Amendment VIII
Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.
Clock is ticking for Trump to post bonds worth half a billion dollars
- Thread starter BidenPresident
- Start date
Amendment VIII
Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.
Perfect example of projection.
In other words, he is being forced to come up with the entire amount in order to appeal. There is no defense for the unprofessional and unconstitutional actions of this Judge and this partisan hack AG who ran on "getting Trump."
Amendment VIII
Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.
In other words, he is being forced to post bond before he can appeal. You're so very uneducated and dumb.
....but not before Trump is FORCED to come up with half a billion. If it doesn't sound excessive, you're either an idiot, dishonest or in your case, BOTH.
Trump didn't commit a crime. Terrible comparison. Trump isn't going to prison.
Eight Amendment. Read it. Sixth Amendment. Read it. Fifth Amendment. Read it. Case of TIMBS v. INDIANA. Read it.
Held: The Eighth Amendment’s Excessive Fines Clause is an incorporated protection applicable to the States under the Fourteenth
Amendment’s Due Process Clause. Pp. 2–9.
(a) The Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause incorporates and renders applicable to the States Bill of Rights protections “fundamental to our scheme of ordered liberty,” or “deeply rooted in this Nation’s history and tradition.” McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U. S. 742, 767 (alterations omitted). If a Bill of Rights protection is incorporated, there is no daylight between the federal and state conduct it prohibits or requires. Pp. 2–3.
(b) The prohibition embodied in the Excessive Fines Clause carries forward protections found in sources from Magna Carta to the English Bill of Rights to state constitutions from the colonial era to the present day. Protection against excessive fines has been a constant shield throughout Anglo-American history for good reason: Such fines undermine other liberties. They can be used, e.g., to retaliate against or chill the speech of political enemies. They can also be employed, not in service of penal purposes, but as a source of revenue. The historical and logical case for concluding that the Fourteenth Amendment incorporates the Excessive Fines Clause is indeed overwhelming. Pp. 3–7.
(c) Indiana argues that the Clause does not apply to its use of civil in rem forfeitures, but this Court held in Austin v. United States, 509 U. S. 602, that such forfeitures fall within the Clause’s protection when they are at least partially punitive. Indiana cannot prevail unless the Court overrules Austin or holds that, in light of Austin, the Excessive Fines Clause is not incorporated because its application to civil in rem forfeitures is neither fundamental nor deeply rooted. The first argument, overturning Austin, is not properly before this Court. The Indiana Supreme Court held only that the Excessive Fines Clause did not apply to the States. The court did not address the Clause’s application to civil in rem forfeitures, nor did the State ask it to do so. Timbs thus sought this Court’s review only of the question whether the Excessive Fines Clause is incorporated by the Fourteenth Amendment. Indiana attempted to reformulate the question to ask whether the Clause restricted States’ use of civil in rem forfeitures and argued on the merits that Austin was wrongly decided. Respondents’ “right, . . . to restate the questions presented,” however, “does not give them the power to expand [those] questions,” Bray v. Alexandria Women’s Health Clinic, 506 U. S. 263, 279, n. 10 (emphasis deleted), particularly where the proposed reformulation would lead the Court to address a question neither pressed nor passed upon below, cf. Cutter v. Wilkinson, 544 U. S. 709, 718, n. 7.
The second argument, that the Excessive Fines Clause cannot be incorporated if it applies to civil in rem forfeitures, misapprehends the nature of the incorporation inquiry. In considering whether the Fourteenth Amendment incorporates a Bill of Rights protection, this Court asks whether the right guaranteed—not each and every particular application of that right—is fundamental or deeply rooted. To suggest otherwise is inconsistent with the approach taken in cases concerning novel applications of rights already deemed incorporated.
See, e.g., Packingham v. North Carolina, 582 U. S. ___, ___. The Excessive Fines Clause is thus incorporated regardless of whether application of the Clause to civil in rem forfeitures is itself fundamental
or deeply rooted. Pp. 7–9.
84 N. E. 3d 1179, vacated and remanded.
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/18pdf/17-1091_5536.pdf
Last edited:
There is plenty to lose by waiting, about $450,000,000. If he is allowed to wait, (he is not special, everyone is faced with the same rule) he could spend or hid that money, given years to do so it would be easy, then even if he were to win the appeal, the money would never be paid. The system is set up that way because many people were getting away with not paying by delaying with an appeal.
If Trump wins his appeal, he will get the money back with interest.
It didn't get that way until Biden and the progressive left started getting their way. If you had a brain, you could comprehend the obvious.
Only in Communist or Fascist third world shit holes shit-for-brains. You should move to Cuba. It's a progressive utopia.
Neither, and it would be the entire amount plus interest, you do the crime, you pay the fine
In other words, he is being forced to come up with the entire amount in order to appeal. There is no defense for the unprofessional and unconstitutional actions of this Judge and this partisan hack AG who ran on "getting Trump."
Amendment VIII
Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.
In other words, he is being forced to post bond before he can appeal. You're so very uneducated and dumb.
....but not before Trump is FORCED to come up with half a billion. If it doesn't sound excessive, you're either an idiot, dishonest or in your case, BOTH.
Trump didn't commit a crime. Terrible comparison. Trump isn't going to prison.
Eight Amendment. Read it. Sixth Amendment. Read it. Fifth Amendment. Read it. Case of TIMBS v. INDIANA. Read it.
Held: The Eighth Amendment’s Excessive Fines Clause is an incorporated protection applicable to the States under the Fourteenth
Amendment’s Due Process Clause. Pp. 2–9.
(a) The Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause incorporates and renders applicable to the States Bill of Rights protections “fundamental to our scheme of ordered liberty,” or “deeply rooted in this Nation’s history and tradition.” McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U. S. 742, 767 (alterations omitted). If a Bill of Rights protection is incorporated, there is no daylight between the federal and state conduct it prohibits or requires. Pp. 2–3.
(b) The prohibition embodied in the Excessive Fines Clause carries forward protections found in sources from Magna Carta to the English Bill of Rights to state constitutions from the colonial era to the present day. Protection against excessive fines has been a constant shield throughout Anglo-American history for good reason: Such fines undermine other liberties. They can be used, e.g., to retaliate against or chill the speech of political enemies. They can also be employed, not in service of penal purposes, but as a source of revenue. The historical and logical case for concluding that the Fourteenth Amendment incorporates the Excessive Fines Clause is indeed overwhelming. Pp. 3–7.
(c) Indiana argues that the Clause does not apply to its use of civil in rem forfeitures, but this Court held in Austin v. United States, 509 U. S. 602, that such forfeitures fall within the Clause’s protection
when they are at least partially punitive. Indiana cannot prevail unless the Court overrules Austin or holds that, in light of Austin, the Excessive Fines Clause is not incorporated because its application to
civil in rem forfeitures is neither fundamental nor deeply rooted. The first argument, overturning Austin, is not properly before this Court. The Indiana Supreme Court held only that the Excessive Fines Clause did not apply to the States. The court did not address the Clause’s application to civil in rem forfeitures, nor did the State ask it to do so. Timbs thus sought this Court’s review only of the question whether the Excessive Fines Clause is incorporated by the Fourteenth Amendment. Indiana attempted to reformulate the question to ask whether the Clause restricted States’ use of civil in rem forfeitures and argued on the merits that Austin was wrongly decided. Respondents’ “right, . . . to restate the questions presented,” however, “does not give them the power to expand [those] questions,”
Bray v. Alexandria Women’s Health Clinic, 506 U. S. 263, 279, n. 10 (emphasis deleted), particularly where the proposed reformulation would lead the Court to address a question neither pressed nor
passed upon below, cf. Cutter v. Wilkinson, 544 U. S. 709, 718, n. 7.
The second argument, that the Excessive Fines Clause cannot be incorporated if it applies to civil in rem forfeitures, misapprehends the nature of the incorporation inquiry. In considering whether the
Fourteenth Amendment incorporates a Bill of Rights protection, this Court asks whether the right guaranteed—not each and every particular application of that right—is fundamental or deeply rooted. To
suggest otherwise is inconsistent with the approach taken in cases concerning novel applications of rights already deemed incorporated.
See, e.g., Packingham v. North Carolina, 582 U. S. ___, ___. The Excessive Fines Clause is thus incorporated regardless of whether application of the Clause to civil in rem forfeitures is itself fundamental
or deeply rooted. Pp. 7–9.
84 N. E. 3d 1179, vacated and remanded.
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/18pdf/17-1091_5536.pdf
The judgement is not the same as Bail, dipshit.
Held: The Eighth Amendment’s Excessive Fines Clause is an incorporated protection applicable to the States under the Fourteenth
Amendment’s Due Process Clause. Pp. 2–9.
(a) The Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause incorporates and renders applicable to the States Bill of Rights protections “fundamental to our scheme of ordered liberty,” or “deeply rooted in this Nation’s history and tradition.” McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U. S. 742, 767 (alterations omitted). If a Bill of Rights protection is incorporated, there is no daylight between the federal and state conduct it prohibits or requires. Pp. 2–3.
(b) The prohibition embodied in the Excessive Fines Clause carries forward protections found in sources from Magna Carta to the English Bill of Rights to state constitutions from the colonial era to the present day. Protection against excessive fines has been a constant shield throughout Anglo-American history for good reason: Such fines undermine other liberties. They can be used, e.g., to retaliate against or chill the speech of political enemies. They can also be employed, not in service of penal purposes, but as a source of revenue. The historical and logical case for concluding that the Fourteenth Amendment incorporates the Excessive Fines Clause is indeed overwhelming. Pp. 3–7.
(c) Indiana argues that the Clause does not apply to its use of civil in rem forfeitures, but this Court held in Austin v. United States, 509 U. S. 602, that such forfeitures fall within the Clause’s protection when they are at least partially punitive. Indiana cannot prevail unless the Court overrules Austin or holds that, in light of Austin, the Excessive Fines Clause is not incorporated because its application to civil in rem forfeitures is neither fundamental nor deeply rooted. The first argument, overturning Austin, is not properly before this Court. The Indiana Supreme Court held only that the Excessive Fines Clause did not apply to the States. The court did not address the Clause’s application to civil in rem forfeitures, nor did the State ask it to do so. Timbs thus sought this Court’s review only of the question whether the Excessive Fines Clause is incorporated by the Fourteenth Amendment. Indiana attempted to reformulate the question to ask whether the Clause restricted States’ use of civil in rem forfeitures and argued on the merits that Austin was wrongly decided. Respondents’ “right, . . . to restate the questions presented,” however, “does not give them the power to expand [those] questions,” Bray v. Alexandria Women’s Health Clinic, 506 U. S. 263, 279, n. 10 (emphasis deleted), particularly where the proposed reformulation would lead the Court to address a question neither pressed nor passed upon below, cf. Cutter v. Wilkinson, 544 U. S. 709, 718, n. 7.
The second argument, that the Excessive Fines Clause cannot be incorporated if it applies to civil in rem forfeitures, misapprehends the nature of the incorporation inquiry. In considering whether the Fourteenth Amendment incorporates a Bill of Rights protection, this Court asks whether the right guaranteed—not each and every particular application of that right—is fundamental or deeply rooted. To suggest otherwise is inconsistent with the approach taken in cases concerning novel applications of rights already deemed incorporated.
See, e.g., Packingham v. North Carolina, 582 U. S. ___, ___. The Excessive Fines Clause is thus incorporated regardless of whether application of the Clause to civil in rem forfeitures is itself fundamental
or deeply rooted. Pp. 7–9.
84 N. E. 3d 1179, vacated and remanded.
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/18pdf/17-1091_5536.pdf
What crime? There was no crime. There were no victims. There were no claimants. The AG ran on "getting Trump." The Judge in this case is a loony leftist who posted naked selfies.
Put it in reverse, you are saying that Trump has no consequences for his fraud until he and his army of attorneys completely exhaust the legal system, which we know in his case, could be years. Plus, he can meet the meet the judgement, even liquidating some of his assets, as those that he gain in advantage in obtaining via fraud
Hello.....KNOCK KNOCK, is there anything between your ears? This is about EXCESSIVE bail numbnuts.
What fraud? Who did he defraud? There were no victims. There were no claimants. There was no crime. How dumb are you? This was, of course, a rhetorical question because you are extremely stupid and ignorant. That is why you're a Biden voter and defender.
Same idiocy over and over again, he broke the law, he received an advantage others did not, you do the crime, you pay the fine, basic tenet of all law
If you get a speeding tickets tell the Judge you don’t deserve to suffer any consequences cause there were “no victims, no claimants”
Plus he would pay a hefty interest on the bond, loses his appeal, and he owes even more
