Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : View from the Center and Left -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Cogito who wrote (74723)	7/3/2008 7:50:53 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 543317

The listed exception isn't really important, I just mentioned it to cover my argument and make it complete. My argument doesn't depend on it, but if I didn't mention it, someone could bring it up as a diversion, and imply its a weakness in my argument. I probably shouldn't have brought it up, because now I've created the distraction myself, but in any case here it is "except in any case in any particular county or judicial district, upon motion by the defendant, and after a finding by the court that a fair and impartial trial cannot be had where the offense may be committed, the court shall direct the trial to a county or judicial district in which a fair and im-partial trial can be obtained." As a general response, I'd say that if the reason for the stipulation that no trial should ever take place in any county other than the one in which the crime was committed no longer applied, then it would be perfectly reasonable to conclude that the law should be changed, or the Constitution amended. I would as well. But that wasn't the question I asked. Absent such legislation or amendment, would you say that the active clause of the law is voided, or at least changed in an important way, by the mere fact of the stated justification in the law becoming obsolete, or being shown to have always been false?