Shall Not Be Questioned » Civil Liberties

On Ginsburg’s Statement to Egypt

Sebastian — Sat, 04 Feb 2012 05:25:41 +0000

When I heard of Justice Ginsburg’s statement before an Egyptian audience today, I have to admit I just couldn’t work up the amount of outage as many on the right. Many folks fail to consider that a good part of our constitution is strictly mechanical, and represents compromises brought about by folks who were facing the daunting task of bringing 13 separate sovereigns together into some kind of national Republic. Much of the mechanics of the US constitution doesn’t translate into the political cultures of other countries, even if the overarching principles are worth studying (for which I would include to RKBA to be among those principles).

Eugene Volokh also sticks up for Justice Ginsburg:

And it might well be that Egypt might be well-served by a very different approach than the U.S. Constitutions — for instance, with regard to relations between the federal government and more local governments, with regard to whether to have a Presidential system or a parliamentary system, with regard to how hard the constitution would be to amend, with regard to how judges are selected and how long they serve, with regard to how the President is selected, with regard to the relationship between the two chambers of the legislature, with regard to whether all executive officials work for the President or whether some are independently elected or selected, with regard to just how to craft the criminal justice system, and so on. (And here I just speak of the big picture questions, and not more specific details.) Remember that even our own states’ constitutions differ in many respects, especially with regard to separation of powers and the selection and tenure of judges, from the U.S. Constitution. Again, that the constitutional text, coupled with a wide range of extratextual political and legal practices, has worked well for us over 200+ years doesn’t tell us that it would work well for Egypt for the coming years.

I tend to agree, and with the rest of his argument. I certainly have many disagreements with Justice Ginsburg’s interpretations of the U.S. Constitution, but in many ways the US Constitution reflects the unique circumstances of this country’s founding, and continuing political struggles, that is not necessarily reflective of the political struggles in other countries. To be sure, it outlines many guarantees I believe are universal, but most of the constitution revolves around structural components which are arguably suited to our culture, but perhaps not others. It would, for instance, be difficult to imagine the French arguing over the meaning of interstate commerce, to the extent Americans do today, and have done since the founding.

Banning Perfume

Sebastian — Tue, 24 Jan 2012 15:30:28 +0000

SayUncle notes that New Hampshire is considering a ban on perfume for public workers, using some of the same logic that proponents of smoking bans were proffering. Everyone’s ran into women who smell like they bathe in perfume, and certainly there are men who seem to shower in Aqua Velva. But it seems to me that people aren’t willing to surrender much personal discomfort for the sake of freedom. Bitter is asthmatic, and perfume is a trigger for her, but her philosophy is not to make her problem everyone else’s; there are discomforts that must be tolerated in respecting the freedom and autonomy of others. This form of extreme selfishness is the same mentality that is getting peanut butter and jelly banned from elementary schools. I’d also note that this form of selfishness is highly prevalent among our opponents as well.

SOPA and Gun Control

Sebastian — Thu, 19 Jan 2012 18:55:54 +0000

From PJ Media:

Q: What does the proposed SOPA (“Stop Online Piracy Act”) legislation have in common with gun control?

A: Both would punish the innocent for the bad acts of a guilty few.

The article proceeds to tear apart the logic of gun control as being virtually identical to that of SOPA. I had never realized until I started interacting with gun control fanatics more how they really are incapable of drawing a distinction between responsible individuals and misusers. Their position is quite simple that because we have no good way of predetermining whether someone is responsible, or will misuse, we have to assume everyone will misuse. This is a poor basis for a free society.

Inconsistency in Some SOPA Opposition

Sebastian — Wed, 18 Jan 2012 21:38:43 +0000

Eugene Volokh notes the hefty amount of corporate free speech going on today, and points out that many of the SOPA opponents were derisive of the idea that corporations can have protective speech. I generally think it’s poor business practice for corporations to get involved with controversial political issues, but in the case of something like SOPA, which has little if any real grassroots support, it’s probably safe. But while I think it’s a poor idea for companies to insert themselves into politics, I believe they have a right to speak.

Some Amusing SOPA Related Content

Sebastian — Wed, 18 Jan 2012 14:55:00 +0000

I won’t be participating in SOPA black out day, since changing my theme is a pain in the rear, and I’m not really a big enough fish to have as much impact as Wikipedia and Google. But I do want to raise awareness, which I can do by linking to some humorous pieces folks have done to promote blackout day, including editing this note from MPAA Chairman and former Senator from Connecticut, Chris Dodd. We certainly heartily approve of this kind of mockery, especially directed to Senator Dodd, who’s family has been an enemy of freedom and the Second Amendment through their respective political careers.

Also amusing is this SOPA public service announcement. Just a warning, however: while it may be a funny cartoon, it’s not… entirely appropriate. You’ll see what I mean. If you’d like to take action against SOPA, visit either Google or Wikipedia, who are pulling out all the stops to save the Internet from the critters and the MPAA.

Officer Harless of Canton, OH Fired

Sebastian — Thu, 12 Jan 2012 15:47:06 +0000

John Richardson notes that the City of Canton has decided to let this particular loose cannon go. I wish I could say this is a case of a town doing the right thing, but I suspect the primary reason is that Daniel Harless was a walking potential 1983 suit just waiting to happen, and I would point out that 1983 allows one to sue all the way up the chain of command.

I’d say justice served, but I have to agree with Uncle on this one. If I threatened to shoot someone dead, who was not threatening me in any way, while I was open carrying a pistol, I’d be in jail already.

Bloomberg = Chavez?

Sebastian — Wed, 11 Jan 2012 22:53:23 +0000

Following up on Bitter’s post about Bloomberg taking up a modern day temperance movement, Rational Gun takes a look at an issue by issue comparison, and I have to say that the parallels are creepy. I notice Rational Gun didn’t take a look at nanny state alcohol laws, but sure enough, Chavez is into that too:

On Monday, the national tax collection agency SENIAT announced changes regarding taxes on alcohol and cigarettes in an attempt to reduce their consumption. SENIAT Superintendent Jose Vielma Mora explained that the new increases in taxes on these goods are aimed at “lessening the moral, economic, and social consequences of their use.” Mora added that the communal councils will be consulted before granting liquor licenses in order to prevent alcohol consumption near schools, churches, or cultural centers.

I don’t know if Bloomberg is consciously trying to keep pace with the Venezuelan dictator, but he’s certainly doing a bang up job. Bloomberg is the kind of person I don’t believe can be trusted with power. Hopefully after this current third term, New Yorkers will be sick of him. The rest of the country sure is.

Protecting Technology

Sebastian — Tue, 03 Jan 2012 13:02:51 +0000

The Second Amendment is a bit unique among our constitutional rights. In order to protect some rights, our Constitution places obligations on the government, as is the case in Fifth Amendment, which requires to government to indict via grand jury, and the Sixth Amendment, which requires the government to provide “a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury.” The rest of the Amendments generally forbid the government from doing things, like infringing on speech, quartering troops, or inflicting cruel and unusual punishment. The Second is not different in this regard, but I’ve heard some of our opponents in the gun control movement try to argue the Second Amendment has to be a unique case because it protects dangerous objects, and no other amendment protects objects. In that context, I find this recent law review by Eugene Volokh interesting, in regards to what constitutes “the press.”

But other judges and scholars—including the Citizens United majority and Justice Brennan—have argued that the “freedom . . . of the press” does not protect the press-as-industry, but rather protects everyone’s use of the printing press (and its modern equivalents) as a technology. People or organizations who occasionally rent the technology, for instance by buying newspaper space, broadcast time, or the services of a printing company, are just as protected as newspaper publishers or broadcasters.

Professor Volokh’s review takes a look at early case law, and demonstrates that protection of the press as a technology is the predominant one in American jurisprudence. It is actually surprising how much the early media resembled what’s grown organically from the Internet.

But it shows that the Second Amendment is hardly unique among rights in protecting the right to own an object. Implicit in freedom of the press is the right to own one, or the modern equivalent, which would be a computer, and an Internet connection. Computers and Internet connections can certainly be subject to heinous abuses, such as distribution of child pornography. One could even imagine it possible to kill many people by hacking into the right public works systems and disrupting them.

Yet, in most cases, the Government is quite limited in how it can restrict access to the press. Could the government ban child molesters from owning a computer? From an Internet connection? Actually, this is an active issue, currently. But far from being an extreme point of view, it’s completely justifiable to question whether the government can require a license for owning a firearm, when it can do no such thing for a printing press or a computer. Could the government even subject computer buyers, or Internet subscribers, to an instant background check? That’s probably of dubious constitutionality. So why is it to radical to suggest guns be treated in the same manner? It is only radical because our opponents, who are extremists, say it is. But in the realm of constitutional law, it’s a legitimate question.

Gura Gets $1.1 Million for Heller

Bitter — Thu, 29 Dec 2011 22:10:18 +0000

Today, Alan Gura gets a decision on how much he should be paid by DC for having to fight on behalf of Dick Heller & others against the city’s unconstitutional gun laws.

A federal judge on Thursday issued an opinion awarding Heller’s attorneys $1,137,072.27 in fees and expenses. The attorneys had argued they should be awarded $3.1 million. Attorneys for the city said the figure should be closer to $840,000. …

The judge’s opinion awards Gura approximately $662,000 for more than 1,500 hours of work on the case, paying him at a rate of $420 per hour. Five other members of Heller’s team are also compensated.

There’s no comment from Gura in the article, but the city is very happy with the award.

The H1B: Our Modern World’s Indentured Servitude

Sebastian — Tue, 20 Dec 2011 14:55:30 +0000

I’ve always thought, when it comes to the highly skilled, our immigration laws poorly serve the country. If someone has in demand skills, we should be doling green cards out to them like candy. Instead, what we have is a modern day equivalent of the indentured servant, known as the H1B Visa program.

For those of you not in the tech industry, H1B is basically where a company sponsors an immigrant to be in the country for a specific job. If that person loses that job, they are out of the country, essentially. They have to find another company willing to “sponsor” them if they want to stay, and within a fairly short amount of time, or face deportation.

This is essentially a license for the sponsoring company to mistreat employees, knowing the only other place they can turn is other companies willing to sponsor an H1B. It is a modern day indentured servitude, and we should be appalled as a country our immigration laws are allowing this. If someone has skills that could contribute to the economy, they should be a given a green card and thrown into the labor pool to compete along with the rest of us. If they choose to go back to their own country because they can’t cut it, that’s their business. But if they can succeed in America, we should welcome and embrace that.

So why does the H1B program persist? Because a lot of large corporations like crony capitalism. They like being able to bring skilled labor in from other countries, mistreat them, pay them poorly, and know they don’t have too may other options. Personally, I’d rather compete against these folks on a level playing ground. There are many brilliant H1B workers who deserve to find a permanent place in this country, and we’re doing them a horrible disservice by continuing this program.