PhillyKev 0 #1 January 4, 2005 Since you guys hijacked my nice thing to say about Bush, felt I had to start a new thread. The Republicans who were pushing for a relaxation of rules that require a congressman or senator to step down if indicted for a crime (to protect Delay) have dropped that pursuit. Mighty big of them since the GOP pushed and got passed the requirement in the first place in anticipation of Rostenkowski's indictment in 93. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DrunkMonkey 0 #2 January 4, 2005 Heh...Rostenkowski. I still have the flag he gave me when I made Eagle Scout...kinda funny... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Zenister 0 #3 January 4, 2005 if you happen to do something good only because it serves your own selfish interests, are you really doing 'good'?____________________________________ Those who fail to learn from the past are simply Doomed. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PhillyKev 0 #4 January 4, 2005 No, that's why I said I was saying something nice about them. Not that they did anything good. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jcd11235 0 #5 January 4, 2005 Tou sure are good at looking at the bright side of things, PK. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
storm1977 0 #6 January 5, 2005 I happen to think this was a bad idea.... In this country unlike France, you are innocent until proven guilty. An indictment is no proof of guilt, and no one should be forced to step down because of it. My opinion of course, but that is one of the founding principals of my country.... Some people want to change my country though.... Oh Well. ----------------------------------------------------- Sometimes it is more important to protect LIFE than Liberty Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ron 10 #7 January 5, 2005 In this country you are innocent till proven guilty. So an indictment should not make you step down. That rule should have never been put into place."No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PhillyKev 0 #8 January 5, 2005 An indictment means that a grand jury found sufficient evidence to suspect that you may be guilty of a crime and should face trial for it. I agree, you're innocent until proven guilty. But that doesn't mean society doesn't try to protect itself until the facts are made clear. By your logic, no one should be in jail before they are convicted. I mean, they haven't been found guilty yet. Leaving someone in charge or our nations laws, who is indicted with a crime, meaning there's sufficient evidence to believe they might be guilty, is just foolish. Would you let a babysitter indicted for rape watch your kids? Why would you let a politician indicted for fraud or illegal campaign funding create laws? Did you complain when the Republicans put this rule into effect to use against a democrat? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
storm1977 0 #9 January 5, 2005 Quotefound sufficient evidence to suspect that you may be guilty. I know what it is... and I think you said it perfectly. I added the emphasis ----------------------------------------------------- Sometimes it is more important to protect LIFE than Liberty Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyDekker 1,465 #10 January 5, 2005 pretty simple to me. If a teacher is indicted of child molestation we remove him from the class room until the court case is over. If a politician gets indicted with a fraud charge or any criminal charge, we remove him from his office until the court case is over. Has nothing to do with innocent until proven guilty. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
storm1977 0 #11 January 5, 2005 Is that true????? Example: an accusation of a teacher commiting a crime causes an indictment. The teacher is then not "Fired". They may not be teaching and suspended. If they are found INNOCENT in court, they would be re-instated. So if a congressman is asked to "Step-down" would they be re-intated after being found not guilty? Nope!!! And that is not fair. I could see a temporary suspension.... But not a termination. ----------------------------------------------------- Sometimes it is more important to protect LIFE than Liberty Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,131 #12 January 5, 2005 > In this country you are innocent till proven guilty. No longer true. Now you are presumed guilty and detained indefinitely if you are seen as a threat. There have been several memos from the white house legal staff explaining/defending this position. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PhreeZone 20 #13 January 5, 2005 There is no such thing as a temporary suspension. That would leave their constituants without a voice in congress and that goes completely against representation of the people. Even being centured still gives a rep options in expressing the will of their constituants. An open seat can be filled rapidly providing those people a voice still. Look back at Washington DC and Mayor Berry. He was fired as soon as he was arrested for his drug charges even though it took months for the trial to happen and a verdict to be reached. If found innocent then they can rerun to take their seat back at the next election.Yesterday is history And tomorrow is a mystery Parachutemanuals.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ron 10 #14 January 5, 2005 QuoteNo longer true. Now you are presumed guilty and detained indefinitely if you are seen as a threat Only in regards to terrorists and national security. You would have had something if you could claim the same about Scott Petterson."No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jcd11235 0 #15 January 5, 2005 QuoteThat rule should have never been put into place. Wow. That's twice today we've agreed Ron. Ron? Quote"Mighty big of them since the GOP pushed and got passed the requirement in the first place in anticipation of Rostenkowski's indictment in 93." -PhillyKevMath tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
storm1977 0 #16 January 5, 2005 QuoteThere is no such thing as a temporary suspension. That would leave their constituants without a voice in congress and that goes completely against representation of the people. Even being centured still gives a rep options in expressing the will of their constituants. An open seat can be filled rapidly providing those people a voice still. Look back at Washington DC and Mayor Berry. He was fired as soon as he was arrested for his drug charges even though it took months for the trial to happen and a verdict to be reached. If found innocent then they can rerun to take their seat back at the next election. That is the whole point of my post.... That if the person was indicted and then found not guilty, he would infact be penilized for not doing anything wrong!!!!! Why should a politician loose his job if he is not found guilty of a crime? ----------------------------------------------------- Sometimes it is more important to protect LIFE than Liberty Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PhreeZone 20 #17 January 5, 2005 Why sould someone sit in jail awaiting their verdict if they can not make bail? If they are innocent then they should never have been in jail in the first place right?Yesterday is history And tomorrow is a mystery Parachutemanuals.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PhillyKev 0 #18 January 5, 2005 QuoteThat is the whole point of my post.... That if the person was indicted and then found not guilty, he would infact be penilized for not doing anything wrong!!!!! Why should a politician loose his job if he is not found guilty of a crime? I know a guy that was charged with a crime and arrested. He spent a couple days in jail. The police came to his work looking for him. Turns out the accuser was making it up and the charges were dropped before it even went to trial. He could have very easily lost his job if his boss wasn't really cool and understanding. Should we not arrest suspected criminals? Or put them in jail awaiting trial or bail? I asked this question above and you haven't answered it. You also haven't answered if you thought this was a bad idea in '93 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ron 10 #19 January 5, 2005 QuoteI know a guy that was charged with a crime and arrested. Did this have to do with a gun and a stripper ex GF? QuoteYou also haven't answered if you thought this was a bad idea in '93 It was a bad idea in 93."No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PhillyKev 0 #20 January 5, 2005 I don't know the details QuoteIt was a bad idea in 93. Not what I asked. In '93, did you think it was a bad idea? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
storm1977 0 #21 January 5, 2005 QuoteQuoteThat is the whole point of my post.... That if the person was indicted and then found not guilty, he would infact be penilized for not doing anything wrong!!!!! Why should a politician loose his job if he is not found guilty of a crime? I know a guy that was charged with a crime and arrested. He spent a couple days in jail. The police came to his work looking for him. Turns out the accuser was making it up and the charges were dropped before it even went to trial. He could have very easily lost his job if his boss wasn't really cool and understanding. Should we not arrest suspected criminals? Or put them in jail awaiting trial or bail? I asked this question above and you haven't answered it. You also haven't answered if you thought this was a bad idea in '93 OK... sorry thought the questions were indirect... was it a bad idea... yes. Should we arrest suspects... Yes, however, it is against the law to hold them without charging them with a crime. A judge determines if there is evidence supporting the fact the the person in question has commited a crime. If yes, the person may be released pending a trial based on an evaluation or assessment of risk of public saftey or of flight. If I rob a grocery store of $500, and am arrested, I will not be held in jail likely for long. If the case goes to trial I will most likly be release until that date. Murder is obviously a different story, because there is a threat risk to the public. In the story you told was the person who lied arrested for filing a false report? Was he/she sued for loss of wages while the guy was in jail? Also, if he was fired and his boss wasn't nice, he could have filed a wrongful dismissal complaint against the company to get his job or wages back. ----------------------------------------------------- Sometimes it is more important to protect LIFE than Liberty Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PhillyKev 0 #22 January 5, 2005 QuoteIf I rob a grocery store of $500, and am arrested, I will not be held in jail likely for long. If the case goes to trial I will most likly be release until that date. You think you'll be welcome at that grocery store? You think maybe the court will put restrictions on your activities as a condition of bail? QuoteIn the story you told was the person who lied arrested for filing a false report? Was he/she sued for loss of wages while the guy was in jail? No, it couldn't be proven and the bitch...I mean she didn't have anything to sue her for anyway. QuoteAlso, if he was fired and his boss wasn't nice, he could have filed a wrongful dismissal complaint against the company to get his job or wages back Uhhh...no you couldn't. It's employment at will. No such thing as wrongful dismissal unless it's for being a member of a protected class. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rehmwa 2 #23 January 5, 2005 Quoteprotected class. wow, those two words have different definitions depending on who's doing the talking ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PhillyKev 0 #24 January 5, 2005 QuoteQuoteprotected class. wow, those two words have different definitions depending on who's doing the talking I was referring to the legal definition. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ron 10 #25 January 5, 2005 QuoteNot what I asked. In '93, did you think it was a bad idea? Did you read my post? I clearly said it was a bad idea. Are you getting old, or just surprized?"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
