DOJ tramples on the Constitution

…“After Alabama banned transgender surgeries on children, the Biden Administration sued the state in federal court to block the law. But they’re not just arguing against the constitutionality of the law. They are also going after a conservative public policy group that lobbied on behalf of the law.” Of course, that group is the Eagle Forum of Alabama…


…As a result, the United States is issuing the enclosed subpoena for certain records in the Eagle Forum of Alabama’s possession from January 1, 2017 through the present.”

The official subpoena demands: “Any draft legislation, proposed legislations, or model legislation.” This included all their communiques on the subject, e.g., “any social media postings.”

Eagle Forum of Alabama responded to this “unprecedented request:” “This should cause every single advocacy group or individual in America engaged in the legislative process to pause and consider the potential ramifications if any part of this subpoena is allowed to stand.” …









https://www.christianpost.com/voices/doj-tramples-on-the-constitution.html










This is a ridiculously broad overreach. It must be resisted and appealed all the way to the Supreme Court. The federal government has no right to the internal organization or plannings of groups working to create or influence state law in any or many of the 50 states.

 

Looks like they are the fascist that they always accuse the other side of.

They spit upon the Constitution and use it for toilet paper and laugh at that notion that you think that you have any rights.

 

The fascist Brandon regime needs to respect the individual conscience rights of the American people and the constitution that was written to protect those basic human rights.

 

Especially if those rights are based upon any belief that is religious or comes from values established by our Creator, the source of all human rights….

 

So, you are arguing that a subpoena is against the US Constitution? Based on what? That the Church should dictate to the government? Where is that in the US Constitution?

 

A subpoena is not. The issue here is the 4th amendment and unreasonable search and seizure. This is like a general warrant, way overly broad, and an attempt to intimidate opposition to its federal dictates.

 

LOL, says someone who supports States pissing on individual rights because of your feeeeeeeelings.

Priceless.

 

fake news

 

This doesn't sound Constitutionally justifiable.

The law under which courts are empowered to issue subpoenas is a very open-ended law.

I would agree it's technically unconstitutional, but it's also very likely the court could be allowed to get away with it. When courts don't enforce themselves, very often people are out of luck and have no recourse.

 

The states are protecting the right of children to not to have today’s adults make irreversible decisions for them now that can’t be reversed or changed once they become an adult themselves.

 

So your fascist wannabe dictatorial regime led by FJB isn’t issuing unconstitutional overly broad subpoenaes with the intent to intimidate? We know that they actually are. But I guess you could ask them to move this to the political beliefs and opinion section if you don’t like it.

 

Well we do have the appeals court and Supreme Court to try if the lowest level of the federal court will not behave…

 

Appeals courts will rarely take on requests concerning subpoenas. They don't consider it important enough for their trouble.
Appeals can also take a long time, so sometimes judges are not willing to delay their demands. It can be a very risky strategy to try to defy the order of a judge, waiting for an appeal that may never come.

I posted a story in another thread about a man who was waiting in jail for nearly a year, since that was the only way he could save a building on his property from being demolished. He could have been released at any time if he had agreed to demolish the building.

 

nope, it's fake news from the Trumpian deep State

 

if they are a tax-free charity or a church, they lose their tax status if they participate in politics, pay to play

 

like forcing children to have their rapists baby?

or circumcisions?

 

The subject here is trans manipulation and bodily disfigurement on minors before they have an adult say on the matter themselves. The feds should not be imposing its vision on such matters upon its victims, the states and their people. As to parents deciding on circumcision on infant boys, I don’t really care though I believe circumcision is the healthier option. As to the rare abortion circumstance you mentioned, I’m not opposed to it nor do I support the visiting of the sin of the father upon the child in the form of capital punishment.

 

If a subpoena is issued, then it is a reasonable search and seizure and meets the 4th amendment criteria.

https://www.ojp.gov/ncjrs/virtual-l...es v.,the recipient to prove unreasonableness.

From the link, "In United States v. R. Enterprises, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that a subpoena duces tecum issued by a grand jury must be assumed to be reasonable, and it is up to the recipient to prove unreasonableness."

You have to prove unreasonableness and simply stating that the subpoena is unreasonable is not enough. Nothing in your OP article makes that argument, not even close.

 

A subpoena does not come from the court. It can come from a grand jury or Congress, state or federal, itself. In this specific case, it came from the DOJ, which has such authority to do so in an inquiry to determine if any crime has been committed. This is valid under the US Constitution and the only reason you don't like it is that it applies to your group. Period.

 

It doesn't matter what the subject is. The issue here is the subpoena, not the target of intolerant "Christians" who want to impose their religious beliefs onto others.

 

I guess for it to work one would need to get a stay on the enforcement of said subpoena for the duration of the appeal process.

 

baby circumcisions are just as bad, let the child choose for themselves when they are old enough

but the right doesn't want you to choose, the right wants the government to choose for you

so you're not opposed to abortion in some cases, that is good

 

I totally agree that an analogy can be made here to circumcision, although it is not exactly the same issue. You are correct, there are some important similarities.

There may be some similarities, but I think that is too much of a stretch to make an analogy. Especially when the purpose is to save one young child (fetus) at the expense of another young child (victim). I think most people would allow for an abortion on an obvious incest victim if the abortion were done soon enough, but it is often not.

 

But why would they need this specific information to determine if a crime had been committed? That is a major question.

There needs to be a connection between the information sought and reasonable suspicion of a crime.

 

Came in to see how many lefties were in here defending pre-K sex changes. I am pleasantly surprised to see none have yet.