Anonymous ID: d7cd55 Nov. 25, 2018, 6:50 a.m. No.4023037   🗄️.is 🔗kun   >>3284 >>3441 >>3545 >>3624

MOAR DIGGING ON 6TH CIRCUIT JUDGE DISMISSING FEMALE GENITAL MUTILATION CHARGES

 

Marbury vs. Madison was the first Supreme Court case that allowed for judicial review of statutes BUT

 

A central tenet of constitutional law is that the judicial power to

declare a statute unconstitutional is an exceptional one, which should be used only when "unavoidable.

 

FEDERAL COURTS HAVE PLACED THE FOLLOWING LIMITS ON THEIR POWER OF JUDICIAL REVIEW

 

1. PRESUMPTION OF CONSTITUTIONALITY'

One of the principal limitations is the presumption of constitutionality.

 

2. DOCTRINE OF CONSTITUTIONALITY AND DECIDING CASES ON STATUTORY GROUNDS WHEN POSSIBLE

 

3. REFUSAL TO CONSIDER CONSTITUTIONAL ARGUMENTS MADE BY ONE TO WHOM APPLICATION OF A STATUTE IS CONSTITUTIONAL

^^^^^^THIS^^^^^ is where I believe the 6th Circuit Judge over stepped the judicial review power. He allowed a criminal defendant to raise a constitutional challenge to the statute in a criminal case.

 

United States v. Raines, 362 U.S. 17 (1960) gives a long list of SCOTUS caselaw supporting this rule and says this:

 

Liverpool, New York & Philadelphia S.S. Co. v. Commissioners of Emigration, 113 U. S. 33, 113 U. S. 39. Kindred to these rules is the rule that one to whom application of a statute is constitutional will not be heard to attack the statute on the ground that impliedly it might also be taken as applying to other persons or other situations in which its application might be unconstitutional. United States v. Wurzbach, 280 U. S. 396; Heald v. District of Columbia, 259 U. S. 114, 259 U. S. 123; Yazoo & Mississippi Valley R. Co. v. Jackson Vinegar Co., 226 U. S. 217; Collins v. Texas, 223 U. S. 288, 223 U. S. 295-296; New York ex rel. Hatch v. Reardon, 204 U. S. 152, 204 U. S. 160-161. Cf. Voeller v. Neilston Warehouse Co., 311 U. S. 531, 311 U. S. 537; Carmichael v. Southern Coal & Coke Co., 301 U. S. 495, 301 U. S. 513; Virginian R. Co. v. System Federation, 300 U. S. 515, 300 U. S. 558; Blackmer v. United States, 284 U. S. 421, 284 U. S. 442; Roberts & Schaefer Co. v. Emmerson, 271 U. S. 50, 271 U. S. 54-55; Jeffrey Mfg. Co. v. Blagg, 235 U. S. 571, 235 U. S. 576; Tyler v. Judges of the Court of Registration, 179 U. S. 405; Ashwander v. Tennessee Valley Authority, 297 U. S. 288, 297 U. S. 347-348 (concurring opinion). In Barrows v. Jackson, 346 U. S. 249, this Court developed various reasons for this rule.

 

REASONS FOR THIS RULE LISTED IN RAINES

-Very significant is the incontrovertible proposition that it "would indeed be undesirable for this Court to consider every conceivable situation which might possibly arise in the application of complex and comprehensive legislation.

 

-application of this rule frees the Court not only from unnecessary pronouncement on constitutional issues, but also from premature interpretations of statutes in areas where their constitutional application might be cloudy.

 

SAUCE:

 

US vs Raines

https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/362/17/#20

 

6th Circuit Judge Dismisses FGM case:

https://www.scribd.com/document/393706333/Judge-dismisses-several-charges-in-FGM-case

Anonymous ID: d7cd55 Nov. 25, 2018, 7:08 a.m. No.4023155   🗄️.is 🔗kun   >>3640

>>4021394 (lb)

>"The Defense Department Office of Inspector General plans to release the full audit report in December."

Auditfag here, ^^^^^^^^THIS^^^^^^ is very interdasting indeed!!!!!

Anonymous ID: d7cd55 Nov. 25, 2018, 8:04 a.m. No.4023516   🗄️.is 🔗kun   >>3608

>>4023441

>The federal law (cabal Dems behind it) has not passed and is stuck in committee in the Senate. Consider why that would be.

Not true… it is codified 18 USC 116 passed 1996. Read the 6th Cir Judge's decision…it gives more history on this law.

 

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/116

Anonymous ID: d7cd55 Nov. 25, 2018, 8:27 a.m. No.4023676   🗄️.is 🔗kun

>>4023608

>But Michigan law is more harsh to both docs and transporting parents, trebling the federal statute:

MI law was not in place when this Dr. committed the crime. She walks.

 

Again….judicial review rules - she had no standing to challenge the law because applying the law to her does not violate her constitutional rights