods laws and understand how they apply, Jehovah teaches us for free, a lawyer is a lover of law and despite the corruption in the courts it is nice there are people who truly love the law (not necessarily mans' opinion passed as laws) and try to use the law to help people rather than fleech their charges. honesty of heart is more important to Jehovah twisting and turning arguments to justify wicked laws angers that hurt people angers him..
Um , bruh... if the discussion of law or law's needs to take place then it means there is WAY TO MANY LAWS ON THE FRIGGIN BOOKS .....................CASE CLOSED , if you feel the need to discuss a law or laws it means that they are UNCONSTITUTIONAL!!!! this is what a NO BRAINER discussion LOOKS LIKE.
Also, with Ancient Aboriginal Indigenous civilizations practices that predates America itself government has no rights to CONTROL or RESTRICT taught masters in their crafts if there's no harm, etc... I think people are basically circumventing many beautiful REALITIES be being basic in important things within law...
If one does not recognize logic, Then one cannot come up with common sense of their own. It seems that a judge is not required to recognize logic or even apply it, For what purpose do we give a judge immunity? For what purpose does the Constitution give judges immunity? What is the purpose for limited immunity? My family will not stop asking questions until we can justify what binds us.
.Law is semple other peoples right does not; Trump no other man/woman. I do not recognize anyone's right or government to one minute of my life. Nor to any part of my energy. Nor to any achievement of mine. No matter who makes the claim, how large their number, or how great their need I am a man who does not exist for others. A gift from the true Devin. For example in man's law, that man's law does not apply to another man without his/her consent is the only thing rational; do no harm and help your fellow being.
we shouldn't be providing ***************PRIVATE ENTITY FOR PROFIT*************** religious churches. i went to a cult christian (normal cultish christian) school and it was terribly expensive
Habakkuk 1:1-17 How did YOU LET IT GET TO THIS ASK the Eternal ???? Isaiah 10:1,2 "ALL laws which are REPUGNANT to the Constitution are NULL and VOID."Marbury vs.Madision ,5 US (2 Cranch)137,174,176,(1803 !!!An unconstitutional law is NOT law it confers no rights it imposes no duties ;affords no protection it creates no OFFICE, it is in legal contemplation ,as INOPERATIVE as though it had never been passed Norton vs. Shelby County 118 US 425 p.442 No ONE IS BOUND TO OBEY an UNCONSTITUTIONAL LAW and no courts are bound to ENFORCE it". 16 Am Jur 22d,See 177 late 2d. Sec 256 !@!!!!LAW
This video should have 1000s of view! Valuable valuable ...
These people are doing good work.
Without them the various entities with badges would be having a free for all at an individual's expense.
Correct
The badges are having a free-for-all anyway.
@@yunggolem4687 Yes they are and it's called civil forfeiture.
"Qualified immunity" and the well-known but 'look the other way' when a cop is "testi-lying".
You mean as is currently the case for the foreseeable future?
If the government can suspend your rights at any time, then they aren't rights, they are permissions.
I still don't quite follow. For those of us that are non-lawyers, what does it mean when "standards of review" are cited as a rationale for upholding a tribunal decision?
What have we learned, a lot of societies problems are a result of work done by people with Esq at the end of their name.
Thanks
Taking notes 📝
How did the laws get approved in the first place. We need to bring the heat on the legislature equally, if not more so like your bringing to the Judiciary. How would can one hold the legislatures ( or whatever Board of Officials) responsible for these ridiculous laws creation accountable?
I'd say most likely a good number of laws became so for 2 reasons. First being a lack of integrity with full blown greed and second those who would benefit from the law has a wad of cash. Simply, the wad of cash fits in the greedy hands of those in the law passing profession that lack any basic integrity.
Excellent conversation.
"Operating in a cloud" is a nice way of saying "full of sh^t"
And it's the norm when it comes to our legal system
Exactly
+;
Why do we pretend our court system is a legitimate organization ?
The judicial doesn't work for justice or the rights of citizens.
We should have completely scrapped it after qualified immunity
BTW prosecutors and judges are politicians, usually seeking higher office. That is a great reason to do your jury duty and vote your conscience. Why else do we need a jury of, originally, your peers.
95% of all cases are plea bargained because prosecutors are among the most corrupt politicians with massive amounts of unchecked power.
@@MoonChildMedia take back your power and do your jury duty and nullify bad law!!!
It's awful... because it's true. Sadly, so many jurors succumb to prosecutors and their tendency to story tell.
Both of them are great.
In other words its blown all out of proportion like every thing else today
Very interesting. I wonder if there are Standards of Review or equivalent practices in the courts of other countries?
Please ,..I believe opportunity to expose light on the systemic behavior & make change IN COLORADO ..
My friends play video games and got in a fight so now I’m a fake lawyer and I gotta learn lmao
Most of your other deep dives where unwatchable boring because of my total indifference to the subject matter. I really don't care abut the licensing process for making a business in DC is or how teachers unions hate competition. Amicus briefs was ok, but I knew most of it already. Now this one, it was really interesting.
To me this goes to show that there is a severe breakdown in understanding the Rights of the People, life and the courts are sooo involved in Admiralty Maritime Commerce Jurisdiction that we are loosing sight of our Rights. For instance, everyone has a drivers license, but the definition of driving is clarified in Federal Law and we are alowing them to take advantage of us.
We have a Right to Travel
KENT ET AL.
vs. DULLES, SECRETARY OF STATE.
357 U.S. 116 (1958)
No. 481.
Supreme Court of United States.
Argued April 10, 1958.
Decided June 16, 1958.
CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT.
{15th Paragraph }
The right to travel is a part of the "liberty" of which the citizen cannot be deprived without due process of law under the Fifth Amendment. So much is conceded by the Solicitor General. In Anglo-Saxon law that right was emerging at least as early as the Magna Carta.[12] Chafee, 126*126 Three Human Rights in the Constitution of 1787 (1956), 171-181, 187 et seq., shows how deeply engrained in our history this freedom of movement is. Freedom of movement across frontiers in either direction, and inside frontiers as well, was a part of our heritage. Travel abroad, like travel within the country, may be necessary for a livelihood. It may be as close to the heart of the individual as the choice of what he eats, or wears, or reads. Freedom of movement is basic in our scheme of values. See Crandall v. Nevada, 6 Wall. 35, 44; Williams v. Fears, 179 U. S. 270, 274; Edwards v. California, 314 U. S. 160. "Our nation," wrote Chafee, "has thrived on the principle that, outside areas of plainly harmful conduct, every American is left to shape his own life as he thinks best, do what he pleases, go where he pleases." Id., at 197.
Freedom of movement also has large social values. As Chafee put it:
The definition of driving is :
18 U.S. Code Part 1, Ch. 2, § 31 - Definitions
(6) Motor vehicle.
The term “motor vehicle” means every description of carriage or other contrivance propelled or drawn by mechanical power and “used for commercial purposes” on the highways in the transportation of passengers, passengers and property, or property or cargo.
(10) Used for commercial purposes.-
The term “used for commercial purposes” means the carriage of persons or property for any fare, fee, rate, charge or
other consideration, or directly or indirectly in connection with any business, or other undertaking intended for profit.
U.S. Code 49, Chapter 131 - General Provisions
§ 13102. Definitions
(14)Motor carrier.- The term “motor carrier” means a person providing motor vehicle transportation for compensation.
Are they required to inform us about this ? , if you do you are ignorant.
Interesting, strict scrutinity!!
Drug laws have been "enforced" for how long and haven't stopped anything!
How could the government prove it "works"?
If I'm in a state that still outlaws marijuana, with the interstate commerce (like the wine case), shouldn't I be allowed to import marijuana from a "legal" state?
Most laws are irrational!
me I am a lover of the law (bible) and you dont need a collage degree to love Gods laws and understand how they apply, Jehovah teaches us for free, a lawyer is a lover of law and despite the corruption in the courts it is nice there are people who truly love the law (not necessarily mans' opinion passed as laws) and try to use the law to help people rather than fleech their charges. honesty of heart is more important to Jehovah twisting and turning arguments to justify wicked laws angers that hurt people angers him..
So weird to see people talking in the same room. Zoom has killed me.
It's only weird because you subscribed to the nonsense. Unsubscribe buddy
Rational inquiry doesn't require evidence? 600 years of science down the drain.
Um , bruh... if the discussion of law or law's needs to take place then it means there is WAY TO MANY LAWS ON THE FRIGGIN BOOKS .....................CASE CLOSED , if you feel the need to discuss a law or laws it means that they are UNCONSTITUTIONAL!!!! this is what a NO BRAINER discussion LOOKS LIKE.
as in Organic Constitution be damned?! This is a legal SYSTEM.
Also, with Ancient Aboriginal Indigenous civilizations practices that predates America itself government has no rights to CONTROL or RESTRICT taught masters in their crafts if there's no harm, etc...
I think people are basically circumventing many beautiful REALITIES be being basic in important things within law...
Who pay your check.
Its also discrimination
If one does not recognize logic, Then one cannot come up with common sense of their own. It seems that a judge is not required to recognize logic or even apply it, For what purpose do we give a judge immunity? For what purpose does the Constitution give judges immunity? What is the purpose for limited immunity? My family will not stop asking questions until we can justify what binds us.
We have no right to travel RIGHT NOW
Duh they been trying to take our 1st amendment right since the 60s
.Law is semple other peoples right does not; Trump no other man/woman. I do not recognize anyone's right or government to one minute of my life. Nor to any part of my energy. Nor to any achievement of mine. No matter who makes the claim, how large their number, or how great their need I am a man who does not exist for others. A gift from the true Devin.
For example in man's law, that man's law does not apply to another man without his/her consent is the only thing rational; do no harm and help your fellow being.
JUSTICE JU-no-law, S-Speak, TI-Title-CE-Judge
JUDGE TITLE SPEAKS NO LAW
we shouldn't be providing ***************PRIVATE ENTITY FOR PROFIT*************** religious churches.
i went to a cult christian (normal cultish christian) school and it was terribly expensive
Help this pro se victim in CO ....
Habakkuk 1:1-17 How did YOU LET IT GET TO THIS ASK the Eternal ???? Isaiah 10:1,2 "ALL laws which are REPUGNANT to the Constitution are NULL and VOID."Marbury vs.Madision ,5 US (2 Cranch)137,174,176,(1803 !!!An unconstitutional law is NOT law it confers no rights it imposes no duties ;affords no protection it creates no OFFICE, it is in legal contemplation ,as INOPERATIVE as though it had never been passed Norton vs. Shelby County 118 US 425 p.442 No ONE IS BOUND TO OBEY an UNCONSTITUTIONAL LAW and no courts are bound to ENFORCE it". 16 Am Jur 22d,See 177 late 2d. Sec 256 !@!!!!LAW