Constitution

by

No right to privacy in your car

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court recently held that despite decades of precedent, a warrant is no longer needed for an officer to search your car.

There was a front page article about this in the Pocono Record last week in which I am quoted.  Here’s the article:  Police Car Lights

By Howard Frank
Pocono Record Writer
May 02, 2014

Police in Pennsylvania can search your vehicle without a warrant, according to a ruling handed down by the state’s Supreme Court. All they need is probable cause.

Law enforcement considers it just another tool in its arsenal to fight crime. Others believe it erodes privacy rights under the Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, which protects citizens’ property against unreasonable searches and seizures.

It’s referred to as the “motor vehicle exemption.”

The state Supreme Court justices agreed to adopt the federal standard of allowing a warrantless search of a motor vehicle, whether or not there are exigent or urgent circumstances. The only thing police require is probable cause.

In the past, police could only conduct a warrantless search if there were exigent circumstances, such as a motorist not in custody during a stop who has an opportunity to flee with evidence or destroy it.

Otherwise, police had to secure time-consuming search warrants from judges, a process that increased the chance the subject might flee.

“It seems the changes for us as law enforcement are the timing aspect during a traffic stop, when there is a potential for evidence to be destroyed,” Pennsylvania state police spokesman Maria Finn said.

It’s not an earth-shattering change, Stroud Area Regional Police Capt. Brian Kimmins said.

“You still need probable cause, the same probable cause you need to apply for a search warrant, which you have to apply for in court.” he said.

Kimmins still sees his department operating with search warrants and continuing to seize vehicles to search under more controlled conditions. State police are reviewing the decision and working on guidance for its troopers, Finn said.

“However, probable cause is still probable cause. Our troopers will still need to have probable cause before conducting a search-and-seizure of a vehicle, say on a traffic stop. The trooper must articulate the probable cause in an affidavit or attribute it in a report,” she said.

The Supreme Court’s new guidelines shift the burden in some cases of determining probable cause from a judge to a police officer or trooper. A mistake can be costly.

“There are certainly ramifications if it’s a bad search,” Finn said. “The defendant could seek to suppress the search and seizure, if applicable, or even sue the department.”

The Supreme Court justices are not living in reality, according to one Stroudsburg defense attorney.

“The problem with a lot of these justices is they don’t deal with real life and never worked in the trenches,” lawyer Michael Ventrella of Fisher & Fisher said. “They have this idealized notion that the police are never wrong and never abuse their discretion.”

When Ventrella moved to Pennsylvania 15 years ago, he was astounded at the number of individual privacy rights Pennsylvania had compared to his liberal-leaning former home state of Massachusetts. But, he said, that’s eroded over time.

“Over the past 15 years, the courts have whittled it away,” he said.

by

“Freedom of speech” does not equal “freedom to be free of the consequences”

Mozilla’s CEO Brendan Eich resigned after complaints that he was a supporter of the anti-gay marriage campaign, and now certain conservatives are in an uproar.

You see, when they boycott businesses and TV shows they believe have anti-Christian messages, they are exercising their free speech in a totally American and patriotic way.  But when others do it against issues they support, they are suppressing anti-Christian ideals and trying to silence people in the same way the Nazis did.   boycott

I mean, it’s only logical, right?

Look, this guy has every right to his opinion.  What he doesn’t have is the right to the job.

As the NY Times pointed out:

Mozilla competes in two markets. First, obviously, it wants people to use its products instead of its rivals’ stuff. But its second market is arguably more challenging — the tight labor pool of engineers, designers, and other tech workers who make software.  When you consider the importance of that market, Mr. Eich’s position on gay marriage wasn’t some outré personal stance unrelated to his job; it was a potentially hazardous bit of negative branding in the labor pool, one that was making life difficult for current employees and plausibly reducing Mozilla’s draw to prospective workers.

This company has a policy that supports gay rights, and their guy in charge is working against that policy. It hurts the business’ image with the public, and therefore he has made himself unqualified for the position.

Suppose he had supported the KKK or some other group whose main purpose it was to deny rights to others?  Do you think the company should just look the other way, knowing it would hurt their business and their reputation?

Part of the problem too is that equality for gays and lesbian is indeed a new issue, and hard to understand for some people.  Most who are against it are not necessarily evil or mean, just ignorant or unwilling to take that step yet.  They don’t see themselves as bigots.

However, this was also what it was like at the start of the civil rights movement in the 60s.  Many whites just could not conceive of equality with blacks, and some churches even preached that equality was against God’s will — therefore to allow equality meant you were doing the Devil’s work.  Doesn’t that sound like what some who are against gay marriage are saying these days?

Bigotry is objective.  Are you in favor of denying rights to people over things they do not control?  You’re a bigot.  Sorry if that makes you angry, but that’s the definition, no matter how you may justify it to yourself.

A company has the right to say “We don’t hire bigots.”

I cannot deny that there is a “slippery slope” argument to be made here, where a company can fire you simply because you have a political position they don’t like.  I hold that there is a difference when (a) you are the CEO or someone who speaks for the company and represents its image;  and (b) when your position specifically says “I will be treating some of our employees as second-class citizens and advocating discriminating against them.”    In a sense, his position on that issue directly affects his job, in the same way a nun could be fired for saying “I don’t believe in God.”

This is not the same as an employee saying “I dislike Obama.”  Or even a low level employee who has no control over the company saying “I am against gay marriage.”  I agree that firing someone for those things would be absolutely wrong.

Editorial cartoon: Original intent

by

Freedom of Screech

“You’re violating my freedom of speech!”

This statement is often heard from people who have no idea whatsoever what they are talking about.

The 1st Amendment prohibits Congress from taking away your freedom of speech.  That’s why they can’t pass a law censoring your views or punishing you for speaking your mind. There is absolutely no way an individual citizen can take away your 1st Amendment rights. Only the government can do that.

So you have freedom of speech. That doesn’t mean you have the right to spout out whatever you want without being criticized.

The people who argue this usually are just upset that someone has disagreed with them.  Well, sorry, my freedom of speech means that I can do that, too, you know.

This came up today when some conservatives recited the inane “freedom of speech” mantra after liberals were writing to the Washington Post to complain about Charles Krauthammer’s latest column.post  You see, Charlie boy  was complaining about climate change — which he denies — and whining that people were trying to silence the dissenters.  When people who understand science complained and suggested that having him say such stupid things in a respected newspaper was like having an Flat Earther pen an op-ed column — and that maybe it might be a good idea for the Washington Post to not print lies about climate change — this was seen as proof of what Charlie said.  See?  They want to violate his freedom of speech!

Freedom of speech does not guarantee you an audience.  You don’t have the right to be in the Washington Post.  People have the right to complain about your column, and if you think that is wrong, then you clearly don’t understand what freedom of speech is about in the slightest.

Somehow, conservatives who boycott advertisers, yell at politicians to prevent them from speaking, and fight to censor books from school libraries that teach evil things like science never seem to think that they are “violating someone’s freedom of speech” do they?

by

God wrote the Constitution

The idea that the Founding Fathers were god-like and that their words are carved in stone is out there, and I’ve ranted against it many times (here and here and here, for example).  People who have this idea are political fundamentalists who, like their religious counterparts, know exactly what the (insert one:  Constitution/Bible) means and amazingly it always lines up exactly with their own views.  constitution_quill_pen

But to say that “God wrote the Constitution” — well, that’s just delusional.

Former House Majority Leader Tom Delay believes it, though.  Apparently God, through his angels on earth, wrote the Constitution, including all those parts justifying slavery, not to mention those parts that prohibit the establishing of any religion in this country.  Even more amazingly, God chose a bunch of deists to this.  Prominent among them was Thomas Jefferson, who had edited the Bible to remove all the fantastic miracles he didn’t believe in.

I could ridicule this forever, but the point is this:  People who are convinced that God guides American politics and that they personally know exactly what God wants for America are a huge problem.  It’s why it is impossible to compromise with these radicals.  God is against abortion, so therefore anyone who has a different position isn’t just on the other side of the political aisle — they are agents of the Devil.  Any sort of compromise will surely place the compromiser in Hell.   This gets expanded to the point that any view that the “Devil politician” stands for has to be fought, because if they like it, it must be evil.  Higher taxes?  Has to be Satan’s plan.  No compromise!

Maybe the root of many of our political problems isn’t in politics as much as it is in religion.

by

No, we are not moving toward a tyranny

It’s hard to debate with people who are convinced that the United States is becoming a tyranny.

Does anyone really believe that Obama will say, “I’ve decided to suspend elections and remain President-for-Life”?  Do you really believe the military, who swear an oath to the Constitution and not the President, will go along with this?  Do you think all the politicians who won’t even pass a simple jobs bill for Obama will roll over at this?  Hell, can you imagine Hillary Clinton deciding she’ll go along with it?

It ain’t gonna happen.  But some paranoid people who probably should be taking some sort of medication think that basically “If I don’t get my way, then clearly this country has become a tyranny.”

There are a lot of things our country does that I don’t like.  And I think the President has become much too powerful (but that has been going on for generations).  But the chance of anyone turning our country into a tyranny is next to zero.  Calm down already.

This usually comes up with gun debates.  Gun owners who feel that their rights are being trampled cannot understand that the vast majority of Americans disagree with them.  Even the Supreme Court disagrees with their interpretation of the Constitution.  Only 13% of Americans in the latest Gallup poll think there are too many gun control laws.  49% say there aren’t enough, and the rest think it’s just fine or have no opinion.

As I stated previously, the way you get change in the US is by getting the population on your side and voting in change (through referendum like the ones legalizing marijuana and gay marriage), by electing politicians who agree with your views, or by bringing lawsuits to protect your rights and affect change.ExecutiveOrders_byPresident (1)   Sometimes your viewpoint will lose.  That’s how it works in a democracy.

The latest crap is about Obama’s Executive Orders.  Executive Orders are not mentioned in the Constitution, but have been around forever and the Supreme Court has said they are Constitutional.   There’s one internet story going around about “Obama’s 932 Executive Orders” which is a complete pack of lies (whoever wrote that hopefully was wearing flame-resistant pants).  Further, he’s issued less Executive Orders than many of the Presidents before him.

So just calm down.  There are indeed issues concerning our personal rights and liberties that we should be worried about with the government.  But we’re not going to become a tyranny.

EDIT:  Obviously, this was written during the Obama presidency. I no longer hold to this belief.

by

Utah (Utah?!!!) joins the 21st century, somewhat unwillingly

It’s been a great year for states joining the 21st century. We’ve added Illinois, Rhode Island, New Jersey, Hawaii, and New Mexico.

And now Utah!

Talk about karma. The citizens of Utah (Mormons mostly) spent millions of dollars fighting gay marriage, and were the driving force behind California’s ban (which was later overturned by the courts).Generic+Gay+Marriange+Legal Utah is still the state with the largest percentage of people who are against gay marriage.

A federal judge has now ruled that Utah’s law banning gay marriage violates the 14th amendment which prohibits discrimination. This is a great decision, and hopefully it will not be overturned. This will set a precedent for other federal courts to find that such provisions are unconstitutional.

Judge Robert Shelby didn’t mince words, either:

The State’s current laws deny its gay and lesbian citizens their fundamental right to marry and, in so doing, demeans the dignity of these same-sex couples for no rational reason. Accordingly, the court finds that these laws are unconstitutional.

He also hit hard against the bigots who say marriage is for procreation, thus making my 31-year marriage invalid in their opinion:

The court does not find the State’s argument compelling because, however persuasive the ability to procreate might be in the context of a particular religious perspective, it is not a defining characteristic of conjugal relationships from a legal and constitutional point of view. The State’s position demeans the dignity not just of same-sex couples, but of the many opposite- sex couples who are unable to reproduce or who choose not to have children. Under the State’s reasoning, a post-menopausal woman or infertile man does not have a fundamental right to marry because she or he does not have the capacity to procreate.

Of course, conservatives who love it when courts take proactive roles in striking down campaign finance reform laws or deciding Presidential elections are all shouting about “judicial activism” (which, as defined by conservatives, means “deciding in ways we don’t like.”).

Screw them. As Judge Shelby points out, this is not just a simple lawsuit. This is about basic fundamental rights:

The Constitution guarantees that all citizens have certain fundamental rights. These rights vest in every person over whom the Constitution has authority and, because they are so important, an individual’s fundamental rights may not be submitted to vote; they depend on the outcome of no elections.

Absolutely correct. Rights are not subject to opinion polls or votes.

by

Duck dodgers in the 21st Century

Nobody’s First Amendment’s rights are being violated here.  Anyone who tells you otherwise just doesn’t know what they’re talking about.   daffy_duck_dynasty_by_michaelcrutchfield-d6m08qz

Mr. Duck Dynasty Guy has every right in the world to say whatever hateful things he wants to and there is nothing the government can do about it.

He doesn’t have the right to his own TV show.

If you work for someone, they can regulate your behavior when it relates to your job.  If your words or actions can make the company look bad, they can do something about it, and for  many big-paying jobs (such as TV star), that’s even in your contract.

The First Amendment prohibits the government from infringing on your speech.  It doesn’t protect you against all consequences of your speech.

But conservatives are up in arms over this issue.  These are the same people who cheered when liberal commentators Alec Baldwin and Martin Bashir were removed from MSNBC for things they said.  They  happily approved of radio stations removing the Dixie Chicks from their airwaves because of an interview they did.  And they loved it when Bill Maher lost his TV show for his comments.

This is different, though.  It must be.  I’m sure.  I mean, otherwise, these people would be gigantic hypocrites, right?

“But all he did was confirm his conservative Christian beliefs,” they counter.  (Personally, I can’t recall the part of the Bible where Jesus talked about how happy blacks were living under Jim Crow segregation laws.)  Nothing he said insulted these conservatives.

But is that the standard?  “As long as you don’t say anything to upset people who already think exactly like you, you’re fine”?

What if he had said “I think we should kill all gays and worship Hitler”? Would they have objected to him being removed then?

This is just a matter of degree, and the conservatives who are complaining weren’t personally upset by this so can’t understand how others could be.  (This helps to support to the whole “conservatives can’t feel empathy” theme — “It doesn’t affect or bother me personally so therefore it isn’t a problem.”)

This was a business decision.  A&E knew advertisers would start boycotting the show and they made a financial decision to take action.  That’s their decision to dodge the Duck.

And the First Amendment has nothing to do with it.

by

Satanists Protected by the First Amendment

Some politicians don’t understand that the Constitution covers freedom of religion but also freedom from religion.   (I’m looking at you, Rick Perry.)

There are two parts to the 1st amendment. The Free Exercise Clause allows you to worship in your own way (well, within the laws that apply to everyone). But there’s also the Establishment Clause, which says that the government cannot promote religion or favor one religion over another. Oklahoma_monument

This is the one that many Christians ignore. “Well, they don’t mean our religion!” they argue illogically. They think that it’s perfectly fine to have government promote their religion and their religion’s laws concerning, say, abortion or gay marriage, but scream angrily at any thought of someone else’s religion being imposed through our laws (or no religion at all).

Lately, other religions (and non-religions) are demanding equal rights, as the Constitution provides. If a Christian group is allowed to put a monument to the Ten Commandments up in a public park, then the atheists cannot be denied the right to place their own monument up in the same park.

The latest incident is occurring in Oklahoma, where both Satanists and Hindus are demanding equal space on the State House grounds after the announcement of a huge Ten Commandments display. This has astounded some politicians who have never read the Constitution.

Oklahoma legislators are outraged at this. “This is a Christian nation and Oklahoma was founded on Christianity!” they say, ignoring the fact that (a) the United States specifically was not founded on Christianity and (b) Oklahoma specifically was formed as an American Indian state (well, at first…).

If you don’t want to see satanist or atheist displays on our public property then the obvious solution is to stop placing your own religious monuments there. The Establishment Clause requires that the other beliefs get equal time. Instead, use the money that would have been spent on this monument in other ways — you know, feed the poor or establish an orphanage. Wouldn’t that be the Christian thing to do?

And best yet, because of the Free Exercise clause, the government would not be able to do anything about it.

by

Constitutional Amendments I’d add

Which amendments would I like to see made to our Constitution?

After discussing Schwarzenegger’s pledge to run for President a few days ago, I began thinking of them.  Here then is my list, in order of preference.constitution_quill_pen

Abolish the Electoral College and replace it with popular vote.  This will get rid of “red” and “blue” states, allow for every vote to count, and prevent someone the majority of Americans don’t want from becoming President.

Abolish the requirement that you have to be a natural born citizen to be President.  Keep the requirement for citizenship, of course, but there is no reason why someone who became a citizen should not run.

Establish an independent commission to redraw congressional districts every ten years.  In order to prevent gerrymandering, we need to take district drawing out of the hands of politicians.  Ideally, they should do this for the states too, under the idea of Equal Protection.

Limit Senators to two six-year terms and Congress members to six two-year terms.   Come on, it’s not like there aren’t other qualified people out there.  Serve your terms and go home.  Treat this like a public service instead of a career.

Abolish Washington DC and make Washington part of Maryland. It’s ridiculous that these people do not get a representative in Congress. While there are enough people living there to make DC a state (more people live in DC than in Wyoming), the easiest solution is to just merge it with Maryland.

Define the death penalty as “cruel and unusual punishment” and thus prohibited.  It’s time we recognized that the death penalty is prone to mistakes, applied in a discriminatory manner, and doesn’t belong in a modern civilized society.

Then there are some that are needed to overturn Supreme Court decisions, but honestly, a few more votes on the Court would prevent that.  Back in the 70s we fought for an Equal Rights Amendment to prohibit discrimination against women.  Since that time, the Courts have held that women are, indeed, “people” under the 14th amendment and as such are entitled to protection against discrimination.  However, a different court could come along and go back the other way.  Therefore, the following amendments would be nice:

Amend the 14th amendment to prohibit discrimination against women, gays, and non-English speaking people.  I’m including transgender people and such in this.

Define “people” to exclude corporations.  A person has morals and eventually dies.  Conservatives who cite the Founding Fathers for anything to support their views are oddly silent on this one.

Define “speech” to exclude money.  These last two are needed to overturn the Citizen’s United case.