politics

You are currently browsing articles tagged politics.

Not common sense at all

May 5, 2010 in Uncategorized by admin

Today, Mayor Michael Bloomberg of New York told the Senate that “It’s time to close the terror gap” that allows those on a terrorist watch list to purchase guns. “It’s just common sense to give the FBI authority to keep terror suspects from buying guns and explosives,” he said.
No, Mayor Bloomberg, it’s not. There is no due process involved in being placed on the terrorist watch list, and there’s no way to be removed from the list if one is wrongly placed on the list (just ask 8-year-old Mikey Hicks).
Sen. Frank Lautenberg of N.J added, “Convicted felons, domestic abusers and the mentally ill are forbidden from buying guns and explosives, but nothing in our laws keeps fanatics on the terror watch list from purchasing guns and explosives . . . That is hard to believe — yet, unfortunately, it is true.” That’s because convicted felons, domestic abusers and the mentally ill have had some notice of the charges against them an an opportunity to mount a defense before their rights are stripped.
The terrorist watch list is rapidly approaching a million and a half names there’s no way that it is a reliable list of anything, much less a valid reason to deny constitutional rights–today it’s “just” gun and explosive purchases–how soon until we want to strip Fourth or even First Amendment rights from those on an arbitrary and unreliable list.

That’s not common sense, that’s dangerous nonsense.

Tags: ,

We refuse?

April 27, 2010 in Uncategorized by admin | 1 comment

A co-worker recently sent me a link to Michael Boldin’s We Refuse, excerpted from a speech given to a tax day tea party earlier this month. As it turns out, I agree with several of the principles his argument is based on–government power should be limited, we shouldn’t throw people in jail for private, consensual activities, and the police really shouldn’t be subjecting people to searchers without a warrant.
I even agree that the recent health care bill, which mandates that people buy corporate products regardless of whether they want them is a bad idea.
Nonetheless, I just can’t keep from wondering: this is where you draw the line? Caring for the sick? Where were you guys during the War on Drugs People, the Patriot Act, the illegal wiretapping, and torturing? This is “the Intolerable Act“? Seriously?
Can’t we focus on the real threats to liberty in to form of ever increasing police powers and surveillance? The police here in Tuscaloosa have spent over half a million dollars covering public streets with “evidence-grade” cameras to monitor the public roads. The local paper accepts more or less at face value the police chief’s assertion that “if you’re not engaging in criminal activity and have no plans to engage in criminal criminal activity, you have nothing to fear from the cameras” and that “it’s extremely important to maintain some secrecy about how the cameras will be used”
That’s a police state mentality straight ought of the former DDR, and a much bigger threat than a health insurance mandate. Although the “Hope Camera Initiative” was reported as a plan “to blanket high-crime areas with surveillance cameras,” its mission has already begun to creep, and cameras are spreading beyond “high crime” areas. How long until most public roadways are under police surveillance with clear “evidence-grade cameras”? Once that infrastructure is in place, the possibility for abuse is tremendous–even without facial recognition software, how long will it be until the police decide that they need a license plate recognition software? It’s not just a matter of federal power–its a matter of ever increasing government power.

Tags: , , ,

So much for principles . . .

December 24, 2009 in Uncategorized by admin

As almost everyone here in Alabama knows (even me!), the University of Alabama will be playing Texas for the national football championship on January 7. It appears that people in some parts of south Alabama may not be able to watch the game on TV because of a contract dispute. Both of Alabama’s Republican senators and one congressman rush to the rescue by pressuring the FCC to intervene. That’s right: ostensibly “conservative” Republicans, who in theory are opposed to government regulation of markets are asking a federal regulatory agency to interfere with private contract negotiations because they don’t like the deal the parties are making. The letter to the FCC, signed by Senators Shelby and Sessions and Representative Bonner, expresses concern that “thousands of Alabamians will lose the opportunity to watch the Crimson Tide.”  In a Bible-belt  state where atheists outnumber those of us who aren’t football fans, I guess principles go out the window when the Crimson Tide is involved. Hypocrites.

Tags: , , ,

Worst Idea in 800 years?

December 10, 2009 in Uncategorized by admin

Why you need a written constitution: Scotland’s Cabinet Minister for Justice, Kenny MacAskill, wants to end the legal protection against double jeopardy and allow the state to re-prosecute people who have been tried and acquitted. Sadly, Scotland would be following, rather than setting, precedent: “The move would bring Scotland into line with changes made to the law in England and Wales four years ago, since when there have been three successful re-prosecutions.” One has to wonder: how many “unsuccessful” re-prosecutions have there been? How many innocents have had to endure multiple prosecutions at the hands of zealous prosecutors?

Tags: , ,

Police and Thieves

December 9, 2009 in Uncategorized by admin

As others have pointed out, the War on Drugs is really a War on People, and the US Supreme Court has just ratified the Chicago PD’s practice of grand theft auto. One insidious domestic face of the War on People is the practice of civil forfeiture, which allows the police to confiscate and profit from property involved in drug crimes, even when the owner of the property is not guilty of any crime.

In Alzarez v. Smith, six plaintiffs sued the City of Chicago because the city had stolen their cars and cash, alleging they were involved in drug crimes. Under the State of Illinois’s Drug Asset Forfeiture Procedure Act (DAFPA), an owner of property seized as a “drug asset” must wait at least 142 days, and possible more than 6 months, before the police are required to show cause for stealing the property, and it may take months after that before ther owner gets a hearing, even when the owner is never charged with a crime. Actually getting one’s property returned may take even longer. Only one plaintiff in Alvarez had property returned in less than a year (11 months!), and the city kept one plaintiff’s car for almost 3 and a half years before agreeing to return it. Even in a city like Chicago that has a mass transit system, having one’s car taken for more than three years is a significant hardship. I’d be out of a job and on the street if someone deprived me of a car for that long.

The Seventh Circuit held that the DAFPA was illegal as a violation of the Due Process Clause. Between the Seventh Circuit’s opinion and oral argument at the Supreme Court, the Plaintiffs reached a settlement with Chicago (all of the cars were returned to their rightful owners, two plaintiffs forfeited the cash, and one plaintiff reached a settlement to get some, but not all, of his money back). As a result, the US Supreme Court dismissed the appeal as moot. That’s fair enough–the dispute was, after all, resolved. The court went a step further though, and vacated the Third Circuit’s opinion.

It could have been worse, I suppose, if the court had reached the merits and decreed that DAFPA was not unconstitutional, but nonetheless, the court’s decision means that once again, DAFPA is valid law, and Chicago police can steal people’s cars with impunity. As The Volokh Conspiracy points out, the Court’s decision shows a disregard for Constitutional property rights and is almost certain to end up back in court. As Justice Stevens points out in his dissent (in part), “Judicial precedents are presumptively correct and valuable to the legal community as a whole. They are not merely the property of private litigants.”

Tags: , , , ,

Separation of powers? What separation of powers?

December 4, 2009 in Uncategorized by admin

Congress is holding hearings this week because a couple of reality-TV rejects talked their way into a White House Dinner and shook hands with the president. Admittedly, that’s a pretty egregious breach of security, but isn’t that really the president’s problem? What is congress, even under the guise of “Homeland Security” doing meddling with the executive branch security. It’s a good thing they don’t have anything else to worry about, like health care reform, two wars that have lasted the better part of a decade, or financial regulation.

Tags:

Ignorant Legislators of the Week.

August 10, 2009 in Uncategorized by admin

This week, the Alabama state legislature is meeting in special session to address Jefferson County’s occupational tax. A court has ruled that the county’s collection of the tax has been illegal since 1999, and has prohibited the county from spending the tax revenues (which it continues to collect).

The governor has now called a special session of the legislature to attempt to pass a law authorizing Jefferson County to collect and spend the tax (the county doesn’t have the authority to legislate the tax on its own). As an occupational tax is a tax on people who work in the county (rather than people who live there) some residents of nearby counties that commute to Jefferson County to work pay the half percent tax, and their representatives are opposed to re-authorizing the tax. So far so good.

Here’s where the fun starts: Rep. Craig Ford of Gadsden is reported by the Tuscaloosa News as saying “I think it’s taxation without representation,” and likewise Sen. Charles Bishop of Walker County is reported to believe “the occupational tax is taxation without representation for his constituents.” Bishop is also the senator who made news in 2007 for punching another senator on the senate floor on live television.

These legislators represent their constituents outside of Jefferson County, and they get to vote on the legislation. Just because their constituents pay a tax in county other than the one in which they reside doesn’t make it taxation without representation, even if it is unpopular. This tax is a textbook definition of taxation with representation. Saying otherwise doesn’t make it so. Way to make us proud, fellas. With this kind of represenation, it’s a wonder the legislature can’t get its business done during the regular session.

Tags: ,