Archive for the 'Legal Issues' Category

There has been discussion going on around the Montana Blogosphere regarding the legality of S. 1257 and H.R. 1905 (same bill, different parts of the Congress).

The posts are great, but the real conversation gets going in the comments, I hope you take the time to read not only the posts, but also the comments to them.

It started with Jay, and I missed the post when it first happened, but wrote my own in March. Jay jumped on board, pointing out that I missed the first post, and Colby thought that I was wrong. On April 15, I posted again, asking Montanans to call Baucus, to urge him to vote for House Representation for the citizens of the District of Columbia. Colby and I started talking again, and I posted my rebuttal. Here we are today, with this post, a response to a conversation I am having with Colby on my last post. Don’t think I am forgetting Wulfy, he listed it as a reason that he is not voting for Baucus this next November.

This whole conversation illustrates perfectly why I love blogs. This was a story given a couple of paragraphs in a local paper, and it is through examination on the blogs that the real issues are coming forward. Many of us, including me, list it as an example of an issue that we disagree with what Congressman Baucus has done in our name. And that some of us consider it a very vital issue, and reason not to vote for him in November, in fact it is my sole reason. There exist many other reasons not to vote for Baucus, but this is the one that gets me going. My vote is my voice, along with my blog.

*******
Colby:

First off, I think I found out where our disagreement lies. I am not talking about trying to pass legislation making D.C. a state. I am talking about passing legislation through Congress to obtain a voting member in the House of Representatives for the residents of D.C. It won’t completely correct an “over 200 year old wrong”, but it is an important step in the right direction.

I am going to go out of order on your arguments, because my rebuttal to your last contention, answers many issues with your other arguments.

U.S. Constitution, Article 4, Section 3, Clause 1:

If D.C. wanted to go for statehood, absolutely, an amendment would be needed, as you pointed out, pursuant to Article 4, Section 3, Clause 1.

New States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union; but no new States shall be formed or erected within the Jurisdiction of any other State nor can any State be formed by the Junction of two or more states, or parts of States, without the Consent of the Legislatures of the States concerned as well as Congress.”

We have already agreed, haven’t we, that the District is not a state. If it were a state, we wouldn’t be discussing these issues. The District is in the jurisdiction of the Congress, pursuant to “The District Clause”.

I don’t see the part of Article 4, Section 3, Clause 1

“establishes that new states are not to be made out of already existing American soil.”

I see the part that says a new state cannot be formed out of a current state (or District) without the consent of the Legislature of the State and Congress’s permission. In fact new States have been created from existing States: Vermont came from New York (ratified in 1791); Kentucky from Virginia (ratified in 1792); Tennessee from North Carolina (ratified in 1793); Maine from Massachusetts (ratified in 1820); and West Virginia from Virginia (ratified in 1863).

D.C. is not a state, yet other states have been formed out of existing states, from the very Article you said was “most convincing”. So the Constitution, should D.C. decide to go for statehood, as it did in 1980 (defeated in the House in 1993), provides for D.C. to go through the amendment and ratification process. It would need the permission of its legislature, of which it has none ( see Home Rule, following this paragraph), it is in the jurisdiction of Congress, pursuant to Article I, Section 8, Clause 17 of the “District Clause”. It would also need the vote of Congress, which in the past, has voted down such efforts.

In terms of “Home Rule” or a legislature, the District remains under the control of Congress.

”The District has been a unique political entity in America since its conception – not part of any state and controlled exclusively by Congress and the federal government. Congress’ control is so absolute that for 100 years the District had no elected local government and was run by commissioners appointed by the president and answerable to those on Capitol Hill. In fact, District residents have been allowed to elect their own mayor and City Council only for the past 34 years. And Congress still maintains line item control over city finances, not only for federal funds but locally raised revenues as well, which make up the majority of the budget. Congress also has the power to impose or annul any laws passed by the city government.”

from the CQ Researcher, DC Voting Rights: Should Washington Citizens Have a Vote in Congress? April 11, 2008 (PDF 561 kb)

Congress doesn’t have that kind of power over any state, reaffirming that the District is not a State, at the same time reiterating the powers granted to it by the powerful District Clause, Article I, Section 8, Clause 17.

Back to your rebuttal:

After Virginia and Maryland gave up lands in 1790 that later because the District of Columbia, Congress let residents keep voting in federal elections in those original states through 1800 – even though, legally, there were no longer residents [of a state].

”This is probably most likely an issue of transition, being that there has never been an interval since when they were voting, it is pretty safe to call this a hold-over, and using it to argue D.C. voting rights now, after 208 years of constant non-voting”

Of course the voting allowed in the District from 1790 to 1800 was a part of a transitional period. In 1801, when the citizens realized that they wouldn’t be represented in the new government, is when the process of trying to gain representation in the new national legislature.

Americans living abroad, not paying taxes, should not be allowed to vote in American elections.

Regardless of how we personally feel about laws, legislation, the constitution, and precedence, we live under them. Until new laws are passed, or precedence set, it is what it is. Personally, if I were living abroad, not paying taxes, but still a US Citizen, I would want to still be able to vote, it is my right as a citizen. Paying taxes is not a qualification to be able to vote.

My commerce argument stands, having no rebuttal.

In terms of law, I think you might have misunderstood diversity jurisdiction. Diversity Jurisdiction allows citizens of the District to bring a case in Federal Court against a citizen or corporation of another state. Say a DC resident, has a case with a credit card company making a false estate claim of against her mother, trying to collect her mother’s debt from her personally. The credit card company has its base in Delaware. Diversity Jurisdiction. allows those D.C. resident to sue the corporation in federal court, and is an example of how Congress has powers under the District Clause to grant DC residents the same standing as a citizen of a state, even though the Constitution doesn’t provide it. The same thing is true for a Montanan. Even though we aren’t citizens of Delaware, we have the right to sue a corporation (or citizen) with their home offices (or residence) in another state.

The reason I brought up examples of the way that Congress, the Supreme Court and the President have treated D.C. as a state, is to show that there is legislative, judicial and executive precedence for Congress to provide a voting member in the House of Representatives.

”Just because we have passed legislation that allows the residents of D.C. to b treated as if they lived in a state does not mean those laws made D.C. a state.”

Agreed.

I never said that D.C. cannot be treated as a state, just that, as far as the Constitution is concerned, it is not a state. There is a difference between someone being a legal adult versus trying them as an adult”.

Agreed again. Although I point, again, to the District Clause.

So we already agree that there are many (some count over 500) laws that treat D.C. as a state for various purposes, and we agree that D.C. is not a state. I hope we agree that this legislation will not make D.C. a state, instead, only allow them a voting member of the House of Representatives.

Hold onto your seat, I am going to agree with you again:

”First off, the largest problem with a legislative solution is that it would not be very permanent; any congress in the future could modify or change the decision.”

Agreed. (Would conceded be better?)

Now I am going to disagree with you:

“Senators and Representatives represent states . . ”

the Senators and Representatives represent the people of the states. How could SCHIP exist without caring for our littlest charges? After all, they can’t vote yet, but their interests are at the forefront of local and federal legislation. Why would we care about how someone on death row dies, without the people, advocating legislation or legal decisions for them. Why would the rights of an unborn fetus be so contested, as opposed to the rights of its mother? The rights of individuals are argued all the time.

Finally, I am going to address this:

“. . . simply put, there is not constitutional authority to give congressional representatives to any body that is not a state”.

Yes there is. I will quote Zach,

”I am going to quote Article I, Section 8, Clause 17, and that ought to be enough:
“To exercise exclusive legislation, in all cases whatsoever, over such district (not exceeding ten miles square) as may, by cession of particular states, and the acceptance of Congress, become the seat of government of the United States”
Key phrase: all Cases whatsoever”

(I’ll skip the “emotional” stuff, and let the fact that it is how we are creating democracies around the world stand as they are, open to interpretation and implication.)

I think the best part of this whole conversation is, that we are closer than we think on the issue.

*******
Jeff, I haven’t forgotten you, thanks for hanging in.

I already said this:

Comment by Cece • Website • |Edit This

2008-04-24

Also, the 23rd amendment implies DC is not a state and makes an explicit exception for voting for President and VP. Since that appears to be more closely related to the question at hand than any of your other examples and an amendment was the resolution, doesn’t that suggest that Congressional representation requires an amendment? I mean, you’ve listed specific exceptions, which deal with genuine holes in the Constitution on this issue, but the 23rd amendment addresses an almost identical question. Shouldn’t we go by that?

[edited for content]

Briefly, under Article I of the Constitution are the “Leglislative” powers and limits. The District Clause is a part of Article I. In Article II deals with the “Executive” powers and limits. The only power under Article II that Congress has, is the power to chose the day that the electors gather to cast their electoral college votes. That’s it.

Because the powers enumerated in Article I, do not give Congress the power to create legislation regarding the election of Presidents, an amendment to the Constitution was required. See Oregon v. Mitchell, 400 U.S. 112 (1970).

You wanted to know what Article 1 power I am “citing for legislation giving D.C. representation”. It is known as the District Clause, Article I, Section 8, Clause 17:

To exercise exclusive legislation, in all cases whatsoever, over such district (not exceeding ten miles square) as may, by cession of particular states, and the acceptance of Congress, become the seat of government of the United States, . . . “

In Loughorough v. Blake , for example, the Supreme Court upheld legislation that imposed direct federal taxes on D.C. residents. Article I, Section 2, Clause 3 of the Constitution stated that “Representative and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several State, which may be included within the Union ”Despite the absence of motion of the District in this clause, the Court held that direct taxation of the District was constitutionally permissible. The Court stated that even if the language in Article I, Section 2 Clause 3 were not read to include the District “[i}f the general language of the constitution should be confined to the States, the [District Clause] gives to Congress the power of exercising “exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever within the district,,” including the power to assess the same in direct tax on the District as it could assess on a state”

from The Authority of Congress to Enact Legislation to Provide the District of Columbia with Voting Representation in the House of Representatives. 

Then, the 14th Amendment said:

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States are citizens of the United States . . .”

huh . . .that would include residents of the District now wouldn’t it?

“and residents of the State wherein they reside.”

Well I have already shown that D.C. has been considered repeatedly as a state for legislative, judicial and executive purposes. And the power to do so, lies in that District Clause. More importantly, continuing Amendment 14, Section 1:

”No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States, nor shall any State deprive any person of live, liberty or property, without the due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”

Emphasis mine.

Baucus, in representing us, has an obligation to uphold the Constitution of the United States. And he walked away from that obligation.

Sometimes the Constitution falls in our favor, and when it doesn’t, I am going to quote James Madison from the Federalist 51:

“Ambition must be made to counteract ambition. The interest of the man must be connected with the constitutional rights of the place. It may be a reflection on human nature that such divides should be necessary to control the abuses of government. But what is government itself but the greatest of all reflections on human nature? . . In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to govern itself. A dependence on the people is, no doubt, the primary control on the government . . .”

Colby and Jeff, you guys are my friends, and I really respect your opinions; but I skunked you on this issue. It might be time to concede. If you want to talk more, bring it on.

*I will link to any missing cites in the morning, but right now I am kaput.

Let’s just get this bit out of the way. I am not a lawyer; I am just a person who has the privilege of being a United States citizen, with all the rights and obligations that come with that honor. It is my duty as a citizen to defend the Constitution. Someone whose opinion I value disagrees with me. I am rising to the challenge.

There is an argument afoot, as to the legality of a legislative vs. amendment solution to representation for the citizens of the District of Columbia. I believe that both a legislative and an amendment path could lead to righting a 200-year-old wrong; my friend believes that there is only an amendment path. That is what this post is about, evidencing the legal legislative path to representation in Congress for DC residents.

First some history. Back when the founding fathers were writing the Constitution in June of 1783, there was a riot outside of the statehouse in Philadelphia, (which was the capitol of the US, at the time). There were some unpaid revolutionary troops, who were demanding pay from the forming federal government, the forming fathers asked Pennsylvania to provide some protection, and Pennsylvania refused. The Congress decided to move to Princeton then to Trenton, New Jersey; to Annapolis, Maryland; and finally, New York City, to settle the Constitution in a more peaceful environment(s).

From this situation, the idea of a “District”, outside of the influence and dependence on a singular state was born. The Framers constructed an idea of a District no more than 10 miles on each side, to hold the nation’s capitol. Alexander Hamilton raised an amendment to the Constitution, in his state, providing that when the federal district reached significant population (reached in 1850), “provision shall be made by Congress for having a District representation in that body”. The Constitution was passed without such amendment in 1789, when everyone lived in a state.

So the idea of the District was created. Virginia and Maryland succeeded lands to create the District, and in 1791, the site was chosen by George Washington. While the District was under construction, the residents were allowed to vote in their former state’s elections (north of the Potomac in Maryland, and south of the Potomac in Virginia). December 1, 1800, the federal government moved to Washington D.C. from Philadelphia. It wasn’t until 1801, when Congress assumed control over the District, that the former residents of Virginia and Maryland were denied the right to vote in elections.

July 9, 1846, Congress passed a law returning Alexandria County and Alexandria to the State of Virginia. After decades of DC resident’s complaints (petitioning as early as 1803), the lands of the District, south of the Potomac, were returned by recession to Virginia, and the residents living in that area had representation on the hill again. You will note that the right to representation in Congress was a primary reason that the District is not 10 miles square today. While I might I don’t agree with their reasoning for wanting the vote (slavery), the fact remains that the citizens demanded representation, and Congress gave the land back, so that they could have representation. The yellow bit is Virginia, and the gray/white part is formerly Maryland and present day Washington, D.C.

Image from Mental Floss.

My friend claims that there is nothing in the Consititution granting the power to Congress to pass a law granting a voting member to the District of Columbia in the House of Representatives. The relevant portion of the Constitution is, Article 1, Section 8, Clause 17, (hereinafter “The District Clause”):

To exercise exclusive legislation all cases, whatsoever, over such district (not exceeding ten miles square) as may, by Cession of particular states, and the acceptance of Congress, become the seat of the government of the United States . . .” (Emphasis mine.)

And he would probably cite Article 1, Section 2, Clause 1:

The House of Representatives shall be composed of members chosen every second year by the people of the several States . . . “

And Article 1, Section 3, Clause 1 (as amended by the 17th Amendment):

The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, elected by the people thereof. . . “

Ahh, there’s the rub. Fortunately, I have several instances where Congress has treated Washington, D.C. as a state, by using the District Clause.

Congress has let Citizens Vote for Congress Even When They Aren’t State Residents: While the language of the Constitution literally requires that House members be elected “by the People of the Several states,” Congress has not always applied this language so literally:

* After Virginia and Maryland gave up lands in 1790 that later became the District of Columbia, Congress let residents keep voting in federal elections in those original states through 1800 - even though, legally, they were no longer residents [of a state].

* The Uniformed and Overseas Citizens Absentee Voting Act allows U.S. Citizens living abroad to vote in Congressional elections in their last state of residence - even if the no longer are citizens there, pay any taxes there, or have any intent to return.

. . .

* Article III provides that courts may hear cases “between citizens of different states” (diversity jurisdiction). The Supreme Court initially ruled that under this language, D.C. residents could not sue residents of other states. But in 1940, Congress began treating D.C. as a state for this purpose - a law upheld in D.C. v. Tidewater Transfer Co. (1949).

* The Constitution allows Congress to regulate commerce “among the several states,” which, literally, would exclude D.C. But Congress’ authority to threat D.C. as a “state” for Commerce Clause purposes was upheld in Stoughtenburg v. Hennick (1889).

* Similarly, a U.S. Court of Appeals recently treated D.C. as a “state” for purposed of the Second Amendment, in Parker v. District of Columbia (D.C. Cir. 2007).

from the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights, Letter with H.R. 1905 Fact Sheet Including Constitutionality Issues, April 18, 2007 (PDF 93 kb)

* “For instance, the Supreme Court consistently has upheld Congress’ right to treat the District as a state in decisions on federal taxation, regulation of interstate commerce, the right to trial by jury, prohibition and the right to sue citizens of the states in federal courts . . .”

from the CQ Researcher, DC Voting Rights: Should Washington Citizens Have a Vote in Congress? April 11, 2008 (PDF 561 kb)

“Moreover, the United States is the only country in the world that denies the citizens of its capital representation in its national legislature, according to the Parliamentary Assembly of the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE).” id.

Ilir Zherka, executive director of the voting-rights advocacy group DC Vote, points out that for decades the U.S. departments of State and Justice have helped other countries write their constitutions “In not one of them has the U.S. proposed to disenfranchise the people of the capital.”, id.

Let’s refer back to the whole “Taxation without Representation” issue. I think it is extremely important here. The Sixteenth Amendment (passed in 1909, ratified in 1913):

“The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.”

The D.C. is not a State, yet the citizens pay Federal Income Taxes. If my friend’s contention is true, that Congress cannot pass a law giving representation to its citizen’s, because it is unconstitutional based on the frequent use of “the several states” throughout the Constitution; then the fact that D.C. citizens pay taxes on their incomes would be unconstitutional as well.

If my friend’s contention held true, that D.C. cannot be treated as a state under the Constitution, and the powers granted to Congress to provide legislation “exercise[ing] exclusive legislation all cases, whatsoever, over such district“; then the Congress would have done a lot of illegal things over the years.

I posit the Constitution conflicts with itself. It is not a perfect document. All contingencies could not have been foretold. Therefore, the founding fathers put in ways to amend it (thank you Ben Franklin), and ways for Congress to provide for the citizen’s rights, who happened to live in a District, instead of a State.

Sometimes I wonder if people aren’t just making this stuff up…

You might recall the tale of Marvin Richardson, the Idaho politician-wanna-be who wanted to run as Marvin “pro life” Richardson, but was prohibited from doing so because Idaho law prohibits slogans from ballots. Well, Mr. Richardson is back, or should I call him Mr. Life:

…officials in the Idaho secretary of state’s office say they have no choice because Pro-Life is his full and only name. He says he will run for the highest state office on the ballot every two years for the rest of his life, advocating murder charges for doctors who perform abortions and for women who obtain the procedure.

“I think it’s just and I think it’s proper to have Pro-Life on the ballot,” he told the Idaho Press-Tribune of Nampa. “If I save one baby’s life, it’s worth it.”

It seems Mr. Life was busy in his political down-time; securing a legal name change to fuel his whacked out plans this time around.  I might find this interesting, if it wasn’t so absurd.  In addition, his plans (which, in his own words, are to help the pro-life movement) might end up harming those who would agree with him:

David Ripley, executive director of Idaho Chooses Life, says he knows and respects Pro-Life but fears some voters may think Pro-Life is a position rather than a candidate and mistakenly mark their ballots both for him and for another anti-abortion candidate for the Senate, thus nullifying their choices.

“I’m pretty concerned about it,” Ripley said. “I think that could cause a lot of confusion out there … (Its) more likely to undermine the pro-life movement by having a lot of pro-life votes discounted.”

Now I am just waiting for the accusations that Mr. Life is really a nefarious liberal working to undermine the votes of concerned pro-life citizens; that would really be the perfect end to a crazy story.

So I was reading Wil Wheaton’s blog again, and it contained some good advice, that Shane had given me about a year ago, and I haven’t been able to to in a political blog just yet. I just feel some compelling need to back up what I am saying with research, references and links. I need to work on letting that go, well sometimes. Here is the advice:

Back in the days when Tony Pierce wasn’t spending his time trolling his own commenters and generating controversy for the sake of building page views, he wrote a fantastic post about avoiding blogging burn out, which was something we were all talking about in those days when we were all sort of defining what blogging was and wasn’t, making it up as we went along (but not admitting that we were.) I forget exactly what the advice was (and it’s all massively awesome advice that should be required reading for everyone — including Tony, today — who aspires to do more than talk about their cats with their blog) but it can be distilled down to a couple of things: write what you want to, write what’s on your mind, and don’t worry about who is reading it. It’s such simple and logical advice, but clearly isn’t easy to absorb and put into practice, because I need to remind myself about it at least twice a year.

Here goes nothing:

So what has been on my mind lately, is the DNC’s complaint against the McCain campaign. I got an email from the DNC earlier this week, (thanks to an old high school buddy signing me up for their emailing list) asking to to sign on. I didn’t, but I agree with the complaint. It takes me back about a year and a half ago, when I filed my own FEC complaint. The situations have parallels.

You see, back during the Burns and Tester election, I spent quite a bit of time driving around the state and going to their debates. At one in Butte in September of 2006, there was a reserved section of seating offered by the Montana Standard for a cosponsor of the event, the Resodyn Corp. I won’t get into the nitty gritty, but basically the FEC complaint was dismissed, because Resodyn never actually issued a check to the Montana Standard for cosponsoring the event. Money never changed hands, but a promise of the money was out there. The Montana Standard offered a benefit to Resodyn, in turn for offering to cosponsor the debate. In my opinion, Resodyn definitely got a benefit of reserved seating at a debate where the line of citizens waiting to get in went around the block. I think the FEC decision might have followed the letter of the law, but completely abandoned the spirit.

McCain filed with the FEC to become qualified for Federal Matching Campaign funds, and was approved with the FEC. While he has never taken any of the FEC money, it is alleged that he used the fact that he was approved for those funds, to secure a loan for campaign moneys. Now McCain is trying to back out of the whole mess, so that he has some money to spend on campaigning between now and the Republican Convention. So once again, money never changed hands, but if McCain used the Matching Funds as collateral for the loan, then he definitely got a benefit from that promise. Is it really right or fair to allow him to back out of the spending limits?

I am someone who marks that little box on my tax return every year, designating $3 of my taxes to this presidential campaign fund. I do it because I think elections should be publicly funded. Do I think it is right for someone to obtain a benefit from that program I pay into, without having to follow the the spirit of the rules associated with it? Of course not. Especially by someone who has worked for Campaign Finance Reform. I can only hope that the intention of the laws are followed, as we watch the outcome of the DNC’s complaint.

So, I used to be a member of the ACLU; I was even the President of the Kern County Chapter for a while. However, I left the organization years ago; mostly due to the tight grip they keep on their local chapters. Since I left the group, I have kept tabs on what they are doing, and I have noticed that the ACLU increasingly gets involved in the most outlandish cases. While I still respect the ideological goal to defend the Constitution, I am at a loss to justify most of their recent actions, especially this one: The ACLU is coming to the defense of Senator Larry Craig.

ST. PAUL, Minnesota - In a legal effort to help a U.S. senator, the American Civil Liberties Union is arguing that people who have sex in public bathrooms have an expectation of privacy.

The government cannot prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Senator Craig was inviting the undercover officer to engage in anything other than sexual intimacy that would not have called attention to itself in a closed stall in the public restroom, the ACLU wrote in its brief.

Inasmuch as I get the ACLU’s point, that Craig’s alleged end-goal (sex) is not illegal, I disagree entirely with the premise that people looking to have sex in public have a reasonable expectation to privacy.

First off, public bathrooms are notoriously lacking in privacy. Anyone who thought about doing anything in there, legal or not, should think twice about how noticeable their actions are, what with the foot traffic and waiting lines.

Second, if the ACLU is going to argue the position of privacy, then there has to be a respect for the privacy of others engaged in the same activity. Craig is alleged to have solicited sex from a person in an adjoining stall, meaning that he was infringing on the expectation of privacy of that bathroom-goer. It is the same logic used to justify when ‘rights’ have gone too far: you’re rights cannot infringe upon the rights of another; that would create a problematic logic loop.

All of this isn’t to say that I think Craig should hit the slammer for this incident, I just think the ACLU is grossly out of lines in justifying this as a Constitutional case about privacy.

To all the naysayers who complained that only liberal pussys and retired generals were demanding that Gitmo be closed:  the Chairman of the Joint Chief of Staff (read: the head of the military other than Bush) is requesting the same thing:

The chief of the U.S. military said Sunday he favors closing the prison here as soon as possible because he believes negative publicity worldwide about treatment of terrorist suspects has been “pretty damaging” to the image of the United States.

“I’d like to see it shut down,” Adm. Mike Mullen said in an interview with three reporters who toured the detention center with him on his first visit since becoming chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff last October.

Negative publicity, international reputation, treatment of terrorists?  These are the same things that Liberals have been saying about Gitmo for years now.  I wonder if now, that a reputable military man is saying the same things, if we will see any change of tune from our friends on the right?

I am not sure how many people have been following the case, but it looks like Jammie Thompson has decided to appeal the recent court decision ordering her to pay $222,000 for sharing music. I have taken serious issue with the RIAA’s tactics over the years, it is pretty difficult to deny that Ms Thompson was in violation here. What is not clear to me is the justification for the nearly $10,000 per song fines.

Shouldn’t the punishment fit the crime, in that the RIAA should have to prove that was the amount of damage done? As is pointed out here, there are some real problems with copyright law in this country:

After decades of special-interest lobbying by large holders of intellectual property rights, U.S. copyright law has spiraled out of control. It’s been transformed from limited protections of authors’ rights for 14 years to a juggernaut with criminal enforcement, sky-high penalties, and up to 120 years of legal protection.

Copyright no longer abides by the fundamental principle of law, which is that the damages awarded should be related to any harm committed. No wonder Jammie Thomas got slapped with a $222,000 bill. (And I wouldn’t be surprised to see attorney’s fees add another $100,000 on top of it.)

Apparently the change in your pocket is not legal tender to pay for traffic fines. A man in Washington State is attempting to pay a $700+ fine with buckets of change.

In addition, the State Drivers Bureau is threatening to revoke his driving rights because they are refusing to accept his coins!

Geez, the last time I checked U.S. coins ARE legal tender aren’t they? I’d bet they will be hard pressed to find a “policy” that says you cannot use coins to pay a legal debt anymore than they could argue that the coins are not legal tender.

This could get interesting

With all the news over Senator Larry Craig what is missed is at what cost? To begin with, he will receive his retirement to the tune of some $136,000 dollars a year. So it must not go unnoticed that the crime does not fit the outcome very well does it?

Had it been a felony rather than a misdemeanor then this would not be the case. However, he will able to continue his lifestyle in whatever manner he chooses and we as taxpayers will pick up the bill.

Speaking of costs, there were some 1,800 civilians killed over the past month in Iraq. In one instance the cost of life was 500 in just one incident.

And then there is my own battle with the VA’s disability rating board. I just found out that my Agent Orange cancer disability payments have been reduced from 100% to 20% which is not only a huge deduction (like $2,000) because the people who oversee the veterans benefits have concluded that I am cancer free after just one year of remission but they can’t explain the huge loss of weight which is well over 100 pounds, the night-sweats, the sleepless nights that come in one to two hour blocks, the diminished lung capacity, the hoarseness of the vocal cords due to damage by chemicals used to kill the cancer and of course the huge loss of revenue because I was too sick to work.
Am I battling to fight this and do the right thing, Yes - But keep in mind that when you take on the VA you are appealing to the same people who determine what you do or do not get in terms of disability compensation. I’ve taken the steps of seeking help from both of our Senators (Bacus, Tester) and Congressman Reberg but that as I am sure most realize takes time and money both of which I do not have.
Clearly my medical records (both past and present) show that the side effects of the cancer are presenty even today but just try to prove to them that you are trying to do the right thing when it is clear that the government are more concerned with their own set of values and protecting their nest eggs to worry about the plight of the veteran.

Not long ago I was asked to share my experiences with the effects of service related health issues and you can trust that I shall. Why? Because this whole affair just simply is NOT fair. It IS about more than money it is about doing the right things for the right reasons.

Can they say the same?

I’ve been creeped out this week by the Larry Craig affair - I mean - the very idea that cops hang out in restrooms and try to catch guys trying to hook up. Let’s face it - a large part of the gay population needs to say under wraps for valid reasons - careers and family, for instance. At the same time, they need what everyone needs in one form or another.

Reverse the roles - imagine that gay sex was the norm, and heterosexuals had to keep it on the sly. Would cops hang out in bars and try to entice men into hooking up with women? Would they bust them on the spot? Is it any of their business?

At the very least, if they are worried about straight people being propositioned in airports by gays (unlikely and easy to shrug off), they can have a cop wander through the restrooms now and then (without looking in the stalls). That’s probably all that’s needed. I listened to Larry Craig being interrogated and was offended that a man could be so humiliated for doing something so innocent. How repugnant.

To all these cops who are protecting the public by hanging out in toilet stalls waiting for a foot to tap or a hand to reach underneath, we have better, more satisfying work for you. You could be fighting our forest fires, mopping floors at Wendy’s, or working in a soup line. What you are doing is pretty low. The world don’t need more creeps, especially those wearing badges.

Maybe they can do us one better - hang out on passenger jets and try to catch people in the Mile High Club. At least there the public is really inconvenienced, having to wait in line and all.

I am sure that the blogs are completley covering the abdication of the Attorney General’s seat by Alberto Gonzales today.  One Win.

The Republicans, I mean the insiders, got together this weekend and decided (72 to 14, yeah 96 people decided for you) that they don’t care about their party members and loyalists don’t matter to them, only the “up to 3,000″ or so party officials votes matter.  Don’t bother to show up at the primary, the decision will be made for you on February 5, 2008, as to who will represent the Republicans in the Presidential Race of 2008.  *Pats on head* You poor ignorant voter.  Just vote for who we have already decided is the best candidate.  You don’t know enough to vote for yourself.  Time to defect?  One Loss.

Why should you Hold Onto Your Hats?  Well, I might be remembered as someone who did some in-depth coverage of the initiatives last election season.  (Toot Toot).  The infamous Trio of Doom (CI-97, CI-98, and I-154 (which Wulfgar covered much better than I did)).

So I sit here today, and I see that the Governor has called a Special Session of the Legislature to appropriate funds from our savings to cover the costs of this fire season.  I have choked on smoke for the past couple of months; not being able to see the Sleeping Giant, or the Valley, and on the terrible days, even Mount Helena; the time has come to address the issue. 

Why does this come to mind?  Well CI-97, Stop Over Spending Montana, had it not been thrown out of the Courts as unconstitutional, would have left all us Montanans swimming in smoke.  We would have had to wait until the next statewide election, to vote in some money to deal with the issue.  Wait, when is the next statewide election?  Oh yeah, choke on that Montanans.

“Rumor has it” (the name of a game created by an old friend) that Howie Rich will be back in action in the election season of 2008.  Whether or not he trusts Trevis Butcher with it again, or can find anyone to support him remains to be seen.  Unfortunately, I know he will be back, trying to shove his ideas down Montanan’s throats again.  You heard it here first.  Hang Onto Your Hats, and remember to watch what is going on.  Better yet, look at things as they might have been had Montanans passed that proposed initiative.  Now do you understand?

Things will be more complicated this time, as I am headed to law school, but I promise to maintain my contacts, and keep fighting the good fight in the name of truth.

So I checked into the legal stuff with caucuses.  I am not happy.

 
“But isn’t it illegal to commit the members support of one party months before the members even vote?

“You are so naive.”

“Seriously?  You have to be kidding me.”

“Cece, the parties are National organizations.  They aren’t held to any laws when putting their support behind a candidate for office.”

“So you are saying that it doesn’t matter what the people whom consider themselves to be a member of a party think.  The primary is irrelevant.  The candidate has already been chosen by the national party.”

“Oh yeah.  Well before anyone votes in a primary”

 
*******

I consider myself to be an Independent, I haven’t always been one, like most people my strategy with voting changes over time.  Currently, I evaluate the issues, what is important to me, then vote for the person I believe will help support and fight for the issues that I think are important.  That being said, in the past, I haven’t been stupid with my vote either.

My votes have matured with age.  I used to vote hard line Democrat, straight down the ticket at age 18 (even before had it been legal).  Then I started looking further into the issues, and the choices to be had, and I threw a few votes to the Republican side of the aisle (GASP!).  I was reluctant when I voted for Clinton the second time (and if you think I am voting Clinton for a third time, you are off your rocker).  I was hardcore for Gore in 2000.  We won, but lost to the Electoral College system.

So here I sit in 2007, already sick to death of the debates.  Sick to death of the pandering to one constituency or another.  Last week on “The Power of 10”, the question was asked, “How many Americans would rather watch a hot dog eating contest rather than a 2008 Presidential Candidate debate?”  For me?  Hands down a hot dog eating contest.  Either a lot of Americans were lying, or they are lying to themselves.

The way it stands, the national parties will make the decision for us, why the heck should we bother ourselves with sorting out our own issues?  Why should we care who we think should be in office?  The Republicans and Democrats will decide it for us.  No muss no fuss, just be sure to show up for the actual election in November 2008.

Who has the most money?  Who made the biggest gaff this week, and how will they placate the masses with a transparent cover story?  Who can duke out who on a national stage?  You don’t know?  Don’t worry, the party you have thought you were affiliated with will decide for you.  If you think the Democratic party isn’t up to the same way of thinking, then you are more naive then I was when I started looking into this whole thing.

 
Maybe it is time to be the disenfranchised voter that the party I usually vote with thinks I am during the primary, and counts on me not to be during the actual election.  An independent hot dog.

Treat my vote like it doesn’t matter, see if I show up on your side.

I just happened to be reading the Independant Record the other day, when this article caught my eye.

Early Caucus gives state a voice by Eric Iverson - Your Turn - 08/03/07

Every four years, Montana voters go through the motions of casting a ballot in the presidential primary election, hoping that our next president hears the concerns of Montana and other western states. Unfortunately, that voice often falls upon deaf ears. In reality, Montana’s primary comes so late in the process that each political party has already selected its presidential nominee long before Montanans have a voice. Typically by that time, several candidates have dropped out of the race, and our vote ends up being a simple affirmation of a pre-determined outcome. If Montanans want a voice in the process, we can’t allow that to continue any longer, and Montana Republicans are trying to do something about it. Under a new proposal, the Montana Republican Party would hold a Presidential Caucus in each county on February 5, 2008. Each county caucus would include folks from around the county who come and cast their ballot for the Republican nominee for President, all in one evening. The votes would be tallied from around the state and a winner of the Republican Presidential Caucus would be announced that very night.

Maybe I am missing something, but who makes up this caucus? Is every Republican voter in the county invited to come cast their vote for whom they think should be their Presidential canidate? Or are a select group of “representatives” in each county invited to cast their vote to represent the wishes of every one in their county? And who decides who the “representatives” from each county are?

Back to the article, and why those are very important questions.

The need for such a change is just plain common sense for most Montanans. Ultimately, we want to elect a President who understands and will address issues we care about, but right now we give them a pass on Montana issues until the general election in November. Currently we are the second-to-last state to hold it’s presidential primary, ahead of only South Dakota. Moving to a caucus in February will give Montana a voice in the presidential nominating process at a time that is relevant in the presidential campaign — when candidates are debating the issues and discussing the various policy positions that will impact our everyday lives. Montana Republicans happen to think that Denton is just as important as Des Moines, Iowa, and that Conrad shouldn’t have to take a backseat to Concord, N.H.

This new approach also gives more Montanans input on the presidential selection process as a whole. Remember, the presidential nominee is selected by delegates at the National Convention. Right now, Montana’s 25 delegates to the Republican National Convention aren’t obligated to vote for the candidate who wins Montana’s primary — they simply vote for the presidential candidate they personally want to support. That’s right, under the current policy only 25 people get to decide which candidate gets the support of all Montana Republicans. The new proposal would require Montana’s 25 delegates to support the winner of Montana’s Republican Presidential Caucus, an honor that could only be won by garnering broad support from 2,262 party officials representing every county across the state. Under the new, reform plan, those who cast a vote on behalf of Montana Republicans at the National Convention would better represent the will of Republicans from throughout the entire state, instead of their own personal preference.

Woah. Wait a minute. So this undefined caucus decides in February of 2008 who the Republican presidential canidate will be. And the people who go to the polls, and vote in the actual primary on June 3, 2008 are wasting their time. The decision has already been reached months before by this “caucus”.

Tell me, when exactly was it that the members of the Montanan Republicans abdicated their right to cast a vote? Now the party and an undefined group of people are going to take that decision away from you? If you aren’t riled up, I just don’t understand it.

Implementing this change opens the nominating process to Republicans from every walk of life, with every county in Montana being allowed to provide its input. I don’t know a single Montanan who doesn’t think we deserve to have a voice in the presidential primary election, and ultimately, that’s what a Republican Presidential Caucus will do for this state: give us a voice.

Montana Republicans are taking the lead to ensure that Montana issues are addressed at the national level — not just with hollow rhetoric late in the campaign, but with honest, thoughtful discussion right from the start, early in the primary process. This is the kind of presidential election Montanans deserve, and Republicans will work to make it a reality.

Erik Iverson is State Chairman of the Montana Republican Party.

Call me ignorant, but I am fairly certian that “opens the nominating process to Republicans from every walk of life, with every county in Montana being allowed to provide its input” is the very definition of a primary.

Don’t get me wrong here. I can understand the impulse to want to have a say in who gets nominated to be a party’s presidential canidate, but removing individual party members right to vote in the nomination process, is completely undemocratic. I even like the idea of binding representatives to the electoral college to cast their votes as Montanas have.

Looks like Sam got the jump on this story. A great convo in the comments over at Wulfgar’s site. And a post from Montana Headlines. That will teach me to wait a couple of days to post.

The important thing here, is that we are talking about it. Heck, I plan on shouting it from the rooftops, and probably checking into the constitutionality of the whole thing with a couple constitutional lawyer friends of mine. I’ll keep you updated with what I find out.

Ever hear of the Ring of Steel?  Perhaps you don’t know the name, but somewhere you have probably heard about London’s successful surveillance program.  Put into effect in response to IRA bombings of the early 1990s, the program has been credited with successfully deterring crime in the city.

A similar system is headed to New York City.  And while it is the just the kind of thing to get Libertarian heads spinning, the majority of Americans would appear to support such a system, according to an ABC poll.

Given the chief arguments, pro and con — a way to help solve crimes vs. too much of a government intrusion on privacy — it isn’t close: 71 percent of Americans favor the increased use of surveillance cameras, while 25 percent oppose it.

It is useful to point out that we are not talking about anything too covert or underhanded here; New York City’s plan calls for the installation of 100 extra cameras by the end of the year.  But with a further vision of getting that number to a staggering 3,000 cameras by 2010 (and with other cities adopting similar plans), this does present a situation that we should discuss, at the very least.

So I am interested in your opinions.  Is this a simple and effective deterrent to crime, and are the concerns minimal?  Or is this a step in the kind of direction we don’t want to go?

The floor is now open.

There are some formations of sentence fragments that you could never guess you would see strung together. I found one of them in today’s Helena IR. Here goes:

Man accused of killing baby now guilty of street racing

Am I the only one that strikes as an extremely odd sentence? One problem with it is that it isn’t factual: Christopher Lee McAllister isn’t a Man accused of killing baby, he has been convicted. That makes him a Man guilty of killing baby. Now, since we have rewritten the headline as:

Man guilty of killing baby now guilty of street racing

the article in general begs the question: Why is a man that is awaiting sentencing on “negligent homicide for the death of a baby” buying a 1998 mustang instead of sitting in jail? Now, read this:

Judge Myron Pitch fined McAllister $555 with $250 suspended and gave him a six-month suspended jail sentence for the street racing misdemeanor charge and the same for another charge of operating a vehicle in violation of a restricted license.

Suspended sentence? Really? Aren’t suspended sentences a tool of the judges discretion to allow a little leeway when it is deserved? Say the defendant had a good record, was an upstanding citizen and had just made a mistake. Sure, suspend his sentence. Society is better off if that person isn’t in jail, but is contributing to society. They’ll go back into the world a bit wiser for the whole affair.

Is this one of those cases? Really? What about this baby killer made the judge reach into his toolbox and pull out such leniency?