New answers tagged

1

You don’t have to swear Witnesses are given the option to swear (technically take an oath) or to affirm, which has no religious connotations. You also don’t actually swear on a Bible if you do swear. For example california. The US is a very religious state france is a secular state - it prohibits religious clothing (hijabs, crucifixes etc.) in schools. The ...


10

The main reason for this asymmetry is, as the other answers say, that Twitter is a private company and Trump was a government official. It is a little more subtle, in that Twitter is not a regulated public utility. Various businesses such as gas, water, electricity are deemed to be public utilities which serve the basic needs of the general public, and ...


19

An analogy. I own a meeting hall. I rent it out to the US Forest Service, who frequently has public hearings on matters of policy e.g. whether to open a sector for logging or recreation, seal up abandoned mines or leave them for explorers, that kind of thing. Some of these can get pretty loud. The Forest Service decides to let all the loggers into the ...


83

Trump was an officer of the government, and Twitter wasn't. The First Amendment forbids the government and its agents from viewpoint discrimination, but private companies are not bound by it and can discriminate as much as they please. (There was a question as to whether such discrimination might affect whether the company enjoys a shield from liability ...


2

The basic purpose of AB 5 was to codify the California courts' standard for determining whether workers who would typically be considered freelancers are employees or independent contractors. The plaintiffs' theory is that AB 5 raises First Amendment issues because its rules for freelance journalists are different from its rules for other freelance writers, ...


0

No In order for the courts at any level to hear a case, there must be an actual controversy between both parties. Since the 25th Amendment is all about Presidential Succession and at time of writing, no President has died in office since the law was passed, no one has had actual controversy such that standing to be heard was established. Conversely the 14th ...


2

I am not aware of any precedents on point. If I were a judge deciding the issue as one of first impression, I would hold that it is disqualifying. The U.S. Constitution, Article VI, Clause 3 states: The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the ...


0

Not in court The speech or debate clause protects statements made in the chamber from civil or criminal proceedings absolutely. However, the House or Senate (as applicable) can take action including expelling the Congressperson.


8

Is it true that in US law jurors are not actually judging guilt, but rather whether the case against a person has been made in accordance with the concepts of all reasonable doubt? It is not true, legally speaking, because as far as the law is concerned it is the jury's verdict that decides the question of guilt, and the jury's verdict is determined by ...


3

The jury determines guilty or not guilty, which could be phrased as “prosecution has proven the case” or “prosecution has not proven the case.” Prior to conviction they are supposed to be presumed to be innocent, after conviction they are presumed to be guilty. Ineptitude only matters on the defendant’s side, as double jeopardy prevents inept prosecutors ...


-1

In the US the Jury is considered the "Fact Finder" so they are being asked to decide which of conflicting facts is true or false. One of the facts that is being contested in a criminal case is "did he/she/they do it?" The state says yes, the suspect says no. The Jury decides which statement is true. If a fact is uncontested then the ...


29

Short answer, yes, jurors will typically render a decision of guilt vs. innocence. This is pretty common in nations where the legal system is derived from British Common Law (about 2 billion people world wide live in a Common Law nation). The U.S. is unique in that it uses juries for Civil Trials as well as Criminal Trials. The right to a trial by jury ...


6

From a purely technical interpretation of the law does the oath cover laws that are unconstitutional? Of course not. Unconstitutional laws are effectively null and void. The oath covers the constitution and laws collectively, not individually. Supporting and defending them collectively includes supporting and defending court rulings, including those ...


17

Technically, there is no such thing as an unconstitutional law. There are laws which have been passed, but whose unconstitutionality has not been discovered yet. But once a law is legally deemed to be unconstitutional, it stops being a law. The constitution is a recipe for running the government. If Congress enacts legislature which it has no authority to ...


12

There is an Oath of Enlistment for the military where the enlistee vows to support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, ...


2

To whom does the obediance lie with those who took the oath? If by obedience, you mean allegiance then it is the Constitution and the law... I hereby declare, on oath... that I will support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States of America ... that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same ...


Top 50 recent answers are included