Dr. Kristen "NO KINGS" Keegan

A regime of avaricious, cruel goons isn't the same thing as a "fascist state," and the fact that they have to go to court, fight it out in state elections and legislatures, cower from being filmed (instead of filming *you*) means everything.

Recognize this. Don't surrender to your fears.

/19

A lot of y’all were relying on the news to be your daily reminder that anti-Black racism and transphobia are bad and now that the news is doing a lot of normalizing of the perpetrators of both, it’s like out of sight and out of mind

Basic science for the win! Hopefully. I think it remains to be seen whether it's safe to use in organisms like humans.

took reputation *very* seriously. That's why we have laws against libel and slander, and I guess people still sue over it sometimes.

This is *not* in the US Constitution's Bill of Rights, by the way. I suspect they were trying to stay more general.

(52/??)

list "person, property or reputation" as things that can be injured; people generally think of "injury" as something you go to the hospital for, but there's a lot more to the word than that.

As to reputation being in there? This was Sec. 12 back in 1818. People back then

(51/??)

I think I mentioned that already.

The text bit requires the government to make laws to provide a "remedy" for injuries. My pal @merriam-webster.com says the word means "the legal means to recover a right or to prevent or obtain redress for a wrong."

Notice that it does out of its way to (50/??)

"SEC. 10. All courts shall be open, and every person, for an injury done to him in his person, property or reputation, shall have remedy by due course of law, and right and justice administered without sale, denial or delay."

Closely related to the right to be heard: No secret courts.

(49/??)

Of course, this doesn't mean a lot if the laws are bad. But the laws can be changed! Whether by judicial ruling or by the legislature. Laws are passed and changed all the time.

If we don't like the laws, we demand better ones.

(48/??)

You didn't think I was doing this just because of my longstanding interest in legal history, did you?

And there's a bit of distance between "except in cases clearly warranted by law" and "without due process of law," in my opinion. CT's version is a bit stronger.

(47/??)

Connecticut lawmakers pass bill to thwart ICE arrests near courts The measure prohibits most civil immigration arrests on courthouse grounds without a signed judicial warrant, and bars law enforcement officers from wearing face coverings in court.

So meanwhile, in Connecticut:

(46/???)

The US Constitution's 5th amendment says "no person shall ... be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law." The ... is in there because it's part of a list of the things that no person shall be subjected to.

No PERSON. Not no citizen. In case you were wondering.

(45/??)

Section 9! "No person shall be arrested, detained or punished, except in cases clearly warranted by law." This is exactly what 1818's Sec. 10 says. Once more for the people in the back: "NO PERSON SHALL BE ARRESTED, DETAINED OR PUNISHED, EXCEPT IN CASES CLEARLY WARRANTED BY LAW."

(44/??)

... the military can be trusted to properly handle things all the time. If it can't, well.

However, to me, the language doesn't actually say that *only* the military can prosecute serving members, only that they *can* do so. Dunno what the law on that is, but it's a concern.

(43/??)

reasons - military forces might be deployed a long way from any grand jury - and for military discipline. The military has courts martial to handle criminal behavior, and civilian interference with that is a bad idea.

They're not totally wrong, but it does kind of presume that

(42/??)

I also put away the clean dishes and remembered that I wanted to talk about the military service exception in that last clause. The 1818 version spoke of "the land or naval forces" instead of "armed forces." It's in the US Constitution too.

It's a loophole needed, they say, for practical (41/??)

Inequity and iniquity are different words but I'll take it.

Looks like a surveyor's tripod got mixed in there.

I would posit that if the international treaties against torture are what is holding your country back then your country doesn't deserve to get ahead and holding it back is a moral obligation for everyone else

And that's it for Section 8! There are 20 sections in Article I, by the way.

That's a lot of rights. It's a good thing.

I'm going to get breakfast now.
(40/??)

because procedures have changed & will change. It also adds "probable cause" instead of assuming a grand jury will never do an injustice.

The US Constitution still requires a grand jury. (39/??)

Again, the goal here is to prevent the government or its agents from imprisoning or executing people without a genuine reason. In 1818, it said "unless on a presentment or an indictment of a grand jury."

The current version improves the protection by not specifying the procedures (38/??)

Lastly: "No person shall be held to answer for any crime, punishable by death or life imprisonment, unless upon probable cause shown at a hearing in accordance with procedures prescribed by law, except in the armed forces, or in the militia when in actual service in time of war or public danger."

Moving on, the clause ends "nor be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law, nor shall excessive bail be required nor excessive fines imposed."

That's where 1818's Sec. 13 bail section went. The reorganization & grammar changes made in 1965 are minor here. (36/??)

Miranda: The Story of America’s Right to Remain Silent Miranda: The Story of America’s Right to Remain Silent [Stuart, Gary L.] on Amazon.com. *FREE* shipping on qualifying offers. Miranda: The Story of America’s Right to Remain Silent

So it's binding on CT, but not part of CT constitutional law. There's a book on the Miranda case:

(35/??)

"the accused" in the first sentence of what was then Sec. 9 (now Sec. 8).

This clause is also in the US 5th Amendment, of course, & is the basis of Miranda rights and warnings, which come from a US Supreme Court case. (34/??)

"Impartial jury" is also key: personal or political animus has no place in a real justice system. Nor does bribery.

Continuing: "No person shall be compelled to give evidence against himself," a slight grammatical from 1818's "He shall not be compelled," which referenced (33/??)

Various governments have been admonished by their own courts that indefinite incarceration prior to trial is not "speedy" and they should stop. I'm not sure where CT stands right now, but the point stands.

(32/??)

Okay, back the day after tomorrow.

Anyway, my impression is that bail reform is happening partly because "speedy" is not how trials have been going for a very long time now. Which seems to be due to ever-increasing prosecutions. Which is a problem. (31/??)

New phase should be called Saturnalia, I believe.

Starting a 🧵 of based quotes from Naugatuck, CT war memorials.

Inscription #1: in honor of the men who “gave their lives for the chaining of savagery and the liberation of a menaced world.”