Tag: Laws

Stop using tragedies to justify unjust new laws

Predicted that after the last horrific attack there would be a push for new laws….some want laws governing guns….while others are worried about the influx of refugees…..even some worried that a persons religion should be controlled somehow….or my fave…..new laws to limit our right to privacy or assembly…..

As typical the toads never want to waste a good tragedy to find ways to enact new laws of some sort….after some horrific attack the politicians sprint to the closest news outlet and start calling for this action or that…..

From gun control enthusiasts to Donald Trump, everyone’s living by Rahm Emanuel’s maxim these days.

In the wake of tragedy, calls to “do something” can be deafening. And since politicians never want a serious crisis to go to waste—if I can borrow the infamous phrasing of Rahm Emanuel—our government is always ready and willing to respond to these calls.

Trouble is, there’s usually a reason these post-crisis policies were previously nonstarters: they’re not good ideas.

Laws made in terror, anger, and despair appeal more to our emotions than our common sense. They tend to ride roughshod over individual rights and the limits of the Constitution. They are often unjust and ill-considered, which is (understandably) difficult to see through our tears.

Source: Stop using tragedies to justify unjust new laws – Rare

If these laws are just then why does it take a tragedy for them to be proposed?

Is it just a game?

Is It Time For A Change?

Change?  A subject that Americans clamor on and on about…..but yet Not one of them can accurately say just what change entails……….most are not looking for real change but rather just a new set of politicians ………..which is NOT change.

When the war of words between the two drag ass parties gets heated someone always brings up the issue of constitutionality…….and then some else has the brilliant idea of a constitutional convention to solve any dispute…..and then everyone takes a step back and calmer heads prevail…….

But in reality is there ever going to be a convention to possibly re-do the constitution or maybe add an amendment or two?

The US Constitution has 27 amendments, all of which have been added in the usual manner laid out in high school civics texts. But Bloomberg catches up with a movement to alter the Constitution in a way that’s never been done—by holding a constitutional convention to draft changes. In order for such a convention to happen, two-thirds of the states need to call for one, and advocates say they’ve already cracked the two-dozen mark on the way to the necessary 34. As Bloomberg’s Albert Hunt explains, most of the push is coming from fiscal conservatives who want to add an amendment requiring a balanced budget or some other kind of financial discipline.

Hunt thinks it’s “still not likely” the movement will succeed, but what has critics and constitutional scholars worried nonetheless is the unprecedented nature of such a convention. Would anything be up for debate? Might the Bill of Rights be endangered, at least theoretically? Robert Greenstein of the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities writes in the Washington Post that everything about a possible convention, from the selection of delegates to the voting rules, is uncharted territory. “That means that under a convention, anything goes,” he writes. The website redmillennial.com rounds up views from high-profile advocates, including Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal, who calls a convention the only way to “restrain the size of the federal government.”

Lots of bold talk……but who has the cajones to ride this issue to finish….my guess is…NO ONE!  It is all talk….making political points…..but No action will ever occur.

Personally, I think that it is beyond time to take a hard realistic look at a new convention……there are so many issues that need to be cleared up and put into perspective.

Lawlessness

This post will no doubt cause me a lot of grief……..I can hear the anger coming from massive amounts of keyboards……..but….what the Hell…….go for it!

I have been watching the situation in Nevada….the rancher that is having his stand-off with the Feds……and the whole situation got me thinking about the law and how we see them.  I have waited before commenting to see how the media is betraying this tense situation……and as usual it is overplayed.

After reading as much as I possible could before it became mind numbing…..this is the way I see it…..the rancher has been grazing his cattle on Fed land, which is not free………after court proceedings he was told that he owed money and if not paid cattle would be confiscated to pay the bill….the rancher in question has chosen to disobey a court ruling……now after looking over the facts I believe that the BLM over-reacted and thus the stand-off occurred.   At this point many so-called ‘patriots’ joined in his stand-off.

The law is being broken and people are choosing to support this person.  I now ask if this were a bunch of minorities that were threatening to use force if the government touched their stuff….would these same supporters do the same thing?  My guess is NO!

There are many that call themselves ‘law and order’ conservatives……which is fine but when breaking a law that you do not agree with is not ‘law and order’.  When did this become an American past time?

Like it or not….we are a country of laws and it comes down to either obey them or face the consequences.

And then there was a report coming out of Nevada……..

Fortunately, a face-off between a rancher’s supporters—some armed—and federal officials concluded peacefully in Nevada on Saturday. Had it not, a former Arizona sheriff had a plan: “We were actually strategizing to put all the women up at the front” near the feds, Richard Mack told Fox News, via the Blaze. “If they are going to start shooting, it’s going to be women that are going to be televised all across the world getting shot by these rogue federal officers.” Meanwhile, those involved in the showdown—which, the Blaze notes, became a question of states’ rights—are reflecting on the event.

Rancher Cliven Bundy’s son tells Reuters that his supporters needed their weapons “in order to intimidate” federal officials. “We were dedicated to opening those gates and peacefully walking through to retrieve those cattle” seized by the government (and ultimately returned). Despite the confrontation’s end, however, the conflict isn’t finished, says Harry Reid. “We can’t have an American people that violate the law and just walk away from it,” he said on Nevada’s KRNV, via the Washington Times. “So it’s not over.” Many protesters were still at Bundy’s ranch as of yesterday, the Times notes.

This report is disturbing on so many levels………..I have a problem with putting the women out front…..sounds like something a terrorist would do to protect his ass…….and then it is the use of intimation……..would anyone accept the term or use by some minority that felt slighted by the government?  All this sounds more like cowards than patriots.

We can expect this kind of lawlessness in Anbar province in Iraq but it is not done here………we may not appreciate the laws we have chosen to live by but without them we have anarchy and that is what the so-called Left is accused of fomenting.

May I use a term that was thrown at me back in my younger more rebellious days………if one does not like the laws or the government…..there is a simple answer………..”THIS IS AMERICA:  LOVE IT OR LEAVE IT”…………

Good That We Have Laws

We are a nation of laws and every American likes to think of themselves as law abiding citizens…for we, as I have said, are a nation of laws.  Some laws are good and others not so.  We Americans want laws that protect the innocent from criminals but do not want laws that protect those innocents from gun violence.  We have laws that protect our right to free speech…..even when the speech is lies.  We have laws that grant us freedom of religion and there are those that would like to make a religious belief mandatory.  We have laws that protect us citizens from cruel and unusual punishment while condone it.  We have laws…….well you get the idea………. laws at times are contradictory.

Moving on.  Okay you guys remember back in the day when there was this idea to put a mirror on your shoe and walk up to a group of girls and try to get a look under their skirts….you probably have to be an old fart to remember……….and this situation brings me to my point….I read an article the other day that made me shake my head…….

Women who ride the Boston subway will not be pleased to hear that the state’s highest court says it’s legal for someone to take “upskirt” photos of their privates. The state Supreme Judicial Court thinks it should be illegal, but the justices say current laws don’t cover it, reports the Springfield Republican. The problem is that the Peeping Tom law in question was written to protect people who are nude or partially nude—someone in a changing room, for instance—not riders on the subway who are fully clothed, reports AP. “A female passenger on a MBTA trolley who is wearing a skirt, dress, or the like covering [private] parts of her body is not a person who is ‘partially nude,’ no matter what is or is not underneath the skirt by way of underwear or other clothing,” says the court ruling. It’s good news for Michael Robertson, who was arrested in a police sting in 2010. He didn’t dispute that he took upskirt photos but argued that it’s not a crime. The justices agreed today, but state lawmakers vowed afterward to quickly close the loophole, reports the Boston Globe.

Yeah you read that right.

Basically, if she is wearing underwear it is not illegal……but if she is going ‘commando’ then you are a pervert………I must be missing something.

Sometimes the lack of logic just amazes me.

And then…after writing this a new report has come out……..I want to be fair……..

If you were outraged by the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court ruling that deemed “upskirt” photos legal, you can turn that frown upside down. Just a day after the decision, state lawmakers voted yesterday to outlaw the snapped photos of “sexual or intimate parts” in public in an “unusually swift action,” USA Today reports. The bill, which flew through the House and Senate, carries a maximum penalty of two years in jail and a $5,000 fine if the victim is 18 or older, and five years in jail and a $10,000 fine if underage. Gov. Deval Patrick said he would sign the bill into law, the AP notes. “It is sexual harassment,” Senate President Therese Murray said after the bill’s unanimous approval. “Woman and children should be able to go to public places without feeling that they are not protected by the law.” (Though good news, gentlemen: It applies to male victims, too.) The state’s Peeping Tom law only protects people who are nude or partially nude, like someone in a changing room; the new bill applies to anyone who “photographs, videotapes or electronically surveils” a person’s private parts without consent. “Not only did we get it done quickly, but I think there was a feeling that we did it right,” the House speaker said. “We wanted to make sure that this would be a law that would pass all legal questions that could arise.”

Any thoughts?

Laws….We Have Laws

A new year…..new laws……

We all bitch about the amount of laws that are passed every year…..laws that we are obligated to obey as part of our contract with the state……a social contract if you will……but 2014 will be an incredible year especially with the new laws that we must…….

Let me list a few that should be interesting to watch…….

Most of the 40,000 new state, federal, and local laws that took effect at midnight on 1 January,  are pretty dull but there are some doozies in there—including the legalization of recreational pot in Colorado, where over-21s will be able to walk into stores and buy weed for recreational toking. Other highlights, as per the Atlantic and Time:

  • Light bulbs. Production of 40 and 60-watt incandescent bulbs is officially over as of today, marking another step in the switch to more efficient bulbs that began with the phasing out of 100 and 75-watt bulbs.  (not much mentioned about the mercury content)……..
  • Drones. Illinois has moved to head off the use of unmanned aircraft in the state, restricting when law enforcement can use them to gather data and making it illegal for animal rights groups to use them to interfere with hunters or fishermen.
  • Voter registration. They’re still to young to smoke the state’s legal pot, but Colorado 16-year-olds will now be able to pre-register to vote when they get their drivers licenses—a law that actually makes it easier to vote, bucking the trend seen in numerous other states.
  • Shark fin. Delaware may not be a vital link in the shark fin trade, but the state has made it illegal to sell or distribute them there, a move aimed at protecting endangered shark species and ending the inhumane practice of finning.
  • Gun control. Measure introduced in Connecticut after the Sandy Hook school shooting will now take effect, including registration of assault weapons and large-capacity ammunition magazines. California has also tightened gun controls with new measures including a 5-year ban on firearms possession for anyone who makes serious threats of violence to psychotherapists.
  • Placentas. New mothers in Oregon are now allowed to bring their placentas home with them—for ritual burial or for food, depending on their culture.

Just a few…..and the more interesting of the lot……there are more…..lots more……but space does not permit me to elaborate……and besides….I just don’t wanna to go on……

There Are Idiots And Then There Is Mississippi

I have not been the kindest person to the Mississippi state government, my state, they pretend and promise so much and deliver nothing……I guess we could say that about a lot of politicians but Mississippi can take the prize…….every politician in the state ran on an education promise and it has been that way for 40 years and yet the state still has one of the worse educational records in the country and yet the voter keeps believing the lie…….maybe that is a good indictment of their educational standards.

The latest session just started and has already made the news……

By Jerry Mitchell, Clarion Ledge

More than a half century ago, Mississippi created a state Sovereignty Commission to block enforcement of federal laws.

Now two key state lawmakers are introducing legislation to attempt to do much the same thing. House Bill 490 would create a committee to help neutralize federal laws and regulations “outside the scope of the powers delegated by the people to the federal government in the United States Constitution.”

Robert McElvaine, professor of history at Millsaps College, said all this bill will accomplish is to put Mississippi up for ridicule. “ ‘The Neutralization of Federal Law’?” he said. “I am astounded to see such a measure introduced in the 21st century. Do the authors of the bill see Mississippi as part of the United States?”

He pointed out that the issue of state sovereignty “was settled by a terrible war 150 years ago as well as by numerous Supreme Court decisions.”

Read More…

Are you really surprised?  No matter what law is enacted in DC there will always be a movement to circumvent it by the states and always it is under the pretext of the 10th amendment…….a contrarian’s favorite part of the Constitution.  Really does not matter which political group is in power….it is always the 10th that is used to justify any and all opposition to Washington…….

But wait!  There is more from  the great state of Mississippi…..

(Newser) – Mississippi has officially ratified the 13th Amendment to the Constitution—a mere 148 years after the amendment outlawing slavery cleared Congress and was sent to state legislatures for approval. Mississippi’s legislature voted to ratify the amendment in 1995, but it never became official because the state never notified the United States Archivist, the Clarion-Ledger reports. The oversight was cleared up after a doctor saw the movie Lincoln and did some research into when different states had ratified the slavery ban.

The doctor—a recent immigrant from India—and a colleague contacted state officials, who sent in the paperwork to finally make ratification official. The next-to-last state to ratify the 13th Amendment, Kentucky, did so in 1976. “We’re very deliberate in our state. We finally got it right,” says state Sen. Hillman Frazier, the Democrat who introduced the resolution to ratify the amendment in 1995. It passed the Mississippi Senate and House unanimously, with some lawmakers abstaining.

Better late than never….I guess…….I bet you thought it was a done deal…the banning of slavery……..now you see why I say, “if you visit Mississippi set your watch back 150 years”…….goes to show what happens when no one is watching….

Turn The States Loose!

College Of Political Knowledge

Since the election of ’08 we have had numerous attempts or perceived attempts, if you like, to limit some of the rights that we have as Americans…..like voting, electing officials, civil rights, on and on……and recently Americans have had an outlet, besides the internet, for their whining and dislike for the direction of the country…….that outlet has been the site where they can partition the government for certain things….the most popular has been the secession partitions….Texas alone has over 100,000 signatures and all 50 states has one also….so it is not an isolated occurrence…..

There are federal laws concerning many of what we like to call rights….but in the recent past the states have started limiting these rights……while the states cannot make them illegal they can, once they stack state legislatures they can severely limit the access to these rights…..want examples?  FINE!  Abortion, whether one approves or not, it is still not illegal by federal law……more?  Marijuana…..federal law against but states are staring the process to de-criminalize it……..voting–states are attempting to regulate who gets elected by using some obscure crap about voter fraud–there is NO rampant voter fraud!  Or states that can eliminate elected officials at the whim of the governor……there are more about for the brevity of this post, you get the idea……

Since states want to control these federal rights and want to undermine the federal government I say there is a way…….since the Tea Party came to power they have stubbornly insisted on massive spending cuts….not so much to make the the government more stable but rather to undermine the federal government to the point that is is nothing more than a group or people that get paid to do nothing but show up once in awhile in the capital…….like I stated previously…..there is a way to do this and make the whiners and the small government people happy……..

Professor, what could that simple answer be?

Articles Of Confederation–return to the beginning and re-install the AOC……but why would this make those people I mentioned happy?

Well, let’s look at the Articles

  1. Establishes the name of the confederation with these words: “The Style of this confederacy shall be ‘The United States of America.'”
  2. Asserts the sovereignty of each state, except for the specific powers delegated to the confederation government, i.e. “Each state retains its sovereignty, freedom, and independence, and every power, jurisdiction, and right, which is not by this Confederation expressly delegated.”
  3. Not being sovereign, it does not call the United States of America a “nation” or “government,” but instead says, “The said States hereby severally enter into a firm league of friendship with each other, for their common defense, the security of their liberties, and their mutual and general welfare, binding themselves to assist each other, against all force offered to, or attacks made upon them, or any of them, on account of religion, sovereignty, trade, or any other pretense whatever.”
  4. But to instill a national feeling, “[t]he better to secure and perpetuate mutual friendship and intercourse among the people of the different States in this union,” it establishes equal treatment and freedom of movement  for the free inhabitants of each state to pass unhindered between the states, excluding “paupers, vagabonds, and fugitives from justice.” All these people are entitled to equal rights established by the state into which he travels. If a crime is committed in one state and the perpetrator flees to another state, he will be extradited  to and tried in the state in which the crime was committed.
  5. Allocates one vote in the Congress of the Confederation (the “United States in Congress Assembled”) to each state, which is entitled to a delegation of between two and seven members. Members of Congress are appointed by state legislatures. Also, individuals may not serve more than three out of any six years.
  6. Only the central government is allowed to conduct foreign political or commercial relations and to declare war. No state or official may accept foreign gifts or titles, and granting any title of nobility is forbidden to all. States are restrained from forming sub-national groups. No state may tax or interfere with treaty stipulations already proposed . No state may engage in war, without permission of Congress, unless invaded or that is imminent on the frontier; no state may maintain a peace-time standing army or navy, unless infested by pirates, but every State is required to keep ready, a well-regulated (meaning well trained), disciplined, and equipped militia, with sufficient public stores of a due number of field pieces, tents, a proper quantity of arms, ammunition and camp equipage.
  7. Whenever an army is raised for common defense, colonels and military ranks below colonel will be named by the state legislatures.
  8. Expenditures by the United States of America will be paid by funds raised by state legislatures, and apportioned to the states based on the real property values of each.
  9. Defines the sole and exclusive right and power of the United States in Congress assembled to determine peace and war; to exchange ambassadors; to enter into treaties and alliances, with some provisos; to establish rules for deciding all cases of captures or prizes on land or water; to grant letters of marque and reprisal (documents authorizing privateers) in times of peace; to appoint courts for the trial of pirates and crimes committed on the high seas; to establish courts for appeals in all cases of captures, but no member of Congress may be appointed a judge; to set weights and measures (including coins), and for Congress to serve as a final court for disputes between states.

I think these would make the whiners happy….they could run roughshod over their constituents at will…….they would be in complete control of others lives and rights….but also would mean the each state would have to bear the brunt of the costs for disasters, education, etc……..but they would NO longer be accountable to a central government…….and is not that what all these toads really want?

Under the Articles of Confederation, the central government’s power was kept quite limited. The Confederation Congress could make decisions, but lacked enforcement powers. Implementation of most decisions, including modifications to the Articles, required unanimous approval of all thirteen state legislatures.

States would be in total control of the destiny of the state as well as its residents……now that is what they really want!  If that is what they want….I say screw them….let them go…….

Personally, I think it is a damn silly idea……but I bet we can find a bunch of people that will like it……whatcha think?

Stupis Is As Stupid Does

Lowell Turpin

A Tennessee man was arrested earlier this month after allegedly assaulting his girlfriend over suspicions that Mitt Romney was her lover, the Knoxville News Sentinel reports.

Forty-year-old Lowell Turpin had confronted his live-in girlfriend, Crystal Gray, after spotting a photo of a man who he did not recognize on her Facebook page. Gray quickly explained the photo was of presidential contender Mitt Romney.

According to a police report obtained by the Smoking Gun, Turpin was upset Gray was “attempting to communicate with friends” through her account and began “smashing the laptop against the wall.” He then struck Gray on “the right side of her face, near her mouth, with a closed fist.”

The report, provided by Anderson County Sheriff Deputy Bradley Prewitt, stated that Gray had accused Turpin of having physically abused her in the past.

Turpin was arrested on domestic assault charges in connection with the July 22 incident. According to rawstory.com, Turpin was still being held in Anderson County Jail as of Monday.

The exact photo of Romney that incited Turpin’s rage has yet to be identified.

Could this be part of that “silent majority” that we hear so much about?

And he can vote!  I feel sop much better about the system knowing that (sarcasm in case you missed it)………

Yo Bubba! Stand Your Ground!

Special note:  I was notified yesterday that Info Ink has gotten its 1000th like….I feel special now…..

We are ALL aware of the situation in Florida….the Zimmerman/Martin affair….the so called “stand your ground” law that basically allows a person to kill another person……for whatever reason the care to use as the justification for the killing action…….there is some 20+ states that have passed a version of the “stand your ground” law….but what are the results of the laws?

Even though my reader has already made of their mind…..I would like to ask…..do they know what the Florida “stand your ground” law states?  I can help………

In 2005, Florida legislators made it easier to claim self-defense by rewriting the law so that a person “has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground.” Here’s how it works:

• Anyone who is not engaged in illegal activity and is in a place where he or she has the right to be can claim self-defense in using violence against another. Police cannot arrest someone with a reasonable claim. No arrest does not mean a person will never be charged, but it can affect how thoroughly police investigate.

• In most homicides, prosecutors review case details and decide whether charges should be filed. In self-defense cases, prosecutors will not charge if they feel they cannot refute the person’s assertion of self-defense. Once a charge is filed, the case moves into the court system.

• The law requires a judge to hold a “stand your ground” immunity hearing if the defendant asks for one. At that hearing, prosecutors must convince a judge there is enough evidence to go forward to trial. If they fail, a judge can grant immunity from prosecution. Either side can appeal a judge’s decision.

• If immunity is denied, defendants can seek a plea agreement or take their chances at trial, where they can still argue they had the right to stand their ground. Judges give jurors detailed instructions, saying they cannot convict just because a defendant did not retreat or because he or she killed an unarmed victim.

From a piece written in the Tampa Bay News…..BTW  that is Florida in case there was any confusion……

Among the findings:

• Those who invoke “stand your ground” to avoid prosecution have been extremely successful. Nearly 70 percent have gone free.

• Defendants claiming “stand your ground” are more likely to prevail if the victim is black. Seventy-three percent of those who killed a black person faced no penalty compared to 59 percent of those who killed a white.

• The number of cases is increasing, largely because defense attorneys are using “stand your ground” in ways state legislators never envisioned. The defense has been invoked in dozens of cases with minor or no injuries. It has also been used by a self-described “vampire” in Pinellas County, a Miami man arrested with a single marijuana cigarette, a Fort Myers homeowner who shot a bear and a West Palm Beach jogger who beat a Jack Russell terrier.

• People often go free under “stand your ground” in cases that seem to make a mockery of what lawmakers intended. One man killed two unarmed people and walked out of jail. Another shot a man as he lay on the ground. Others went free after shooting their victims in the back. In nearly a third of the cases the Times analyzed, defendants initiated the fight, shot an unarmed person or pursued their victim — and still went free.

• Similar cases can have opposite outcomes. Depending on who decided their cases, some drug dealers claiming self-defense have gone to prison while others have been set free. The same holds true for killers who left a fight, only to arm themselves and return. Shoot someone from your doorway? Fire on a fleeing burglar? Your case can swing on different interpretations of the law by prosecutors, judge or jury.

• A comprehensive analysis of “stand your ground” decisions is all but impossible. When police and prosecutors decide not to press charges, they don’t always keep records showing how they reached their decisions. And no one keeps track of how many “stand your ground” motions have been filed or their outcomes.

Claiming “stand your ground,” people have used force to meet force outside an ice cream parlor, on a racquetball court and at a school bus stop. Two-thirds of the defendants used guns, though weapons have included an ice pick, shovel and chair leg.

I am sure everyone has an opinion on the Zimmerman/Martin affair…….the problem is that we only get the side that the MSM wants us to have…..but this stand your ground law needs a bit of revision, in my opinion……

Who’s Afraid Of Sharia Law?

College of Political Knowledge

Please tell me why we are afraid of Islamic law.  Some say that we are not afraid….and then I have to ask why 13 states maybe more have waiting legislation about prohibiting sharia law in US courts?  My state of Mississippi is one of those scared people……their bill reads like this…..MISSISSIPPI: House bill 301 was introduced to ban “Mississippi courts from using foreign laws, including sharia law, which is a guide to Islamic religious practice.”

First of all, I have NO one that I have talked to that can tell me just what Sharia law is….other than some vague reference to terrorists and such…….all you quivering Americans this is what the law is all about……

The word sharia means “the path to a watering hole”. It denotes an Islamic way of life that is more than a system of criminal justice. Sharia is a religious code for living, in the same way that the Bible offers a moral system for Christians.

It is adopted by most Muslims to a greater or lesser degree as a matter of personal conscience, but it can also be formally instituted as law by certain states and enforced by the courts. Many Islamic countries have adopted elements of sharia law, governing areas such as inheritance, banking and contract law.

Now what makes these quivering lumps of crap think that it would every be adopted in the good old US?  First, it would be unconstitutional and that is the most important reason why all this bovine fecal matter about sharia law is just a smoke screen and a waste of valuable time and resources…..the cowards do this to avoid tackling the real problems of unemployment, state revenues and education……

I hate to be critical (now that is just a lie…I love it!)…..if you are afraid of sharia law then you are a moron!  The chances of it every being the rule of the land is about as good as you being struck by lightening on a clear day…….

Let me sum up this post and this notion…..with one of my favorite quotes….”Stupidity is the deliberate cultivation of ignorance”…..and the American people are buying the fertilizer……