Tvandermyde Posted February 7, 2023 at 02:09 PM Share Posted February 7, 2023 at 02:09 PM looking for a link to the Mchenry county case that was moved to the western division oof the northern district last week so I can read it and track it todd Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Molly B. Posted February 7, 2023 at 02:33 PM Share Posted February 7, 2023 at 02:33 PM email sent. sorry, do not have an active link to follow the case but I'm sure somebody will pop up with it here in a bit. Kenneally v Raoul .pdf Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ddan Posted February 7, 2023 at 05:33 PM Share Posted February 7, 2023 at 05:33 PM https://www.pacermonitor.com/public/case/47606557/Kenneally_v_Raoul_et_al https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/66770991/kenneally-v-raoul/ 3:23-cv-50039 is that what you're looking for? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tvandermyde Posted February 7, 2023 at 06:30 PM Author Share Posted February 7, 2023 at 06:30 PM yup thanks Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steveTA84 Posted February 8, 2023 at 01:35 PM Share Posted February 8, 2023 at 01:35 PM Well, he seems to not have a moral compass...... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
springfield shooter Posted February 8, 2023 at 02:00 PM Share Posted February 8, 2023 at 02:00 PM On 2/8/2023 at 7:35 AM, steveTA84 said: Well, he seems to not have a moral compass...... So, in his view, the ILGA can pass a law abrogating the First Amendment, and that law must be enforced until found unconstitutional by a court. That's what is actually being said here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steveTA84 Posted February 8, 2023 at 02:03 PM Share Posted February 8, 2023 at 02:03 PM On 2/8/2023 at 8:00 AM, springfield shooter said: So, in his view, the ILGA can pass a law abrogating the First Amendment, and that law must be enforced until found unconstitutional by a court. That's what is actually being said here. Yeah. I haven’t paid much attention to this guy, but I’ve heard not good things (him being weak) from people that live in the area. Granted, he did sue, so.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Upholder Posted February 8, 2023 at 02:18 PM Share Posted February 8, 2023 at 02:18 PM How does he square that with ACTUAL court decisions saying otherwise? Quote "All laws which are repugnant to the Constitution are null and void." Marbury vs. Madison, 5 US (2 Cranch) 137, 174, 176, (1803) "Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule making or legislation which would abrogate them." Miranda vs. Arizona, 384 US 436 p. 491. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Molly B. Posted February 8, 2023 at 02:27 PM Share Posted February 8, 2023 at 02:27 PM You have to read the whole article. I understand what he is saying and the dangerous area the legislature and gov have forced into. Farther down he talks about prosecutorial discretion and it's justifiable use. He's saying that justfiable use is different from stating emphatically a law will not be enforced and then doing nothing to correct it. It must be challenged and fixed. Which he is trying to do. Read his court brief. For a person whose life and livelihood has been based on belief in and practice of the rule of law, this must be a nightmare of a crisis of consciousness (right word?). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bmyers Posted February 8, 2023 at 02:46 PM Share Posted February 8, 2023 at 02:46 PM I understand what the sheriff is saying, but just because the legislative body states it is legal, doesn't make it so. The Nuremberg trials showed that the defense of 'just following orders' was not a valid defense unless you were directly under duress of physical harm. Knowing that the law/order you are given and following is illegal, you are responsible for your choice to follow them. By no means am I saying that we have reached the level of the awful genocide that was committed during that time frame leading to the Nuremberg trial, but the principal of knowingly doing something wrong just because those in charge says it is okay, can apply here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.