DOMA’S ON LIFE SUPPORT—LET’S PULL THE PLUG

The Defense Of Marriage Act, or DOMA, was struck a serious blow when the Supreme Court ruled that its Section 3 was unconstituional for denying equal rights by requiring the federal government to ignore the legal married status of gay couples in states where that is permitted when applying federal law.

There certainly are multiple benefits to be derived from federal law for married couples and now thousands of couples in the states who recognize gay marriage may avail themselves of them.

But to me the most odious provision has always been Section 2 which allows states to refuse to recognize the marital status of couples who are not one man- one woman.

Ridiculous.

SCOTUS could only rule on the issues before it and those pertained to Section 3. But Section 2 flies in the face of the Constitution,

Section IV, Article 1 reads

Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.   

There has been some conflict in the application of this clause by the states, though it consistently has been ruled that it does apply to judicial actions such as judgments and orders in domestic abuse and child custody cases.

But historically, other than for miscgenation, marriages legal in other states have been treated as legal in all states. Thus, common law marriages, which only a few states permit the establishment of, have been treated equally in states that do not. Likewise where the age of consent to marry differs, a marriage created lawfully where, for instance, that age is 14, has been treated the same in states where it is higher.

But the text of DOMA’s section 2 includes judicial proceedings concerning same sex unions as acts that states cannot be forced to recognize.

No State, territory, or possession of the United States, or Indian tribe, shall be required to give effect to any public act, record, or judicial proceeding of any other State, territory, possession, or tribe respecting a relationship between persons of the same sex that is treated as a marriage under the laws of such other State, territory, possession, or tribe, or a right or claim arising from such relationship.

The problem with seeking the overturn of this section of DOMA is that plaintiffs must be found who are directly affected, not just speculatively so, though the language about judicial proceedings leaves a large Constitutional hole to drive a truck through.

Of course though the tide seems turned towards gradual near, universal acceptance of gay marriages, a number of states have it within their constitutions prohibiting them. Those are much more difficult to reverse than are mere statues. where activists are fighting for this right.

But that was so back in the days when interracial marriages were prohibited and that didn’t keep SCOTUS from negating them all.

Oh what a glorious sight it be be to see a similar ruling in a same-sex marriage case and watch Scalia go ballistic.

I’d pay to see that.

MY OUTRAGE ABOUT BOSTON

I am outraged that anyone, for any reason, would place bombs near the finish line of The Boston Marathon!

I am outraged that these bombs were planted with the obvious intent to kill and maim human beings, no matter the reason behind it!

I am outraged that it took thousands of law enforcement officers from numerous jurisdictions about twenty-four hours to finally capture the second suspect after he and his brother allegedly added an MIT campus officer to the carnage as the suspects still presented danger to the public!

I am outraged that thousands upon thousands of Massachusetts residents were effectively prevented from working, playing, learning, worshiping, or otherwise going about their daily lives as this drama unfolded before them!

I am outraged at the person or persons who commited this atrocious act whether it was the two brothers named as suspects or different people, or people in addition to the two brothers!

I am now outraged that The Justice Department has questioned or plans to question Dzhokhar Tsarnaev without reading him his Miranda Rights!

You, know, the statement presented to criminal suspects informing them that they have a right to be represented by an attorney during questioning because whatever they say may be introduced into evidence against them in court.

The DOJ is invoking the ‘public safety exception” to the Miranda Rule. That is:

The police can interrogate a suspect without offering him the benefit of Miranda if he could have information that’s of urgent concern for public safety.

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudence/2013/04/dzhokhar_tsarnaev_and_miranda_rights_the_public_safety_exception_and_terrorism.html

So explains Emily Bazelon in her column in Slate.com in which she presents the history of this “public safety exception”. It was established by a Supreme Court ruling in New York v Quarles, (1984) where the interrogation of an arrestee without Miranda Rights was permitted. There the suspect was known to have had a gun but when arrested he had an empty holster, so the possibility existed that harm could come from the gun unless information was obtained immediately.

Then some cases involving alleged terrorists came to light where this public safety exception was invoked. The interrogation of Zacarias Moussaoui was bungled, he being the possible 20th 9/11 killer. He was arrested before 9/11.  FBI agent Coleen Rowley requested guidance as to when the exception applied.

Then Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, the Christmas day bomber, and Faisal Shahzad, the Times Square bomber, (neither of whom was successful of course) who were first questioned under the exception and then Mirandized. The former quit talking but the latter continued.

After these incidents  Attorney General Eric Holder suggested a law defining the exception be passed but this went nowhere. The DOJ subsequently produced a memo to the FBI (Note to self…when DOJ writes a memo concerning our rights, run for the fucking exits!) that stated:

Agents should ask any and all questions that are reasonably prompted by an immediate concern for the safety of the public or the arresting agents,

and then expanded upon that:

…there may be exceptional cases in which, although all relevant public safety questions have been asked, agents nonetheless conclude that continued unwarned interrogation is necessary to collect valuable and timely intelligence not related to any immediate threat, and that the government’s interest in obtaining this intelligence outweighs the disadvantages of proceeding with unwarned interrogation.

The old adage “the exception proves the rule” is both correct and adequate to confirm that the aberrant behavior itself demonstrates that there is a rule to which an exception is being made.

I fear that is one of the instances in which it appears the “exception BECOMES the rule”. Thus it is no longer an exception.

After all, there is no clear standard to determine when the government’s interest outweighs other considerations. Under the memo the DOJ and FBI, no one else, gets to decide.

Bazelon concludes her piece with this.

Whatever the FBI learns will be secret: We won’t know how far the interrogation went. And besides, no one is crying over the rights of the young man who is accused of killing innocent people, helping his brother set off bombs that were loaded to maim, and terrorizing Boston Thursday night and Friday. But the next time you read about an abusive interrogation, or a wrongful conviction that resulted from a false confession, think about why we have Miranda in the first place. It’s to stop law enforcement authorities from committing abuses. Because when they can make their own rules, sometime, somewhere, they inevitably will.

Ironically this all occurs against the backdrop of the failure of the Senate to pass a bill requiring background checks for gun purchases. Many Senators made their case for rejection claiming the law would be a violation of the 2nd Amendment.

Senator Lindsey Graham said, “I’ve always been confident if the Senate debated the Second Amendment, the Second Amendment would win.”

But this is what he said about Boston, “The last thing we may want to do is read Boston suspect Miranda Rights telling him to ‘remain silent” Of course Miranda Rights stem from the 5th Amendment.

Two facts stand out about Graham’s equivocation on Constitutional rights. He gets money from gun lobbyists but there are no equivalent 5th Amednments rights groups handing out cash. The Senate vote took place Wednesday. Tuesday night Graham was named Legislator of the Year by a gun rights group.

Why am I…and why should you be…outraged about this?

Because, when the law gets bent out of shape for one person, it’s easier to bend out of shape for the rest of us.

Don’t say I didn’t warn you.

THE FRUITCAKE EDITION OF TODAY’S LINKS—12-18-12

I guess the unfortunate if not reprehensible practice of giving fruitcakes during the Christmas Holiday season is still alive and well. I myself have not received one of these doorstops in a number of years. Instead, my taste of (not)forbidden fruit is confined to the news items I run across.

The recent Presidential campaign saw a veritable hailstorm of such gifts pelting us severely and sending us to the piggy bank to withdraw sufficient funds to cover our insurance deductibles to repair the damage to our psyches.

But our latest batch of gifts seems almost a corroborative effort by the irritants that are remarkably resistant to applications of Gold Bond Medicated Powder—our never-say-die wingnuts.

Look what I had delivered to me by just one edition of Salon.com.

Just in time for our year end tax considerations we unwrap this gem wherein we learn that…among other things…our President aims to sell off the nation’s natural resources to secure himself a third, possibly a fourth term, by buying supporters (and presumably buying off opponents)   http://www.salon.com/2012/12/18/how_to_spot_an_anarcho_capitalist/

I  must say that I highly prefer this method to the blood-letting currently taking place in Syria. After all, our streets must retain the capacity to have blood running down them from our regular well-armed nutso rampages to be distinguishable from that produced by violent revolution.. We cannot build appropriate memorials otherwise.

But read that tale and you will see that its notions, warped as they are, are emanating in large part from folks whose idea of professional finacial advice is to lie their asses off in utter disdain of the SEC (no, not the football conference, the Securities Exchange Commission—watchdog for sound and honest investment practices. It is an old watchdog, though, with somewhat failing eyesight.)

But the anti-SEC rants are only a corollary to their overall notion that our entire government is illegal. Something about the entire Constitution being unconstitutional.

(Question…if the entire Constitution is invalid, how is it so repulsive for Obama to “violate” it to gain additional terms?)

I was a political science major and somehow this never came up in any of the sixty hours of courses I took. Damned WVU!

Our next brightly wrapped chunk of heavy indigestible matter comes discourtesy of the State of Arizona. Proud of its bright days, not so bright sheriffs, home of the hapless Cardinals of NFL infamy and Gila Bend, the site of the most miserable night of my brief but adventurous hitchhiking history, this land of Grand Canyons and not so grand politicians is where the powers that be must have suffered a collective sunstroke so harsh that their brains have become permanently fried.

Symptoms, please, Dr. UMOC? Well the latest one is evinced by the state’s Presidential electors and GOP chairman. Though Mitt Romney carried the state and is entitled to its 11 electoral votes, for some reasons these fine folks are STILL questioning Barack Obama’s birth certificate.  http://www.salon.com/2012/12/18/arizona_electors_gop_chair_still_have_birther_concerns/

This idea is so batshit crazy that Governor Jan Brewer, taking a break from her strait jacket in her own special rubber room in the Statehouse, diagreed with them.

I tore the decorative paper from this last gift and saw the word “conscience” on the box. At the same time the “from” card read Todd Akin, he of “legitimate rape” fame so I knew the box was a joke and would contain anything but “conscience”.

Lo and behold we were both right, the fruitcake inside having nothing to do with a woman’s right to choose. On the other hand Mr. Akin’s vision of “conscience” is to sidestep the repeal of Don’t Ask Don’t Tell (DADT) by amending the NDAA (National Defense Authorization Act) to institute a religious exception of “conscience” to permit discrimination against gay military members.   http://www.salon.com/2012/12/18/todd_akins_last_hurrah_a_way_around_the_dadt_repeal/

Never mind that no major problems with the open policy have been reported. Never mind that other matters of conscience are not allowed to be individually expressed in the military due to the desire to maintain good order. Never mind that Todd Akin is still in the running for the coveted cover spot on the annual Time Magazine Asshole of The Year Edition.

This son of a bitch was soundly defeated in his campaign for the Senate and will be soon exiting Congress. Is this a legacy we should allow anyone to leave?

Do these stories all feel like giant lumps of coal to you, too?

9/11 IS NO EXCUSE

Rudy Giuliani is famous for injecting 9/11 into just about any speech or public presentation he has made since that date. That is laughable in its own vile twisted way. What is not laughable on any level is the extremes our governments are going to using that horrible day as justification for sundry assaults on civil liberties. They invoke that day’s stark visions to dampen any objection to the escalating violation of our rights.

“If it is done in the name of fighting terrorism, it must be okay” goes the non-thinking of otherwise respectable and considerate American citizens. Most especially when these measures have openly or clandestinely targeted Muslims there is little outcry even from those who have become famous of late for their slogan “We want our country back”

Somehow their vitriol towards alleged unconstitutional usurpation of their rights extends only to imagined restrictions on them getting rich(er) not to the people whose lives have been upheaved with criminal charges, laws aimed at Don Quixotean-like windmills, and even physical violence. All this in the name of good order and protecting us and the “American Way”.

Well I mean to tell you, this ain’t no truth, this ain’t no justice, and this ain’t no American Way. If there were a Superman he would be consumed by zipping counterclockwise around the Earth at the speed of light to reverse time to the period before these abuses took hold. 

Exhibit A is our federal government and it’s refusal to adhere to the Fourth Amendment. You know the one that reads:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

While all levels of government in this great land have routinely acted as if they were exempt from this provision, the Supreme Court usually made clear the limitations of any permissible exceptions to obtaining a search warrant. That despite the seemingly no exceptions allowed by the explicit language of the Amendment itself.

In any event now the special exceptions seem to arise out of our need to fight the “war on terror”, which is really only another anti-crime crusade garbed in fancier attire and elevated to the equivalent of the “ball of the year” category of importance.

These warrantless searches concerning international espionage were codified in the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) which also created a secret court. This law was passed under Jimmy Carter and used by every President since then, an echelon of bipartisanship unrealized for any vital issues which really benefit the nation. And its use has become neither exclusively foreign nor always intelligent.

 There is also the  Electronic Communications Privacy Act (more like the Electronic Communications Privacy Be Damned Act) passed in 1986. From the feds to local Mayberry cops, all that law enforcers needs in order to obtain an order allowing evesdropping is to file a procedural request with a judge certifying that the information will be used in conjunction with a criminal investigation. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/28/warrantless-electronic-surveillance-obama_n_1924508.html

Note here the absence of any requirement of “probable cause”.

Then, if that were not bad enough, in the wake of 9/11 came the odious Patriot Act with some uniquely egregious provisions that took warrantless searches to virgin territory. It provided for:

indefinite detentions of immigrants; searches through which law enforcement officers search a home or business without the owner’s or the occupant’s permission or knowledge; the expanded use of   , which allows the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) to search telephone, e-mail, and financial records without a court order, and the expanded access of law enforcement agencies to business records, including library and financial records. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patriot_Act

We had a “surge” in Iraq, followed by another “surge” in Afghanistan. Now we have a surge in electronic surveillance.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/28/warrantless-electronic-surveillance-obama_n_1924508.html

That story relates how the Obama administration has greatly expanded the use of that technique. Not that the numbers weren’t on the upswing under Bush. But the recent increase resembles the increase in major league home runs when steroid use was rampant.

I dunno. I don’t feel safer due to this activity…do you?

Another outgrowth of post 9/11 paranoia was the ridiculous and Constitution bending efforts to restrict Muslims, whether forbidding the building of mosques or utterly nonsensical legislative rejections of Shariah law.

But worse than  that was the attempt to paint all Muslims as terrorists by using police informants to spy on and intimidate them.

Chief among the offenders in this latter category is the not so finest of the New York City Police Department. It not only has spied on Muslims—American citizens— it has parlayed its increased power (derived from the understandable sympathies generated due to many of its brave members dying in the twin towers) into an organization not unlike an army, complete with foreign missions and heavy-handed, take-no-prisoners tactics.

There has been great consternation in the Big Apple over its ban on super large soft drinks. The real concern should be on its super large police force with all the battle capabilities of small nations.

Again less objection has come to these developments than might otherwise have been due to the aftermath of 9/11. But make no mistake, the offenses of the department are in no way related to fighting terrorism but instead are indicative of allowing the force to be an unmitigated bully in its own domain.

This story in Salon presents the case for reining in the department and Mayor Michael Bloomberg’s oversight of it.

In an email published by WikiLeaks, an FBI official joked about how shocked Americans would be if they knew how egregiously the NYPD is stomping all over their civil liberties. But what we already know is bad enough. http://www.salon.com/2012/09/28/nine_terrifying_facts_about_americas_biggest_police_force/

The story then goes on to detail the nine terrifying facts complete with reference to its sources. They range from “stop and frisk’ of people going about their business, an amazing percentage of which are minorities, to intentionally botching an investigation of a fellow officer for criminal actions.

Now I’m not so worried about that naked city of eight million people. Even if I visit again I’m white, over 60, and will obviously resemble the tourist I will be. My chances of being assailed by the cops are almost invisibly low.

But my fear is that in our post 9/11 world all the distribution of anti-terror funds and military armaments to local police forces will push them towards emulation of the Big Apple constabulary. There is some evidence of this trend already as witness the treatment of public demonstrations in our major cities during the Occupy Wall Street movement of 2011.

Given the reputation in fact and legend of small town law enforcement for greed, corruption, and mistreatment of alleged miscreants, can it be too long until Bufurd T. Justice echoes the contempt for critics exhibited by NYC Police Commissioner Ray Kelly when he told reporters questioning him to “fuck off”? That should have brought him at least a summons for disturbing the peace.

Such an attitude certainly disturbs my peace.

---

SCOTUS, THANKS FOR THE CAMEL

Like 100% of true blue Americans I was ecstatic on Thursday, June 28, when the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act—often and derisively called Obamacare— a term which you will see typed by me for the last time in this paragraph.

Well, okay the ruling wasn’t received with favor unanimously…though it should have been. Curiously Chief Justice John Roberts joined the four staunch liberals on the bench to rule the law is valid.

And things got curiouser and curiouser.

Most people, legal experts as well as some blog commentators with too much time on their hands and a desire to return to the eighteenth century (Thank you, Centinel) felt the decision would pivot on the interpretation of the Commerce Clause of the Constitution.

Those who supported the law made their case that the Commerce Clause permitted the expansion of federal power to include requiring the purchase of health insurance. Those against the law vehemently invoked everything from the Federalist Papers to the “original intent” of the Founding Fathers to a long-forgotten phrase in a ninth grade essay noting the limitations of the Clause penned by a young man who just may have been James Madison’s paper boy.

But no, declared Chief Justice Roberts and the Four Seasons…er…the four usually reliable ultra-conservative voters on the Court. The federal government may NOT use the Commerce Clause to justify the individual mandate. That mandate does not regulate commerce, which would be permissible, but it CREATES commerce by requiring a purchase.

Never mind that if someone fails to purchase health insurance they will not find a policy stuffed in their shirt pocket together with a bill for premiums from United Health Care. No, instead their next filing with the IRS would include a bill for an extra amount in tax due the government. And they still would not have purchased anything, not even broccoli.

But, while Roberts was busy exchanging pies in the face with Moe, Larry, Curly and Shemp, and reluctantly made the choice to side with the rival Marx Brothers, he betrayed his roots and invented a fiction to save the mandate.

“Why it is a tax” spake Roberts, wisdom pouring from every pore of his body while the poor listened harkening to the news of the fate of their hope for affordable health insurance.

And Congress, to the regret of almost anyone living and breathing within our sea-to-shining-sea borders, most certainly does have the power to tax, even our amber waves of grain.

So the mandate is not part of interstate commerce because it is a tax but no one pays the tax unless they do not purchase health insurance available in interstate commerce.

But wait a minute! Some years ago Congress passed the Anti Injunction Act. That law prohibits any judicial action to attempt to forestall enforcement of a tax . A person can sue if he has paid the tax in full, protests its legality and has been refused a refund. Even if the mandate is a tax, it does not become effective until 2014 and of course no one has yet been billed for the tax for their failure to purchase health insurance.

Hmmm, maybe that was not wisdom pouring from the pores of the Chief Justice.

Oh heck, Roberts can get around this. He’ll just say that the Anti Injunction Act and the ACA were both products of Congress at separate times so that means one cannot negate the other. The Anti Injunction Act passed in 1867 and the ACA in 2010. Not even Senator Robert Byrd voted for both.

Things get curiouser and curiouser.

One part of the ACA was stymied (but not Buckwheated). In 2014 the law provides for the expansion of Medicaid to include all those who earn no more than 133% of poverty level income. That means supergrowth of Medicaid rolls in states. most of which have current eligibility requirements that are much stricter, including asset tests.

However, the federal government will carry all but a small percentage of additional costs. States not complying with the new standards stand to lose Medicaid funding.

Roberts calls this coercion and declares that if states fail to comply the federal government cannot end funding.

This part of the ruling ignores prior examples where the federal government forced the states to bend to federal will or lose money. The most glaring example was when Uncle Sam wanted the drinking age to be 21 everywhere and threatened to withhold highway construction funds until a state complied.

So now, if a state wishes to opt out of the looser Medicaid eligibility requirements, many of its poorer citizens will be left without insurance or bare minimum coverage as they will not be able to afford more.

It seems the four Justices who most often find Roberts to be a dependable and reliable ally have themselves offered scathing dissonant dissents to the controlling ruling. It is as if they believe Roberts is a Judas in their midst, though perhaps their present enmity stems from the fact he forewent placing a kiss upon them prior to his betrayal.

All this strained logic and circumlocutory reasoning, though I most definitely approve of the result, reminds one of the definition of a camel as a horse designed by a committee.

Once the opinions have been digested and the smoke has cleared and we can plainly view the creation of the Supreme Court we are left with two questions.

Is it bactrian or dromedary?

Is it over the age of 21?

BE AFWAID—BE VEWY VEWY AFWAID

Well, I’ve used a cartoon character’s image and a variation of a popular phrase of his, but this is no laughing matter.

I recently warned about the danger to all Americans from increasingly intrusive and overreaching police state tactics utilized by our so-called law enforcement organizations. So-called because instead of enforcing the law they are highly intent on violating as many of our Constitutional rights as possible.

Here is that piece.   http://wp.me/pS6ry-hj

I quoted Glenn Greenwald of Salon who has been warning of the widening use of drones by domestic law enforcement as to the phenomenon of public acceptance of these measures.

There is always a large segment of the population that reflexively supports the use of greater government and police power — it’s usually the same segment that has little objection to Endless War — and it’s grounded in a mix of standard authoritarianism (I side with authority over those they accused of being Bad and want authorities increasingly empowered to stop the Bad people) along with naiveté (I don’t really worry that new weapons and powers will be abused by those in power, especially when — like now — those in power are Good). This mindset manifests in the domestic drone context specifically by dismissing their use as nothing more than the functional equivalent of police helicopters. This is a view grounded in pure ignorance.

Now comes this story from the Wall Street Journal reporting that drone use is taking off. From documents obtained under the Freedom of Information Act it has been learned that over 50 institutions have been granted permission to deploy drones. This includes not only the police departments of such major metropolitan areas (he said sarcastically) like North Little Rock, Arkansas and Ogden, Utah, but also the University of North Dakota and Nicholls State University in Louisiana. Now what the hell do colleges need  drones for? Spying to ensure students are not copying term papers from fraternity files?

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304331204577354331959335276.html

Well the drones in the Peace Garden State may serve a non-offensive purpose.

The University of North Dakota uses drones in connection with an undergraduate degree program in unmanned aircraft systems it started in 2009. Al Palmer, a university official involved in the program, said about 78 students have declared majors in the field and that graduates have found jobs with drone manufacturers or operators.

But, then again, those same students are moving into employment in the very field whose products threaten our privacy. Personally I would just as soon this industry suffer for lack of properly trained personnel.

I acknowledge that these events are taking place under the Obama administration which has been unduly criticized for alleged unconstitutional actions in other policies.

No undue criticism here. This foray into our privacy is reprehensible. I refuse to play party politics with it because I have no doubt that, given the same circumstances, a Republican President would be just as willing to peek into your backyards and under your windowshades.

But, based on the Greenwald quote above, maybe the most dangerous drones are the citizens who remain oblivious or silently acquiescent to these attacks on liberty.

POLICE—NOT FACEBOOK—BIGGEST DANGER TO YOUR PRIVACY

The warnings about what information Facebook or Google or other internet sites glean from you and use or share are valid, but the real danger to your privacy and legal rights comes courtesy of those sworn to uphold the law, law enforcement agencies.

In December a couple of fans were driving home from a Star Trek exhibit in St. louis through Collinsville, Illinois when they were stopped by a local cop for allegedly making an unsignaled lane change. Thse were two white, middle-aged men, unremarkable in appearance or garb or vehicle. They did have out-of-state license tags.

Bad enough the stop was bogus, which the cop later admitted, but he then proceeded to delay them unnecessarily while he fished for information that might let him conclude they were carrying drugs. This has become standard operating procedure for highway cops observing cars with out-of-state plates.

The reason behind this? Not so much to stop the flow of drugs, but to justify confiscation and forfeiture of property, particularly cash, which their departments then use to bolster their budgets.

Watch the linked video and read the accompanying story to see how this is accomplished and noting that the K-9 drug dog search conducted here is done in violation of accepted standards and practices.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/03/31/drug-search-trekies-stopped-searched-illinois_n_1364087.html

Just to refresh your memory, the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constituition reads thusly:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Now the U.S. Supreme Court has carved out a number of exceptions to the warrant requirement, any exception being one too many in my opinion. (What say ye you advocates for original intent? Yeah, you bastards are silent until health care reform becomes law.)

For some of the many ins and outs and allowable police actions during traffic stops see this:

http://www.ncids.org/Defender%20Training/Drug%20Case%20Training/Stops_Warr_Searches.pdf

Watch your local news or read stories in your local newspaper and I guarantee that at least once a week there will be a tale of an arrest for drugs following a stop for a traffic offense. Many of these arrests stem from consent searches but since the drivers are most likely not aware of their rights, that consent is nonsense.

Now comes this exploration of the fact that police departments are tracking cell phones and their users, with much dubious legality.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/01/us/police-tracking-of-cellphones-raises-privacy-fears.html?_r=1

With cellphones ubiquitous, the police call phone tracing a valuable weapon in emergencies like child abductions and suicide calls and investigations in drug cases and murders. One police training manual describes cellphones as “the virtual biographer of our daily activities,” providing a hunting ground for learning contacts and travels.

But civil liberties advocates say the wider use of cell tracking raises legal and constitutional questions, particularly when the police act without judicial orders. While many departments require warrants to use phone tracking in nonemergencies, others claim broad discretion to get the records on their own, according to 5,500 pages of internal records obtained by the American Civil Liberties Union from 205 police departments nationwide.

The internal documents, which were provided to The New York Times, open a window into a cloak-and-dagger practice that police officials are wary about discussing publicly. While cell tracking by local police departments has received some limited public attention in the last few years, the A.C.L.U. documents show that the practice is in much wider use — with far looser safeguards — than officials have previously acknowledged.

The article notes the recent SCOTUS ruling that the warrantless placing of a GPS on a drug suspect’s vehicle was unconstitutional. With so many cell phones now having a GPS function, there is additional doubt to the legality of this tracking.

If all that were not bad enough, a drone may soon be coming to your neighborhood. You know what drones are, of course. They are the unmanned flying objects (the REAL UFO’s we should be concerned about) such have been used in Afghanistan and Pakistan and other venues of our foreign misadventures, most notably the one used to murder Anwar al-Awlaki, an American citizen not charged with any crime, last fall.

Glenn Greenwald of Salon has had his finger on the pulse of the movement to have local law enforcement unleash drones on U.S. soil, or should I say airspace.

http://www.salon.com/2011/12/12/the_growing_menace_of_domestic_drones/

That article has links to others he has written as well as to other sources.

He makes his point pretty well about the danger of drones:

Whatever else is true, the growing use of drones for an increasing range of uses on U.S. soil is incredibly consequential and potentially dangerous, for the reasons I outlined last week, and yet it is receiving very little Congressional, media or public attention. It’s just a creeping, under-the-radar change. Even former Congresswoman Harman — who never met a surveillance program she didn’t like and want to fund (until, that is, it was revealed that she herself had been subjected to covert eavesdropping as part of surveillance powers she once endorsed) — has serious concerns about this development: ”There is no question that this could become something that people will regret,” she told the LA Times. The revelation that a Predator drone has been used on U.S. soil this way warrants additional focus on this issue.

This may be Greenwald’s most trenchant observation:

There is always a large segment of the population that reflexively supports the use of greater government and police power — it’s usually the same segment that has little objection to Endless War — and it’s grounded in a mix of standard authoritarianism (I side with authority over those they accused of being Bad and want authorities increasingly empowered to stop the Bad people) along with naiveté (I don’t really worry that new weapons and powers will be abused by those in power, especially when — like now — those in power are Good). This mindset manifests in the domestic drone context specifically by dismissing their use as nothing more than the functional equivalent of police helicopters. This is a view grounded in pure ignorance.

He’s right. This large segment of the population willing to accept any tools authority wants to utilize are among the first to rail against Facebook and Google privacy policies.

Don’t know about you, but I’ve never heard of Facebook or Google imprisoning or executing anyone.

Save the Constitution!

---

HYPOCRITES ARE OPPOSING HEALTH CARE

If you’ve been following the Supreme Court this week you know that it has been hearing arguments on the challenge to the Affordable Care Act (ACA).

Those opposing it most often cite the “individual mandate” as the reason. This mandate provision requires, after 2014, those individuals who do not already have health insurance to obtain the same from private companies or face tax penalties. There are some exceptions and the actual number of those who may be affected by this provision has been estimated as low as 2% of Americans.

But the argument goes that this is a government directive to purchase something and therefore unconstitutional.

At SCOTUS this argument even descended to the level of, “well if the government can make you buy health insurance because everyone gets sick, then the government can make you buy broccoli because everyone eats”

I won’t even deign to answer that argument.

But all the conservatives are het up about what they derisively call “Obamacare” and claim that the end of the republic is near. All our freedom will be lost. Blah blah blah.

Yet, I have heard none of them—or at least only a few—say nothing at all about an Obama administration policy that could not be more clearly a violation of the Constitution if it were designated so in bright neon lights in every city in the country.

That is the policy that claims it is legal to pursue alleged terrorists who are American citizens, and summarily execute them without formal charges, without arrest and without trial, in utter disregard of the Fifth Amendment and others.

I’ve discussed this topic in on-line forums, and with liberal and conservative friends alike. I have failed to convince them that this policy excuses outright murder. But the conservatives in particular, so ready to condemn the ACA are either strangely silent or tacitly approving of this deviation from the document they purport to hold so sacrosanct.

I’m all in favor of calling a spade a spade. In this case I’m calling a Hypocrite a Hypocrite.

If the shoe fits, wear it.

THE REAL BILL OF RIGHTS

The first ten amendments to the U.S. Constitution are popularly known as the Bill Of Rights. They make clear there are limitations on our government in very important ways that protect our natural rights and some rights derived from history such as delineated in the Magna Carta.

The language in each appears to be plain enough but further investigation by myself reveals there are several heretofore undiscovered subsections that aptly apply to our current politics.

I will highlight these for you as practiced or understood by some of the folks who want to or have been governing us.

Here are the Top Ten (No, not another Letterman list).

Amendment 1 –

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

(A) No establishment of religion applies only to Muslims, Buddhists, some Jews, or other religions deemed unworthy of protection by the most vocal Christians.

(B) Freedom of speech, assembly and the right to petition shall be practiced only by those who have jobs and are clean shaven and clad in the latest fashions including tin foil hats with tea bags hanging from them.

---

Amendment 2 – Right to Bear Arms.

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

(A) Those gun nuts not in a militia who want to freely buy, sell, trade, and distribute firearms capable of destroying all of the British redcoats with one banana clip should please use some self-restraint. Please? Pretty Please?

Amendment 3 – Quartering of Soldiers.

No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.

Amendment 4 – Search and Seizure.

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

(A) But if we deem you guilty of either selling drugs or being a terrorist or, if we just don’t like your looks or ethnicity, we’ll do whatever we damn well please.

---

Amendment 5 – Trial and Punishment, Compensation for taking

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

(A) Secretly repealed 9/12/2001, though we were already seizing assets of alleged drug runners, without proof, prior to that date. Ha ha ha.

---

Amendment 6 – Right to Speedy Trial, Confrontation of Witnesses.

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.

(A) Applies only to speeding tickets and certain littering offenses. If we think you even know how to spell Al Qaeda or have ever talked to a Muslim, you’re shit out of luck.

.

---

Amendment 7 – Trial by Jury in Civil Cases.

In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.

(A) Unless you’re represented by a “Trial Lawyer”, those dirty bastards. All cases have to be presented on The People’s Court or before Judge Judy.

---

Amendment 8 – Cruel and Unusual Punishment.

Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

(A) This applies only if you are a multinational corporation providing major campaign financing. After all, people who need people are the luckiest people in the world. Real live human beings who have pissed off the government need to watch their asses for drone attacks. KABOOM!

---

Amendment 9 – Construction of Constitution.

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

(A) However we can disparage rights of people we don’t believe are “like us”. “WE” are old white men. 

---

Amendment 10 – Powers of the States and People.

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

(A) The states are free to interpret this any damn way they wish even if doing so violates the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

---

WHAT THE FOUNDING FATHERS WOULD SAY TODAY

I have noticed over the past couple of years an increasing number of voices on the right complaining that the actions of the federal government are outside the powers of the Constitution, Their argument is reduced to this. “That’s not what the Founding Fathers said”.

 

You know, those dumb bastards of the late eighteenth century never foresaw airplanes or railroads and highways linking commerce between states and from coast-to-coast and pretty much rendering obsolete the agrarian economy that existed in 1776.

 

So our modern day interpreters would have us do away with over two hundred years of history to return to those glorious days of yesteryear—you know—the ones with slavery and subjugation of women and Congressmen traveling for a month by buggy on rutted roads to reach the Capital to enact legislation. (Actually, the latter might not be such a bad idea to return to!)

 

As an alternative I imagined what the words of those founders would be today given events and conditions quite different from their times. So I have taken exact quotes from those men who wrote and/or signed the documents this great country was founded upon and presented my modern version.

 

All quotes are from Brainy Quote.com.

 

 

Commerce with all nations, alliance with none, should be our motto.
Thomas Jefferson

 

War with all nations, alliance with dictators who do our bidding, but only as long as they do our bidding,  should be our motto.

 

A penny saved is a penny earned.
Benjamin Franklin

 

A penny saved is a penny we can spend on next year’s earmarks.

 

Associate with men of good quality if you esteem your own reputation; for it is better to be alone than in bad company.
George Washington

 

Associate with and appeal to men of narrow-mindedness if you esteem your ability to get votes: for it is better to be alone atop the polls than out of office.

 

Abuse of words has been the great instrument of sophistry and chicanery, of party, faction, and division of society.
John Adams

 

Abuse of words is the best way to get media attention and distort the record and positions of your opponent.

 

Among the natural rights of the colonists are these: First a right to life, secondly to liberty, and thirdly to property; together with the right to defend them in the best manner they can.
Samuel Adams

 

Among the natural rights of the citizens are these: First a right to life, secondly to liberty, and thirdly to property; unless we declare you a terrorist or a drug lord and then you have no rights at all.

 

A well-instructed people alone can be permanently a free people.
James Madison

 

An ill-instructed people courtesy of FoxNews alone can be permanently a people who will listen to any bullshit the right puts out.

 

I think the first duty of society is justice.
Alexander Hamilton

 

I think the first duty of society is to enable the rich to get richer.

 

He that rebels against reason is a real rebel, but he that in defence of reason rebels against tyranny has a better title to Defender of the Faith, than George the Third.
Thomas Paine

 

He that rebels against reason is a Birther, a Truther, or a skeptic on global warming.

 

The liberties of a people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them.
Patrick Henry

 

Wikileaks is evil.

 

If the people should elect, they will never fail to prefer some man of distinguished character, or services; some man, if he might so speak of continental reputation.
Gouverneur Morris

 

If the people should elect, we’ll give them nothing but clowns to choose from for the Republican nomination.

 

The greatest ability in business is to get along with others and to influence their actions.
John Hancock

 

The greatest ability in business is to make huge profits while employing as few people at the lowest pay possible.

 

Liberty without virtue would be no blessing to us.
Benjamin Rush

 

Liberty without virtue is my blessing. I’d like you to meet my wife, Callista.

 

All civil rights and the right to hold office were to be extended to persons of any Christian denomination.
Roger Sherman

 

All civil rights and the right to hold office were to be extended to persons of any Christian denomination, but the hell with you Muslims.

 

Experience demands that man is the only animal which devours his own kind, for I can apply no milder term to the general prey of the rich on the poor.
Thomas Jefferson

 

Did you know those dirty poor bastards get food stamps and free cell phones?

 

He who knows nothing is closer to the truth than he whose mind is filled with falsehoods and errors.
Thomas Jefferson

 

He who knows nothing is more likely to be a Republican voter who ignores scientific proof of the truth.

 

I abhor war and view it as the greatest scourge of mankind.
Thomas Jefferson

 

Bomb bomb bomb, bomb bomb Iran.