Yeah that's wrong as hell!

They should be allowed to run for President...or serve in the Senate!


wha?



Uncle Teddy did wha?


He KILLED someone?


I bet he went to jail then.

No?


[gonzo]

DrMaddVibe wrote:

Did we catapult the body over the border?

That would be sweet!=d>

DrMaddVibe wrote:

Check out Florida law as to whether simple DUI is a misdemeanor or felony and whether subsequent DUIs are as well. You will be surprised.

I have zero tolerance for DUI.

rfenst wrote:

Uncle Teddy...Ted Kennedy...yeah he has a place in Florida...but he was Massachusetts all the way!

DrMaddVibe wrote:

Kennedy-proof bridge:

http://boston.craigslist.org/gbs/rnr/2843029629.html 

Stinkdyr wrote:

Check out Florida law as to whether simple DUI is a misdemeanor or felony and whether subsequent DUIs are as well. You will be surprised.

I have zero tolerance for DUI.

rfenst wrote:

U.S. Senate: Illegal aliens must commit three DUI’s before they can be deported

February 3rd, 2012 by Dave Gibson

Sen. Partick Leahy worried about "fairness" of measure

On Thursday, the Senate Judiciary Committee approved a measure which would make three DUI convictions an aggravated felony, and a deportable offense. Sen. Charles Grassley (R-IA) introduced the legislative action as an amendment to the Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act of 2011 (S. 1925).

http://www.examiner.com/immigration-reform-in-national/illegal-alien-convicted-of-murdering-nun-virginia 

However, Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy (D-VT) objected to the retroactive portion of the amendment , saying it "goes against the sense of overall fairness" and instead, offered his own amendment which removed the retroactive clause. The Committee then passed the measure by a vote of 11-7.

It now moves to the full Senate.

So, what does this mean?

Effectively, if the bill passes and is signed into law, the federal government will only consider an illegal alien DUI offender for deportation, after he/she has accrued three convictions.

That’s three convictions recorded after the bill becomes law.

ZRX1200 wrote:

1. How many people are killed each year by 3rd time DUI illegal aliens? Enough where this warrants a new federal law? Here in Florida, even on a first offense causing death, the plea offer would have been 7-8 years and if convicted by a jury, the sentence would be around 15 years.

2. The real issue about retroactive application of punitive rules and laws is "constitutionality". Hopefully that was what was realy meant in the context of "fairness".+

3. Retroactive penalization is a critical issue in American Jurisprudence. It has to deal with due process and there is an extraordinarily strong history against any retroactive punitive laws whatsoever. I do not think bet what Grassley wanted would not pass SCOTUS muster. The legal terminology (Latin) is "ex post facto" and the legal issues surrounding such laws touch upon the very fabric of American society.

4. Why the hell do we still allow multi-topic/issue bills? A single topic rule needs to be implemented.

5. This country is far to tolerant of DUI. It is, IMO an egregious offense for which the penalties should be extraordinarily harsh, regardless of whether someone is injured or killed. Too bad that much effort wasn't used against DUI in general.

6. take a look at your state's DUI laws and penalties are. You will be shocked at how pathetically week and inconsistent they are with both one another and with other dangerous acts and penalties.

7. Why the hell do we even allow bills that cover anything more than one single subject. Enough already!!!


(And if any one thinks my opinions above have anything at all to do with illegal aliens, they have not only missed my points, but are also dead-wrong).

rfenst wrote:

5. This country is far to tolerant of DUI. It is, IMO an egregious offense for which the penalties should be extraordinarily harsh, regardless of whether someone is injured or killed. Too bad that much effort wasn't used against DUI in general.

rfenst wrote:

I actually agree with you Robert but I wish there were stepped up punishments for injury/death with dui. But wishing and legally implementing something isn't the same which is what I think is going on here.

ZRX1200 wrote:

I served on a jury were we found a guy guilty of “five or more DUI’s” and we recommended the maximum sentence of five years (the judge has the final say in sentencing). Crazy case because the court couldn’t tell us how many DUI’s he had. It was just “five or more”. The Judge also couldn't tell the jury how many years he would actually serve of the sentence if the Judge accepted our recommended 5 year sentence.

Buckwheat wrote:

There is a reason that you weren't old how many priors other than "five or more". it is because that is highly likely the defining point in your state's laws- without further differentiation. Also, the reason you were not told how much time the guy would serve is that sentencing is solely the Court's job. Giving each individual jury the ability to meet out a different penalty for the same crime would be considered "unfair". Also, how could the jury then consider prior unrelated crimes, that need to be considered in determining the punishment. Juries are allowed to hear certain things and not others so that their decisions are not unfairly prejudiced. Could you see a guy being sentenced to 50 years in prison for his very first DUI and another guy getting only 5 years for his eighth DUI because each was judged by different juries?

rfenst wrote: