Recently in Law Category

I can understand when the police make a mistake when it comes to raids, but this one beggers the imagination.

Not only did the Prince George's County Police Department neglect to do any investigation about the home they were about to raid, they failed to identify themselves when they broke in the doors of the home they raided, were dressed in plain clothes, and since they failed to notify the local police department of their raid as they were supposed to could have easily ended up being shot by officers from that department. On top of that, the house they raided was the home of the mayor of the town where the raid took place. The County officers also shot and killed the mayor's two black Labs because they "felt threatened" by the dogs as they were running away from the raiders.

The lack of planning, minimal to non-existent investigation, violation of the conditions of the search warrant (no-knock warrants are not allowed in Maryland), and poor judgment during the raid has prompted an investigation of the County Police Department by the FBI.

So far no one from the County Police Department has offered an apology to the mayor, his mother-in-law, or the mayor's family for their error in judgment.

I have a feeling there will be a top to bottom change in the Prince George's County Police Department by the time all of this comes to an end. I also have a feeling a few law enforcement officers may soon find themselves in court, either criminal or civil.

One of the things that always bugged me about belonging to a union was the union's use of my dues money to support politicians that supported policies and laws I found objectionable. I had little say which political candidates my dues money would support.

Some things have changed since those days, but a lot of union money funds candidates which the rank and file may not support. That can lead to trouble for the union, particularly if those dues are used to support a candidate in a federal election. If members of the rank and file object to their dues going to support a candidate they do not support, it is illegal for the union to do so, at least for that portion of the dues paid by the objecting members. But that hasn't stopped some of them from doing so anyways.

The SEIU (Service Employees International Union) may find itself the subject of an investigation by the Department of Labor and Department of Justice for doing just that.

The mighty Service Employees International Union (SEIU) plans to spend some $150 million in this year's election, most of it to get Barack Obama and other Democrats elected. Where'd they get that much money?

That's a question the Departments of Labor and Justice are being asked to investigate by the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation. Specifically, the labor watchdog group wants Justice to query a new SEIU policy that appears to coerce local workers into funding the parent union's national political priorities.

The union adopted a new amendment to its constitution at last month's SEIU convention, requiring that every local contribute an amount equal to $6 per member per year to the union's national political action committee. This is in addition to regular union dues. Unions that fail to meet the requirement must contribute an amount in "local union funds" equal to the "deficiency," plus a 50% penalty. According to an SEIU union representative, this has always been policy, but has now simply been formalized.

No other major institution could get away with its bosses demanding that every single one of its workers step in line behind its political preferences. This is the sort of imposed political obeisance that infuriates so many workers and turns them away from unions.

It's not much different than outright robbery or strong arm "protection" rackets of the past, where money is involuntary taken from union members and given to campaigns that are the antithesis of the political beliefs of the members. Stuff like that gets people sent to prison, even in this day and age.

Just because the SEIU has always had that as a "policy", doesn't mean it's legal, ethical, or moral. It's time for the union to realize they have to follow the laws, just like everyone else. Such strong arm tactics tend to drive people away from the unions. It's one of the reasons I left the employment of a company where I once worked. I got tired of the union BS, the mandatory dues, and the union's campaign contributions to politicians whose ideology was just this side of Lenin...or Al Capone.

Last week I wrote about Senator John Warner (R-VA) and his idea to re-impose the National Maximum Speed Limit and why it was such a bad idea. I have no idea how far his efforts to do so will go. But even if he tries and fails, there may be another way we will see the hated 55MPH speed limit make its return, and neither Congress or state governments will have anything to do with it. Instead it may make its reappearance as a regulation created by the Environmental Protection Agency.

What kind of nonsense is this? How is it they can be allowed to set speed limits on the nation's highways when they have no part in traffic regulations and laws? By using a back door.

That back door has to do with CO₂ emissions from cars and trucks. If they slow vehicles down the amount of CO₂ emissions will decrease. Never mind the fact there may be additional costs associated with the lower speed limits they have ignored, one of them being time. After all time is money and the longer it takes people or cargo to get from Point A to Point B, the more it can take its toll on the economy.

Never mind the extra cost might be minimal, there's still the idea that this course of action was decided upon by a friggin' bureaucrat rather than our duly elected representative to Congress or our state legislature. The EPA is sticking its nose in where it doesn't belong and where it has no jurisdiction. Nowhere in its charter is it stated they have control over the highways and byways or the laws and regulations governing them.

If the Agency's aim is to lower CO₂ emissions, would the lower speed limits apply to electric cars? Why should they be forced to drive at a lower speed if they have no emissions? (Yes, I know that ultimately they do have emissions due the the smokestack gases from fossil-fired power plants. But what if you live in an area that uses little, if any fossil fuel for power plants? Much of New Hampshire's electric power comes from nuclear and hydro, with a few coal and natural gas plants, as well as 5 biomass plants. Does that mean we'd get a pass for electric cars? Of course not.)

This proposal by the EPA is merely an end run around the legislative process, usurping the powers of Congress and the state legislatures. We should let them know in no uncertain terms to back off. Another approach is to take them to court. Yet another is to string a few of 'em up, to let them know of our displeasure. (No, we wouldn't hang them until they are dead. Just until they're mostly dead. Of course, with a bureaucrat that might be hard to do because so many of them are already mostly dead...from the neck up.)

How many of you out there have heard this phrase:

"The Constitution is a living document."

I know I've heard it hundreds, if not thousands of times. While I understand the sentiment behind it, most often spoken by the more left-wing Democrats, it is a falsehood. Why do I say that? Let me take you through my thinking about this and see if you agree (or disagree).
 
First, the Constitution was the template to which all laws passed by Congress or the states would be compared. If those laws violated one or more of the articles or amendments, it would be invalid. This 'template' was in place to prevent unjust or morally reprehensible laws from being created or enforced.

Second, the Framers understood that there would be times when it would be desirable to make changes to the Constitution and created a mechanism to do that. The idea was that a supermajority of the states (two-thirds) would have to agree with any amendments proposed. This requirement for ratification helps prevent trivial or specious changes to the Constitution. After the Bill of Rights (the first 10 Amendments) there have been 17 other amendments made to the Constitution, a small number when you think about it. Some corrected oversights by the Framers, others did away with laws or practices that were found to be reprehensible by any measure (slavery, denying women and blacks the right to vote, to name a couple). Others have been proposed, but failed to be ratified. Only one Amendment was ratified to negate a previous Amendment (the 21st Amendment repealed the 18th Amendment [Prohibition]).
 
Third, many claim we have no knowledge or idea what was in the minds of the Framers, meaning the various Articles and Amendments are open to interpretation (or re-interpretation). It is not true. The Federalist Papers give a excellent picture of the thinking behind and the meaning of each portion of the Constitution. I don't know how any claims to the contrary can possibly be entertained.
 
So what about the claim the Constitution is a "living document"? My question to those making such a statement: If the meaning of the Constitution can be changed by nothing more than the decision of a judge, then does it really mean anything at all? If that's the case, then any of the Articles or Amendments can be interpreted to mean anything at all, turning the meaning of any part of it upside down and inside out until it is unrecognizable. If that's indeed the case, it implies the Constitution is utterly meaningless.
 
Instead, the Constitution is supposed to be the rock upon which our rights are to be supported, our laws to be held to close scrutiny. If it needs to be changed to keep up with the times, then it is up to us to use the mechanism the Framers created to do so. Capricious "changes" wrought by a court and not by the people is a dangerous thing, imperiling our inalienable rights. But that's what the more radical Left wants, enabling them to push through new 'amendments' they know would never be ratified by Congress and the states because they fly in the face of the very Constitution they seek to distort. That is the so-called "living document" they praise, not the one we've been taught is supposed to be the supreme law of the land.

There's been a quite a bit of fallout from the Heller decision, with some of the more vocal opponents of the Second Amendment squawking about blood on the streets even as a number of towns and cities have decided to suspend enforcement of their handgun bans. One commenter had an interesting take on it.

There's a little town up the street, Kennesaw, GA, that has a city ordinance REQUIRING homeowners to have a gun. After the ordinance took effect, burglaries ceased in Kennesaw, completely.

"An armed society is a polite society." Robert A. Heinlein

"When guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns." unknown

"The only good bureaucrat is one with a pistol at his head. Put it in his hand and it's goodbye to the Bill of Rights." unknown

"Hell, when the man said Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms, I just thought he was making a delivery!" James Wesley Rawles

"Alcohol, Tobacco, & Firearms should describe a convenience store, not a government agency." unknown

Guns: Keep 'em, shoot 'em, clean 'em. Git 'r done America!

Exactly.

There's been a wealth of posts about the Heller vs. DC Supreme Court decision handed down today, where the Court found the Second Amendment applies to individuals, overturning the belief of many anti-gun advocates that the amendment is a collective right that does not allow the average citizen to keep and bear arms.

Frankly, I believe the Court made the right decision, putting the Second Amendment in the same frame of reference as the First Amendment - an individual right - along with the rest of the Bill of Rights. However I am surprised that a larger number of the justices did not support the majority opinion.

A number of anti-gun advocates voiced their dismay over the decision, including Chicago mayor Richard Daley, who seemed to think this decision would return us to the days when the Code of the Old West reigned supreme, meaning there'd be gunfights on the streets of the city. Unless he's been asleep at his desk, that's exactly what's been happening around cities that had heavy restrictions on gun ownership. Unfortunately the law abiding citizens were the ones required to dodge the bullets of rival gangs and other criminal miscreants. Now they'll be able to shoot back. (Hey, if Mayor Daley wants to overstate the case, then I'm allowed to do the same. See how ridiculous it sounds?)
 
I expect the hand-wringing and tooth-gnashing of the anti-gun groups to continue for some time, particularly as more gun-bans and ownership/carry laws are challenged in light of today's decision on Heller. Many of the anti-gun groups, including the Brady folks, aren't willing to admit that when law abiding citizens are allowed to protect themselves by carrying their own guns, the crime rates go down. Every state that has concealed carry and shall issue laws on the books tends to have lower crime rates than those states/cities that don't. There have been no bloodbaths on the streets, no showdowns at the OK Corral, and far more cases where a criminal predator has ended up being the prey for a citizen able to defend his/herself.
 
And that's just the way it should be.

Is it possible the transition to digital television in the US will be halted due to a lawsuit filed by a consumer electronics manufacturer?

Samsung, one of many makers of television sets and other consumer electronics claims, a number of their patents have been infringed indirectly by the Advanced Television Systems Committee, or ATSC, in the United States. I find it interesting, considering Samsung's patents are part of the patent pool incorporated into the America digital TV standard, meaning Samsung was part of the consortium that helped develop the ATSC standard.

Seems like it's a little late to say "We've changed our minds!"

Samsung's suit is directed towards Polaroid Corporation and Westinghouse Digital Electronics.

Should they succeed, it could mean that the digital TV transition could be stopped cold, leaving millions of consumers as well as broadcasters stuck in the middle.

Frankly, the timing of the suit seems a little suspicious to me.