DOJ tramples on the Constitution

What law was broken?

 

Also, they're violating the 1st Amendment.

 

"Unreasonable search" went out the window when Republicans decided they could force a woman to undergo invasive pelvic exams to
prove abortion laws had been broken. End of story.

 

When did that happen?

 

DOJ tramples on the Constitution
​

~ They always do. The Patriot Act made it easy ...

~ I wonder too ...

 

The Eagle Forum are clueless. They have been spouting nonsense for decades.

 

Just how do you think a woman can prove rape so she can get the "rape" exception for abortions?

 

Lemme guess. You don't know anything about the law in question.

 

An absurd assessment. This is what they're fighting about.

https://www.webmd.com/women/news/20220629/alabama-cites-roe-in-call-ban-transgender-health-care

Why not have an intelligent discussion about transgender medical care?

 

Okay. This is better.

At what age should a person be able to access medical care for transitioning? Can parents make choices on a their child's behalf? Do both parents have to agree?

 

So, are you opposed to circumcising minor males? How about other surgical procedures to change a young person's body?

Where do you stand on female circumcision (aka female genital mutilation)?

 

Forcing a minor female to give birth often has life-altering consequences for the young woman.

 

Oh, you mean rape kits? You want to outlaw those now?...

 

I'm confused about one detail of this outrageous subpoena. Every source I've seen says the DOJ issued the subpoena. I though only a court could issue subpoenas.

 

If reasonable suspicion of a crime, a search warrant would be more appropriate. But a subpoena is an "informal" request to retrieve information that may lead to evidence of a possible crime. This may include HIPAA act violations or it could lead to civil rights violations for LGBTQ persons.

 

courts issue search warrants. State and federal legislatures, and certain government agencies, can issue subpoenas. Grand Juries can also issue subpoenas. A subpoena is not a search warrant. It is a request for information. and these organizations can go to court to squash the subpoena if they so choose.

A search warrant is immediate and the information requested is obtained when the search warrant is executed by law enforcement. A subpoena is a request for information with a time frame to send the information, usually 30 to 45 days, and your rights are fully intact with redress available. Best see an attorney if you do get one. However, failure to abide to comply with a subpoena runs the risk of a criminal charge.

 

Clears that up. Thanks.

 

Don't the same Constitutional rules apply?

I don't think there is any way that proposed legislation, still in the works, could constitute evidence of any sort of crime. That strikes me as very much against the spirit of the Constitution.
Your claim about civil rights violations is totally disingenuous, and I think you know it, because a new law can't be a violation of a previous law.

Unless we have entered into the murky territory where the federal government now has the coercive power to use subpoena powers to investigate any new possible draft legislation (even in private hands) if they think that law would be unconstitutional if passed. That really seems like a police state to me.
It also seems to very much violate the spirit of federalism on which the US Constitution is built on. (Not that the Left is very capable of understanding that)

To use an analogy, how would you feel if law enforcement threatened to put Planned Parenthood officials in prison if they did not hand over their rough draft of proposed laws they were working on that they were going to hand over to their elected representatives in government? Claiming that law enforcement has the right because those future laws might violate the rights of fetuses. You would be outraged.

Don't support something unless you're okay with those same tactics being used against people and positions you support.

 

Only if it is a crime, which means a search warrant. A subpoena is simply gathering of information where there is no implied crime. It can turn out to be a crime, if you don't comply with the subpeona, but it is not based on criminal activity. My guess is a federal civil lawsuit on the bill.

I was merely pointing out a possibility on why the DOJ used a subpoena instead of a search warrant. One possibility is a Civil Rights Violation of LGBTQ. The Supreme Court has already ruled that the 1964 Civil Right Act includes LGBTQ persons in its protected class.

Second, the government has always had the power to subpoena. Congress uses the subpoena power quite often no matter which party controls the House or the Senate. Over a dozen subpoenas from one committee in the matters of Benghazi were issued to various executive agencies and persons who used to work in the executive agency.

For your analogy, I and other lawyers would advise handing them over, obtaining lawyers to protect their Constitutional Rights, and do not sign anything until the Lawyer reads it.

BTW, the one government agency that issues subpoenas the most is the IRS. The procedure is that if you refuse to hand over documents in an audit or refuse to meet with the auditor, etc, the IRS agent can issue a subpoena to banks, third-party vendors, and anyone else it deems necessary. It is not as rare as the DOJ, but it does happen.

 

Correction. It can get murky, but reasonable suspicion of an inferred crime is usually required for a criminal subpoena. (Congressional subpoenas have a different criteria.) Probable cause, which has a higher bar, is constitutionally required for a search warrant. Beyond that a search warrant is usually not issued for evidence that is reasonably available without a search warrant as was the case with Manafort, Stone, and Trump. (I don't recall if Gen. Flynn was raided and searched or not.)

 

Prosthetics work fine at least until they are 18


Ontario High School Defends "Fetishistic" Large Bust-Wearing Teacher - Reduxx

 

The Alabama Legislature passed this bill that is alleged to have violated anyones civil rights. They dont need this private entity's communications to show that some legislation violates someones rights.

 

There is no evidence of rape to be found with a medical examination.

 

But not required for an administrative subpoena. Civil Rights violations is not a "crime" under the criminal statutes but a civil violation or possible violation. This is why the IRS uses such devices if a person refuses to cooperate with a Revenue Agent under the audit. Banks comply, and so do third-party vendors in those cases, yet no criminal investigation because that is the accountant with the gun's job.

 

Actually there is. the tearing of the vagina among others that a rape kit will take into evidence and analyzed by the lab. But there are a medical examination, especially if one is deceased.