Judicial Consistency

  • Thread starter Thread starter StarMapp
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
S

StarMapp

Guest
Is it asking too much to ask for judicial consistency in the due process systems of western democracies?.

A priest is asked by the diocese to step down from his duties when
there is a criminal charge filed against him, or an investigation is being done. He may volunteer to do so also.

On the other hand we have a threat of an impeachment of a president, and we sit back while his authority and decision making abilities are not even called into question when a plan is devised to assassinate a person in another nation. Nor do we debate his state of mind or competence on issues that deal with the threat of world peace.

In remaining consistent, shouldn’t all executive authority go to the vice president while the impeachment hearings and verdict are still unknown?

I wonder how the family of the assassinated general feels with the fact that the president has no more a clean track record than their father.

Thoughts?
 
Last edited:
The Church laws are not the government’s. The president “behavior” cannot be compared to that of the general.

You are comparing apples and oranges. I frankly, do not see your point.
 
StarMapp, in order to have a meaningful discussion, I’d respectfully ask you to answer some questions:
  1. Do you agree or disagree with the operation that resulted in the death of Osama Bin Laden? I ask in part because the Iranian general killed was a vicious man responsible for many innocent deaths, moreso than Bin Laden according to many commentators (Americanthinker.com has a good article on this today).
  2. Do you really, genuinely think the impeachment proceedings are NOT politically motivated? Because if they’re not, why will not “our lady of
    Perpetual impeachment” Nancy Pelosi actually send the impeachment to the Senate so Trunp can be (rightly) exonerated? And why will no republicans actually act to remove him from office?
Please advise.
 
StarMapp said:
On the other hand we have a threat of an impeachment of a president, and we sit back while his authority and decision making abilities are not even called into question when a plan is devised to assassinate a person in another nation.
Click to expand...
StarMapp said:
In remaining consistent, shouldn’t all executive authority go to the vice president while the impeachment hearings and verdict are still unknown?
Click to expand...
The fate of the President is determined by the US Constitution and Congress. There are rules that govern this.
 
Apples to Oranges, …….but now crime with crime.

The priest set the right example for Trump. The president took the general’s case, but only if he were in the state to do so. Only then can he act in that capacity. Right now there is a case against him to be resolved first. Why first? Because he may at any time be called to administer justice, and his slate must be clean first. It is a right of all accused… even Globally.

This means HE is first bound to judicial law, and it is a conflict of interest for him to distribute any justice while his people put his conduct in question. The general had a right to be judged by virtuous and law abiding judges. Even if the president’s case was resolved in his favor, he is still bound to honor the due process system of the general. It is not a carte blanche for him to pick and choose what he needs out of it or to speed up processes on a path to his desire, the latter becomes a criminal act.

I don’t argue the processes or specific issues at all, but I will come to the aid of someone who was never given a chance to plead a case. Count on it and I know Catholics are pleased.
 
No, the crimes are not equal, so there is that.

Presidents do not step until they must by law, by conviction.

The general was a bad guy. Read up on it before you want to compare him to Trump. Again, apples and oranges.

Muting now.
 
The process for impeachment of a President is defined in great detail in the US Constitution. It provides for reasonable “due process”.
I would suggest if you have issues with the process, you write to your congressional representatives, as they are the ones who would have to vote for a Constitutional amendment on the process.
GIven that the founders of the US made it very difficult to amend our Constitution, and for good reasons (so we would have a stable constitution and not one that’s getting changed every year like many other countries have), I have a feeling this is a non-starter.

There is no reason for the structure and legal processes of the US Government to follow the processes used internally by the Catholic dioceses, which have a different set of goals and concerns.

Your post frankly makes little sense apart from you apparently not liking something Trump did recently. That’s hardly a reason to seek a Constitutional amendment or make the US government run like a Catholic diocese - and the way most dioceses seem to have been run until recently, I’m thankful to God that the US government is on a firmer footing.
 
StarMapp said:
The priest set the right example for Trump.
Click to expand...
Presidents aren’t governed by the Catholic Church. What’re saying doesn’t make sense.
StarMapp said:
he is still bound to honor the due process system of the general.
Click to expand...
General Qasem Soleimani is not a US citizen. Iran is a well known sponsor of terrorist groups. Depending on who you ask, Soleimani could be considered an enemy combatant.
StarMapp said:
I will come to the aid of someone who was never given a chance to plead a case.
Click to expand...
It would’ve been better to say that you disagree with President Trump rather than cobble together this strange and confusing argument.
 
Last edited:
Starmapp, I gather you will not answer the reasonable questions I asked, and your last post makes very little sense. It’s also logically inconsistent that you think Trump essentially should be removed from office without due process but you’re condemning of a war setting where the same result occurs despite no due process being owed.

I’m out. Enjoy debating with yourself.
 
If a mom was to attend a trial of her son on a murder charge, should she feel her son did not deserve the right to unbiased due process because he was a nasty violent person through out his life, or would she plead his rights for a fair trial in all aspects of his rights, which in the spirit of the said constitution, includes the characteristics of a presiding upright judge who’s upstanding and respected in his community?
 
So you’re saying that we should’ve put Soleimani on trial?
 
I can’t answer your last post, #11 I think. Perhaps my installing win10 has something to do with it. This post seems to work for some reason.
 
Oops!. now it’s working.

No. I’m saying that he was deserved the protection of the law while on trial. In the President’s case, the impeachment under the law should have him back down in conflict of interest in the interim if there was any ounce of virtue left in him. In fact it’s not uncommon for a good judge to back down in conflict of interest, and it speaks well of his character. The facts are clear, and his impeachment notice had consequences. It speaks volume the message that he may have problems in making right choices. As you know some of those duties are pushing nuke buttons, or perhaps pardoning a prisoner, or refusing pardon. The fact is, the people loss faith in him to the extent that they desired him to plead his case at a hearing.

The constitutions back down to God’s laws, set down since for the protection of families and individuals. The state is to serve the people. These are Divine precepts and oversee collective law, at least in Non Partisan Catholicism, which should not exist.

The founding fathers had nothing but glowing praise for Hemerich Vattells the Law of Nations, and they sought whenever possible to incorporate it’s fundamentals in the constitution. That noble document has now the DNA of more than an extra measure of Catholic principles and dogma in it’s living words, thanks be to God.

But to remain on track, I have a question I would like people to ponder. Why was it so important that the processes of law be followed in the case of the most heinous leaders that Germany could muster, or the world as seen since.? I’m speaking of the Nuremburg trials. These prisoners were extremely well treated, and given the extent of the right to due process. Now these court ministers also saw the ovens and the treatment of the sick, the atrocities and the experiments, and it goes on.

So why could the world not hear what the general had to say, or Sadam had to say, who’s next that the UN has to “take the president’s word for it”.
 
Yes reasonable due process right reason, Divine reason, not passionate reactive reason. It would seem the type he takes as his habit brings on a shock, if not downright horror, to a majority of the people.
 
Last edited:
Believe imust practice comadments explain is powerful enough my salvation is the concern giving back from practice is only true meaning of you spread the word of God faith gained not from advertising or given from person only practice admiration for good deeds can give anything to want what you have do it yourself although I allow others to practice there religion to keep free will and democracy is as lined I don’t believe abortion so I would not have one myself only vote for what God wants us to have free will and choose ourselves in his word good enough for him to give so believe that is only practice when no one is looking to continue to follow faith and religion is enough for anyone goodness is seen difficult enough
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top