OA Bar Prep With Heather! T3BE42
Added 2024-09-25 08:11:01 +0000 UTCThe answer for T3BE41 is coming your way, and we launch our next Bar Prep question with Heather!
Patrons, submit your answers below! But also, feel free to double up and submit on reddit.com/r/openargs
Comments
Yeah, actually tell me which laws you think are violating the first ammendment, and I will give my "living constitutionalist" defense of them as to why I think they don't. For one thing I am curious if we are thinking about the same laws, and for another thing I think I can actually defend my constitutionlist stance when it comes to first ammendment law.
Alex The Apologetic (that his name is too long)
2024-10-09 20:48:08 +0000 UTCInteresting. I guess it’s just a matter of degree then? The jury trial amendment literally says a jury trial in all circumstances, and the court has read that down for practical reasons. The first amendment literally says “no law” and the court has read that down too. I’m not sure it’s consistent to say one of those readings is taking the amendment seriously and one isn’t. I think they are both just examples of trying to turn words that are hundreds of years old into something that is actually practical for a society
Paul Collier
2024-10-09 20:31:43 +0000 UTCOh I totally agree! Up until now I have been a Living Constitutionlist. My issue isn't that we should be reading the ammendments more literally, my issue is we should either be taking them more *seriously*, or baring that, if we should get rid of the constitution entirely. IMO the modern "laws abridging free speech" that exist are not actually violations of the first ammendment (usually... Don't ask me about Florida). Those laws are still in line with the goal of the first amendment, even if they dont follow it in the most literal of senses. My own little mini constitutional crisis is really down to the question about originialism, because this specific case here is an example where we are just wholly ignoring the underlying meaning of the ammendment. The whole point of the amendment is that you can't get prosecuted without a jury trial, and that is to protect you against extremist or activist judges. You can't argue that this rule about a jury trial is even in the spirit of the amendment, and that makes me wonder if there is even ANY advantage in being a Constitutionalist at all, even a Living Constitutionalist.
Alex The Apologetic (that his name is too long)
2024-10-09 17:01:56 +0000 UTCHave you read the first amendment? “Congress shall make no law… abridging the freedom of speech”. There are loads of laws which do exactly that, and the Court has upheld them many times. The Constitution is much more than just the words on the page
Paul Collier
2024-10-09 11:49:51 +0000 UTCB is wrong because whether you have a right to a jury trial has to come before the trial. D is wrong because math. So is $4500 (or $9000?) enough to get your right to a jury trial? Or is six months (or a year?) too little? I thought jury trial was for _all_ crimes. And it seems hard to argue "well it might as well be civil" if jail is involved. I guess I'd guess A over C but I'm mad about it.
Sam
2024-09-27 14:37:50 +0000 UTCI am going to go with A, and... frankly... I need need an emotional support lawer to talk to about this! Thomas, Heather, Matt... Help! After looking this up I found this line: "...the Court has always excluded petty offenses from the guarantee to a jury trial in federal courts" Excuse me, but WHAT?! A quick peek at the bill of rights says: "In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury..." I am going to stop reading already, because that is all we need. The 6th amendment is exceptionally clear about this, there is NO question at all in the text, you are always entitled to a jury trial when criminally prosecuted. Can I have a Constitutional law nerd help me feel better about this? What is the point of even having a constitution or ammendments if the text need not be taken neither seriously nor literally? How is this not the single most egregious thing ever to the so called "textualists" in our courts?! Would our nation be better served without a constitution? Considering that our large and powerful constitution can be selectively picked from to justify whatever stupid idea a politicized judge might have, I am starting to lose faith in the very idea of constitutionalism itself.
Alex The Apologetic (that his name is too long)
2024-09-25 22:09:59 +0000 UTCI'm going with A, only because it is the only factual answer available since we wouldn't know the actual sentence until after the fact, at which time the question would be moot.
Erin Hutton
2024-09-25 14:06:34 +0000 UTCThis question should be really easy because article 3 says the right to a jury extends to the trial of all crimes, and the sixth amendment says it extends to all criminal prosecutions. Of course, conservatives decided to abandon that text and established a truly bizarre test of authorized imprisonment and the vague notion of seriousness in order to disadvantage defendants. Heather will explain it, but my vague recall says that the answer is A.
Dr. Clerk
2024-09-25 12:32:48 +0000 UTC
