Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Occupy Underground

pinboy3niner

(53,339 posts)

3. I think the government is unlikely to appeal

Reply to limpyhobbler (Reply #2)

Thu May 17, 2012, 10:43 AM

May 2012

The President expressed reservations about these provisions before they were passed. And even the judge suggests, in her decision, that they could "easily" be modified to pass constitutional muster:

"Section 1021 tries to do too much with too little - it lacks the minimal requirements of definition and scienter that could easily have been added, or could be added, to allow it to pass constitutional muster," Forrest wrote.

Scienter refers to a person's knowledge that a law is being violated.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

5 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Judge Blocks Controversial NDAA Provisions [View all] pinboy3niner May 2012 OP

K&R Thank you judge Forrest for upholding our constitutional rights in this matter think May 2012 #1

Good. limpyhobbler May 2012 #2

I think the government is unlikely to appeal pinboy3niner May 2012 #3

The real question though is will it be overturned if it gets to SCOTUS and imo cstanleytech May 2012 #4

In that case we may be screwed. nt limpyhobbler May 2012 #5