Constant Conservative

Much has been written with reference to the Slaughter solution for the current health care legislation impasse. However, I’ve not seen a clearer argument against this solution than the following from Michael W. McConnell. I’m linking you to the write up in PowerLine because the article is behind the paywall at the WSJ.

Here is the key piece:

[]The Slaughter solution attempts to allow the House to pass the Senate bill, plus a bill amending it, with a single vote. The senators would then vote only on the amendatory bill. But this means that no single bill will have passed both houses in the same form. As the Supreme Court wrote in Clinton v. City of New York (1998), a bill containing the “exact text” must be approved by one house; the other house must approve “precisely the same text.”

These constitutional rules set forth in Article I are not mere exercises in formalism. They ensure the democratic accountability of our representatives. Under Section 7, no bill can become law unless it is put up for public vote by both houses of Congress, and under Section 5 “the Yeas and Nays of the Members of either House on any question . . . shall be entered on the Journal.” These requirements enable the people to evaluate whether their representatives are promoting their interests and the public good. Democratic leaders have not announced whether they will pursue the Slaughter solution. But the very purpose of it is to enable members of the House to vote for something without appearing to do so. The Constitution was drafted to prevent that.[]

Imagine that. The Constitution was drafted to prevent trickery from occurring at the very highest levels of government. Here is hoping and praying that a sufficient number of legislators will understand that what they are attempting via the Slaughter solution is patently un-Constitutional.

Why can’t our legislators balance the budget instead of worrying about whether or not folks have prescriptions for their contact lenses?

People who want contact lenses to make their brown eyes blue might soon need a prescription in South Dakota.

[...]

Supporters say contact lenses should only be worn by people who have obtained a prescription from optometrists and ophthalmologists. They say some people in South Dakota have developed eye infections after buying nonprescription lenses to enhance or change the color of their eyes.

How is this any of South Dakota’s business? What’s next, getting prescriptions before having body piercings or tattoos? Please. If one does not know that putting foreign objects into one’s eyes or skin or elsewhere is potentially dangerous, then perhaps one should be concerned that one’s parents haven’t been doing their job.

I think that this bill is little more than an attempt by segment of the eye business to use the state to cut down on competition.

Good news, in the opinion of most of us who are the proprietors of sites such as this one. Of course, my position on this matter is hardly unbiased. I am a bit surprised at the tone of the AP article on this, however. Here is the title:

Move To Identify Anonymous Blog Defamers Rejected

Just the news folks, just the news–unmixed with the news reporter’s opinion.

ACLU of South Dakota Concerned By Two Bills in South Dakota House That Chill Free Speech

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
February 5, 2010

Contact:
Robert Doody, ACLU of South Dakota, (917) 385-5702 or rdoody@aclu.org

SIOUX FALLS, SD- The American Civil Liberties Union of South Dakota is deeply concerned by two bills that have been introduced into the South Dakota Legislature this week. Both bills seek to add serious constraints to websites that allow users to post anonymous opinions. HB 1277 and HB 1278 mandate that websites in South Dakota that allow for unnamed posting of comments, opinions and other speech items must track those who are posting on their web pages and keep records of IP addresses and other potential identifying and private information.

“These bills seek to address issues of defamation on internet websites but do so in a way that is so excessively broad that it suppresses South Dakotans’ rights to freedom of expression and infringes on their right to privacy,” states Robert Doody, Executive Director of the SD Chapter of the ACLU. “Placing burdensome requirements on bloggers, website owners and others who operate internet-based sites that accept anonymous comments chills freedom of expression to its very core,” said Doody.

The two companion bills seek to undermine and discourage freedom of expression while forcing individuals who operate web-based forums to track their users. If HB 1277 passes, individuals would have the right to sue bloggers, website owners and operators, and others to force them to turn over their business records which identify those who post anonymous comments that might be viewed as defamatory. HB 1278 mandates that “content providers,” those who manage and run websites, blogs, and other forms of internet-based media, track and keep records of all identifying information of their website users.

“Defamation is not protected speech, but anonymous speech and the right to exercise your First Amendment rights are at the very heart of our democracy,” exclaimed Pat Powers, author of South Dakota War College, a blog which allows anonymous comments and which discusses political issues in South Dakota. “Blogs, online newspapers, hospitals, your local funeral home, anyone who allows anonymous comments must install tracking software if this law passes,” according to Pat Powers.

“Defamation is not protected speech on the internet or in any other forum; however, the current bills seek to make anonymous speech a virtual liability for any website owner,” according to Robert Doody of the ACLU of South Dakota. “The ACLU is particularly concerned with how HB 1277 and HB 1278 will chill speech about politicians and other public figures. “Anonymity is a shield from the tyranny of the majority…It thus exemplifies the purpose behind the Bill of Rights, and of the First Amendment in particular: to protect unpopular individuals from retaliation…” as stated by the United States Supreme Court in Abrams v. United States, 250 U.S. 616 (1919).

Although HB 1277 and HB 1278 have the express purpose of helping combat defamation, both bills place undue burdens on websites to the point where the ability to make anonymous comments would be curtailed and in turn limit the ability to exercise the First Amendment. “There are other avenues to address online defamation through the legal process besides passing such chilling legislation,” said Doody.

As noted previously, there were rumblings of a bill that would seriously curtail certain anonymous speech in South Dakota (commenting on blogs and other websites). Now, the bill is here. Pat Powers is staying on the situation with his post here (including the full bill) and the follow up (addressing those who would be affected).

Here are a few questions:

1. Where are the circumstances where the lack of this law has resulted in grievous harm to a person or persons? Generally, one passes laws to correct gaps in existing law. It would be nice to know exactly what situation/crime prompted this law.
2. Does this law only pertain to blogs/websites which are hosted in South Dakota or simply those which are written/administered by South Dakotans? For example, if I were part of a group blog with one (or dozens of) other writers–does this apply even if I am the only South Dakota blogger in the group and the blog is hosted in Seattle?
3. Does the hosting company have any legal requirements to ensure that the logs are kept? After all, I might keep the logs, but the hosting provider might remove them to keep me from running out of the space I have rented from them on the server (for example) unless I wish to pay for more space.
4. How long must the logs be kept? If I shut down my blog/website, do I need to store these somewhere for a certain number of years?
5. How would this works for stuff like Facebook, MySpace, Twitter, Tumblr–where as one user among millions, I don’t have access to the logs? Does it mean that each of these companies is on the hook because some of their users live in South Dakota?
6. And, the most important question: Under what part of the South Dakota  or United States constitution do the sponsors of this bill find legal basis for this direct curtailment of free speech?

I’m sure there are even more questions which could be asked, but this enough for now. Yes, there are times when people take advantage of being anonymous to say unkind things about other people. People do this in large groups at political rallies, at sporting events, etc. People do this on blogs.

Part of being human is knowing that other humans will be unkind. However, when someone is unkind in my house–it is my personal responsiblity to deal with it in the way I deem most correct. Sometimes that means I invite the person to leave, sometimes it means I stop having guests at all. If I want to allow the person to stay and say what they will, I can choose that as well.

This bill is intended to address libel and slander. We already have a number of laws which handle that. Not to mention that the threshold for such findings is (and should be) quite high.

To all the senators and representatives who are backing HB 1278, I appreciate your desire to right the wrongs of public speech–but it really is none of your concern as duly elected public servants. The only thing which is worse than putting no law in place is putting in bad law. Allow me to state, for the record, that I mean no libel or slander against any of the following individuals by any of the above:

Representatives Hamiel, Bolin, Brunner, Carson, Cutler, Deadrick, Fargen, Gibson, Gosch, Greenfield, Hoffman, Hunt, Iron Cloud III, Jensen, Juhnke, Kirkeby, Kopp, Krebs, Lederman, McLaughlin, Moser, Olson (Betty), Schlekeway, Sly, Sorenson, Turbiville, Vanneman, and Verchio and Senators Turbak Berry, Brown, Dempster, and Vehle.

If any of these individuals represent you–please let them know that their representation is lacking.

Not too long ago, a group of people in South Dakota requested that certain injuries to animals be elevated (or lowered, depending on your perspective) to the status of felonies. A felony, by definition, is a serious crime which can result in at least one year of incarceration. Historically, murder, rape, robbery, kidnapping and the like were classified as felonies. Over the years, a number of other things have made it into the category.

Most (if not all) states now include thefts above a certain dollar-value amount as being felonies even if the crime was not one of robbery. I recall working for a manufacturer in South Carolina whose employee fabricated time-cards for three weeks–thereby putting him over the $1000 threshold for felony theft. All of this to say that so many things are classified as felonies these days that the category itself has lost much of its value. Here in South Dakota, we have so many acts defined as felonies that we have a sub-classification scheme with 5 levels of felonies.

While the subject of incarceration vs restitution (with regard to crimes not committed against the persons of others) is not the focus of this post, one can see that the statement “Well, he’s a/she’s a felon.” does not  have the same meaning today that it did a generation or more ago. Well, it does and it doesn’t. While the list of felonies has been greatly expanded, the long-term ramifications of being classified as a felon (of whatever level) remain. In a number of states, felons lose their ability to vote permanently–in others they only lose that right while incarcerated or on parole or probation. Based on federal laws passed with reference to guns, convicted felons may not possess or carry such devices.

The right to defend one’s person from the violent ministrations of another comes before–that is, exists at a lower strata of the foundation–than does the right to vote. While the right to vote is a derived right, the right to self-defense is considered by many to be a natural right–woven into the very fabric of our existence. How/why does this pertain to the classification of more activities as felonies? Well, when one considers that the list of felonies is quite long as it is, and that the repercussions of being convicted for a felony are serious and life-changing, one should be very careful before classifying additional behaviors as felonies. It sounds trite, but a punishment should fit the crime.

Now, there is more than one way to make injuries against animals into felonies. We’ve looked primarily at the re-classification of behavior piecemeal. However, there is also the question of reclassifying not the behavior but the object of the behavior. There is a movement afoot, if one must brush broadly, to legally define animals, or at least certain types of animals, as persons. The arguments against this are many, but I’ll let the following suffice for the moment:

Whether humans are “special” — sometimes referred to as human exceptionalism or uniqueness — is a controversial and central question in bioethics, and how we answer it will have a major impact on what we view as ethical or unethical with regard to our treatment of humans and of animals.

Currently, we use the word “person” as a synonym for human and to indicate, communicate and implement the concept that humans are different from other animals and “special.” It can no longer fulfill that function if it does not refer exclusively to humans. In other words, if animals become persons, human persons become animals. The line between humans and other animals is blurred and the idea that humans are “special” and deserve “special respect” is eliminated.

Humans are special. We can argue about why that is (I’m of the belief that we are special because God imbued us with that which was not given to animals) but, as the author of the above piece notes, it is a commonly held understanding. If we humans were to reclassify certain animals as persons, then the number of felonies would be greatly expanded if we assume that the animals become persons (and not that human persons become animals, as noted above).

Should we abuse animals? No. Will reasonable humans disagree over what constitutes punishable abuse? Yes. Ought communities to agree on what abuses of animals require punishment? Certainly.

Forty-six states currently consider animal abuse (cruelty) to be felony offenses. South Dakota is not one of them. There are other means of addressing animal cruelties than including them in the already too-broad (in my opinion) list of felonies.

The decision (or un-decision) to try the Christmas Eve bomber as a US citizen would have every right to be treated can still be an anomaly. Scott of PowerLine notes that the basis for this decision is . . . well, maybe it isn’t:

The Obama administration’s policy is indefensible. But it has not been required to defend it. It has simply served up Eric Holder to render his judgment in specific cases. The rationale supporting his judgment has yet to be articulated. It is what passes for the higher wisdom in the Obama administration, but they are awfully bashful about straightforwardly proclaiming its substance.

When the determination is made to accord rights to this person or that person who would not normally be considered to have those rights under our system of law and governance, we are owed an explanation. Further, that explanation should be rooted in the laws of our nation–which are themselves founded upon the constitution. We do sometimes get things wrong (as affirmed by the recent correction provided by the judgment in the Citizens United case). Perhaps we’ve got this entire “they are not citizens who broke laws, they are enemy combatants who are waging war against our citizens” understanding of Mr. Christmas et al wrong. If that be the case, let us hear a solid argument to that end and see if we need to change our thinking.

ABC is helping to ensure that the Christianists don’t take over, or something:

Coded references to New Testament Bible passages about Jesus Christ are inscribed on high-powered rifle sights provided to the U.S. military by a Michigan company, an ABC News investigation has found.

The sights are used by U.S. troops in Iraq and Afghanistan and in the training of Iraqi and Afghan soldiers. The maker of the sights, Trijicon, has a $660 million multi-year contract to provide up to 800,000 sights to the Marine Corps, and additional contracts to provide sights to the U.S. Army.

I love that. “Coded references.” I suppose everything is a code if you don’t know what it means. I’ll have to see, but I’m guessing that these are on my Triji as well.

Now that this nefarious plan has been discovered, the Muslims in Afghanistan and Iraq have a reason to hate us–just when matters were going so well.

What’s next, finding out some members of the US Military use Buck knives, which are individually shipped with entire non-encoded Bible verses? Horrors.

Update

I have it on very good authority that ACOG actually stands for “All Christians Own Guns.” Just don’t tell Brian I told you.

If you are a younger person with small children, it is possible you considered the dates of arrival for those children in light of tax rules. As in, “Well, if she comes before January 1, I can claim her for this year’s tax filing.” Crazy, but true. Of course, this is the pleasant side of things.

There is also the not so pleasant side of things:

As of yesterday, the first day of 2010, the death tax – which can erase nearly half of a wealthy person’s estate when he or she passes away – has disappeared for one year.  According to an article printed in the Wall Street Journal, this change has made trying times all the more difficult for families facing end-of-life decisions.  In the days leading up to the New Year, Joshua Rubenstein, a lawyer with Katten Muchin Rosenman LLP in New York, explained the added burden that the law change has placed upon families:

I have two clients on life support, and the families are struggling with whether to continue heroic measures for a few more days.  Do they want to live for the rest of their lives having made serious medical decisions based on estate-tax law?

This unique situation is the result of legislation passed in 2001 which raised death tax exemptions and culminated with the elimination of the tax in 2010.

Boy, the law of unintended consequences looks as though it is still in full force, doesn’t it?

The Journal article makes note of one terminally ill real-estate entrepreneur who was determined to live until the law changed.  According to his lawyer:

Whenever he wakes up, he says: “What day is it? Is it Jan. 1 yet?”

It also reveals just how far some patients are willing to go to avoid the tax:

The situation is causing at least one person to add the prospect of euthanasia to his estate-planning mix, according to Mr. Katzenstein of Proskauer Rose.  An elderly, infirm client of his recently asked whether undergoing euthanasia next year in Holland, where it’s legal, might allow his estate to dodge the tax.

His answer: Yes.

It is past time to recognize how despicable a system is which profits from those who literally lie dying. There is necessary taxation and then there is punitive taxation. The more I consider it, the death tax (or estate tax, because it sounds less negative) is beyond punitive. It is outright theft.

Christians (and just about everyone else) understand that shoplifting is simply a fancy 3-syllable word for stealing. That is, I thought we all did:

Delivering his festive lesson, Father Jones told the congregation: ‘My advice, as a Christian priest, is to shoplift.  I do not offer such advice because I think that stealing is a good thing, or  because I think it is harmless, for it is neither.

‘I would ask that they do not steal from small family businesses, but from large national businesses, knowing that the costs are ultimately passed on to the rest of us in the form of higher prices.

‘I would ask them not to take any more than they need, for any longer than they need.

‘I offer the advice with a heavy heart and wish society would recognise that bureaucratic ineptitude and systematic delay has created an invitation and incentive to crime for people struggling to cope.’

He added that he felt society had failed the needy, and said it was far better they shoplift than turn to more degrading or violent options such as prostitution, mugging or burglary.

There you have it, don’t take from people who are trying to make a living, don’t take more than you need, but go ahead and take the stuff because you have been wronged by society and have thereby lost the ability to make difficult moral choices (such as not breaking the law). Interestingly, Solomon benDavid spoke to this:

Men do not despise a thief, if he steal to satisfy his soul when he is hungry;

However, Solomon continues:

But if he be found, he shall restore sevenfold; he shall give all the substance of his house.

Doesn’t sound as though he is condoning it after all. In fact, rather the opposite. In the first sentence, the statement is that the thief would not be despised–not that his thievery would be overlooked. In the second one, we find that punishment is such that he will have to give away the very little has left. I’ve a feeling Solomon might have a thing or two to say to Father Jones.

From Virginia: a young woman actively smothered her newborn child–and it’s not against the law:

Campbell Co. investigators say the umbilical cord and placenta were still attached, so the law does not consider the baby a separate life.

HotAir provides the following bit of context and history:

Law enforcement officials have repeatedly attempted to get the law changed, asking state legislators to do something about the gap in protection for newborns. Why have Virginia legislators failed to act? They’re afraid of running afoul of the abortion industry:

The Campbell County Sheriff’s Office and Commonwealth’s Attorney’s office worked unsuccessfully to get the law changed after another baby died in the county in a similar case. Emerson says they asked two delegates and one state senator to take the issue up in the General Assembly. He says the three lawmakers refused because they felt the issue was too close to the abortion issue.

Er, what? I’m not aware of fourth-trimester abortions being legal anywhere in the US. In fact, I doubt that third-trimester abortions are legal in Virginia, either. Ironically, if the baby had been killed by someone else in an assault on the mother before its birth, that person would have been charged with murder, which sets up a really interesting double standard. Are legislators in Virginia so afraid of the abortion industry that they can’t take steps to protect full-term babies after their birth? Sounds like Virginians need a new class of lawmakers.

To me, this is an example of what happens when we declare a black and white issue to be gray–the grays simply keep getting darker.

This just in from Big Government:

Big Government has received  what is claimed to be a leaked DOJ memo that was allegedly sent yesterday from Eric Holder’s Department of Justice to Defense Secretary Robert Gates.

The memo seems to say that Gitmo detainees will soon be living in the land of Lincoln–specifically at Thomson Correctional Center. The following image shows the location of Thomson, IL. You can see the Quad Cities down and to the left from the “A” marker to give you an idea of where it is found in the state.

Go to the link above and read it all (including the memo proper).