This week, the FBI arrested another on its Top 10 Most Wanted List - notorious gangster Whitey Bulger. He was charged in connection with 19 murders, racketeering, extortion and a host of other mob-like crimes. His story was the motivation behind Jack Nicholson's character in Martin Scorsese's The Departed. The man was living in Santa Monica since he evaded Boston police in 1994.
The LATimes released an editorial comparing Bulger's capture to the capture of Osama Bin Laden, as they were both "living in plain sight" and evaded capture. The article pointed to the fact that Pakistan might leverage Bulger's capture as a way to deflect criticism that Pakistani officials knew of Bin Laden's whereabouts and did not catch him because of corruption.
I will admit that there are some similarities between the two. Both were on the FBI's Top Ten Most Wanted List, both were wanted for orchestrating mass murder, both men were captured after multi-year investigations, and both were hiding in plain sight. But, leveraging Bulger's capture as an example that a highly wanted fugitive could hide in the plain sight ignores a serious and glaringly obvious problem: corruption.
There have been a couple events in the 10-yr search for Osama Bin Laden that have shown obvious corruption amongst the ranks of the Pakistani intelligence. In 2008, militants from a Pakistani arm of the Taliban attacked Mumbai, killing hundreds with AK-47s and explosives. After pressure was put on the ISI (Pakistani intelligence), it was revealed that they provided support and weapons to the terrorists who staged the attack. At the beginning of the War in Afghanistan, US intelligence pinpointed the exact location of OBL and allowed for a joint Pakistani-Afghan force to carry out the assault on his compound. Without US intelligence or military oversight, the force "let him go." The ISI has worked with militants in attacks on India and western forces in Afghanistan while helping the NATO alliance track down Taliban insurgents. There has been convincing proof that Pakistani intelligence is working both sides.
These allegations provide a compelling reason to doubt the veracity of the Pakistani's claim that OBL could live in plain sight and that the ISI and any other Pakistani military force was not in cahoots with him. The evidence also negates any comparison to Bulger that might attempt to exculpate Pakistan.
Thursday, June 23, 2011
Tuesday, June 14, 2011
Corporate Personhood and the Stretching of the First Amendment
In a recent decision (Nevada Commission of Ethics v. Carrigan) the Supreme Court backed away from its Citizens United perspective to strike down a Nevada state court ruling that a vote by a legislator is protected speech.
I am no conservative by any measure, but the loose interpretation of the first amendment that came out of the Citizens United was chilling. I can't imagine, with any stretch of the imagination, how a corporation could have first amendment rights and how campaign spending is tantamount to free speech.
Looking at past jurisprudence, you can see how corporations began to be recognized as people. In the case Dartmouth College v Woodward, the Supreme Court applied the right to contract to an educational institution and corporation (Dartmouth College) when they ruled the state of Maryland could not change the school's charter (as it is a contract). In 1886, the Supreme Court ruled in Santa Clara County v Southern Pacific Railroad that corporations were recognized as people for the purposes of applying the XIV Amendment.
Michael A Carrigan was censured by the NV Ethics Commission for voting as a Sparks city councilman on a hotel that also hired his friend as a consultant. NV Ethics law requires that an legislator recuse themselves from cases involving someone who they are related to or have a "substantially similar" relationship with. The NV state court ruled in his favor, saying that voting is protected first amendment speech.
But, the Supreme court ruled unanimously that a vote by an individual legislator is not protected speech and reversed the decision. Justice Antonin Scalia, writing for the court, said that the legislators vote is his responsibility as a part of the legislature to approve or repeal proposals. The power therein is committed to him by the people, so the legislator has no personal right to it.
It is about time the Supreme Court stopped cow-towing to those who want to gut conflict of interest laws in the name of stretching the First Amendment to its breaking point. This decision finally allows for citizens to hold their elected officials to the highest ethical standards.
I am no conservative by any measure, but the loose interpretation of the first amendment that came out of the Citizens United was chilling. I can't imagine, with any stretch of the imagination, how a corporation could have first amendment rights and how campaign spending is tantamount to free speech.
Looking at past jurisprudence, you can see how corporations began to be recognized as people. In the case Dartmouth College v Woodward, the Supreme Court applied the right to contract to an educational institution and corporation (Dartmouth College) when they ruled the state of Maryland could not change the school's charter (as it is a contract). In 1886, the Supreme Court ruled in Santa Clara County v Southern Pacific Railroad that corporations were recognized as people for the purposes of applying the XIV Amendment.
Michael A Carrigan was censured by the NV Ethics Commission for voting as a Sparks city councilman on a hotel that also hired his friend as a consultant. NV Ethics law requires that an legislator recuse themselves from cases involving someone who they are related to or have a "substantially similar" relationship with. The NV state court ruled in his favor, saying that voting is protected first amendment speech.
But, the Supreme court ruled unanimously that a vote by an individual legislator is not protected speech and reversed the decision. Justice Antonin Scalia, writing for the court, said that the legislators vote is his responsibility as a part of the legislature to approve or repeal proposals. The power therein is committed to him by the people, so the legislator has no personal right to it.
It is about time the Supreme Court stopped cow-towing to those who want to gut conflict of interest laws in the name of stretching the First Amendment to its breaking point. This decision finally allows for citizens to hold their elected officials to the highest ethical standards.
Monday, June 13, 2011
Alabama's HB56: Good Old Southern Hate
Alabama passed the strictest anti-illegal immigration law in the country. Completely ignoring the Federal injunction against Arizona's SB1070, Alabama governor and Southern Baptist deacon Robert J Bentley gave his John Hancock on HB56, reviving what made the South so famous during the 1950s: Hate and Discrimination
Bentley was quoted as saying: "We have a real problem with illegal immigration in this country"
But...not in Alabama. And, last I heard, the Federal Government is the enforcer of laws cracking down on illegal immigration. Maybe we should ask the esteemed Senators from Alabama, Richard Shelby and Jeff Sessions. Yes, I am referring to the same Senators who blocked cloture on immigration bills on the Senate floor. I suppose when you say that we have a problem, elect people who do nothing and then reiterate that we have a problem...you really didn't do anything.
Back to the discrimination.
Illegal immigration comes from a variety of countries. But, the most visible and highest concentrated source of illegal immigration is Latin America and Mexico. But, Latinos only make up 3.9% of the population in Alabama. It must be easy to vote in a law targeting one ethnicity if that ethnicity isn't really represented in the population.
If we can eliminate the logical reason for passing HB56, then what are we left with? For the Alabama legislature, it would be nothing but discrimination. If the state cannot legally enforce this law, then it is just a bunch of angry white people lashing out.
The main job of migrants in the state of Alabama is agriculture. You show me a blue collar white Alabamian who wants to work in the fields for long hours and low pay, and I will eat my hat.
What's even more ridiculous about this law is not the fact that it makes it illegal to fire or refuse to hire a legal citizen if an illegal immigrant is on the payroll. No. It's also not the fact that it makes it illegal to rent property to illegal immigrants, instructs police to "make a reasonable attempt to determine a persons citizenship status," or that a legal contract is automatically void if entered into with an illegal immigrant. And, its even not that they use the same language that the Arizona law used ("reasonable suspicion") that made it a prime target for a Federal Injunction.
It's the backwardness. It's the lack of short term memory. It's the use of public funding (salaries) and time to make a completely symbolic gesture that will not be worth the paper it is written on. But above-all, its the institutional discrimination.
Bentley was quoted as saying: "We have a real problem with illegal immigration in this country"
But...not in Alabama. And, last I heard, the Federal Government is the enforcer of laws cracking down on illegal immigration. Maybe we should ask the esteemed Senators from Alabama, Richard Shelby and Jeff Sessions. Yes, I am referring to the same Senators who blocked cloture on immigration bills on the Senate floor. I suppose when you say that we have a problem, elect people who do nothing and then reiterate that we have a problem...you really didn't do anything.
Back to the discrimination.
Illegal immigration comes from a variety of countries. But, the most visible and highest concentrated source of illegal immigration is Latin America and Mexico. But, Latinos only make up 3.9% of the population in Alabama. It must be easy to vote in a law targeting one ethnicity if that ethnicity isn't really represented in the population.
If we can eliminate the logical reason for passing HB56, then what are we left with? For the Alabama legislature, it would be nothing but discrimination. If the state cannot legally enforce this law, then it is just a bunch of angry white people lashing out.
The main job of migrants in the state of Alabama is agriculture. You show me a blue collar white Alabamian who wants to work in the fields for long hours and low pay, and I will eat my hat.
What's even more ridiculous about this law is not the fact that it makes it illegal to fire or refuse to hire a legal citizen if an illegal immigrant is on the payroll. No. It's also not the fact that it makes it illegal to rent property to illegal immigrants, instructs police to "make a reasonable attempt to determine a persons citizenship status," or that a legal contract is automatically void if entered into with an illegal immigrant. And, its even not that they use the same language that the Arizona law used ("reasonable suspicion") that made it a prime target for a Federal Injunction.
It's the backwardness. It's the lack of short term memory. It's the use of public funding (salaries) and time to make a completely symbolic gesture that will not be worth the paper it is written on. But above-all, its the institutional discrimination.
Wednesday, June 8, 2011
Healthcare Mandate: A Justification "Shot in the Dark"
I am no legal scholar, but I am going to take a "Shot in the Dark" in trying to prove the constitutionality of the new Healthcare mandate by precedent.
Here we go...
In 1905, the Supreme Court rejected a New York law that restricted the working hours of bakers. The majority opinion (by Justice Rufus Peckham) in the case Lochner v New York said that laws regulating working hours of bakers is not within the "Police Powers" of the state and violates the inherent liberty of contract within the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment. Legal scholars call the next quarter century the "Lochner Era" where the Supreme Court struck down regulations on business using the same argument.
In 1908, The Supreme Court upheld Oregon regulations on working hours for women. The majority opinion (by Justice David Josiah Brewer) in the case Muller v. Oregon said that Lochner was not overruled, but tweaked. They made the distinction between the role of women and men adding special protection for women because "the physical well-being of woman becomes an object of public interest." Justice Brandeis supported the unanimous decision with a series of studies (later called Brandeis Briefs) that brought social science into the purview of Supreme Court jurisprudence.
In 1923, the Supreme Court struck down a federal minimum wage statute for women. The majority opinion (by Justice Sutherland) in the case Adkins v. Children's Hospital used the Lochner argument, saying that the federal minimum wage statute was a violation of the 14th Amendment.
In 1937, the Supreme Court upheld a minimum wage law in Washington, overruling the Adkins decision. In the majority opinion in the case West Coast Hotel Co v Parrish (by Justice Hughes), the court upheld the law saying that the 14th Amendment protection does conflict with laws that are meant to protect the community and the health and safety of vulnerable groups.
in 1942, the Supreme Court upheld the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1938 (controlled the wild fluctuation of wheat prices with quotas) in the case Wickard v Filburn. The majority opinion (by Justice Robert Jackson) said that the power to regulate price at which commerce occurs in inherent in the Commerce Clause.
The Healthcare mandate us currently being argued before Federal Judges. 26 states have challenged the law in court, and some have struck it down while others have upheld it. One of the arguments against the law is that it does not have precedent - there is no power or ruling that upholds the federal government's power to force people to take part in commerce (in this case - buy insurance).
I disagree...
Explicit in the Supreme Court cases I have listed is the ability of the Federal Government to regulate commerce. Minimum wage laws, as in the Parrish decision, were upheld to protect the health and well being of a vulnerable group. The Filburn decision showed that, through the power of Interstate Commerce, the federal government can regulate economic issues. The Supreme Court also upheld Social Security, the Voting Rights Act of 1964 and the ban on White's Only lunch-counter through its ability to regulate interstate commerce. The Interstate Commerce Clause, in some regard, can be used to avoid a confusing and patchy regulatory environment of issues of safety and commerce. If an individual were to get sick across state lines and he/she is uninsured, they are subject to the laws of that state. This is where an Healthcare interface with interstate commerce exists. The uninsured become an "object of public interest" because of the burden of care they have on taxpayers. Thus, the federal government has the right to require a minimum standard.
Here we go...
In 1905, the Supreme Court rejected a New York law that restricted the working hours of bakers. The majority opinion (by Justice Rufus Peckham) in the case Lochner v New York said that laws regulating working hours of bakers is not within the "Police Powers" of the state and violates the inherent liberty of contract within the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment. Legal scholars call the next quarter century the "Lochner Era" where the Supreme Court struck down regulations on business using the same argument.
In 1908, The Supreme Court upheld Oregon regulations on working hours for women. The majority opinion (by Justice David Josiah Brewer) in the case Muller v. Oregon said that Lochner was not overruled, but tweaked. They made the distinction between the role of women and men adding special protection for women because "the physical well-being of woman becomes an object of public interest." Justice Brandeis supported the unanimous decision with a series of studies (later called Brandeis Briefs) that brought social science into the purview of Supreme Court jurisprudence.
In 1923, the Supreme Court struck down a federal minimum wage statute for women. The majority opinion (by Justice Sutherland) in the case Adkins v. Children's Hospital used the Lochner argument, saying that the federal minimum wage statute was a violation of the 14th Amendment.
In 1937, the Supreme Court upheld a minimum wage law in Washington, overruling the Adkins decision. In the majority opinion in the case West Coast Hotel Co v Parrish (by Justice Hughes), the court upheld the law saying that the 14th Amendment protection does conflict with laws that are meant to protect the community and the health and safety of vulnerable groups.
in 1942, the Supreme Court upheld the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1938 (controlled the wild fluctuation of wheat prices with quotas) in the case Wickard v Filburn. The majority opinion (by Justice Robert Jackson) said that the power to regulate price at which commerce occurs in inherent in the Commerce Clause.
The Healthcare mandate us currently being argued before Federal Judges. 26 states have challenged the law in court, and some have struck it down while others have upheld it. One of the arguments against the law is that it does not have precedent - there is no power or ruling that upholds the federal government's power to force people to take part in commerce (in this case - buy insurance).
I disagree...
Explicit in the Supreme Court cases I have listed is the ability of the Federal Government to regulate commerce. Minimum wage laws, as in the Parrish decision, were upheld to protect the health and well being of a vulnerable group. The Filburn decision showed that, through the power of Interstate Commerce, the federal government can regulate economic issues. The Supreme Court also upheld Social Security, the Voting Rights Act of 1964 and the ban on White's Only lunch-counter through its ability to regulate interstate commerce. The Interstate Commerce Clause, in some regard, can be used to avoid a confusing and patchy regulatory environment of issues of safety and commerce. If an individual were to get sick across state lines and he/she is uninsured, they are subject to the laws of that state. This is where an Healthcare interface with interstate commerce exists. The uninsured become an "object of public interest" because of the burden of care they have on taxpayers. Thus, the federal government has the right to require a minimum standard.
Wednesday, June 1, 2011
Kansas: A Microcosm for the Debate over Cuts and Job Creation
Kansas Governor Sam Brownback privatized the state's art agency this week by signing a bill that stripped all state funding. Brownback was elected Governor after a 2010 campaign based on job creation. His privatization of the state art's agency was a way to reduce the deficit.
But...not really.
Brownback based his decision on the return that the state of Vermont got when it privatized its arts agency.
Except...not.
In an open letter to governor Brownback, Vermont Arts Council Executive Director Alex Aldrich debunked his claim saying that all states should have a publicly-supported arts program, citing that Vermont got a whopping 775% return on its investment.
As for job creation, or reducing the deficit....not so much.
According to an LATimes Article covering the story, the arts commission generates $95.1 million in household income and $15.6 million to state and local revenues. They are also forfeiting an $800,000 grant from the National Endowment for the Arts and another $400,000 grant from the Mid-America Arts Alliance. Arts non-profits who receive funding from the state's coffers also employ over 4,600.
This fight in Kansas is a microcosm for a larger debate over cuts and job creation. Somehow, in the minds of Congressional Republicans, there is no conflict between drastic and painful cuts and job creation. Republican governors all over the country have chosen to exploit this directive to make cuts to programs that they have a moral objection to: Planned Parenthood, National Public Radio, Environmental Protection and the Arts. This is pure political opportunism.
There is a contempt amongst Republican ranks towards every aspect of the government, including public workers. They don't view them as people, but moreso as collateral damage in the process of growing the economy and creating jobs. But, when you make drastic cuts to programs, like Brownback did, you lose the economic support that those programs provide to public entities (like grants from the NEA) and you layoff thousands. In the name of debt reduction you have destroyed jobs, reduced a financial support line for private business and...well...not reduced the deficit. A recent report on layoffs reported that 40% of all layoffs in April were from public workers. Hey...they're people too.
There has to be a "come-to-jesus-moment" (no pun intended) for Republicans of this ilk: drastic budget cuts means layoffs, and layoffs means less jobs.
But...not really.
Brownback based his decision on the return that the state of Vermont got when it privatized its arts agency.
Except...not.
In an open letter to governor Brownback, Vermont Arts Council Executive Director Alex Aldrich debunked his claim saying that all states should have a publicly-supported arts program, citing that Vermont got a whopping 775% return on its investment.
As for job creation, or reducing the deficit....not so much.
According to an LATimes Article covering the story, the arts commission generates $95.1 million in household income and $15.6 million to state and local revenues. They are also forfeiting an $800,000 grant from the National Endowment for the Arts and another $400,000 grant from the Mid-America Arts Alliance. Arts non-profits who receive funding from the state's coffers also employ over 4,600.
This fight in Kansas is a microcosm for a larger debate over cuts and job creation. Somehow, in the minds of Congressional Republicans, there is no conflict between drastic and painful cuts and job creation. Republican governors all over the country have chosen to exploit this directive to make cuts to programs that they have a moral objection to: Planned Parenthood, National Public Radio, Environmental Protection and the Arts. This is pure political opportunism.
There is a contempt amongst Republican ranks towards every aspect of the government, including public workers. They don't view them as people, but moreso as collateral damage in the process of growing the economy and creating jobs. But, when you make drastic cuts to programs, like Brownback did, you lose the economic support that those programs provide to public entities (like grants from the NEA) and you layoff thousands. In the name of debt reduction you have destroyed jobs, reduced a financial support line for private business and...well...not reduced the deficit. A recent report on layoffs reported that 40% of all layoffs in April were from public workers. Hey...they're people too.
There has to be a "come-to-jesus-moment" (no pun intended) for Republicans of this ilk: drastic budget cuts means layoffs, and layoffs means less jobs.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)