Archive for the ‘Law’ Category

“Not Our Job”

Friday, June 29th, 2012

Clayton Cramer, among others, points out this passage in the NFIB v. Sebelius decision:

Members of this Court are vested with the authority to interpret the law; we possess neither the expertise nor the prerogative to make policy judgments. Those decisions are entrusted to our Nation’s elected leaders, who can be thrown out of office if the people disagree with them. It is not our job to protect the people from the consequences of their political choices.

I disagree with what I understand of the Court’s logic, but this really is the key point in the entire business.

“We, the People,” it says here; and if we don’t do our job, we deserve what ever we get.


Randy Barnett explains the point about as clearly as can be done.

“Chief Justice Roberts rewrote the (health care) statute to change this from a requirement, or mandate, to an option to buy insurance or pay a penalty,” Barnett explained. “This is far less dangerous than had the mandate been upheld under the commerce power. Because a Commerce Clause regulation could be upheld up to and including imprisonment as drug laws are, but this power is limited to paying a tax (for those who pay taxes) and can be as politically toxic as taxes are.”

I asked him whether a future Congress could just repeat what we saw in this instance – call a mandate a penalty for the purposes of passing the bill, then switch around and call it a tax in court.

“That is never going to happen again,” he insisted. “No one is ever going to fall for that again…The findings in the (health care) bill were Commerce Clause. The findings in the next bill will have to be taxing power.”

Warning: See comments there. The situation is still dangerous.

Sayeth the Sages:

Between honorable men, no contract is necessary. Between dishonorable men, no contract will suffice.

Rush, You Idiot

Saturday, April 28th, 2012

Rush Limbaugh is invoking the evil, statist DMCA to block this compilation video from The Daily Kos:

Deal is, Kos posted this video on Youtube. Limbaugh invoked the DMCA to have Youtube take it down. Youtube complied.

Kos immediately reposted at Vimeo.

Kos quite rightly says:

This isn’t 1823, no matter how much Limbaugh might wish it so. He gets the video pulled from one place, it’ll simply pop up somewhere else. If he really wants it offline, he’s going to have to meet us in court. And even that won’t do the trick.

That darn First Amendment will get in his way.

Rush, as often as I agree with many of your sentiments on this matter, swinging the DMCA hammer makes you an idiot. What were you thinking?

No, I’m not being ironic. No, I’m not making fun of Kos. No, I’m not parodying anybody’s manner of speaking.

You are an idiot for doing this. Plain and simple.

Stop embarrassing yourself, and those of us who agree with you.

What A Right Is

Thursday, April 5th, 2012

I just figured out how to say something that’s been rattling around in my head for awhile.

A “right” is an action you and you alone have the authority to decide to take.

A government that restrains a right prior to your harming others by exercising it is illegitimate.

I need to tweak the wording, but I think the idea is there.

At first glance, the Fourth Amendment seems not fit under this definition. Is being “secure in [your] persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures” an action? Not exactly, but revealing your affairs to the government certainly is.

There is a rhetorical shorthand, a phrase of art, to the effect that the Constitution “protects” a certain set of rights. Citizens who practice the right to keep and bear arms are accustomed to saying that no, citizens themselves protect their rights by refusing to allow government agents to infringe them, using lethal force if necessary.

What then does the Constitution really do? It explicitly declares the conditions under which the Government is legitimate.

Going On Record: Eric Holder Wanted Poster

Wednesday, October 19th, 2011

No comment necessary.

alt

Wanted for: International gun trafficking, Accessory to murder, Conspiracy to commit murder, Treason against the United States of America, Aiding and Abetting foreign enemies, Human Rights Violations

[via Sipsey Street.]

In related news, the 1968 Gun Control Act is rooted in Nazi gun control laws.

Are you tired of being told that “gun control” is a chronic pain that you have to accept because there’s no cure? Do you — a law abiding person — want to be free: to own whichever firearms you want to own, regardless of where in America you live; from waiting periods, gun bans, magazine capacity restrictions, etc.; to spend your time on the range or in the field, rather than fighting “gun control”?

Are you tired of giving hard earned bucks to efforts that have at best only slowed the gun grabbers’ push toward firearms registration and confiscation? If you have had enough of death by a thousand cuts, you are ready to take action to wipe out “gun control” — now.

Members of Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership (JPFO) consider “gun control” to be an aggressive cancer. JPFO has a cure, a way to destroy “gun control”. JPFO has hard evidence that shows that the Nazi Weapons Law (March 18, 1938) is the source of the U.S Gun Control Act of 1968 (GCA ’68). Adolph Hitler signed the Nazi Weapons Law. The Gestapo (Nazi National Secret Police) enforced it. In “Gun Control”: Gateway to Tyranny we present the official German text of the Nazi Weapons Law and a side-by-side translation into English. Even more deadly: a side-by-side, section-by-section comparison of the GCA ’68 with the Nazi Weapons Law. If you have this in your hands, no one can tell you that you’re imagining things.

The clincher: JPFO knows who implanted into American law cancerous ideas from the Nazi Weapons Law.

The likely culprit is a former senator, now deceased. We have documentary proof — see below — that he had the original text of the Nazi Weapons Law in his possession 4 months before the bill that became GCA ’68 was signed into law.

From Jews For the Preservation of Firearms Ownership. If anybody understands what’s at stake here, these folks do.

Truculent Sexual Assault

Thursday, September 8th, 2011

There are some things that simply must be posted far and wide, not to spread the news, necessarily, but as a show of support.

Amy Alkon, who writes the Advice Goddess blog, refused to go through the scanner. Good for her.

Because this annoyed Thedala Magee the Totally Stupid Agent working Alkon’s line, Magee groped Alkon, forcing the edge of her hand into Alkon’s labia four times.

Alkon accused Magee of rape, right there in line, loudly for the other passengers to hear.

Good for her.

Magee responded by suing Alkon for, basically, hurting her feelings.

Hey, Magee?

You are an oath breaker, a thug, a rapist. I look for the day when you and your fellow oath breaking thugs are hung at dawn as the traitors you are. “Domestic enemy,” you filth. That would be you. You are the reason we have a Second Amendment, and a Fourth, and a Fifth, and a first.

Here’s the legal response from Alkon’s lawyer, Marc Randazza, to Thugala Magee’s lawer, Vicki Roberts. It is a thing of vicious beauty, right down to the salutation: “Best regards”. I love that. “Best regards.”

We believe that Ms. Alkon was within her rights to act violently in self-defense. Instead, she defended herself with mere words. Her reaction to Ms. Magee’s crime is so tame on the scale of legally and morally justified responses that Ms. Magee should be thankful that words of protest are all she received. We must all “tolerate insulting, and even outrageous, speech in order to provide adequate ‘breathing space’ to the freedoms protected by the First Amendment.”
Snyder v. Phelps, ___ U.S. ___, 131 S. Ct. 1207, 1219 (2011), citing
Boos v. Barry, 485 U.S. 312, 322 (1988).

There is no competing requirement that we tolerate being sexually abused as retaliation for believing in the Fourth Amendment.

[My bold.]

Beautiful.

===

Popehat has a good summary.

Justice or Gang Intimidation?

Wednesday, September 7th, 2011

First I heard of the Kenneth Green story was at Second City Cop, a pro-Second Amendment Chicago police blog I trust for insider news of top-down corruption.

SCC points to this article by Chuck Goudie of the Daily Herald.

The most dangerous place for a Chicago police officer is:

a. Face-to-face with a heavily armed drug gang.
b. Trapped by gangbangers at the end of a dark alley in Englewood.
c. Cornered by some lifers carrying shivs at Stateville prison.
d. Sitting in a Cook County courtroom.

The correct answer is d.

Or at least it was last Friday.

That is when the man in the mug shot was allowed to go home, after being found not guilty of shooting and trying to kill two Chicago police officers.

You didn’t hear anything about the trial, maybe because the cops were just wounded and survived the July 2009 shooting. It probably attracted little attention because the case should have been a lock for prosecutors.

The guy’s name is Kenneth Green. He was 21 years old at the time and living in an apartment near 112th Street and Michigan Avenue in Roseland.

A special Chicago police team raided his place with a search warrant for drugs. Imagine one of those scenes on the copper TV shows: doors fly open, guns out, lots of yelling. They are among the riskiest moments in any police officer’s life.

On that day two years ago, veteran officers Scott McKenna and Danny O’Toole were on the warrant team doing what they had done many times. The police team bursts in and spreads out, clearing the apartment room by room to make sure the search for drugs can safely begin.

Rarely do these “jobs,” as the police refer to them, go as planned. It takes incredible awareness, split-second reactions and extraordinary judgment. The wrong decision can mean people end up dead.

I strongly urge you to read the whole thing.

Indeed, this “job” did not go according to plan. Fortunately, in this case no one died, but two officers were shot in their legs.

The problem with the trial, according to Goudie and SCC, is that the courtroom was packed with Green’s fellow gang members, whose presence “intimidated” the jury into finding Green not guilty.

I’m sorry, SCC, but something about this bothered me at the time, although I didn’t know what. As is often the case, however, I thought I detected a whiff of cops versus everybody else, where “everybody else” means “ungrateful perps, most of whom haven’t been arrested or convicted yet.”

Finally, via Pete Guither at Drug WarRant, I hear the other side of the story.

A criminal defense attorney in Chicago represented a client who was involved in a situation we’ve seen far too often in this destructive war: SWAT-style serving of a search warrant with no investigation or knowledge of who or what is in the house. In this case, a resident managed to get off four shots aimed low through his bedroom door at what he thought were violent criminal intruders, and he (as well as six children in the house) managed to avoid being killed by the 37 shots fired by police. Naturally, he was charged with attempted first degree murder and aggravated battery.

Here is the closing argument. Simple, powerful, effective.

I’m not even going to quote defense attorney Marcus L. Schantz’s closing argument. Read the whole thing.

SCC makes this comment:

Goudie outlines the case against the shooter, the blatant disregard for human life exhibited by the shooters, the amazing restraint by the officers.

“Blatant disregard for human life”, SCC? Green fired four shots, aiming low, at violent intruders who, more or less blindly fired 37 shots into a house they knew had children in it, intruders who turned out to be police officers showing “amazing restraint”.

SCC, want to know why The People are showing growing distrust and resentment against The Police? This is why. We’re just as intimidated by you as we are by any other gang. Sure, they can pack a courtroom, but we know the courtroom exists, along with the entire weight of the criminal justice system. We see your cars, your uniforms, your badges. We watch you on TV. We read about you in the papers.

When you follow us on the streets, you think we’re not intimidated?

I can see no reason why a SWAT style dynamic entry was needed in this case. Your colleagues weren’t rescuing a hostage, they were serving a drug warrant. Fine. Bust the guy as he leaves his house. Might evidence get flushed down the toilet? You know what, if it was, the amount was so small that it could be flushed away, it does not represent a significant threat to the community that justifies the risk to either cops or the occupants.

You often complain, SCC, of how there aren’t enough cops on the street to do the job you are asked to do.

This kind of action is not the job we citizens want you to do. We don’t believe in the War on Drugs. We certainly don’t believe a flushable quantity of crack is worth risking your lives, or ours, in a dynamic entry.

You’ve been an advocate of the Second Amendment, SCC, for which I admire and applaud you. However, you seem to think armed citizens will only shoot at bad guys. Guess what, though? If you and your fellow cops act like arrogant gangsters, we’ll shoot at you, too, and increasingly, you’re going to find that when that happens, the rest of us will acquit the shooter at trial.

We fear gangs, SCC. We are intimidated.

But, again, not just by packed court rooms; increasingly, by the courtrooms themselves, by a justice system that seems not concerned with justice, and not on our side.

We want you on our side, SCC. We want to see you as our allies, as our fellow citizens. “The police are the people, and the people are the police,” says Peel, and I believe that.

But you have got to stop busting through our bedroom doors, guns blazing, over a few grams of contraband. That is not “a duty incumbent on every citizen”.

One more point: The defense attorney’s closing argument is dense with fact. It raises prosecution points one after another, often using the testimony of the police themselves, and counters them.

Goudie’s Herald article does not “outline the facts”; it’s is almost nothing but sensationalism, starting with the little pop quiz identifying the courtroom as more dangerous to cops than the street. It doesn’t even try to present the defense case. The police say Green’s a bad guy doing bad things, we should trust them and convict him of whatever the prosecution chooses to charge him with. Case closed.

Um, no. Green’s case is closed, and not in favor of the police, the prosecutor, or the courts. However, the case against the Drug War, the war on the people, the war on the Second, Fourth, and Fifth amendments, is still being made.

The Words of the King

Tuesday, January 18th, 2011

Despite the foul taste left in my mouth by those who have hijacked Martin Luther King’s throne, there were those on the racist, violent right who remembered what he said, and did, and believed.

The short quote is from Kelly Grayson, aka Ambulance Driver, who spoke thusly to a graduating high school class about six months before his assassination:

If it falls your lot to be a street sweeper, sweep streets like Michelangelo painted pictures, sweep streets like Beethoven composed music, sweep streets like Leontyne Price sings before the Metropolitan Opera. Sweep streets like Shakespeare wrote poetry. Sweep streets so well that all the hosts of heaven and earth will have to pause and say: Here lived a great street sweeper who swept his job well.

The other quote comes via Billy Beck, who admonishes us:

Read this, right now, ladies and gentlemen. All of it. Today. This man was not a racist: he wrote this for all of us. It’s more important now than ever before.

“This” is King’s Letter from Birmingham Jail.

One tiny crumb of wisdom:

You may well ask: “Why direct action? Why sit-ins, marches and so forth? Isn’t negotiation a better path?” You are quite right in calling, for negotiation. Indeed, this is the very purpose of direct action. Nonviolent direct action seeks to create such a crisis and foster such a tension that a community which has constantly refused to negotiate is forced to confront the issue. It seeks to so dramatize the issue that it can no longer be ignored.

The Boot

Thursday, January 6th, 2011

Hustle Bear rips on Net Neutrality with big strong claws and teeth:

Bless their hearts. Net Neutrality advocates have good intentions. They are typically very intelligent, sophisticated, and they obviously care enough to get involved in bringing about a better world. I hope that this article will help some of them realize that they are fighting to destroy their own goal. They are fighting for their enemy.

Our Enemy. We all have a common enemy here, because we all have a common goal. Everyone on all sides of this debate wants the same thing, an open and free internet.

Just like Castro’s army and Lenin’s army gathered followers blissfully marching for their future freedom and prosperity only to later become shocked in horror, Net Neutrality Advocates will soon realize that they are marching and singing in support of The Boot. This boot stomps without precision, without emotion, without representation.

That’s just the intro. If you want to see the argument, read the whole thing.

Oh, and Happy New Year!

Civil Disobediance

Wednesday, December 8th, 2010

Joel Rosenberg, liberty activist, has been arrested and charged with legally carrying a firearm in the Minneapolis City Hall.

This arrest is substantially after the fact, and appears to be retribution for Rosenberg’s suit against the officer who disarmed him in the original incident.

My comment at Northern Muckraker:

Billy Beck has often said that the liberty movement needs people who will practice peaceful civil disobedience, even at the cost of their personal liberty.

(My wording; I make no claim to put words in Beck’s mouth, but I think I have the sentiment right.)

Looks like Joel just stepped up, and good on him.

I too wish him well.

Diplomatic Wikileaks

Monday, November 29th, 2010

Random Wikileak thoughts:

I remember a certain amount of glee over the CRUtape Letters, the big global warming email/data/code dump that was critical to breaking the Goreacle’s back. It is not immediately clear to me that this is much different, although I suppose it could be argued that the CRUtape letters were much more tightly targeted, in that it only revealed the activities of a very narrow group. The State Dept. leak reveals the secrets of other nations, secrets which are not exactly ours to spill.

If our government were not the overwhelming behemoth it is, we would not care so much about its actions. As a result, we’d be able to trust it much more to keep its necessary secrets by whatever means.

As it is, if we the people aren’t allowed to keep our secrets, our government can’t expect us to keep its secrets.

The two Wikileak dumps make it clear that when you have too many secrets, it’s impossible to keep any of them.

Update:
Aaron Worthing at Patterico exposes the difference between how the Dog Trainer of Record handled the Wikileaks:

The Times believes that the documents serve an important public interest, illuminating the goals, successes, compromises and frustrations of American diplomacy in a way that other accounts cannot match.

and the CRUtape/Climategate dumps:

The documents appear to have been acquired illegally and contain all manner of private information and statements that were never intended for the public eye, so they won’t be posted here.

Just to emphasize: the Wikileaks dumps weren’t just obtained illegally, they were obtained by what was likely treason, and I believe publishing them is treason as well.

On the other hand, the CRUtape dump exposed a great perversion of science in the service of tyranny, activity that was fundamentally dishonest.

Although, again, I suppose that you could argue that a great deal of what any government does is essentially illegal when that government has gone so far out of its Constitutional bounds as ours has.