Who is more of a draft dodger, Bill Clinton, Donald Trump, Joe Biden, Dick Cheney, Mitt Romney, Mohammed Ali or Kareem Abdul Jabar?
Well, Clinton, Trump, Biden, Cheney, and Romney all received student deferments while in college.Clinton was a Rhodes Scholar at Oxford when he might have been drafted, and so was not drafted. There has been conjecture about how induction was delayed until his matriculation at Oxford.Trump had a series of student deferments. When these expired, a doctor certified that he had bad feet, leading to a 4F exemption (“unfit”). There has been suspicion about the validity of that certification.Biden had a series of deferments. When the student deferments ran out, his pre-induction physical resulted in a 4F classification because of childhood asthma.Cheney, by the time his series of student deferments ended, had married and was soon to become a father. He applied for and received a 3A (hardship) classification.Romney supplemented his student deferments with a 4D (religious service) for his Mormon mission.None of these men could legitimately be called a “draft dodger,” although of course they used the system to their own advantage—as did a million or so other men. (I had received an ROTC scholarship, which exempted me from the draft while I was in school, so I am not a draft dodger, either.)Lew Alcindor, aka Kareem Abdul Jabar, was classified 4F because of his height. So, also not a draft dodger.That leaves Muhammed Ali. As the world heavyweight boxing champion, he was arguably the highest profile black man in America. When he refused to be drafted in 1966, he was convicted of draft evasion and sentenced to a $10,000 fine and five years in prison. He posted bond remaining out of jail while his case worked its way through the appeals process. The Supreme Court eventually overturned his conviction, after he had lost his prime athletic years.Some would say, “See? That makes Ali the major draft dodger of the list!”But I would argue that his integrity and personal conscience were heroic, and put him in a completely different category than the white politicians listed, who manipulated the system rather than opposing it.
Has anyone been found not guilty of murder and then later admitted guilt? What happened to them?
The moment the judge bangs his gavel down and declares the proceedings closed, the newly acquitted defendant can jump up on his desk and scream “SUCKERS! I did it! I killed that bastard!” and nothing can be done except escorting him out of the courtroom for disruptive behavior.HOWEVER….I did hear of a case where a man WAS acquitted of murder, then tried again for the same murder. I can’t remember all the details or the guy’s name but the prosecutors pulled a real fast trick on him. He was in the military - which has it’s OWN justice system. He was acquitted in civilian court. I can’t remember exactly how it was done, but the civilian prosecutors worked with the military prosecutors and got him charged with murder in military court. Murder in a civilian court is a state crime - in a military court it’s a federal crime. So (after a ton of research) they determined that technically he wasn’t being tried for the same crime twice because he was being tried in an entirely different court system. I’ll try to find the details on this, but as far as I’ve heard, that’s the ONLY time someone has been tried twice for the same crime.
Can a previous pardon granted by an elected official be "unpardoned" later on?
The constitutionally correct answer is yes, but most lawyers don’t know it. See May the President pardon himself?May the President pardon himself?Article II §2 of the Constitution states that the President "shall have power to grant reprieves and pardons for offenses against the United States, except in cases of impeachment." It also states in §3 "he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed." This defines his power with respect to law. He may not make, suspend, or repeal laws, but only execute them. He is not a monarch, and it is a source of confusion to take a term out of British monarchical practice and carry it over to American constitutional practice. That change in context changes the meaning.The Constitution also states in Article II §2, "The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States." That is essentially synonymous to a right to "equal protection" of the law, which was included in the 14th Amendment.What is a pardon, for a president? Not for a monarch, but for a president. It is simply his determination not to enforce a criminal conviction and sentencing order of a federal court. It has no meaning until after there is a conviction, because the crime is not defined until then. Nor may he issue a pardon before conviction as a way to prevent a trial. He has no power to prevent a trial, including a trial of himself, although the court may not have personal jurisdiction over him. Nor may he use it to remove personal jurisdiction from any other individual. A court has personal jurisdiction if the defendant appears in it, unless it is a special appearance.A pardon is not a reversal of a conviction. Even after a pardon the conviction stands, and may be enforced at any time, until it is reversed. A president cannot bind his successors, any more than a monarch may. His decisions and determinations expire when he leaves office. (That includes executive orders.) So, yes, he may pardon himself.But the pardon doesn't last forever. The conviction may be enforced when he leaves office.
Can someone give me a biography of Muhammad Ali?
Its for a sixth grade reaserch project. I need stuff on his career and after he retired. Erm... No Wikipidia please. I tried it already. There are some truly stupid people out there....
Can the Queen of UK be prosecuted in UK courts?
The last time a Monarch was accused of a crime in the UK it was King George(5) in 1911 for bigamy. However, the Lord Chief Justice decided that the King couldn’t be ordered to provide evidence and the case ended right there.The accuser was Edward Mylius, a publisher who in 1911 accused the King of bigamy in his report which raised the question about the status of the Queen and the legitimacy of their children. The King was prepared to go to the court to give evidence to disapprove the allegation, however the attorney-general, advised the king that it would be unconstitutional for him to give evidence in his own court.Well basically The Queen is above the law as criminal law is inacpplicable as the Sovereign law is in effect, which is a customary principle.Her Majesty, being the Queen enjoys sovereign immunity so she can’t be questioned as part of a criminal investigation, she is not required to give police interviews and she also can’t be cross examined.But there is a way to get through The Queens impenetrable immunity from prosecution: ParliamentThe parliament can legislate and so change a customary rule, even one as old as a sovereign immunity. However, it might be hard to persuade The Queen to give assent to the bill that allows herself to be prosecuted.Lawfully prosecuting the Queen would be difficult but not entirely impossible. In order to do it legally, you first need to successfully complete a comprehensive political revolution, that would have the backing of the people. According to the Crown Proceeding Act of 1947 the Crown can be sued but that means you can file charges against Her Majesty’s Government but not Her Majesty herself.So to answer you question, she can’t be prosecuted but she will lose the support and approval of the people which would affect the future of the monarchy and its relationship with its people.Source/credit: What would happen if the Queen went on a crime spree? - Legal Cheek