Some rights are enumerated in the Constitution.
If a state law violates those, or law enforcement
violates them, a citizen has recourse in federal court.

But are there others which are implicitly protected, which
might be violated by omission, at state level?

Let's take it to an absurdity - imagine there's no
state prohibition of homicide. Does a victim's
heirs have recourse in federal court, to sue the
assailant? Or sue the state for failure to protect life?
Does one have a right not to be murdered?

One is reminded of the 1992 Rodney King case, where the
cops were acquitted in state court, then prosecuted by
the feds. Why that wasn't double jeopardy, I don't know -

Is a constitutional right whatever the Attorney General says it is?

--
Rich

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 11/9/2021 7:31 PM, RichD wrote:

Some rights are enumerated in the Constitution.
If a state law violates those, or law enforcement
violates them, a citizen has recourse in federal court.

But are there others which are implicitly protected, which
might be violated by omission, at state level?

Let's take it to an absurdity - imagine there's no
state prohibition of homicide. Does a victim's
heirs have recourse in federal court, to sue the
assailant? Or sue the state for failure to protect life?
Does one have a right not to be murdered?

To a large extent that is what we have governments for. To protect our
lives, our freedom, our property (that is, to own the work of our hands)

If a state doesn't prohibit homicide, you would be advised to move to a
state that does.

Even without a murder statute, you can sue for "wrongful death", which
is covered by a separate statute, and is also a common-law tort. But the lawsuit would be in state court. Unless the murderer lived in another
state, then you could go to Federal Court under "diversity jurisdiction".

One is reminded of the 1992 Rodney King case, where the
cops were acquitted in state court, then prosecuted by
the feds. Why that wasn't double jeopardy, I don't know -

It wasn't "double jeopardy" because of the "Dual sovereignty" doctrine.
The state and the Federal Government are two separate governments, each
with a separate right to prosecute you. I can imagine a situation at
"Four Corners" where you could be prosecuted five different times -- the Federal Government and three of the four states that meet at that point.

I consider this doctrine a violation of the Fifth Amendment protection
against double jeopardy, but my opinion doesn't control.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

According to RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com>:

Some rights are enumerated in the Constitution.
If a state law violates those, or law enforcement
violates them, a citizen has recourse in federal court.

But are there others which are implicitly protected, which
might be violated by omission, at state level?

To pick a currently hot topic, the right to abortion appears nowhere
in the Constitution but the court found it is part of the right to
privacy in its "penumbra". Many states have laws outlawing abortion
but at least for now, they are overruled by the Federal right.

Slighty less contentiously, a recent decision found that the constitutional right to a jury trial invalidated some non-unanimous convictions allowed
by Louisiana and Oregon law.

R's,
John
--
Regards,
John Levine, johnl@taugh.com, Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for Dummies",
Please consider the environment before reading this e-mail. https://jl.ly

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

"RichD" wrote in message news:a1630fd7-95be-4919-bbc2-20373672e63fn@googlegroups.com...

Some rights are enumerated in the Constitution.
If a state law violates those, or law enforcement
violates them, a citizen has recourse in federal court.

But are there others which are implicitly protected, which
might be violated by omission, at state level?

Let's take it to an absurdity - imagine there's no
state prohibition of homicide. Does a victim's
heirs have recourse in federal court, to sue the
assailant? Or sue the state for failure to protect life?
Does one have a right not to be murdered?

Well the fourth amendment of the Constitution does prohibit "unreasonable searches and seizures", and I suppose that would prohibit someone from "seizing" one's life. The amendment is aimed at government agencies, of course, but it doesn't explicitly say that it wouldn't also apply to non-government parties. Also the 14th amendment prohibits depriving "any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny
to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws".
That would also strongly imply that states have a responsibility via laws to protect citizens from having their lives "deprived" without due process.

--

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Barry Gold <bgold@labcats.org> writes:

On 11/9/2021 7:31 PM, RichD wrote:

One is reminded of the 1992 Rodney King case, where the
cops were acquitted in state court, then prosecuted by
the feds. Why that wasn't double jeopardy, I don't know -

It wasn't "double jeopardy" because of the "Dual sovereignty" doctrine.
The state and the Federal Government are two separate governments, each
with a separate right to prosecute you. I can imagine a situation at
"Four Corners" where you could be prosecuted five different times -- the >Federal Government and three of the four states that meet at that point.

I consider this doctrine a violation of the Fifth Amendment protection >against double jeopardy, but my opinion doesn't control.

nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice
put in jeopardy of life or limb

They weren't put in jeopardy for the same offence. The federal
offense was 18 USC 242,

Whoever, under color of any law ... willfully subjects any person in
... to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities
secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United
States ... by reason of his color, or race, ... shall be fined
under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both; and
if bodily injury results from the acts committed in violation of
this section or if such acts include the use, attempted use, or
threatened use of a dangerous weapon, explosives, or fire, shall be
fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both

That was adopted during Reconstruction to protect Blacks against
precisely what happened in the King case: Crimes committed by a state
or its officers with impunity under state law.

There's no double jeopardy or dual sovereignty issue.

--
dhs spencer@panix.com

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On November 10, Rick wrote:

Some rights are enumerated in the Constitution.
If a state law violates those, or law enforcement
violates them, a citizen has recourse in federal court.
But are there others which are implicitly protected, which
might be violated by omission, at state level?

Let's take it to an absurdity - imagine there's no
state prohibition of homicide. Does a victim's
heirs have recourse in federal court, to sue the
assailant? Or sue the state for failure to protect life?
Does one have a right not to be murdered?

Also the 14th amendment prohibits depriving "any
person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny
to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws".
That would also strongly imply that states have a responsibility via laws to protect citizens from having their lives "deprived" without due process.

That comes close to answering the question.

I think it's a question of omissions, then forcing a state to take action
to defend an implied right. So if one has a right to life, the court might force a state to legislate a prohibition against homicide.
Is there any procedure to force a state to enact legislation?

A better example: let's say the court calls on the 9th amendment, to declare
a fetus has a right to life. If a state has no pertinent law on the books, abortion would be permissible. So then the court could force the state
to outlaw abortion? How would that work?


--
Rich

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

"Rick" <rick@nospam.com> wrote in news:smgpf4$u6u$1@gioia.aioe.org:

Well the fourth amendment of the Constitution does prohibit
"unreasonable searches and seizures", and I suppose that would
prohibit someone from "seizing" one's life. The amendment is
aimed at government agencies, of course, but it doesn't explicitly
say that it wouldn't also apply to non-government parties.

Actually the First Amendment starts with, "Congress shall make no
laws..." The courts take that to apply to all the amendments.

Then the 14th Amendment talks about what the states are not allowed to
do, so the Supreme Court has generally said that means the prohibitions
against what Congress can do also applies to the states.

But in general it doesn't prohibit anyone else from doing anything.

--
Stu
http://DownToEarthLawyer.com

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On November 10, David Spencer wrote:

One is reminded of the 1992 Rodney King case, where the
cops were acquitted in state court, then prosecuted by
the feds.

It wasn't "double jeopardy" because of the "Dual sovereignty" doctrine.
The state and the Federal Government are two separate governments, each
with a separate right to prosecute you.
I consider this doctrine a violation of the Fifth Amendment protection
against double jeopardy

nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice
put in jeopardy of life or limb

They weren't put in jeopardy for the same offence. The federal
offense was 18 USC 242,
Whoever, under color of any law ... willfully subjects any person in
... to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities
secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United
States ...

"It depends on what the meaning of 'is' is."
-- William J. Clinton

It depends on the definition of offense.
It it refers to a statute, then the LA cops faced charges for two separate offenses; a state, and a federal.

If 'offense' refers to a particular action - which is how most people understand the term - those police were prosecuted twice for a single offense.

by reason of his color, or race, ...

What matters race?
Deprivation of rights is deprivation of rights, no matter the victim.
That clause is itself redundant, maybe unconstitutional.

That was adopted during Reconstruction to protect Blacks against
precisely what happened in the King case: Crimes committed by a state
or its officers with impunity under state law.

False analogy.
If a crime is committed with impunity, condoned by the state, there is
no prosecution. Hence the federal statute applies, and the perps face
single jeopardy.

The LA cops were prosecuted under state law. They were acquitted.
Is there any evidence that the prosecution was bogus, that the trial
was a sham?

It's double jeopardy.

--
Rich

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

"RichD" wrote in message news:e8b85da7-0418-4aff-951a-bc61d342d136n@googlegroups.com...

On November 10, Rick wrote:

Some rights are enumerated in the Constitution.
If a state law violates those, or law enforcement
violates them, a citizen has recourse in federal court.
But are there others which are implicitly protected, which
might be violated by omission, at state level?

Let's take it to an absurdity - imagine there's no
state prohibition of homicide. Does a victim's
heirs have recourse in federal court, to sue the
assailant? Or sue the state for failure to protect life?
Does one have a right not to be murdered?

Also the 14th amendment prohibits depriving "any
person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor
deny
to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws".
That would also strongly imply that states have a responsibility via laws
to
protect citizens from having their lives "deprived" without due process.

That comes close to answering the question.

I think it's a question of omissions, then forcing a state to take action
to defend an implied right. So if one has a right to life, the court might >force a state to legislate a prohibition against homicide.
Is there any procedure to force a state to enact legislation?

A better example: let's say the court calls on the 9th amendment, to
declare
a fetus has a right to life. If a state has no pertinent law on the
books,
abortion would be permissible. So then the court could force the state
to outlaw abortion? How would that work?

--
Rich

Well the issue with abortion is and has always been what constitutes life?
Does life begin at conception or at brain/thought formation or at viability
or at birth? Until you decide when life actually begins, then there's not
much sense in worrying about what the Constitution has to say about
protecting life.

--

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

"Rick" <rick@nospam.com> wrote in news:smj52u$17ci$1@gioia.aioe.org:

Well the issue with abortion is and has always been what
constitutes life? Does life begin at conception or at
brain/thought formation or at viability or at birth? Until you
decide when life actually begins, then there's not much sense in
worrying about what the Constitution has to say about protecting
life.

Some people believe life doesn't begin until graduation from medical
school.

--
Stu
http://DownToEarthLawyer.com

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Thu, 11 Nov 2021 08:09:29 -0800, Stuart O. Bronstein wrote:

"Rick" <rick@nospam.com> wrote in news:smj52u$17ci$1@gioia.aioe.org:

Well the issue with abortion is and has always been what constitutes
life? Does life begin at conception or at brain/thought formation or at
viability or at birth? Until you decide when life actually begins,
then there's not much sense in worrying about what the Constitution has
to say about protecting life.

Some people believe life doesn't begin until graduation from medical
school.

I thought life began at 40 ?

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Wed, 10 Nov 2021 08:45:08 -0800, Rick wrote:

"RichD" wrote in message news:a1630fd7-95be-4919-bbc2-20373672e63fn@googlegroups.com...

[quoted text muted]

Well the fourth amendment of the Constitution does prohibit
"unreasonable searches and seizures", and I suppose that would prohibit someone from "seizing" one's life.

Suggesting life is property and has a value ?

I guess this would recompense slave owners pre-emancipation ?

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 11/10/2021 11:45 AM, Rick wrote:

"RichD"  wrote in message news:a1630fd7-95be-4919-bbc2-20373672e63fn@googlegroups.com...

Some rights are enumerated in the Constitution.
If a state law violates those, or law enforcement
violates them, a citizen has recourse in federal court.

But are there others which are implicitly protected, which
might be violated by omission, at state level?

Let's take it to an absurdity - imagine there's no
state prohibition of homicide.  Does a victim's
heirs have recourse in federal court, to sue the
assailant?  Or sue the state for failure to protect life?
Does one have a right not to be murdered?

Well the fourth amendment of the Constitution does prohibit
"unreasonable searches and seizures", and I suppose that would prohibit someone from "seizing" one's life.  The amendment is aimed at government agencies, of course, but it doesn't explicitly say that it wouldn't also apply to non-government parties.  Also the 14th amendment prohibits depriving "any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process
of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal
protection of the laws". That would also strongly imply that states have
a responsibility via laws to protect citizens from having their lives "deprived" without due process.

Well, that sounds good in that it would seem to say that even if a state doesn't have a law against murder or theft, you are still protected
against me killing you or robbing you since "it doesn't explicitly say
that it wouldn't also apply to non-government parties."

But it seems to me, and I could be totally wrong here, that I've heard somewhere that there's also a section that reads something along the
lines of "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of
religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the
freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably
to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

Jokes aside, the courts have basically said that means the government at
the federal level (and, by inclusion of the 14th, the state and local government) can't prohibit you from standing on the street corner and
say "down with government" or walk down the sidewalk with a "Jesus loves
you" sign. But that does NOT extend to forcing me to let you stand on my
front porch doing the same.

Now there are laws and rulings that say (generally) businesses that are
open to the general public can't discriminate as to who they accept as customers based on religion or such but a church doesn't have to allow a satan-worshipper to come inside, etc.

So just because the government is prohibited from doing something
(whether its taking your life/property without due process or it's
saying you can't stand on the street corner and voice your opinion) that doesn't mean I am prohibited in the same way and based on the same
reason (but I may be prohibited due to OTHER reasons.)

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 11/10/2021 7:11 AM, Barry Gold wrote:

On 11/9/2021 7:31 PM, RichD wrote:

One is reminded of the 1992 Rodney King case, where the
cops were acquitted in state court, then prosecuted by
the feds.  Why that wasn't double jeopardy, I don't know -

It wasn't "double jeopardy" because of the "Dual sovereignty" doctrine.
The state and the Federal Government are two separate governments, each
with a separate right to prosecute you. I can imagine a situation at
"Four Corners" where you could be prosecuted five different times -- the Federal Government and three of the four states that meet at that point.

I consider this doctrine a violation of the Fifth Amendment protection against double jeopardy, but my opinion doesn't control.

I believe that the federal government doesn't have a general "thou shall
not kill" law, though. There ARE federal laws against murder on Federal property or things like murder on an airplane, etc. but in the Rodney
King case, I believe that one was actually based on a civil rights
violation and not a simple murder charge. And if you violated two state
laws in one action, then you can be charged with either or both and can
be convicted for both.

Let's say it's legal for a minor to own/carry/possess a firearm but it's illegal to actually *shoot* it. A minor picks up a gun and shoots it and
kills someone. So that would be one act (pulling the trigger) that
breaks *two* laws. So you can be charged with illegal discharge, with
murder or with both. And being found innocent on one charge doesn't
preclude being found guilty on the other.

So the cops could be found guilty of murder, guilty of civil rights
violation or of both.

Note that something like "assault" and "murder", where one is basically
a lesser grade of the other, would generally fall under the
double-jeopardy prohibition and if charged with murder and found "not
guilty", they can't then charge them with assault and re-try them unless
it was a case of a single trial in which they are told "the defendant is charged with 1st-degree murder. But you, the jury, can consider a lesser charge, such as involuntary manslaughter, as well." There was someone
saying that the Kyle Rittenhouse case may wind up with such a jury
instruction.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 11/13/2021 9:07 AM, Jethro_uk wrote:

On Thu, 11 Nov 2021 08:09:29 -0800, Stuart O. Bronstein wrote:

"Rick" <rick@nospam.com> wrote in news:smj52u$17ci$1@gioia.aioe.org:

Well the issue with abortion is and has always been what constitutes
life? Does life begin at conception or at brain/thought formation or at
viability or at birth? Until you decide when life actually begins,
then there's not much sense in worrying about what the Constitution has
to say about protecting life.

Some people believe life doesn't begin until graduation from medical
school.

I thought life began at 40 ?

No, Life started "on January 4, 1883, in a New York City artist's studio
at 1155 Broadway, as a partnership between John Ames Mitchell and Andrew Miller."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life_(magazine)

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Sat, 13 Nov 2021 21:45:37 -0800, Mike Anderson wrote:

On 11/13/2021 9:07 AM, Jethro_uk wrote:

On Thu, 11 Nov 2021 08:09:29 -0800, Stuart O. Bronstein wrote:

"Rick" <rick@nospam.com> wrote in news:smj52u$17ci$1@gioia.aioe.org:

Well the issue with abortion is and has always been what constitutes
life? Does life begin at conception or at brain/thought formation or
at viability or at birth? Until you decide when life actually
begins, then there's not much sense in worrying about what the
Constitution has to say about protecting life.

Some people believe life doesn't begin until graduation from medical
school.

I thought life began at 40 ?

No, Life started "on January 4, 1883, in a New York City artist's studio
at 1155 Broadway, as a partnership between John Ames Mitchell and Andrew Miller."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life_(magazine)

Chapeau !

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)