Question Regarding a felony

[Froggy]

Criminal history shows arrests and convictions.

A criminal history doesn’t show up on a driver’s license check. It has to be specially run and there is supposed to be a justification for it.

Thanks tvc184. The reason I asked is that I was riding with him about three years ago when a DPS trooper pulled him over for 10mph over the speed limit on a FM road. My buddy received a warning but when the trooper handed him his license back he said, "I see you've been staying out of trouble for a long time."

He's never been in trouble since and is a law abiding citizen.

[glen]

Frog. When people get ran on traffic stops it shows driving record and not arrests/convictions. It will show Drivers License offenses such as driving impaired and license suspensions etc. A Officer can have a criminal history ran out on road but lots of rules concerning broadcast and also means in which the Officer is able to access this criminal history report.

[Landrover]

Once you served your sentence (debt to society) supposedly it is over.........NOT!!! "Merica"

[tvc184]

Once you served your sentence (debt to society) supposedly it is over.........NOT!!! "Merica"

What if not possessing a firearm for life is part of the penalty?

If a sex offender does his time, why should he have to report in to the local police anytime he moves, gets a different vehicle, submit to being photographed, etc? Why should his photo and address be put on public display? In Texas (and probably most other states) that is true. Even if a person did his time in prison, he carries a lifetime liability.

What if doing your time (certainly not a legal term) includes more than time in the cross-bar hotel?

[J Wales]

The Constitution does trump all. The unpopular answer is in Article III, Section 2 of that same Constitution which says that if there is a question about what the Constitution means, the Supreme Court of the United States gets to make the decision.

It goes like this….

Person 1: I believe in the Constitution 100% with no exceptions!

Person 2: What about Article III, Section 2 that says the Supreme Court gets to decide what is right?

Person 1: I don’t believe in that part of the Constitution!

*****

Constitution for the United States of America

Article III, Section 1
The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish……..

Article III, Section 2
The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made……

Man, you post some good stuff.

The crazy thing is...the Constitution does not actually explicitly say that the Supreme Court has the authority to determine what laws are comply with the Constitution or not. The court granted itself that authority in the 1803 case, Marbury v. Madison.

Here's a good concise blurb about it:

" The best-known power of the Supreme Court is judicial review, or the ability of the Court to declare a Legislative or Executive act in violation of the Constitution, is not found within the text of the Constitution itself. The Court established this doctrine in the case of Marbury v. Madison (1803).

In this case, the Court had to decide whether an Act of Congress or the Constitution was the supreme law of the land. The Judiciary Act of 1789 gave the Supreme Court original jurisdiction to issue writs of mandamus (legal orders compelling government officials to act in accordance with the law). A suit was brought under this Act, but the Supreme Court noted that the Constitution did not permit the Court to have original jurisdiction in this matter. Since Article VI of the Constitution establishes the Constitution as the Supreme Law of the Land, the Court held that an Act of Congress that is contrary to the Constitution could not stand. In subsequent cases, the Court also established its authority to strike down state laws found to be in violation of the Constitution.

Before the passage of the Fourteenth Amendment (1869), the provisions of the Bill of Rights were only applicable to the federal government. After the Amendment's passage, the Supreme Court began ruling that most of its provisions were applicable to the states as well. Therefore, the Court has the final say over when a right is protected by the Constitution or when a Constitutional right is violated."

That's from https://www.uscourts.gov/about-feder...esources/about

[tvc184]

Man, you post some good stuff.

The crazy thing is...the Constitution does not actually explicitly say that the Supreme Court has the authority to determine what laws are comply with the Constitution or not. The court granted itself that authority in the 1803 case, Marbury v. Madison.

Here's a good concise blurb about it:

" The best-known power of the Supreme Court is judicial review, or the ability of the Court to declare a Legislative or Executive act in violation of the Constitution, is not found within the text of the Constitution itself. The Court established this doctrine in the case of Marbury v. Madison (1803).

In this case, the Court had to decide whether an Act of Congress or the Constitution was the supreme law of the land. The Judiciary Act of 1789 gave the Supreme Court original jurisdiction to issue writs of mandamus (legal orders compelling government officials to act in accordance with the law). A suit was brought under this Act, but the Supreme Court noted that the Constitution did not permit the Court to have original jurisdiction in this matter. Since Article VI of the Constitution establishes the Constitution as the Supreme Law of the Land, the Court held that an Act of Congress that is contrary to the Constitution could not stand. In subsequent cases, the Court also established its authority to strike down state laws found to be in violation of the Constitution.

Before the passage of the Fourteenth Amendment (1869), the provisions of the Bill of Rights were only applicable to the federal government. After the Amendment's passage, the Supreme Court began ruling that most of its provisions were applicable to the states as well. Therefore, the Court has the final say over when a right is protected by the Constitution or when a Constitutional right is violated."

That's from https://www.uscourts.gov/about-feder...esources/about

I have read various opinions on the authority of SCOTUS including on TBH. Usually it is when someone doesn’t like a decision but I don’t hear the same complaints where SCOTUS rules in favor of the same person.

I think the Constitution and the intent was the separation of powers. If SCOTUS has no authority to overturn unconstitutional laws, what is the point of the three branches of government?

In Heller and then in McDonald v. Chicago, SCOTUS ruled that the Second Amendment was an individual right not connected to a militia. Bruen in 2022 was ruled that states must have a means to allow citizens to carry in public. I don’t hear a lot of demands from the pro Second Amendment supporters to disregard SCOTUS’s authority and let each state regulate its own affairs and ignore the Second and Fourteenth Amendments.

I teach the Fourteenth Amendment in the police academy. When I say that it was ratified in 1868 and asked what significant event happened in US history about that time, I usually get a bunch of blank looks.

If it happened before about 1990, they usually don’t have much of a clue…..

[Brute Killer]

I don't like some of the laws that continue to punish people who have done their time.
Literally lifetime sentences after being released from incarceration.

[tvc184]

I don't like some of the laws that continue to punish people who have done their time.
Literally lifetime sentences after being released from incarceration.

Serious question and I have no issue either way….

Should felony sex offenders be made to register every year (or any change in address or job) including a current photo, address, etc? Basically a modern day Scarlet A?

[Brute Killer]

Serious question and I have no issue either way….

Should felony sex offenders be made to register every year (or any change in address or job) including a current photo, address, etc? Basically a modern day Scarlet A?

Yes, because there is no fixing that.

[Duckologist]

Serious question and I have no issue either way….



Should felony sex offenders be made to register every year (or any change in address or job) including a current photo, address, etc? Basically a modern day Scarlet A?

No, not after they obligated their debt to society

Sent from my SM-G892A using Tapatalk