JUST IN: Supreme Court Hears Case Regarding Fifth Amendment That May Have Big Implications For Trump

[@yelloworangered]

I doubt many citizens have the leisure to listen to these arguments, but what a miracle of technology that we have the opportunity, not to read a summary or sift the bias of a news site's report, but to hear the actual hearing as it happens.

[@JimHeil]

Guess I’m one of the few.

[@TheHansleyward]

All this confusing bullshit...Whoever took the PROPERTY PAYS FOR THE PROPERTY, THE END, wtf...They just want to steal without recourse!

[@maym2282]

This is why our country is so divided 😢. Can't choose or say what people wants. without the other side getting mad.. its a definitely problem.

[@doreeneclose6295]

Imagine what AI is learning about humanity through these interactions. We are teaching AI with our every post. Soon AI will conclude the humans are innately cruel and aren’t worth keeping.

[@InspironInspiron17]

What does the term "First English" mean ? It was used over and over.

[@amretrorestoration5773]

First English Evangelical Lutheran Church v. Los Angeles County, a 1987 Supreme Court case. This is from "oyez," a law resource site: "Facts of the case In 1979, the County of Los Angeles passed an ordinance which prohibited construction or reconstruction on land which had been devastated by a flood one year earlier. The First English Evangelical Lutheran Church owned a campground which was affected by this ordinance and it was not allowed to reconstruct buildings on this land which the flood had destroyed. Question Did the ordinance violate the Fifth Amendment (as applied to the states through the Fourteenth) which prevents government from taking private property for public use without providing just compensation to the owner of the property? The Court held that the ordinance violated the Constitution. Noting that the fate of the Church's property had been in limbo for over six years (the suit which it had filed in 1979 had been denied a hearing as late as October of 1985), Chief Justice Rehnquist argued that, because the church was unable to use its property during this time, a "taking" of the property had occurred. Thus, the Just Compensation Clause of the Fifth Amendment required the government to exercise one of a number of "options" such as amending the regulation or fair payment for the use of the property in order to protect the Church's constitutional rights."

[@OuryLN]

You can sue, but you will not get anything.

[@margaretolivares1380]

Oh I thought the headline said biden and his son were in jail😅

[@cherylsamora7081]

Ugggh!😂😅 You're a Comedian! Get a Job and Grow Some Teeth!😂😅

[@Mike-hd7ko]

Hunter lives rent free in your head

[@subicstationditosailor4053]

​@@Mike-hd7koYou two Crack buddies?

[@Mike-hd7ko]

@@subicstationditosailor4053 He lives in your head too eh?

[@subicstationditosailor4053]

@Mike-hd7ko I couldn't care less about hunter. Nothing is going to happen to him, just like nothing is going to stop Trump.

[@Ashley.Hunt.]

❤ I miss you

[@SHaTRO11]

Literally completely unrelated. Wtf, Forbes?!?

[@tyranix9785]

(12:40) Great discussion. ... A cause of action is the legal claim that allows a party to seek judicial relief (aka the judicial remedy or compensation for harm suffered). A legal right is a Constitutional or Statutory provision or a Judicial Precedent that allows a claimant to enforce an action or forbearance of another. Not to be confused with a legal privilege, which is the capacity to do as one pleases in a particular matter.

[@Ashley.Hunt.]

Keeping by choice

[@Ashley.Hunt.]

And andy Ziegler. Especially Andy Ziegler.

[@OlsonCox-uu7ob]

Wen somebody said no u stop ,!

[@Ashley.Hunt.]

Hey!!! It's my favorite!!! Kim!!

[@OlsonCox-uu7ob]

Tell them to stop ativit at my house watching me it over go forward

[@audreyandlinCompany]

I would like someone to explain how this case relates to the Colorado Trump versus Anderson case??? Devillier has to do with property rights while Trump's case is about his eligibility to run for office.

[@joshcameron6014]

It has to do with whether the 5th Amendment, as incorporated to the States through Section 1 of the 14th Amendment, is self-executing--meaning that courts can enforce their provisions without any legislation. There's a debate as to whether Section 3 of the 14th Amendment (Insurrection Clause) is self-executing or whether Congress must enforce the provision through legislation for it to have any teeth. Although the Court could find that the 5th Amendment is self-executing while Section 3 of the 14th Amendment is not self-executing, because the 5th Amendment creates a right (and rights would be mostly pointless if there wasn't a self-executing mechanism to enforce/protect them) while Section 3 doesn't create any rights.

[@audreyandlinCompany]

@@joshcameron6014 ok, thanks! It sounds like the court is leaning towards what you said. The 5th is self-executing while the 14th is not. So, in the Devillier case, I'm guessing the State knowingly turned their property into a spillway and did not compensate them for it?

[@CDWCAULDRON]

@@joshcameron6014 14th Amendment (Insurrection Clause) is Not self-executing 14th amendment only can exclude under the constitution of the President was found Guilty after impeachment . President Trump was found Not Guilt , Under the 14th amendment of the constitution Again Colorado is not Following the LAW of the Land the Constitution of the United States! impeachment is the sole responsibility of the senate Article I, Section 2, Clause 5 and the 5th Amendment, Has no grounds Here or any where and state common law . The Fifth Amendment breaks down into five rights or protections: the right to a jury trial when you're charged with a crime, protection against double jeopardy, protection against self-incrimination, the right to a fair trial, and protection against the taking of property by the government without compensation. Issue of the takings Law Issue is government to Give equal compensation.

[@CDWCAULDRON]

The the right to a fair trial Under the 5th Amendment, Is the only part of this that applies. This was all so VIOLATED And those right in New York and other states have Violated those rights! Under federal law . Under state and federal law 8 U.S. Code § 242 - Deprivation of rights under color of law Whoever, under color of any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom, willfully subjects any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or to different punishments, pains, or penalties, on account of such person being an alien, or by reason of his color, or race, than are prescribed for the punishment of citizens, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both; and if bodily injury results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include the use, attempted use, or threatened use of a dangerous weapon, explosives, or fire, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, shall be fined under this title, or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death. This was all so VIOLATED Presidential Immunity under Article 2 the constitution of the united states Presidential immunity covers actions relating to the official duties of the President, including those in the "outer perimeter" of those duties. Immunity does not extend to unofficial conduct, criminal conduct, and conduct occurring prior to entering office. By doing this their will be repercussions for those that Violated the LAW!!!!!!!!

[@audreyandlinCompany]

@@CDWCAULDRON That's not what's being argued here. Listen to the audio. They're talking about the validity of Texas law which appears to be a catch-22 in this case. But the issue over the 14th Amendment is unlikely to gain any traction with the SC (unless they've become politicized as well) because not only does the amendment say that CONGRESS can vote to remove the restriction but the application of it could disenfranchise at least half the voters in the country. So why doesn't the Congress simply vote to dismiss it in Trump's case?

[@Ashley.Hunt.]

Nope. No idea what the fuck I amto do now. Please contact Senator Raskin

[@markmanning2921]

Citiy of dallas v. mithcell holds that judges have a DUTY to apply just compensation.

[@user-sl4ul4nc3t]

Its also a ruling from 1922, and while historical, it would be note worthy to see how the city of Dallas (city council when asked for compensation) has done since then, since obviously Texas is NOT wanting to follow this ruling. More than likely the city will from then out provide relief, but the state and other jurisdictions within seem to reject. I'm only assuming Dallas is still adhering to such a ruling.

[@patrickodell2555]

🙏

[@UPyours-q8h]

Evidently it doesn't take much to trip this lawyer up that's arguing this case the people that have been on the bench for multiple years that actually knows the Constitution inside and out and they also know the law of the Land and I can't believe that the Democrats on the supreme Court is not actually going along with this damn lawyer in the first place and quite frankly I wouldn't want to give that kind of power to any federal judge on any damn Federal bench have you seen the judges being put on the federal benches by the Democrat party I have

[@ditherdather]

It would be such an amazing honor to argue with all nine justices at once. What an adrenaline rush. They both have to be at the top of their class. Everyone in that room is at the top of what they do, regardless of who you support.

[@Ilych367]

go have a listen to the loper case re chevron. counsel arguing that case sounded pretty young and were absolutely on fire with their knowledge and capacity to answer the questions asked in fantastic detail.

[@Weazelmania]

All bar "Ketanji" lmao.

[@Ashley.Hunt.]

I am quite blessed. And very pregnant. Twins? Carrying high.

[@Ashley.Hunt.]

❤

[@OlsonCox-uu7ob]

He wat take he's profile data,

[@doloreskloper9993]

#TRUMP2024

[@dral9657]

Nice try ! Please stick around, you are going to be so much fun ! 😂

[@sassylady54]

If you love the ORANGE FACE are you willing to DIE FOR THE QUACK??

[@Ashley.Hunt.]

Twins

[@YZ250W1]

When Donnie is whining we're headed in the right direction!

[@huntera123]

If you support censorship and lawless government, then I guess you think this is the "right direction"...

[@legaleeblonde4310]

Which direction is your "right direction?" You must want our next president to be a Democrat. Wow.

[@YZ250W1]

@@huntera123 If you support the orange traitor you are also a traitor. I do enjoy his Desanctimonius whining. Sounds like a toddler!

[@sabaha4637]

I still celebrate 🎉 the pres Trumps victory of Iowa 😘

[@FeldwebelWolfenstool]

Who is "we"?

[@yepyep340]

Originalism is a myth. Sheesh! Our founders were not "Originalist" themselves.

[@joespinella7773]

No it's not

[@yepyep340]

@@joespinella7773 ha. In the end these so called "justices" tell you what the consitutuion says little fella.

[@joespinella7773]

@yepyep340 what does that have to do with originalism. While yes they do. Such rulings like the Bruen Decision were based upon oroginal text. Not this living doctrine bs cooked up by Woodrow Wilson "Little Fella"

[@yepyep340]

@@joespinella7773 You make the classic mistake and subvert "Originalism" with textualism. Do you ride around in a horse drawn carige and cary a musket? Madison's 2A is simple 16th century American English. Much like Shakespeare the footnotes are within the text. The subversion of Madison's 2A is the biggest fraud ever committed on our ppl. The gun rights absolutist would cry WAR if one of our soldiers got there head blown off. But if their women and children get massacred they do not do shit. Abysmal to say the least.

[@milesrost6674]

I like how when proposed with a differing opinion you resort to "belittling behavior" addressing Mr. Spinella as "little fella". You must be a real "big fella"... @@yepyep340

[@yepyep340]

Trump = Disqualified

[@cameronsinnett8117]

Trumps winning 2024, prepare your emotions for that reality

[@UPyours-q8h]

No explanation on why Trump would be disqualified enlighten me why Trump should actually be disqualified in the first place and you could never come up with the right answer no matter how hard you want to think on it is it because Trump has 91 indictments against against him that were made up from our own doj is that what disqualifies Donald Trump or is it because he was trying to find mail-in ballots to keep him in office back in 2020 is that what disqualifies Trump answer the damn question Democrat we know why you don't want Trump in office because you're fearful of what he will do not what he can do that's what you Democrats fear most of all him downsizing the federal government agencies across the damn board

[@globalterroil3208]

Almost certainly not. Especially not on the basis of the _14th_ . ;-)

[@yepyep340]

@@globalterroil3208 These so called "justices" tell you what the 14th says duh. And I only need 1 more vote. Who do you think Roberts will get me? Boofo the clown supreme court judge ? Gorsuch?

[@milesrost6674]

Troll some more, I suppose you believe the Clintons and Bidens are "good ol' folks"?.?.....

[@omarfierros4973]

Forbes breaking news stop:No MAGA back Black NO 🤐🚫🇺🇸🐘TRUMP😈🔴🤡🚫🔪🔫🚫 Black Donald J trump not back ok work vote🎉

[@carolynbaker2405]

He needs fail at every move he makes in our Nation

[@sabaha4637]

Trump has the guns, remember 😁

[@UPyours-q8h]

If this lawyer actually never lived back in the 1700s when our constitution was written how can he interpret what the hell are founding fathers would think in the first place and on top of that I don't think no federal government agency or no state agency can take somebody else's land to serve their purpose

[@robertcanup4473]

Because dictionaries from than time period exist. Because the founders wrote about what things in the Constitution meant. Because the minutes of the Constitutional convention still exist. For example it was made clear, in the latter, that the second amendment exists because the founders were worried about the government becoming dictatorial, and they wanted to insure that the people would be able to overthrow such a government. You may not like what those things say, but those are the correct answers to your question.;

[@forrestlangston7854]

😂😂😂😂 FOOLS 😂😂😂😂😢😢😢 Here Comes the 🌞 Sun😂😂 M A G A 🎉🇺🇸💪❤️🇺🇸 2024🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸