"Facts on the Ground" and Supreme Court rulings.
After the Dred Scott Decision in 1858 - when the Supreme Court ruled African slaves and their descendants could never become American Citizens - "facts on the ground" eroded this ruling resulting in African slaves and their descendants becoming US citizens.
So what does "facts on the ground" mean in the here and now? For instance, take a look at a statue on the grounds of one state capitol which the Supreme Court ruled as unconstitutional by the state's own constitution, not the US, because it forbids a mixture of government and religion, known as a theocracy. Wouldn't "facts on the ground" override that determination, just like it eventually did for African slaves and their descendants, since it's a fact the statue is already on the capitol's "ground?"
By your reasoning it would be unconstitutional to punish ANY criminal for ANY crime unless law enforcement could somehow read minds and could arrest you before you finished perpetrating your crime. If you rob a bank of a million dollars, and make it home to stuff the loot into your mattress then you being a million dollars richer would be "a fact on the ground", but you would still go to prison when the cops caught up with you.
Substitute a state for you, substitute erecting a statue that violates the Constitution for robbing a bank, and the same thing applies. The fact the statue is an existing statue "sitting on the ground" no more overrides any law than you making it home with stolen property does.
Not a lawyer, but my guess as to what the phrase "facts on the ground" means in legalspeak is that the original law becomes outdated, and irrelevent due to massive changes in society. The judge who made the Dread Scott Decision assumed that slavery would exist forever. He couldnt forsee that only seven years, and a civil war, later the slaves would all be freed.
A better example than your statue of 'a fact on the ground' over riding written law might be archaic laws still on the books. Someone told me once that "according to the Constitution of the State of Maryland the state governor is also the head of the Catholic Church in the state of Maryland". At the time I heard this our governor was Marvin Mandel who happened to be Jewish.
Back when Maryland was set up by Lord Baltimore as one of the original 13 colonies he intended the place to be a haven for British Catholics fleeing protestant oppression. But after some years Lord Baltimore realized that he couldnt get enough Catholics to migrate here and settle to make a viable colony so he began inviting anyone of any religion to settle here.
But apparently he never struck that law from the books. And apparently no one else ever got around to repealing that law about the Governor either...for the next 400 years. So its still on the books.
Cut to the present: lets imagine that governor Larry Hogan got hard up for funds (to build the Purple Line, or whatever). Lets say he decided to exploit that forgotten law. Lets say he declared that "since I am the head of the Catholic church in this state I will confiscate all properties of the Catholic church in Maryland (the churches, everything), and sell the assets off to the highest bidders. And then put the money into the state treasury to pay for the new light rail system. Is that a plan, or what?"
The courts probably wouldnt allow him to go through with it. And their argument might well be:"the Facts on the Ground...are that Maryland ceased to be a Catholic theocracy LONG ago, and those facts on the ground over ride the written law that mandates that the Governor is the local head of the church".
Your reasoning about: interpreting a historic fact.
===================================
Again: niether of us is a lawyer, but I dont think it would make a difference if it were civil, or criminal.
How would civil law function if you couldnt sue someone for say, breach of contract, unless you had ESP and knew ahead of time that they were going to breach the contract and you could only sue them before the breach became "a fact on the ground"?
Dred Scott was overturned by the 13th and 14th amendments.
As erosion goes, constitutional amendments are pretty abrupt.
What about "facts on the ground" concerning statues and monuments? Facts on the ground made the ruling in Dred v Scott invalid, so what about other examples?
Dred Scott was overturned by the 13th and 14th amendments.
As erosion goes, constitutional amendments are pretty abrupt.
AND the Fifteenth Amendment.
Yes- the Dred Scott Decision (which was an interpretation of law, not even an actual piece of legislation) was rather abruptly over turned by those early post Civil War amendments. When you google "facts on the ground" you get reams of sites that have to do with the diplomatic implications of Israeli settlements in the occupied territories, and you dont see anything on the first page about American law. So I'd like to know where she got that from too.
I found this link on Reconstruction of the Southern US after the American Civil War and found this term. I guess it applies to those occupying an area...not necessarily statues and monuments, too.
http://nationalhumanitiescenter.org/tse ... uction.htm
I already posted the link which is why I didn't include it in this thread until now.
The excerpt does not say that "facts on the ground alone caused Blacks to become full citizens".
It says that facts on the ground pushed their status from "non" to an in between limbo state that would later be clearly defined as full citizenship by later legislation during the Reconstruction period.
It says that facts on the ground pushed their status from "non" to an in between limbo state that would later be clearly defined as full citizenship by later legislation during the Reconstruction period.
Okay okay but what about other Supreme Court decisions and facts on the ground?
That's what I am asking you! Does it only count with people who are living in an area, like, let's say, one country encourages enough people to move to another, perhaps not always legally, so the "facts on the ground" dictate what the other country must do? Or, can it pertain to any "fact on the ground" as in, a monument is already there so it stays.
Well...we're back to going in circles. I cant believe that the mere existence of an illegal statue is enough to make it legal because then any crime would be rendered legal.
And the Israeli settlements on the occupied territories is international law, and not American law, and its a whole 'nother controversy for another thread anyway! Don't wanna touch that can of worms!
"Facts on the ground" means that a law became outdated by changes in society. Like the Governor of Maryland doubling as the head of the Catholic Church within the state of Maryland.
Similar Topics | |
---|---|
Alabama Supreme Court - Embryo is a child |
01 Mar 2024, 1:51 am |
Ground-Fired Lasers to be Tested in Fight Against Space Junk |
21 Jan 2024, 6:20 pm |
Which court card best describes YOU? |
16 Mar 2024, 1:53 am |
Israel and the International Criminal Court |
13 Feb 2024, 5:01 pm |