Posts Tagged ‘Law’

“Clear the Bench Colorado”

November 1, 2009

Judicial arrogance is nothing new, yet this past week the Colorado Supreme Court established a new benchmark in being better than thou. From Mike Rosen at The Denver Post

The liberal majority on the Colorado Supreme Court has taken judicial chutzpah to a new level.

In a 4-3 decision last week, they overturned two lower court rulings and declared that, henceforth, unelected judges rather than elected legislators will determine how much money Colorado taxpayers must spend on K-12 education. The victorious plaintiffs in the case included the usual suspects: the teachers union and other educratic organizations.

This will encourage a spate of “adequacy” lawsuits which activists hope will mandate an additional $3 billion in school spending on top of the $4.7 billion we already spend. Given the current state of the economy, this is obviously money we don’t have.

Full Story

Actions and arrogance often lead to grassroots movements that seek to reign in such behavior. Be that The Tea Party, Gun Owners of America, or a new group in Colorado.

Clear the Bench Colorado is just such an organization. If you are from Colorado, or have an interest there click on the link. The Colorado Supreme Court is one of, if not the most partisan high state court in the country. The law should be above politics, period. If you think this doesn’t concern you, think again, because the same thing may be coming to your state soon!

The times they are a changing…

October 30, 2009

Or so the song goes. Change is not always bad, nor is it always good. So much though that has come about in recent times leaves one to wonder.

From Rules of Engagement that strap our troops ability to fight and win in real war. To undermining the core values of the military. To Chairborne Rangers with stars on their collars, that are political beasts and perfumed princes the leadership is, for the most part, FUBAR

From an administration that spreads obamanure across the land, supported by those that detest America, private property, and private enterprise. With RINO coconspitators that defile the Constitution and the Bill of Rights seemingly at every opportunity.

To a Supreme Court that ignores the Constitution, and principle of law that they all swore to protect and defend.

We, as a nation, are in fact, Balkanized. We are split into factions more so than ever before. More than at the beginning, when only a small percentage of people were pro-revolution, and in favor of splitting from England. More than at the beginning of the War of Northern Aggression. More, by a long shot, than during the nineteen sixties and seventies when a revolution seemed to be imminent to many of us.

Anthony writes for the Examiner an insightful essay series. Check it out, and think about what was written.

Part One

Part Two

Part Three

Part Four

What are we to think and do when confronted by all that is being force fed to us? Further, if it is all so good and righteous then why is it being force upon us? Here, I think that I will paraphrase something that I paraphrased many years ago.

Second Amendment solutions for bureaucratic belligerence and official oppression? Freedom, is found on the edge of a sword, and the muzzle of a gun. Especially when the ballot box only serves to thwart that freedom.


You can either support Democrat health care or the Constitution … but not both

October 28, 2009

Walter Williams once again hits the nail on the head. This abomination being foisted upon the American people needs to just go away…

“At the heart of the American idea is the deep distrust and suspicion the founders of our nation had for government, distrust and suspicion not shared as much by today’s Americans. Some of the founders’ distrust is seen in our Constitution’s language such as Congress shall not: abridge, infringe, deny, disparage, violate and deny. If the founders did not believe Congress would abuse our God-given rights, they would not have provided those protections. After all, one would not expect to find a Bill of Rights in Heaven; it would be an affront to God. Other founder distrust for government is found in the Constitution’s separation of powers, checks and balances and the several anti-majoritarian provisions such as the Electoral College and the requirement that three-quarters of state legislatures ratify changes in the Constitution. The three branches of our federal government are no longer bound by the Constitution as the framers envisioned and what is worse is American ignorance and acceptance of such rogue behavior. Look at the current debate over government involvement in health, business bailouts and stimulus packages. The debate centers around questions as whether such involvement is a good idea or a bad idea and whether one program is more costly than another. Those questions are entirely irrelevant to what should be debated, namely: Is such government involvement in our lives permissible under the U.S. Constitution? That question is not part of the debate. The American people, along with our elected representatives, whether they’re Republicans or Democrats, care less about what is and what is not permissible under our Constitution. They think Congress has the right to do anything upon which they can secure a majority vote, whether they have the constitutional or moral authority to do so or not.” –George Mason economics professor Walter E. Williams

SOURCE

The average American commits about three federal felonies per day

October 25, 2009

A few years ago I posted about all the laws that keep going on the books. I posited then, and still do that laws are rarely, if ever removed. Scare tactics are bread and butter for politicians irrespective of party affiliation.

Prosecutors and police have a vast array of statutes with which to send you off to the poky for an extended stay. Use of government power as a social engineering tool has a rather long and sordid history. From the racist based gun control laws to laws designed by better then thous to protect you from yourself they just keep piling them on. Political correctness, as embodied in various new laws that push agenda after agenda throttle freedom and liberty while supposedly protecting the same. Sexism, racism, and matters of equality seem to be the ticket to framing most of the newer tools of oppression, and don’t forget “acceptable” religion.

Framing certain unacceptable behavior’s as misdemeanors is a tactic often employed as of late. Along with attached felony penalties of course. Please note, that in most, if not all states, you can get a pardon for felony crimes if you clean your act up. However, for infractions and misdemeanors the situation is different. You are stuck with those penalties for life. Even when there is a mechanism in place for what is basically a pardon, it is most often at the whim of the prosecutors and court that convicted the person. Fat chance of that happening. They want the feathers in their war bonnets. While at the same time exposing their social cowardice for not having actually taken the person to task by convicting them of a felony.

“There’s no way to rule innocent men.
The only power government has is the power to crack down on criminals.
Well, when there aren’t enough criminals, one makes them.
One declares so many things to be a crime
that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws.”

Ayn Rand

To that end Reason magazine has an article up that is, for the most part pretty accurate. Aside from their illogical comment on illegal immigration. Read that in it’s entirety HERE.

Feds gone haywire..? Again? Say it isn’t so…

October 20, 2009

Prosecutorial misconduct is something that most people hold to be immeasurably immoral. Other than Prosecutors, that is. Oh sure, they will all line up in well spaced rows reminiscent of a regiment of soldiers condemning that sort of behavior. Yet they have their way of looking at what constitutes said act, or acts.

This way of thinking, warped as it is, and essentially Utilitarian in nature, says that the end justifies the means. It is in their collective DNA from all appearances. Alright, perhaps not all, but in the vast majority, winning, at any cost, while maintaining the appearance of high virtue is a given.

Convict for infractions and misdemeanors based in political correctness, and mysandry while knowing that there will be felony penalties attached but making sure that the defendant does not know that is just good business. Ignoring the Constitution that they swore to uphold, be that state or federal, and enforcing things like ex post facto law? They,as a group, are good to go. After all, the SCOTUS confirmed that such is the law of the land. Logic and morality be damned!

“When the government is allowed to use vague statutes to pursue prosecutions, no American is safe from stumbling into a vast, sticky web. Yet the use of such statutes has grown to such a perilous degree in the past quarter-century – especially via laws governing activity in cyberspace – that citizens can run afoul of laws that they do not know exist and that no one can really explain.”

Where will this stop? I have no idea. When will it stop? Same answer. With the caveat that I most certainly do not expect the Republicans to do anything about it. Remember Ramos and Compean? The Democrat attacks on civil liberties are just as evil, and unfolding before our eyes every day. Is the Internet next? No,it’s already in their sights as a target in their never ending crusade for unbridled power and control over our lives, and has been for some time.

Read the whole thing HERE.


Liberty? What for?

October 19, 2009

“Conservative arguments against President Obama are becoming increasingly silly. They oppose Obama rescuing businesses despite all the jobs on the line, they’re against government taking control of health care from soulless insurance companies, and they oppose increased taxes on energy consumption despite the sorry state of the environment. And why do they oppose these most sensible actions? Because of their irrational, brain-dead obsession with liberty. Of course, everyone likes freedom — to a point — but there are a number of loud, stupid Americans who just take it to ridiculous extremes. They hoard their freedoms like greedy little dwarfs hoarding gold when they have little actual use for most of it. People need rules and order and guidance, but they hardly ever need liberty. Liberty doesn’t feed your family. Liberty doesn’t heal you when you’re sick. Liberty doesn’t educate your children. A strong government can do all those things, but apparently that’s against liberty. … Just look at this ludicrous debate over health care reform. Of course the government should provide health care for everyone; how obvious can anything be? The government has the money and smart people working for everyone’s interests to make sure all get health care, so why would anyone be against that? Because apparently people aren’t ‘free’ to make their health care choices for themselves. … Real freedom is not having to worry about health care, and that’s what you get when you have the government take it over. Yes, you’ll have little control over who gets what kind of care, but some people will just have to suffer some for the betterment of the whole. The advantage of having the government in control is that it makes sure the fewest number suffer, and those that do aren’t particularly important. … Most of the civilized world has moved beyond this uncompromising view of ‘freedom’ — if they were ever foolish enough to adopt it in the first place. Can you think of any other country that would permit its citizens to have guns like America does? Of course not; that’s beyond moronic. People know freedom is a dangerous, scary thing, and you have to be careful how much you tolerate.” –columnist Frank J. Fleming

(To submit reader comments click here.)

The preceding was satirical humor

SOURCE

Passage Of Anti-Gun “Health” Bill Through Procedural Fraud Scheme

October 17, 2009
Harry Reid Tries To Ease Passage Of Anti-Gun “Health” Bill Through Procedural Fraud Scheme

Gun Owners of America
8001 Forbes Place Suite 102
Springfield VA 22151
Phone: 703-321-8585 / FAX: 703-321-8408
www.gunowners.org

Friday, October 16, 2009

We have been keeping you posted on the anti-gun “health” bill which would dump all of your most private health-related gun information into a federal database — and would allow the Obama administration to suspend your government-mandated insurance if you keep a loaded firearm for self-defense.

But this legislation ran into a buzz saw because it would cut health entitlements — primarily Medicare — by $404 billion.  In particular, under the health bill crafted by Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus, Medicare payments to doctors would drop 25% after the first year — bringing the Medicare program to a screeching halt.

Now, Senate Democrat Leader Reid has crafted a procedural trick:  He’ll restore over $200 billion of the $404 billion in cuts in separate legislation — S. 1776.

Because it is a separate bill, he will continue to claim that health reform “doesn’t increase the federal deficit by a single penny,” even though it increases the deficit by 20 trillion pennies when you consider this second bill.

Suffice it to say that this tactic is corrupt, even by Harry Reid standards.

This fraud bill is being filibustered by Senate Republicans.  And the Senate will vote on whether to cut off debate on Monday, shortly after 5:00 EDT.

Killing this bill will go a long way toward stopping the anti-gun ObamaCare legislation.

ACTION: Contact your two U.S. Senators.  Ask them to vote against the effort to shut off debate to the deficit fraud bill, S. 1776, and to oppose the anti-gun health care bill.

You can use the Gun Owners Legislative Action Center at http://www.gunowners.org/activism.htm to send your senators the pre-written e-mail message below.

—– Pre-written letter —–

Dear Senator:

It is hard to believe the effort to pass anti-gun health care reform could be any sleazier.  Now there is an effort to grease the skids to pass ObamaCare by using slight of hand.

Senate Democrat Leader Reid has crafted a procedural trick to restore over $200 billion of the $404 billion Medicare cuts — and then pretend that he isn’t “increasing the federal deficit by a penny” merely because it is done in a separate bill.

Suffice it to say that this tactic is corrupt and dishonest, even by Harry Reid standards.

The motion to proceed to this fraud bill is being filibustered.  If you are serious about your commitment not to increase the deficit “by a penny,” I would urge you to vote against cloture on the motion to proceed to this fraud scheme, numbered S. 1776.

Sincerely,

“Task Force” Using Crime And Corruption In Mexico As Premise For Gun Control In U.S.

October 16, 2009

As previously reported here, the NRA is getting fired up over the “Bi-National” shenanigans that are thinly vield shots at U.S. sovereignty because Mexico can’t get a handle on corruption.

On October 13, the Associated Press reported that the so-called Bi-National Task Force on Rethinking the United States-Mexico Border has produced a report, which, among other things, calls for re-imposition of the federal “assault weapon” ban of 1994-2004, saying it would improve security in both countries.

The “border-rethinking” group has been put together by the Pacific Council on International Policy and the Mexican Council on Foreign Relations. The group consists mostly of former U.S. and Mexican officials and journalists, none of them currently elected by the people of the U.S. or Mexico to make policy on these issues.

According to the Pacific Council, the report is being released under the auspices of the Mexican CFR on November 13th and is absolutely unavailable until that time.  The Brady Campaign, naturally, has a copy of the report anyway, and quotes its executive summary as saying “The United States should intensify efforts to curtail the smuggling of firearms, ammunition, and bulk cash into Mexico by aggressively investigating gun sellers, regulating gun shows, [and] reinstituting the Clinton-era ban on assault weapons.”

Congress finished its hearings on the Mexico situation several months ago, and many members of Congress have declared their line-in-the-sand opposition to re-imposition of the ban.  So given that Brady Campaign seems to be the only outfit that has a copy of the embargoed report, it’s safe to conclude that the “task force” is trying to keep the public primed for the next attack on the ownership of firearms like the AR-15 and Remington 11-87, and ammunition magazines designed for defensive purposes.

Whatever the opinions of those who sip tea and nibble biscuits while musing about how to restrict the rest of us, re-imposing the ban would have no effect on Mexico’s historic problem of crime and corruption, for at least three reasons.

First, as has been amply demonstrated, the cartels are not limited to semi-automatic AR-15s and AK-47s.  They have hand-held and tripod-mounted, belt-fed machine guns; grenade launchers and grenades; and a variety of other high-end firearms, explosives, and special-purpose optics and communication gear acquired from countries other than the United States. Thanks to some Americans’ insatiable appetite for mind-altering drugs, they have enough money to buy the “task force” 10 times over, along with any weapon that can be found among any infantry platoon on Earth, no matter what kind of gun law gets imposed.

Second, most of the firearms seized from the cartels do not come from the United States. The claim that “90 percent” of Mexican “crime guns” originate in the U.S. is false. It does not relate to all firearms the Mexicans have seized from the cartels, but only to guns that the Mexicans have asked the BATFE to trace. As the Government Accountability Office has explained, “In 2008, of the almost 30,000 firearms that the Mexican Attorney General’s office said were seized, only around 7,200, or approximately a quarter, were submitted to [BATFE] for tracing.” The 6,700 guns that BATFE traced to the U.S. accounted for about 90 percent of the 7,200 guns that BATFE traced, but only 22 percent of all firearms seized by the Mexican government

Third, the ban did not stop the production and sale of any guns, it merely put a one-attachment limit on new guns. For example, before the ban, AR-15s had a pistol-type grip, flash suppressor and bayonet mount. The 750,000 AR-15s made during the ban had only the grip.  If the “task force” thinks the fate of Mexico hinges on whether a relatively small number of semi-automatic rifles have flash suppressors and bayonet mounts, its members ought to switch to decaffeinated tea and sugar-free cookies during their get-togethers.

Make no mistake, however. Even if the “task force” doesn’t understand the finer details of the old “assault weapon” ban, leading gun ban advocates like Sen. Dianne Feinstein, Rep. Carolyn McCarthy, the Brady Campaign, the Violence Policy Center, the Joyce Foundation, and the Legal Community Against Violence do.  If they have their way, they will eventually drag us into a much larger battle over the right to keep and bear semi-automatic shotguns, M1 Garands, M1 Carbines, and Ruger Mini-14s, in addition to the AR-15s, semi-automatic AK-47s, and other commonly owned firearms that were at issue during the 1994-2004 ban.

SOURCE

Joe Arpaio: American hero

October 8, 2009

People do what they are driven to do. Some address general issues within society, other times they are more specific, and still others sort of work along a general line but still focused within a parameter. Sheriff Joe Arpaio is one of those types. An equal opportunity Sheriff, he will arrest any law-breaker, and house them accordingly.

How to deal with such an upstart? By golly! Use the race card! It’s always worked in the past after all!  So, what do the people in the obamanure administration do? They try and brand him a racist, and attempt to pull his authority that’s what they do to those that don’t fit with their political correctness agenda. Judgment Day is coming next year progressives, and when that day comes your amnesty dream plan, along with many others will be heading straight into the toilet. Where it belongs…

Hat tip to a relatively new blogger for what follows.

And that folks,was followed up by the sycophants here…

The issue is not about racism. Not at all. It is about enforcing our laws, and national security. Nothing more, and nothing less.

Butter or Guns?

October 7, 2009

Butter or guns? That question is a classic when you study economics. It involves just about everything, not just guns and butter though. It is about choices, called Opportunity Cost that you and I make everyday, and all of the time. However, when it strays into the realm of Political Economics? Strange things happen.

All too often we allow others to make personal judgments on our behalf when we should be doing the hard lifting ourselves.

Read on…

In the 1856 case Dred Scott v. Sandford, the U.S. Supreme Court rejected the idea that Africans and their descendants in the United States could be “entitled to the privileges and immunities of citizens.” To emphasize how absurd that notion was, Chief Justice Roger Taney noted that, among other things, those “privileges and immunities” would allow members of “the unhappy black race” to “keep and carry arms wherever they went.”

The 14th Amendment, approved in the wake of the Civil War, repudiated Taney’s view of  the Constitution, declaring that “no State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens,” who include “all persons born or naturalized in the United States.” Just four years after the amendment was ratified, however, the Supreme Court interpreted the Privileges or Immunities Clause so narrowly that a dissenting justice said it had been transformed into a “vain and idle enactment.” The Court now has a chance to rectify that mistake—fittingly enough, in a case involving the right to arms.

Last week the Court agreed to hear a Second Amendment challenge to Chicago’s handgun ban. Since that law is very similar to the Washington, D.C., ordinance that the Court declared unconstitutional last year, it is bound to be overturned, assuming the Court concludes that the Second Amendment applies not just to the federal government (which oversees the District of Columbia) but also to states and their subsidiaries.

That seems like a pretty safe assumption, since over the years the Court has said the 14th Amendment’s “incorporates” nearly all of the guarantees in the Bill of Rights. But the Court’s reasoning in applying the Second Amendment to the states could have implications far beyond the right to arms. If it cites the Privileges or Immunities Clause instead of (or in addition to) the usual rationale for incorporation, the 14th Amendment’s Due Process Clause, it can prepare the ground for a renaissance of economic liberty.

Full Story

Directly related to the above…

The website for all the Chicago case filings is here. For 19th century history, Stephen Halbrook is by far the most important scholar. His articles include: The Freedmen’s Bureau Act and the Conundrum Over Whether the Fourteenth Amendment Incorporates the Second Amendment, Northern Kentucky Law Review (2002); Personal Security, Personal Liberty, and The Constitutional Right to Bear Arms: Visions of the Framers of the Fourteenth Amendment, Seton Hall Constitutional Journal (1995); The Right of Workers to Assemble and to Bear Arms: Presser v. Illinois, One of the Last Holdouts Against Application of the Bill of Rights to the States, University of Detroit Mercy Law Review (1999); and (co-authored with Cynthia Leonardatos and me), Miller versus Texas: Plice Violence, Race Relations, Capital Punishment, and Gun-Toting in Texas in the Nineteenth Century–and Today, Journal of Law and Policy (2001).The lead attorney in the Supreme Court case of McDonald v. Chicago is Alan Gura. He did an excellent job in District of Columbia v. Heller, so the new case is in very good hands.

SOURCE