Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I think it's absolutely preposterous for anyone to assert that 1) Snowden deserves to go to prison, and 2) Snowden would ever accept a deal that includes an agreed-to prison sentence.
I proved you to be the laughing stock of the internet....and that you should never be permitted to vote or sit on a jury.
Quote:
Originally Posted by T-310
Uh, not the Supreme Court but by the 9th Circuit, the most overturned circuit court in the US.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mircea
Um, legal wizard, read this very informative treatise by your Supreme Court.....
In interpreting a statute, "we begin, as we must, with the express language of the statute . . . . Where, as here, the language of the statute is plain and unambiguous, resort to legislative history is unnecessary." Rucker v. Davis, 203 F.3d 627, 636 (9th Cir. 2000); see Citizens Action League v. Kizer, 887 F.2d 1003, 1006 (9th Cir. 1989)("In construing a statute, we look first to its plain meaning"). In rare cases where "the literal application of a statute will produce a result demonstrably at odds with the intention of its drafters," an exception should be made to the general plain language rule. United States v. Ron Pair Enters., 489 U.S. 235, 242, 103 L. Ed. 2d 290, 109 S. Ct. 1026 (1989).
There is, of course, no more persuasive evidence of the purpose of a statute than the words by which the legislature undertook to give expression to its wishes. Often these words are sufficient in and of themselves to determine the purpose of the legislation. In such cases we have followed their plain meaning. When that meaning has led to absurd or futile results, however, this Court has looked beyond the words to the purpose of the act. Frequently, however, even when the plain meaning did not produce absurd results but merely an unreasonable one "plainly at variance with the policy of legislation as a whole" this Court has followed that purpose, rather than the literal words. When aid to construction of the meaning of words, as used in the statute, is available, there certainly can be no "rule of law" which forbids its use, however clear the words may appear on "superficial examination."
United States v. American Trucking Associations, 310 U.S. 534, 543-44, 84 L. Ed. 1345, 60 S. Ct. 1059 (1940) (footnotes omitted), quoted in Church of Scientology v. United States Department of Justice, 612 F.2d 417, 422 (9th Cir. 1979); accord Burroughs v. Operating Engineers Local Union No. 3, 686 F.2d 723, 727 (9th Cir. 1982).
I highlighted the relevant parts for you.
Um, legal genius....what does the part I highlighted say?
In rare cases where "the literal application of a statute will produce a result demonstrably at odds with the intention of its drafters," an exception should be made to the general plain language rule. United States v. Ron Pair Enters., 489 U.S. 235, 242, 103 L. Ed. 2d 290, 109 S. Ct. 1026 (1989).
Here....I'll emphasize the source....just for you...
In rare cases where "the literal application of a statute will produce a result demonstrably at odds with the intention of its drafters," an exception should be made to the general plain language rule. United States v. Ron Pair Enters., 489 U.S. 235, 242, 103 L. Ed. 2d 290, 109 S. Ct. 1026 (1989).
That is what the US Supreme Court said in a case styled United States versus Ron Pair Enterprises. The 9th Circuit was merely quoting the US Supreme Court from a case in which the US Supreme Court already said a statute cannot be interpreted in a manner that is contrary to the intent of Congress (or the legislative body that wrote the statute in the event the issue is State laws or municipal/county ordinances).
Again.....I'll emphasize the source....
When that meaning has led to absurd or futile results, however, this Court has looked beyond the words to the purpose of the act. Frequently, however, even when the plain meaning did not produce absurd results but merely an unreasonable one "plainly at variance with the policy of legislation as a whole" this Court has followed that purpose, rather than the literal words. When aid to construction of the meaning of words, as used in the statute, is available, there certainly can be no "rule of law" which forbids its use, however clear the words may appear on "superficial examination."
United States v. American Trucking Associations, 310 U.S. 534, 543-44, 84 L. Ed. 1345, 60 S. Ct. 1059 (1940)(footnotes omitted)
That is the US Supreme Court......the 9th Circuit was merely quoting the Supreme Court....something circuit and appellate courts often do.
I selected those cases for a reason....one is in 1940 and the other 1989, and that actually came from a 6th Circuit case in 2004.....who was quoting the several Circuit Courts, plus the US Supreme Court.
It also proves common sense obviously doesn't run in some families.
I guess it's a good thing that's case law and not a judge's instruction to a jury....because zealots like you ignore important things like that.....probably due to a lack of comprehension....and innocent people get convicted of crimes they did not commit.
Quote:
Originally Posted by T-310
He still violated three statutes.
Only if you can prove the intent of Congress was to shield government personnel from the crimes they commit.
Quote:
Originally Posted by T-310
All that is meaningless when you go to intent. That trumps all of your very weak arguments in trying to skirt the letter of the law. All those arguments were by the 9th circuit, the weakest and most overturned circuit court in the US.
You can surrender at any time....the 9th Circuit was quoting the US Supreme Court....those are Supreme Court decisions, not 9th Circuit Decisions.
Intent is irrelevant here.
Quote:
Originally Posted by T-310
Actually Snowden can share a jail cell with that shemale Manning and they can commiserate over their poor choices in life. But hey, they stood up for their misguided morals and ethics didn't they?
The misguided moron is the one who would say nothing as Americans were secretly and illegally executed without a trial for crimes they never committed, because to tell anyone would violate 3 CFRs.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hyperthetic
Yeah, he could have chosen a number of ineffective ways of going about it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hyperthetic
Yes, Government strategy oftentimes depends on infinite delay.
Exactly.
Quote:
Originally Posted by HappyTexan
10 different officials and all told him not to rock the boat.
He's lucky he didn't get "disappeared" or "suicided" with all those attempts.
Thanks to Patriot Snowden we will soon know who of the 2,000,000 Americans were/are being spied on; will your name be on the list?
No doubt.
Quote:
Originally Posted by T-310
I would never violate Federal Law. Therefore I would never be in his position.
That smells like a weak-kneed sycophant with no moral compass, which is typical of National Socialists.
Quote:
Originally Posted by T-310
What gave Snowden the authority to impose his moral standards on everyone else?
The 9th and 10th Amendments of the US Constitution, along with the 1st, 4th, 5th and 6th Amendments.
Quote:
Originally Posted by T-310
He does not speak for me. How dare he expose the intel gathering the US has.
Maybe the NSA and the Alphabet Agencies will think twice about violating the Constitution and the Natural Rights of Americans.
You would have had a great career in the Gestapo oder Schutzstaffel...
It is a testimony to how weak and ineffective our intelligence services have become that Snowden has not been snuffed by the CIA yet. Maybe his protection is Russia is too intense. But that won't last. He has served Putin's purposes. Unless he returns, faces trial and some prison time, he will be dealt with as treasonous spies are. He will be killed.
Maybe there are other reason(s). Various multiple angles are always being played.
Glenn Greenwald: Book Discussion on No Place to Hide
Glenn Greenwald talked about his book, No Place to Hide: Edward Snowden, the NSA, and the U.S. Surveillance State, in which he discusses his meetings with National Security Agency (NSA)…
Glenn Greenwald: Book Discussion on No Place to Hide
Glenn Greenwald talked about his book, No Place to Hide: Edward Snowden, the NSA, and the U.S. Surveillance State, in which he discusses his meetings with National Security Agency (NSA)…
That's pretty sick. He did a good deed by exposing U.S. lies. Learn some history. The U.S. has committed atrocities to tens millions of innocent people around the world, and most Americans are completely ignorant or they just do not care.
It's also pretty sick irony that he exposed the vast shadow of BIG GOVERNMENT WORKING TO REDUCE FREEDOM yet is castigated by so-called conservatives.
Only reason Fein$tein was enraged is bcs she get beaucoup bucks from NSA.
what a fraud. Congress needs to stop underestimating its citizens
Anyone supporting 24/7 surveillance is, by default, deferring to the Dems as well. or is a paid shill.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
