Turkey article?
“basic unfairness of depriving citizens of life, liberty, or property, through the application of arbitrary coercion.”
yeah that’s not crule or unusual punishment. The fact that the same language apepars in Breyer’s opinion does not make 1983 applicable.
If you want to argue excessive. You are most likely correct
But of course since we cannot help ourselves we have to include innanity into the argument
It is not eminent domain
It is not violative of a public trial since was one was had and it was very public.
It is does not require a jury trial as it was a civil lawsuit
It is not cruel and unusual. It is excessive
your entire argument fails because of course it does. because just can’t stop at political and at targetting. Need to make up inanity
". . . nor excessive fines imposed . . . "
In Weems v. United States, the Court concluded that the framers had not merely intended to bar the reinstitution of procedures and techniques condemned in 1789, but had intended to prevent the authorization of “a coercive cruelty being exercised through other forms of punishment.”
Cruelty might become an instrument of tyranny; of zeal for a purpose, either honest or sinister.
Right so the question becomes whether it is a fine. If it was meant to be punitive then you may be right that excessive fine is applicable. THat’s not clear. It is also unclear whether it is in fact excessive. I think it is but that’s just my opinion.
Again the use of the same word does not make it automatically applicable. That’s why I said good luck to begin with 
and you said i was being innunedoish 
You uniformed opinions are in conflict with Weems v. United States
Cruelty might become an instrument of tyranny; of zeal for a purpose, either honest or sinister.
You can use whatever font you want to. No matter how bolded. You are trying to use emphasis to make your opinion more important? more informed?
My uninformed opinion states that it is not automatically excessive just because it is big. Nor is it automatically a fine because you said so.
What we know for sure is that it is not a 1983 violation.
Nor is it any of the other nonsense you posited
Thank you for your uniformed opinions, but they are in conflict with the legislative intent of the provision, and in conflict with Weems v. United States
JWK
"The Constitution is the act of the people, speaking in their original character, and defining the permanent conditions of the social alliance; and there can be no doubt on the point with us, that every act of the legislative power contrary to the true intent and meaning of the Constitution, is absolutely null and void. ___ Chancellor James Kent, in his Commentaries on American Law , 1858.
The Weems case involves a criminal matter. This is not a criminal matter. Why don’t we start there.
it can’t be in conflict if they are not comparable…
1 Like
How about starting with the Eight Amendment’s, guaranteed protection?
Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.
1 Like
Right we are back to where we started. You are concluding that the fine was excessive based on what point of comparison
I am not saying you are wrong. I actually agree that even the disgorgement was excessive. The question is why.
You ask why?
Did you miss the following which appears in the OP?
So, if the AG and Judge disliked New York’s long-standing business practices which they assert are dishonest and lend to fraud, they should have lashed out at those practices, denounced them, and worked to alter them. Instead, Letitia James and Judge Engoron, took the opportunity to attack Trump, who they hate with a passion, and used their office of Public Trust in a criminal fashion, as a weapon against Trump, and why both ought to be disbarred for abuse of judicial authority and punished.
That’s not a condition of excessive. That’s political persecution and arguably prosecution. It’s also feelings.
Why is the number excessive?
Who do you think are his peers?
Yes, black men accused of raping white women in the Jim Crow South faced a “jury of their peers” as well.
Democrats ran Jim Crow. They are running the kangaroo court in New York. Democrats using color of law to oppress people is nothing new.
4 Likes
There is no such thing as a pool of peers outside the population of the state where the President conducted his business
That’s some kind of silly.
1 Like
Hopefully Trump’s lawyers, now that the AG and judge have created a documented account of their own crimes [misfeasance, malfeasance, non-feasance and abuse of judicial authority], they go on the offence and file a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 case and have an upstate jury [away from NYC’s corrupted ■■■■ hole] render a decision.
1 Like
Even if it was, States are immune from suit under the Eleventh Amendment for a 1983 case and Justice Engoron is entitled to absolute judicial immunity.
Right it’s individuals or pursuant to state law. Thank you
Or a non-State entity such as a municipality or a County (in some places).
1 Like
