NToddcast RSS Feed

Thursday, September 03, 2015

Balancing Act

Marco Rubio:

We should seek a balance between government’s responsibility to abide by the laws of our republic and allowing people to stand by their religious convictions. While the clerk’s office has a governmental duty to carry out the law, there should be a way to protect the religious freedom and conscience rights of individuals working in the office.

We have a balance already: government officials abide by the law when in their office, and exercise their religious freedom everywhere else.  Easy peasy!

ntodd

September 3, 2015 in Conscience, Constitution, Schmonstitution | Permalink | Comments (0)

NToddcast RSS Feed

Tuesday, September 01, 2015

So Help Me G-d

Bless her heart:

After being rebuffed by the Supreme Court and therefore exhausting the appeals process, Kentucky county clerk Kim Davis denied a marriage license to a gay couple today for the fifth time since the legalization of same-sex marriage. Davis is part of a small group of county clerks who claim that their interpretation of divine law trumps their responsibilities as public officials. Demanding that one couple seeking a marriage license leave her office, Davis said that she is acting “under God’s authority.”

She forgot whose authority is at issue, which she swore an oath to uphold:

I...will faithfully execute the duties of my office without favor, affection or partiality...

Do your fucking job, resign on principle, or suffer the sanctions, you obstinate piece of shit.

ntodd

PS--The KY Leg can remove her, but is currently not in session.

September 1, 2015 in And Fuck..., Conscience, Constitution, Schmonstitution | Permalink | Comments (6)

NToddcast RSS Feed

Thursday, August 27, 2015

Treason In The Defense Of Bigotry Is No Vice

Dying on Asshole Hill:

A Kentucky clerk's office on Thursday again refused to issue a marriage license to a gay couple, in defiance of a U.S. Supreme Court ruling that legalized same-sex marriage across the country two months ago.
...
The action Thursday came just a day after a federal appeals court upheld a ruling ordering the clerk in rural Rowan County to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples.

U.S. District Judge David Bunning had already ordered Davis to issue marriage licenses two weeks ago. He later delayed that ruling until Aug. 31 or until the U.S. 6th Circuit Court of Appeals issued a ruling. The appeals court did so on Wednesday, denying Davis' appeal.
...
Mat Staver, an attorney for Davis, said he was disappointed with the ruling. He said he plans to discuss options with Davis, including an appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court.
...
It's unclear how Davis would react if she were to ultimately lose her appeals. She testified in federal court last month she would "deal with that when the time comes." Saturday, she spoke to thousands of supporters at a religious freedom rally at the state capitol, saying: "I need your prayers ... to continue to stand firm in what we believe."

"Regardless of what any man puts on a piece of paper, the law of nature is not going to change," Davis told the crowd.

Davis has said she will not resign. She can only be removed from office if the state legislature impeaches her, which is unlikely. If she continues to defy a federal court order, a judge could hold her in contempt and order hefty fines or jail time.

"Certainly none of those are appealing to my client," Staver said. "No one wants to be fined or go to jail and she's always been a law-abiding citizen. She's just caught in a very difficult situation."

She's always been a law-abiding citizen...'cept for, you know, this law.

ntodd

August 27, 2015 in And Fuck..., Constitution, Schmonstitution | Permalink | Comments (0)

NToddcast RSS Feed

Tuesday, August 25, 2015

Because The Gay Agenda Is All About Discrimination

Equal discrimination under the law, bitches!

CRUZ: Imagine if this were inverted. Imagine if there were a gay florist — now I know that’s hard to imagine, a gay florist — but just go with the hypo[thetical] for a second. Imagine if two evangelical Christians came to a gay florist and they wanted to get married, and the florist said, “You know what? I disagree with your faith. I have problems with your faith.” You have no entitlement to force that florist to provide flowers at the Christians’ wedding. We are a pluralistic nation that tolerates diversity.

I think most people just want to smell the flowers and not go out of their way to be dicks to each other.  

But hahaha, gay florist!  And he's still wrong: those unimaginable gay florists should not discriminate in the public sphere, either.  Joke's on you, asshole.

ntodd

August 25, 2015 in And Fuck..., Constitution, Schmonstitution | Permalink | Comments (2)

NToddcast RSS Feed

Thursday, August 20, 2015

Trump's Hair Is As Unconstitutional As Calhoun's

I know it sounds funny, but I don't think Trump has suggested that the 14th Amendment itself is unconstitutional.  Rather, he's asserting that it does not guarantee citizenship by mere accident of birth to the children of undocumented aliens--the prevailing concept of birthright citizenship would not hold up in court if there were a challenge to whatever deportation acts passed during Pax Trumpicana.

If he were making the other claim, however, he would not be alone.  Because harebrained billionaires aren't the only crazies in America...

ntodd

August 20, 2015 in Constitution, Schmonstitution | Permalink | Comments (2)

NToddcast RSS Feed

Wednesday, August 19, 2015

Icky Trump

Why don't you kick yourself out? You're an immigrant too.

 - The White Stripes


Trump and the other White Purity Party candidates think the 14th Amendment is icky:

On Sunday, business mogul Donald Trump came out in support of ending birthright citizenship — and on Monday, Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker joined him.

Ohio Gov. John Kasich said recently that he didn’t think the party needed to go that far in trying to crack down on illegal immigration. But during his run for governor in 2010, according to the Columbus Dispatch, he reiterated his longtime support for ending birthright citizenship.

When Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul first ran for the Senate in 2010, he said he didn’t “think the 14th Amendment was meant to apply to illegal aliens.” He has since pushed for a constitutional amendment. New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie has said the issue needs to be re-examined as well.

Former Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum has also stated his support for altering the 14th Amendment…

And on Monday night, Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal joined the debate, tweeting, “We need to end birthright citizenship for illegal immigrants.”

Even South Carolina Sen. Lindsey Graham, a longtime supporter of immigration reform, has called for a consideration of a change in the Constitution because he believes immigrants will simply “drop and leave” their kids in this country.

There's always been a general tendency to warn against swarms of Aliens taking over (of course the ones coming after We Good Aliens did).  Consider Senate debate over the 14th Amendment:

Now, then, I beg the honorable Senator from Pennsylvania, though it may be very good capital in an electioneering campaign to declaim against the Chinese, not to give himself any trouble about the Chinese, but to confine himself entirely to the injurious effects of this provision upon the encouragement of a Gypsy invasion of Pennsylvania. I had never heard myself of the invasion of Pennsylvania by Gypsies. I do not know, and I do not know that the honorable Senator can tell us, how many Gypsies the census shows to be within the State of Pennsylvania. The only invasion of Pennsylvania within my recollection was an invasion very much worse and more disastrous to the State, and more to be feared and more feared, than that of Gypsies. It was an invasion of rebels, which this amendment, if Iunderstand it aright, is intended to guard against and to prevent the recurrence of.
...
But why all this talk about Gypsies and Chinese? I have lived in the United States for now many a year, and really I have heard more about Gypsies within the last two or three months than I have heard before in my life. It cannot be because they have increased so much of late. It cannot be because they have been felt to be particularly oppressive in this or that locality. It must be that the Gypsy element is to be added to our political agitation, so that hereafter the Negro alone shall not claim our entire attention.

From the beginning of our Republic, we didn't care how Aliens got here, and really encouraged them to come on over to the Greatest Land Ever, all through the late 1800s.  Then we got worried about disease and, worst of all, teh Gayness.  And since Congress started being more restrictive, the Executive has also gotten into the act, including HooverIke, and...everybody else.

But whatever.  I look forward to the New Know Nothings pushing an amendment through Congress, getting 3/4 of the States to ratify, then budgeting the necessary tens of billions of dollars to locate each and every Constitution-hating Darkie (And Irishman) to deport them.

ntodd

August 19, 2015 in Constitution, Schmonstitution | Permalink | Comments (0)

NToddcast RSS Feed

Tuesday, August 18, 2015

Ann Coulter's Least Favorite Day

Tennessee ratified the Nineteenth Amendment on this date in 1920, meaning chicks could finally not be denied the right to vote in our Republic for making the mistake of being born with the wrong genitalia.

After anti-suffragists failed to get an injunction, Secretary of State Colby made it official 8 days later:

The half-century struggle for woman suffrage in the United States reached its climax at 8 o'clock this morning, when Bainbridge Colby, as Secretary of State, issued his proclamation announcing that the Nineteenth Amendment had become a part of the Constitution of the United States.
... 
None of the leaders of the woman suffrage movement was present when the proclamation was signed.

"It was quite tragic," declared Mrs. Abby Scott Baker of the National Woman's Party. "This was the final culmination of the women's fight, and, women, irrespective of factions, should have been allowed to be present when the proclamation was signed. However the women of America have fought a big fight and nothing can take from them their triumph."

Leaders of both branches of the woman's movement- the militants, headed by Miss Alice Paul, and the conservatives, led by Mrs. Carrie Chapman Catt -- some of whom had been on watch nearly all night for the arrival of the Tennessee Governor's certification, visited the State Department, and the militants sought to have Secretary Colby go through a duplication of the signing scene in the presence of movie cameras. This Mr. Colby declined to do, on the ground that it was not necessary to detract from the dignity and importance of the signing of the proclamation by staging a scene in imitation of the actual signing of the proclamation.

And SCOTUS affirmed the whole deal a couple years after that:

The remaining contention is that the ratifying resolutions of Tennessee and of West Virginia are inoperative, because adopted in violation of the rules of legislative procedure prevailing in the respective states. The question raised may have been rendered immaterial by the fact that since the proclamation the Legislatures of two other states-Connecticut and Vermont-have adopted resolutions of ratification.

But a broader answer should be given to the contention. The proclamation by the Secretary certified that from official documents on file in the Department of State it appeared that the proposed amendment was ratified by the Legislatures of 36 states, and that it 'has become valid to all intents and purposes as a part of the Constitution of the United States.' As the Legislatures of Tennessee and of West Virginia had power to adopt the resolutions of ratification, official notice to the Secretary, duly authenticated, that they had done so, was conclusive upon him, and, being certified to by his proclamation, is conclusive upon the courts.

So yay, suffrage, even for crazy women who hate women

ntodd

August 18, 2015 in Constitution, Schmonstitution, Soaking In Patriarchy | Permalink | Comments (2)

NToddcast RSS Feed

Thursday, August 06, 2015

Worst Tea Party Governor Ever

Who you gonna appeal to now, LePew?

Maine’s top court ruled on Thursday that the state’s combative Republican governor, Paul LePage, had missed a deadline in July to veto 65 bills he had intended to block, and that those bills were now law.

The decision by six of the seven justices of the state’s Supreme Judicial Court came in response to an official question from the governor’s office on July 17, the day after state legislators informed him that he had missed his veto deadline.
...
“We are acutely aware that our conclusions will render ineffective the Governor’s objections to 65 bills, a result that we do not take lightly,” the justices wrote. “Nonetheless … we are guided by the need for certainty in, and confirmation of, the constitutionally identified process that has been employed in Maine for so many years.”

File under: No Duh.

ntodd

August 6, 2015 in Constitution, Schmonstitution | Permalink | Comments (0)

NToddcast RSS Feed

Sunday, August 02, 2015

You Can Count On Us

As I've noted before, one of the few actual mandates in our Constitution is the Census.  The first legislation enabling it was passed on February 19, 1790 and signed by President Washington on March 1.  It stated:

The enumeration shall commence on the first Monday in August next, and shall close within nine calendar months thereafter. The several assistants shall, within the said nine months, transmit to the marshals by whom they shall be respectively appointed, accurate returns of all persons, except Indians not taxed, within their respective divisions, which returns shall be made in a schedule, distinguishing the several families by the names of their master, mistress, steward, overseer, or other principal person therein, in manner following, that is to say:

The number of persons within my division, consisting of appears in a schedule hereto annexed, subscribed by me this _____ day of _____ 179_

A. B. assistant to the marshal of _______

Ron Paul should read the debates.  They're lively and quite illuminating.

ntodd

August 2, 2015 in Constitution, Schmonstitution | Permalink | Comments (0)

NToddcast RSS Feed

Signing Onto Independence


This is NOT the signing of the Declaration of Independence.

Journal of the Continental Congress (links added for easy reference):

The declaration of independence being engrossed and compared at the table was signed [by the members].1

[Note 1: The last three words are taken from the Secret Journals. A full account of the question of signing the Declaration is to be found in Friedenwald, The Declaration of Independence, 121--151.]

Yawn.  More interesting to me:

Resolved...That General Washington be instructed to employ in the service of the states, as many of the Stockbridge Indians as he shall judge proper...

AKA the Mahicans (not to be confused with the Mohegans, Mr Cooper), of whom Chingachgook was most assuredly not the last...

ntodd 

August 2, 2015 in Constitution, Schmonstitution | Permalink | Comments (0)

NToddcast RSS Feed

Friday, July 31, 2015

The Stand In The Women's Health Clinic Door

Huckster would use Federal troops to deny women their reproductive rights.  Is this when 2nd Amendment Solutions are supposed to kick in?

ntodd

July 31, 2015 in Constitution, Schmonstitution, Soaking In Patriarchy | Permalink | Comments (0)

NToddcast RSS Feed

Wednesday, July 29, 2015

Happy Birthday, NASA!

The National Aeronautics and Space Act of 1958 established NASA to meet the following objectives:

  1. The expansion of human knowledge of phenomena in the atmosphere and space;
  2. The improvement of the usefulness, performance, speed, safety, and efficiency of aeronautical and space vehicles;
  3. The development and operation of vehicles capable of carrying instruments, equipment, supplies and living organisms through space;
  4. The establishment of long-range studies of the potential benefits to be gained from, the opportunities for, and the problems involved in the utilization of aeronautical and space activities for peaceful and scientific purposes.
  5. The preservation of the role of the United States as a leader in aeronautical and space science and technology and in the application thereof to the conduct of peaceful activities within and outside the atmosphere.
  6. The making available to agencies directly concerned with national defenses of discoveries that have military value or significance, and the furnishing by such agencies, to the civilian agency established to direct and control nonmilitary aeronautical and space activities, of information as to discoveries which have value or significance to that agency;
  7. Cooperation by the United States with other nations and groups of nations in work done pursuant to this Act and in the peaceful application of the results, thereof; and
  8. The most effective utilization of the scientific and engineering resources of the United States, with close cooperation among all interested agencies of the United States in order to avoid unnecessary duplication of effort, facilities, and equipment.

Good Ole NACA was absorbed by the new agency on October 1.  And our Constitution doesn't say a damned thing about either...

ntodd

July 29, 2015 in Constitution, Schmonstitution, Mars, Bitches! | Permalink | Comments (0)

NToddcast RSS Feed

Tuesday, July 28, 2015

Copyright The Law?

At first blush, this seems ludicrous, but I'm not sure outrage is proper here:

The state of Georgia claims an open records activist broke copyright law — and maybe even committed a terrorist act — by posting the full, annotated versions of the state’s legal code online.

State officials claim in a lawsuit filed last week that Carl Malamud had engaged in an 18-year “crusade to control the accessibility of U.S. government documents” by scanning and reposting the annotated version of the Georgia legal code, which courts often rely on to make decisions on the law, on his website Public.Resource.org.

The state also “points directly to the annotated version as the official laws of the state,” reported Techdirt.

The basic legal code is readily available for free online and in print, but the state claims in its suit that information in the annotated legal code is copyrighted.

The annotated legal code is currently available for $378 through legal publisher Lexis Nexis or through a complicated series of steps through the Georgia General Assembly website.

Malamud argues that public laws should not be subject to any form of copyright protection — and he says the courts have generally upheld that view.

Lemme grab the low hanging fruit: The annotated legal code is currently available...through a complicated series of steps through the Georgia General Assembly website.

Being the investigative journalist blogger dude that I am, I journalistically investigated the complicated steps involved:

  1. Find the Georgia General Assembly website through obcure high tech methods such as teh Google.
  2. Very carefully click on the "Georgia Code" link under "Georgia Government" heading in left nav bar.
  3. On the resulting "Code of Georgia - Free Public Access" page, click on the "I agree" button after thoroughly perusing the Terms & Conditions.

After following that complicated series of steps, only then may the user search or browse through the annotated code for free.  Clearly a  barrier to the average citizen who has neither the time nor money to invest in such a process.

Anyway, this is where you will find important information such as § 1-1-1. Enactment of Code:

GEORGIA CODE
Copyright 2015 by The State of Georgia
All rights reserved.

*** Current Through the 2015 Regular Session ***

TITLE 1.  GENERAL PROVISIONS  
CHAPTER 1.  GENERAL PROVISIONS

O.C.G.A. § 1-1-1  (2015)

§ 1-1-1.  Enactment of Code 

   The statutory portion of the codification of Georgia laws prepared by the Code Revision Commission and the Michie Company pursuant to a contract entered into on June 19, 1978, is enacted and shall have the effect of statutes enacted by the General Assembly of Georgia. The statutory portion of such codification shall be merged with annotations, captions, catchlines, history lines, editorial notes, cross-references, indices, title and chapter analyses, and other materials pursuant to the contract and shall be published by authority of the state pursuant to such contract and when so published shall be known and may be cited as the "Official Code of Georgia Annotated."

HISTORY: Ga. L. 1982, p. 3, § 1.

Let's ignore the assertion of copyright for now.  Notice that History line at the bottom?  That's an annotation.  It's not the law, it's a essentially a footnote.  As this first section spells out, the statutes have been merged with the annotations--legislative history, editorial notes and analysis, etc--prepared by a non-public entity under contract.

The LAW is not copyrighted.  The packaging of Georgia's statutes that includes privately done work is.  Malamud could get his own free copy of the code and put together his own copyrighted annotations if he wanted.

Public.Resource.org appears to rely heavily on the conflation of statute and annotated code.  F'rinstance, they cite Banks v. Manchester (1888): the authentic exposition and interpretation of the law, which, binding every citizen, is free for publication to all, whether it is a declaration of unwritten law or an interpretation of a constitution or a statute.

But here's the full context:

Judges, as is well understood, receive from the public treasury a stated annual salary, fixed by law, and can themselves have no pecuniary interest or proprietorship, as against the public at large, in the fruits of their judicial labors. This extends to whatever work they perform in their capacity as judges, and as well to the statements of cases and headnotes prepared by them as such, as to the opinions and decisions themselves. The question is one of public policy, and there has always been a judicial consensus, from the time of the decision in the case of Wheaton v. Peters, 8 Pet. 591, that no copyright could, under the statutes passed by Congress, be secured in the products of the labor done by judicial officers in the discharge of their judicial duties. The whole work done by the judges constitutes the authentic exposition and interpretation of the law, which, binding every citizen, is free for publication to all, whether it is a declaration of unwritten law or an interpretation of a constitution or a statute.

Sure, the concept can be extended from the Judiciary to any Legislative work.  But that's not what is at issue here.  Malamud and friends aren't just publishing unannotated law, they are publishing additional information not created by the State.  That extra content is copyrightable, and what these folks are doing is a violation just as it would be if they scanned a book on Supreme Court opinions that included the author's own interpretations of history, law, etc.

What's particularly funny about this, Malamud's disingenuous arguments aside, is that the underlying concern about information wanting to be free is mooted by the fact that the information is actually freely available online.  So what value is his middle man website offering, exactly?

ntodd

PS--Reminds me of people freaking out about patents.

July 28, 2015 in Constitution, Schmonstitution | Permalink | Comments (0)

NToddcast RSS Feed

Monday, July 27, 2015

State Constitutions And Laws Are Messy

In the wake of Obergefell, there's quite a bit of editorial work that probably won't be done any time soon.  Still, marriage equality is the law of land, no matter what Huckster thinks.

ntodd

July 27, 2015 in Constitution, Schmonstitution | Permalink | Comments (1)

NToddcast RSS Feed

Sunday, July 26, 2015

#AllImpeachmentGroundsMatter

Scott Lemieux:

Yes, impeaching Obama on absolutely ludicrous grounds and have removal fail massively in the Senate would be the risk-averse and intelligent gamble.

The fever is catching!

ntodd

July 26, 2015 in Constitution, Schmonstitution | Permalink | Comments (0)

NToddcast RSS Feed

Happy Birthday, USPS 1.0!

Yes, my favorite deparment, the Post Office, has been around since before we were an independent nation.  On this date in 1775:

[T]he Congress resumed the consideration of the report of the Committee on the post office; which being debated by paragraphs, was agreed to as follows:

That a postmaster General be appointed for the United Colonies, who shall hold his office at Philada, and shall be allowed a salary of 1000 dollars per an: for himself, and 340 dollars per an: for a secretary and Comptroller, with power to appoint such, and so many deputies as to him may seem proper and necessary.

That a line of posts be appointed under the direction of the Postmaster general, from Falmouth in New England to Savannah in Georgia, with as many cross posts as he shall think fit.
...
That the several deputies account quarterly with the general post office, and the postmaster general annually with the continental treasurers, when he shall pay into the rect of the Sd Treasurers, the profits of the Post Office; and if the necessary expence of this establishment should exceed the produce of it, the deficiency shall be made good by the United Colonies, and paid to the postmaster general by the continental Treasr.
...
The Congress then proceeded to the election of a postmaster general for one year, and until another is appointed by a future Congress, when Benjamin Franklin, Esqr. was unanimously chosen.

It has carried through the Articles to the very Constitution that still operates more or less today.  

Anyway, as I have often mused about such milestones on our historical continuum, as well as the conflation of said markers, I dug up an excerpt from The Lovers' Quarrel: The Two Foundings and American Political Development I used in a post during last year' mid-term cycle:

If the Federalists and their disciples have specialized in creative syntheses and resyntheses, and layering new meanings on old ones, the Anti-Federalists and their descendants have always responded with historical revisionism. Since the First Founding came first, their followers never felt obligated to engage in any reconciliation with the innovators of their age. As Jefferson took it as a badge of honor that he would “never turn an inch out of my way to reconcile them [the Federalists’ leaders],” today’s Anti-Federalists are similarly unflinching in their commitment to (what they believe to be and indeed fittingly call) “first principles.” If Grover Norquist is uncompromising and inflexible, he is no more so than another earlier neo-Anti-Federalist, John C. Calhoun, who was so rigid he was called the “cast iron man.” Meckler and Martin were only doing what Madison, Jefferson, and Calhoun did, when they first insinuated Anti-Federalist meanings out of Federalist words, in the debate about the First Bank in 1791, the Revolution of 1800, and the Nullification crisis, respectively. Theirs was the same strategy Herman Cain deployed, if less wittingly, when the latter alleged, in a speech announcing his bid for the Republican presidential nomination in May 2011, “For the benefit for those that are not going to read it because they don’t want us to go by the Constitution, there’s a little section in there that talks about life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.” That section is actually in the Declaration of Independence. Here was another disciple of the First Founding who could not think of the Second Founding as legitimate on its own terms, but who believed that it needed to piggyback on the legitimacy of the First. Consider, also, the web page articulating the “Core Principles” of the John Birch Society, where the Declaration of Independence is twice cited and the Constitution not at all. Consider, finally, Governor Mike Huckabee’s anti-federalization of Federalism at the Republican National Convention in 2012:

So fearful were they [the Second Founders] that government would grow beyond their intention that even after crafting our magnificent Constitution, they said, “We can do even better.” They added amendments that we call the Bill of Rights that limit what the government can do and guarantee what “We the people” have the unimpeded right to do—whether to speak, assemble, worship, pray, publish, or even refuse intrusions into our homes.

Only an Anti-Federalist, original or modern, would see the Bill of Rights, which Publius had argued vigorously against, as an improvement on the Constitution. The frequency and predictability of the foregoing faux pas tell a deeper story, especially now that we have seen the pattern of revisionism that (the post-ratification) Madison, Jefferson, Calhoun, Van Buren, and others in the Anti-Federalist tradition had pioneered. The modern Tea Party and the conservatives who share the movement’s views are Anti-Federalists in their newest guise; their conflation of principles from the Declaration with words from the Constitution is merely the most recent attempt to do a makeover on the 1787 revolution in favor of government, which, as Gordon Wood rightly noted, had done no less than “shattered the classical Whig view of 1776”—the view espoused by the Anti-Federalists.

Just as the Lost Causers haven't given up their fruitless struggle, it would appear that Anti-Federalists haven't, either.  But I repeat myself...

ntodd

July 26, 2015 in Constitution, Schmonstitution | Permalink | Comments (0)

NToddcast RSS Feed

Tuesday, July 21, 2015

Alito Would Be The First Eaten On The Lifeboat

Abutthurtlosersezwut?

"There’s no limit," Alito said, arguing that the Rehnquist court had tried limit such legal definitions of liberty to be "deeply rooted in the traditions of the country."

"But the Obergefell decision threw that out," Alito said, as the Daily Beast noted. "It did not claim that there was a strong tradition of protecting the right to same-sex marriage. This would have been impossible to find."

Without these legal limits on the definition of liberty, Alito speculated that future justices could grant constitutional rights on the basis of their ideological whims, and practically, the nomination of judges will become more like a political election.

"So we are at sea, I think. I don't know what the limits of substantive liberty protection under the 14th Amendment are at this point," he said.

Whereas the very clear reading of the 15th Amendment, say...doesn't mean Congress can renew voting rights laws that work, so we're not at sea there.  Nor are we at see wrt the RFRA granting unlimited religious rights to ignore generally-applicable laws.  Yes, I can see his concerns.

ntodd

July 21, 2015 in Constitution, Schmonstitution | Permalink | Comments (3)

NToddcast RSS Feed

Friday, July 17, 2015

"This covenant has been broken in a most outragious manner."

Digby (July, 2015):

This story of police bursting into a woman's home and manhandling her naked for no good reason is the sort of incident which inevitably evokes the response that the citizen was asking for it by disrespecting the police.

She was summoned out of the shower by her daughter, threw a towel around herself and then left the officers at the door to get her cell phone to record the interaction. This apparently inflamed the officers, who entered the house and manhandled her resulting in her losing the towel and winding up handcuffed naked on the floor as the officer told her to look him in the eye as he lectured her for 20 minutes...

I guess I just don't understand how we can believe we live in a free country when the rule is that you must submit to any police officer's orders, regardless of what it is, because you can file a complaint after the fact. Liberty. 

The problem here is obviously not that this citizen had the wrong attitude. It's that the police officer had the wrong attitude. And yet most people just shrug their shoulders and say the citizen was the one looking for trouble by disrespecting the police. That may be true in practical terms --- you probably shouldn't mouth off to an armed gang member either. But for some reason people persist in thinking that you shouldn't have to act toward a cop the same way you would act toward a dangerous criminal. Don't kid yourself --- you do. Freedom.

John Adams (July, 1774):

An Englishmans dwelling House is his Castle. The Law has erected a Fortification round it—and as every Man is Party to the Law, i.e. the Law is a Covenant of every Member of society with every other Member, therefore every Member of Society has entered into a solemn Covenant with every other that he shall enjoy in his own dwelling House as compleat a security, safety and Peace and Tranquility as if it was surrounded with Walls of Brass, with Ramparts and Palisadoes and defended with a Garrison and Artillery...

Hey, if you can't do the time, don't take a shower.  This is America, not England.

ntodd

July 17, 2015 in Constitution, Schmonstitution | Permalink | Comments (0)

NToddcast RSS Feed

Thursday, July 16, 2015

Speaking Of Ignorant Assholes Who Don't Understand Constitutional Shit

Oh, LePew, you pierce me with the ack-ack of love:

A standoff between Maine Gov. Paul LePage (R) and state legislators came to a head Thursday, when leaders in the statehouse refused to consider 65 pieces of legislation he attempted to return with vetoes. Democrats and Republicans alike say they consider those bills already to be law, as LePage missed the 10-day deadline to properly veto the legislation.

The offices of Maine House Speaker Mark Eves (D) and Maine Senate Majority Leader Garrett Mason (R) confirmed to TPM that the legislation had been sent to the revisor of statutes to be chaptered as law.

The best argument against First Past The Post voting...

ntodd

July 16, 2015 in And Fuck..., Constitution, Schmonstitution | Permalink | Comments (0)

NToddcast RSS Feed

Wednesday, July 15, 2015

Supremacy, Schmupremacy

Nothing smarter than penalizing somebody for following the rule of law:

Rep. Rick Womick (R-Murfreesboro), bashed Tennessee Gov. Bill Haslam for “bowing down” to the Supreme Court’s ruling that state bans on same-sex marriage are unconstitutional. According to the Times Free Press, Haslam stated he doesn’t agree with the ruling but has ordered Tennessee civil employees to comply with the law.

“And where is Tennessee’s leadership…oh that’s right…our Governor bowed down to the five self appointed gods in black robes just minutes after they issued their ‘opinion!'” Womick ranted on his Facebook page. “He changed Tennessee state law and our State Constitution without ever consulting with the General Assembly.  [I think it's time to give serious consideration to impeachment hearings against Gov. Haslam...]”

Do any Republicans actually understand our constitutional system?

ntodd

PS--Womick's a copycat.

July 15, 2015 in Constitution, Schmonstitution | Permalink | Comments (1)