<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>

<rdf:RDF
 xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#"
 xmlns="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/"
 xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
 xmlns:taxo="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/taxonomy/"
 xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
 xmlns:syn="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
 xmlns:admin="http://webns.net/mvcb/"
>

<channel rdf:about="http://kipesquire.powerblogs.com/">
<title>A Stitch in Haste</title>
<link>http://kipesquire.powerblogs.com/</link>
<description>A collection of real-world libertarian, individualist and laissez-faire rants on policy, culture and other current events by an average, everyday lawyer &amp; investment banker and part-time pop scholar.</description>
<dc:language>en-us</dc:language>
<dc:date>2008-06-28T11:06+00:00</dc:date>
<items>
 <rdf:Seq>
  <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://kipesquire.powerblogs.com/posts/1213823295.shtml" />
  <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://kipesquire.powerblogs.com/posts/1213303388.shtml" />
  <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://kipesquire.powerblogs.com/posts/1213198170.shtml" />
  <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://kipesquire.powerblogs.com/posts/1213040603.shtml" />
  <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://kipesquire.powerblogs.com/posts/1212695641.shtml" />
  <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://kipesquire.powerblogs.com/posts/1210676305.shtml" />
  <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://kipesquire.powerblogs.com/posts/1208221583.shtml" />
  <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://kipesquire.powerblogs.com/posts/1207879699.shtml" />
  <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://kipesquire.powerblogs.com/posts/1207597458.shtml" />
  <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://kipesquire.powerblogs.com/posts/1207358002.shtml" />
  <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://kipesquire.powerblogs.com/posts/1207271790.shtml" />
  <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://kipesquire.powerblogs.com/posts/1207184297.shtml" />
  <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://kipesquire.powerblogs.com/posts/1207073253.shtml" />
  <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://kipesquire.powerblogs.com/posts/1206678642.shtml" />
  <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://kipesquire.powerblogs.com/posts/1205459852.shtml" />
  <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://kipesquire.powerblogs.com/posts/1205274214.shtml" />
  <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://kipesquire.powerblogs.com/posts/1205198541.shtml" />
  <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://kipesquire.powerblogs.com/posts/1204248303.shtml" />
  <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://kipesquire.powerblogs.com/posts/1204054624.shtml" />
  <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://kipesquire.powerblogs.com/posts/1203990997.shtml" />
 </rdf:Seq>
</items>
</channel>

<item rdf:about="http://kipesquire.powerblogs.com/posts/1213823295.shtml">
<title>Another "Just Testing" Emotional Distress Incident</title>
<link>http://kipesquire.powerblogs.com/posts/1213823295.shtml</link>
<description>For those who were righteously indignant after reading my recent post about an incident involving some California educrats and law enforcement officials maliciously tormenting students by falsely informing them that...</description>
<dc:creator>Kip</dc:creator>
<dc:date>2008-06-18T21:06+00:00</dc:date>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[For those who were righteously indignant after reading <a href="http://www.kipesquire.net/2008/06/a-new-kind-of-schoolhouse-gate-infringement/">my recent post</a> about an incident involving some California educrats and law enforcement officials maliciously tormenting students by falsely informing them that their classmates had been killed in DUI accidents (<i>"we want them to be traumatized"</i>), may I offer you <a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/2125525/Mother-was-accused-of-kidnapping-baby-as-part-of-hospital-exercise.html">a denouement</a>?<blockquote>An unsuspecting mother was accused by hospital staff taking part in a security exercise of stealing a baby from a ward as she left the building with her new daughter.<br />
<br />
Clare Bowker, 37, was confronted by staff as she got into her car outside Good Hope Hospital in Sutton Coldfield, West Midlands [U.K.]. She was asked to accompany them to the maternity unit with Hannah, her seven-week-old baby, and her other daughter Holly, then four, where she was told a baby had been snatched. Mrs Bowker was questioned by police and her bag searched to verify her identity. <br />
...<br />
A distressed Mrs Bowker was allowed to leave the hospital after 40 minutes, still believing the situation was real. <br />
...<br />
The Good Hope Hospital Trust has agreed to pay her undisclosed compensation, believed to be a five-figure sum, to cover her suffering and loss of earnings.</blockquote>It would tempting to simply observe, without elaboration, that this was a British socialized medicine facility and be done with it. But correlation does not imply causation. It's also not clear why the December 2005 incident is only being reported now. One should also note that the hospital in question is now managed by a different NHS trust that insists it was simply a case of mistaken identity (i.e., they thought the mother was a willing participant in the exercise). As if the difference between "intentional" and "negligent" were equivalent to the difference between "reasonable" and "outrageous."<br />
<br />
Meanwhile, and more akin to the DUI hoax: Is it fair to the staff (the target of the ruse) to stage such exercises, even when executed as planned (i.e., without cases of mistaken identity)? When my employer runs a fire drill, we're told it's a fire drill, not a fire. Why traumatize the staff by lying about a baby-snatching -- is the added panic-induced adrenaline (not to mention tears) somehow helpful?<br />
<br />
(And does the expression "boy who cried wolf" mean anything to these bureaucrats?)<br />
<br />
One tangential observation that I also take away from these incidents is the fallacy that local decision-making tends to be better. Utter nonsense. Local authorities are far more likely to make decisions in a vacuum and to be staffed with incompetents (because the less-incompetent have moved on to higher positions).<br />
<br />
Moreover, the smaller the group, the easier it becomes for a potentially tyrannical majority to arise within the group (e.g., it is far easier for a theocrat to insist that "<a href="http://www.kipesquire.net/2008/05/one-negative-person/">this is a Christian town</a>" than "this is a Christian nation"). Better for the sheep to be a minority in the zoo generally than in the wolf den specifically.<br />
<br />
In any case, let's hope that such incidents of idiocy remain isolated and newsworthy rather than business as usual.<br />
<br />
(Via <a href="http://socglory.blogspot.com/2008/06/disgraceful-act-by-british-hospital.html">Socialized Medicine</a>.)]]></content:encoded>
</item>

<item rdf:about="http://kipesquire.powerblogs.com/posts/1213303388.shtml">
<title>The Constitution "Cannot Be Contracted Away Like This"</title>
<link>http://kipesquire.powerblogs.com/posts/1213303388.shtml</link>
<description>As President, John McCain will take it as his most sacred responsibility to keep America free, safe, and strong -- an abiding beacon of freedom and hope to the world....</description>
<dc:creator>Kip</dc:creator>
<dc:date>2008-06-12T20:06+00:00</dc:date>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[<i>As President, John McCain will take it as his most sacred responsibility to keep America free, safe, and strong -- an abiding beacon of freedom and hope to the world.</i><br />
--McCain campaign <a href="http://www.johnmccain.com/Informing/Issues/054184f4-6b51-40dd-8964-54fcf66a1e68.htm">website</a><br />
<br />
<i>The creation of crimes after the commission of the fact ... and the practice of arbitrary imprisonments, have been, in all ages, the favorite and most formidable instruments of tyranny.</i><br />
--Federalist <a href="http://www.constitution.org/fed/federa84.htm">#84</a><br />
<br />
I <a href="http://kipesquire.powerblogs.com/posts/1172030379.shtml">previously wrote</a>:<blockquote>To claim that Guantanamo, with all its military accoutrements -- its guns, cells, guns, barbed-wire fences, guns, guard dogs, guns, etc. -- is not "United States territory" is such a joke as to bring into doubt the competence of the judges concluding as much. It boggles the mind.</blockquote>The Supreme Court ruled:<blockquote>The United States has maintained complete and uninterrupted control of the bay for over 100 years. ... Yet the Government's view is that the Constitution had no effect there, at least as to noncitizens, because the United States disclaimed sovereignty in the formal sense of the term. The necessary implication of the argument is that by surrendering formal sovereignty over any unincorporated territory to a third party, while at the same time entering into a lease that grants total control over the territory back to the United States, it would be possible for the political branches to govern without legal constraint. Our basic charter cannot be contracted away like this.</blockquote>In <a href="http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=389&invol=347">a famous case</a>, the Supreme Court once declared that the Fourth Amendment "protects people, not places." Today the Court made the uncontroversial observation that, at least to some extent, so too does the Suspension Clause. May all the Constitution one day be given likewise deference.<br />
<br />
---<br />
<br />
I <a href="http://kipesquire.powerblogs.com/posts/1159586515.shtml">previously wrote</a>:<blockquote>If you are a textualist (like me), then the [MCA's] revocation of habeas corpus is patently unconstitutional[.] No amount of sophistry can change the fact that we do not currently face "rebellion or invasion." Even 9/11 was not an "invasion." The Wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are not "invasions." This is not a difficult concept.</blockquote>The Court ruled:<blockquote>Historically, Congress has taken care to avoid suspensions of the writ. ... In contrast, Congress intended the DTA and the MCA to circumscribe habeas review, as is evident from the unequivocal nature of MCA §7's jurisdiction-stripping language, from the DTA's text limiting the Court of Appeals' jurisdiction to assessing whether the CSRT complied with the "standards and procedures specified by the Secretary of Defense," ... and from the absence of a saving clause in either Act.</blockquote>Congress tried to pretend that it didn't really suspend habeas corpus when it passed the Military Commissions Act and the Detainee Treatment Act. Today the Court made the uncontroversial observation that of course Congress suspended habeas corpus when it passed the MCA -- thanks in large part <a href="http://writ.news.findlaw.com/dorf/20061011.html">to John McCain</a>, who conned the Senate, and the American people, into thinking that he was somehow defending the Geneva Conventions when in fact he was gleefully capitulating to the Bush Administration and embracing the law's most draconian provisions:<blockquote>It immunizes government officials for past war crimes; it cuts the United States off from its obligations under the Geneva Conventions; and it all but eliminates access to civilian courts for non-citizens -- including permanent residents whose children are citizens -- that the government, in its nearly unreviewable discretion, determines to be unlawful enemy combatants.</blockquote>That last part was the topic of today's monumental ruling. <br />
<br />
And, in case you forgot, John McCain <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Detainee_Treatment_Act#Legislative_details">sponsored</a> the Detainee Treatment Act himself, complete with its unconstitutional suspension of habeas corpus.<br />
<br />
It will be interesting to see how the "straight-talking maverick" tries to spin the Court's decision, which is as much a repudiation of his dangerous theory of constitutional war powers as of President Bush's.<br />
<br />
The case is <i>Boumediene v. Bush</i>, No. 06-1195 (June 12, 2008) (<a href="http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2008/06/06-1195.pdf">PDF</a> - 134 pages). Timeline of the Guantanamo cases <a href="http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080612/ap_on_go_su_co/scotus_guantanamo_timeline">here</a>.]]></content:encoded>
</item>

<item rdf:about="http://kipesquire.powerblogs.com/posts/1213198170.shtml">
<title>Linkfest: "Children, Students and the First Amendment"</title>
<link>http://kipesquire.powerblogs.com/posts/1213198170.shtml</link>
<description>Quick dispatches from here and there &amp;mdash;...</description>
<dc:creator>Kip</dc:creator>
<dc:date>2008-06-11T15:06+00:00</dc:date>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[Quick dispatches from here and there &mdash; <br />
<br />
<b>ITEM:</b> The federal government <a href="http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080611/ap_on_bi_ge/internet_blocking">continues</a> its futile, warm-fuzzy-feeling efforts to censor the Internet in the name of "protecting children." The Child Online Protection Act, enjoined by the Supreme Court in <i><a href="http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=US&navby=case&vol=000&invol=03-218">Ashcroft v. ACLU</a></i>, 542 U.S. 656 (2004) (a/k/a "<i>Reno II</i>" &mdash; and yes that's "Reno" as in "Janet" from way back in 1998) is again before the Third Circuit, where the Justice Department must convince the court that:<ul><li>the availability to parents of built-in content filters</li><br />
<li>the fact that U.S. law cannot reach online porn posted overseas anyway</li><br />
<li>the fact that COPA "does not cover chat rooms, You Tube and other interactive sites that emerged in the last decade"</li></ul>are all somehow irrelevant and that age verification ("a belt and suspenders approach" according to the DOJ lawyer arguing the case) is the "least intrusive way" to achieve the law's stated goals. Expect the court to yet again find the law unconstitutional. Flagship post <a href="http://kipesquire.powerblogs.com/posts/1161631926.shtml">here</a>.<br />
<br />
---<br />
<br />
<b>ITEM:</b> Here's <a href="http://abcnews.go.com/TheLaw/story?id=5031654&page=1">an incident</a> where the censors claim not to be protecting the children but rather the parents &mdash; <blockquote>In the short walk across stage, Joseph Bryan Shore, 18, elicited more than boos when he allegedly cursed out his family and flipped the bird to the crowd, according to authorities. Immediately after the [high school graduation] ceremony, two police officers took him into custody and charged him with disorderly conduct. <br />
...<br />
The principal of Arab City High School, Patrick Crowder, said he regretted the incident but that he had no choice other than to have Shore arrested.</blockquote><b>MY TAKE:</b> The principal "had no choice"? Over a few moments of some profanities and the finger &mdash; both of which are unambiguously protected free speech, even in "dignified" (the principal's term) settings such as, e.g., <a href="http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0403_0015_ZS.html">a courthouse</a>? Without more, this sounds not only like a improper arrest but also a civil rights violation that would survive a qualified immunity challenge. (Related late entry <a href="http://www.wcnc.com/news/topstories/stories/WCNC--061008--MMH--GraduationArrests.1a4ef236.html">here</a> &mdash; it is graduation season, after all.)<br />
<br />
---<br />
<br />
<b>ITEM:</b> Let's switch from "commencement and freedom of speech" to "<a href="http://www.nj.com/newark/index.ssf/2008/06/newark_schools_settle_religiou.html">commencement and freedom of religion</a>" &mdash; <blockquote>Newark Public Schools has settled a lawsuit filed by a former student who claimed he couldn't attend his graduation from West Side High School because it was held in the sanctuary of a local Baptist Church. <br />
<br />
Bilal Shareef, a Muslim student, said his religious faith prohibited him from entering a building with religious icons, such as pictures of God or images of the cross. He skipped the ceremony held at New Hope Baptist Church in June 2006.<br />
...<br />
The district also agreed not to sponsor or promote religious events, not to hold student events in places of worship and not to hold student events in other religious buildings unless religious images are covered.</blockquote><b>MY TAKE:</b> It is beyond absurd to suggest that a public school district as large as Newark's cannot find suitable secular locations to hold high school graduations and therefore simply "must" have them in churches. If all else fails, then have them at the schools themselves &mdash; that's where mine was held. I don't buy the "no other suitable site" excuse for <a href="http://kipesquire.powerblogs.com/posts/1186075634.shtml">using churches as polling places</a>, and I don't buy it here. (Via <a href="http://religionclause.blogspot.com/2008/06/newark-schools-settle-case-agreeing-not.html">Religion Clause</a>.)<br />
<br />
---<br />
<br />
<b>ITEM:</b> And will students be reading about such stories in <a href="http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/news.aspx?id=20152">the school newspaper</a>?<blockquote>A high school newspaper in Northern California has been disbanded after it published a front-page photo of a student burning an American flag, triggering criticism that the administration was stifling free expression.<br />
...<br />
The Redding controversy is the latest example in recent years of high school and college administrators in California attempting to censure [sic] student-run newspapers or punish those who oversee them.</blockquote><b>MY TAKE:</b> I always <a href="http://kipesquire.powerblogs.com/posts/1130876911.shtml">tread lightly</a> on this topic, since I am not convinced that there is a "right to a (taxpayer-funded) school newspaper." And no student was disciplined or penalized for exercising her free speech rights (cf., the <i>Doninger</i> case I recently updated <a href="http://kipesquire.powerblogs.com/posts/1212231812.shtml">here</a>). But the fact that the topic that resulted in the newspaper's termination &mdash; flag burning &mdash; is itself <a href="http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=491&invol=397">protected expression</a> and generates so much <a href="http://kipesquire.powerblogs.com/posts/chain_1119537565.shtml">faux indignation</a> by activist legislators and other anti-rights malcontents certainly gets my libertarian dander up.]]></content:encoded>
</item>

<item rdf:about="http://kipesquire.powerblogs.com/posts/1213040603.shtml">
<title>Artist Harassed by Police for "Assassination" Wordplay Exhibit</title>
<link>http://kipesquire.powerblogs.com/posts/1213040603.shtml</link>
<description>While so much attention was (rightly) focused on the outrageous proposal in the District of Columbia to initiate a patently unconstitutional "papers please" vehicle checkpoint regime, another just-as-patently unconstitutional display...</description>
<dc:creator>Kip</dc:creator>
<dc:date>2008-06-10T10:06+00:00</dc:date>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[While so much attention was (rightly) focused on the outrageous <a href="http://kipesquire.powerblogs.com/posts/1212695641.shtml">proposal</a> in the District of Columbia to initiate a patently unconstitutional "papers please" vehicle checkpoint regime, another just-as-patently unconstitutional display (no pun intended) of police power <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/05/nyregion/05exhibit.html?ex=1370404800&en=c5c1a38d27d4bee8&ei=5124&partner=permalink&exprod=permalink">occured</a> here in New York City:<blockquote>New York City police detectives and Secret Service agents briefly detained and questioned an artist on Wednesday morning as he installed an exhibition with the title, "The Assassination of Hillary Clinton / The Assassination of Barack Obama."<br />
<br />
The artist, Yazmany Arboleda, tried to set up <a href="http://www.yazmany.com/main.html">the exhibition</a> in a vacant storefront at 264 West 40th Street in Midtown Manhattan, and had finished stenciling letters of the title on the plate glass windows at street level.<br />
...<br />
"I'm renting that space; the space was allocated for an exhibition, and it's my right to put those words up," he said. "They said it could incite someone to do something crazy, like break the window. It's terrible, because they’re violating my rights. If someone breaks a window, they're committing a crime."<br />
<br />
He added: "The exhibition is supposed to be about character assassination. It's philosophical and metaphorical."</blockquote>The Secret Service seems to have possibly overreacted but in the end respected Mr. Arboleda's First Amendment rights. The same cannot be said for the NYPD:<blockquote>Speaking to reporters around noon, Police Commissioner Raymond W. Kelly said Mr. Arboleda had been questioned because the police wanted to determine his motives. "Obviously, they could be interpreted as advocating harm to protectees," Mr. Kelly said.</blockquote>Put aside the pesky facts that (1) "having motives" is not a crime, and (2) "detained" is just a slick way of saying "seized" &mdash; as in a Fourth Amendment "seizure." Kelly's final attempt to wiggle off the hook, "could be interpreted as advocating harm to protectees," is also worthless as a rationale for abridging First Amendment rights.<br />
<br />
The test for censoring speech based on potential civic disruption is <i><a href="http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=395&invol=444">Brandenburg v. Ohio</a></i>, 395 U.S. 444 (1969), which provides the famous "imminent lawlessness" test:<blockquote>[T]he constitutional guarantees of free speech and free press do not permit a State to forbid or proscribe advocacy of the use of force or of law violation except where such advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action.</blockquote>That's a far cry from Kelly's "could be interpreted as advocating harm" &mdash; failing both the "imminent" and the "likely" prongs of the <i>Brandenburg</i> test. Not to mention that art is generally not considered "advocacy of the use of force or of law violation."<br />
<br />
The exhibit display was covered up by the owner of the building Arboleda rented. That is not state action and does not implicate the First Amendment; it is merely a contract dispute. Point conceded. And there may well be little constitutional harm in law enforcement or the Secret Service seeking to question the artist at his convenience. But forcibly detaining an artist, even for "mere" questioning and then applying the wrong constitutional test to the answers generated by such "mere" questioning crosses both Fourth and First Amendment lines that yet again demonstrate that liberty requires eternal vigilance at least as much as does the War on Terror.<br />
<br />
---<br />
<br />
I am furious at myself for not saving the link, but someone, somewhere, left what may be the best comment ever in reference to this story:<blockquote>This isn't shouting <i>"Fire!"</i> in a crowded theater &mdash; this is yelling <i>"Theater!"</i> in a crowded fire.</blockquote>Dang, I wish I had thought of that, for there is much truth in it.]]></content:encoded>
</item>

<item rdf:about="http://kipesquire.powerblogs.com/posts/1212695641.shtml">
<title>Does the Constitution Count as a "Legitimate Reason"?</title>
<link>http://kipesquire.powerblogs.com/posts/1212695641.shtml</link>
<description>(Please see update below.)...</description>
<dc:creator>Kip</dc:creator>
<dc:date>2008-06-05T19:06+00:00</dc:date>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[<i>(Please see update below.)</i><br />
<br />
By now you have likely seen the utterly outrageous <a href="http://www.examiner.com/a-1423820%7ELanier_plans_to_seal_off_rough__hoods_in_latest_effort_to_stop_wave_of_violence.html">reports</a> that the District of Columbia, most recently known for holding the Second Amendment in absolute contempt, has now upgraded &mdash; or downgraded, depending on your nomenclature &mdash; to likewise trampling other parts of the Bill of Rights:<blockquote>D.C. police will seal off entire neighborhoods, set up checkpoints and kick out strangers under a new program that D.C. officials hope will help them rescue the city from its out-of-control violence. <br />
<br />
Under <a href="http://www.dc.gov/mayor/news/release.asp?id=1304&mon=200806">an executive order</a> expected to be announced today, police Chief Cathy L. Lanier will have the authority to designate "Neighborhood Safety Zones." At least six officers will man cordons around those zones and demand identification from people coming in and out of them. Anyone who doesn't live there, work there or have "legitimate reason" to be there will be sent away or face arrest, documents obtained by <i>The Examiner</i> show.</blockquote>Some hasty stitches:<br />
<br />
--The right* of otherwise law-abiding citizens to be in and move through public spaces, with or without identification and with or without a "legitimate reason," is well-settled law. See <i><a href="http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=US&vol=405&invol=156">Papachristou v. Jacksonville</a></i>, 405 U.S. 156 (1972), <i><a href="http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=443&invol=47">Brown v. Texas</a></i>, 443 U. S. 47 (1979), and especially <i><a href="http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/03-5554.ZS.html">Hiibel v. Nevada</a></i> 542 U.S. 177 (2004), (Breyer, J., dissenting). (*I would be just as happy to use the term "privilege and immunity," but that <a href="http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment14/02.html#1">doesn't get you very far</a>, no pun intended.)<br />
<br />
--The requirement that one's purpose be "legitimate" is of course <a href="http://law.jrank.org/pages/11152/Void-Vagueness-Doctrine.html">unconstitutionally vague</a>. "Legitimate" &mdash; to whom? By what standard? Is walking one's dog a "legitimate reason"? Proselytizing on behalf of the Mormon faith? Collecting bottles for the nickel deposits? Taking your kids to a blighted area to "see how the other half lives"?<br />
<br />
--Suppose I show up at such a checkpoint and simply declare: <i>My "legitimate reason" is my desire to exercise my First Amendment right not to need a legitimate reason.</i> Do I win because I have a legitimate reason or because I don't need one?<br />
<br />
--Speaking of unconstitutional vagueness, what will the criteria be for determining which neighborhoods deserve this Checkpoint Charlie nightmare? Will the designations be subject to race-based or other discrimination challenges, much like our statutory and judicial approach to fighting gerrymandering or busing?<br />
<br />
--Going back to the Second Amendment and the pending decision in <i><a href="http://www.scotuswiki.com/index.php?title=DC_v._Heller">District v. Heller</a></i>: Most libertarians <a href="http://kipesquire.powerblogs.com/posts/1173650405.shtml">wasted little time</a> in debunking the hopelessly silly "Congress has plenary Article I authority over the District" canard by asking whether Congress could, hypothetically, repeal the First Amendment within the borders of the District. Who knew that the District would actually consider trying it? See also the (just as <a href="http://kipesquire.powerblogs.com/posts/1165160886.shtml">hopelessly silly</a>) claim that the federal government can authorize, without constitutional amendment, full voting representation for the District in Congress.<br />
<br />
(Via <a href="http://www.reason.com/blog/show/126859.html">Hit & Run</a>.)<br />
<br />
---<br />
<br />
<b>UPDATE:</b> Subsequent <a href="http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080605/ap_on_re_us/neighborhood_checkpoint">media accounts</a> now clarify that the checkpoints will be vehicular, not pedestrian. That changes neither the outrageousness nor the unconstitutionality of the program &mdash; only the precedents with which to analyze the proposal. <i><a href="http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=US&vol=531&invol=32">Indianapolis v. Edmond</a></i>, 531 U.S. 32 (2000) is both clear and directly on point: Vehicle checkpoints, without individualized suspicion and established merely for "general crime control purposes," violate the Fourth Amendment. <i>Accord</i>, <i><a href="http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=000&invol=02-1060">U.S. v. Lidster</a></i>, 540 U.S. 419 (2004). My void-for-vagueness analysis is also still entirely applicable here, as would be any requirement that passengers in the vehicle produce ID (the driver would of course be required to produce a valid drivers license).]]></content:encoded>
</item>

<item rdf:about="http://kipesquire.powerblogs.com/posts/1210676305.shtml">
<title>"Comment Left Elsewhere" of the Day</title>
<link>http://kipesquire.powerblogs.com/posts/1210676305.shtml</link>
<description>So a college student decides, as college students often do, to be an idiot:...</description>
<dc:creator>Kip</dc:creator>
<dc:date>2008-05-13T10:05+00:00</dc:date>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[So a college student decides, as college students often do, to be an <a href="http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5gaZT4W_BjTZSzYaYJkx8w8lTJhlAD90K8GI00">idiot</a>:<blockquote>A college student whose friend was being questioned in a hit and run found himself charged with assaulting an officer with a curious choice of weapons: M&Ms.<br />
<br />
Sean McGuire was arrested early Sunday at a convenience store after Drake University security guards noticed the colored candies falling on the ground around the officer. When the officer turned around, an M&M hit his shoulder, according to a police report.<br />
<br />
McGuire claimed he threw the candy because he was "sticking up for his friend," who apparently was the man suspected in the accident, the report states.</blockquote>So a libertarian decides, as libertarians often do, to <a href="http://www.bakelblog.com/nobodys_business/2008/05/your-weapon-of.html">complain</a>:<blockquote>Okay, throwing M&Ms at anyone is uncalled for.  Throwing them at a cop is just stupid.  But, this college student winding up in jail, and having to post a $1,000 bond for throwing candy?  What was this all about?  Was it really about "assault," or was it a case of "you must respect my authoritah!"</blockquote>So I decide, as I often do, to leave a comment:<blockquote>Why does it have to be a question of "respect my authoritah" rather than one of not being a law-breaking jerk by throwing stuff at people?<br />
<br />
Last time I checked, respecting people's space and bodily integrity was one of the higher-ranking libertarian tenets. If that's changed, then I didn't get the memo.<br />
<br />
I know many libertarians like to pretend that all police are unstable maniacs just waiting for an excuse to don their jackboots and charge up their tasers. And <a href="http://kipesquire.powerblogs.com/posts/chain_1189164319.shtml">a few are</a>.<br />
<br />
But sometimes people simply break the law &mdash; sometimes quite stupidly, immaturely or obnoxiously &mdash; and if they get caught, they get caught.<br />
<br />
Sympathy is a scarce resource, and I don't squander it on fools.</blockquote>Speaking of squandering, I also note that this is a terrible waste of perfectly good M&Ms. Next time, throw beef jerky or some other inedible product.<br />
<br />
---<br />
<br />
For the uninitiated:<br />
<br />
<center><embed id="VideoPlayback" style="width:374px;height:308px" flashvars="" src="http://video.google.com/googleplayer.swf?docid=-8828334762912828830&hl=en" type="application/x-shockwave-flash"> </embed></center>]]></content:encoded>
</item>

<item rdf:about="http://kipesquire.powerblogs.com/posts/1208221583.shtml">
<title>On John Yoo as Cardinal Wolsey</title>
<link>http://kipesquire.powerblogs.com/posts/1208221583.shtml</link>
<description>Much cyber-ink is being spilled on the question of John Yoo's continued employment at U.C. Berkeley's law school, Boalt Hall; I first noted it in passing here....</description>
<dc:creator>Kip</dc:creator>
<dc:date>2008-04-15T01:04+00:00</dc:date>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[Much cyber-ink is being spilled on the question of John Yoo's continued employment at U.C. Berkeley's law school, Boalt Hall; I first noted it in passing <a href="http://kipesquire.powerblogs.com/posts/1207271790.shtml">here</a>.<br />
<br />
Boalt's dean, meanwhile, issued a lengthy <a href="http://www.law.berkeley.edu/news/2008/edley041008.html">statement</a> on Yoo that was half "Ford pardoning Nixon," half "Pilate washing his hands."<br />
<br />
(Not only is Yoo tenured, but Boalt, as part of a public university -- i.e., the government -- is required to extend certain due process rights above and beyond what a tenured professor at a private law school would enjoy.)<br />
<br />
Here was my <a href="http://balkin.blogspot.com/2008/04/post-no-6-yoo-boalt-and-academic-fredom.html?showComment=1207939020000#c1463235955716548745">brief foray</a> into the discussion:<blockquote>The dean fails to address the underlying question: Do Yoo's memos prove, or even suggest, that he is fundamentally unfit to teach law?<br />
<br />
Reasonable minds may disagree on that question, but no reasonable person is entitled to assert that "tenure," "due process" or "the First Amendment" have anything to do with the answer.</blockquote>Some commenters misinterpreted that to mean that I advocate stripping Yoo of his legal protections. I of course neither said nor advocated anything of the kind. My point was that the question of "Yoo at Boalt" is really two questions: (1) should he be teaching law school students, and (2) if not, and only if not, then can he be removed? I find Question (1) to be infinitely more important than Question (2), but that is not the same as asserting that Question (2) can be completely ignored.<br />
<br />
The most comprehensive response I've seen to Boalt's dean, Chris Edley, comes from <a href="http://balkin.blogspot.com/2008/04/response-to-dean-edley.html">Scott Horton</a>:<blockquote>I agree with Dean Edley on two key points. First, John Yoo is entitled to his legal views, however eccentric, radical and harmful to our democracy. The academic community benefits from the presence of the philosophical outlier. It sharpens debate, and can furnish us with a reminder of the fundamental values which the outlier disparages.</blockquote>That argument only goes so far. There is a line past which "philosophical outlier" becomes "dangerous nutjob." An advocate of leeching has no business on a medical school faculty, an astrologer has no business on an astrophysics faculty, an alchemist has no business on a chemistry faculty -- their presence does not "sharpen debate," it just wastes resources, embarrasses the institution and achieves the exact opposite of disseminating "knowledge" -- properly defined. (What part of "higher" in "higher education" could possibly extend to leeching or astrology?)<br />
<br />
Is Yoo the jurisprudential equivalent of an alchemist? Perhaps reasonable minds can disagree, but that is simply not the same thing as suggesting that the question is irrelevant. It is not.<blockquote>Only yesterday, I learned from one prominent figure that he had seen repeated drafts of the March 2003 Yoo opinion, had cautioned Yoo on serious errors in judgment and interpretation in the memo, and had strongly urged modification of the memo at least to reflect the contrary viewpoint, even if only to distinguish it. Yoo insisted that he wanted it to be "clean." He declined to make any of the changes requested.<br />
<br />
Similarly, Yoo was warned repeatedly that his views could not be squared with the overwhelming majority viewpoint in the community of law of war scholarship, and that the risk of criminal prosecution of those implementing his policies was severe. </blockquote>Telling the client what he wants to hear, instead of what he needs to hear, is the fastest way to a "C" in a first-year legal writing class. Deliberately failing to cite contrary authority is the fastest way to an "F." Advocating the commission of a crime -- including a war crime -- is the fastest way to disbarment.<br />
<br />
So I ask again: "Do Yoo's memos prove, or even suggest, that he is fundamentally unfit to teach law?"<br />
<br />
The torture memos were not an episode of <i>The Tudors,</i> and John Yoo was not <a href="http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/cardinal_wolsey.htm">Cardinal Wolsey</a> -- saying whatever needed to be said, no matter how preposterous, to try to secure Henry VIII his divorce from Catherine of Aragon -- in clear defiance of the law, common sense and common decency. This is not the Sixteenth Century, no matter how desperately the "new Divine Right" advocates (i.e., the "unitary executive" crowd) may wish it were.]]></content:encoded>
</item>

<item rdf:about="http://kipesquire.powerblogs.com/posts/1207879699.shtml">
<title>I Would Certainly Hope So...</title>
<link>http://kipesquire.powerblogs.com/posts/1207879699.shtml</link>
<description>I'm not sure why this would be a controversial statement:...</description>
<dc:creator>Kip</dc:creator>
<dc:date>2008-04-11T11:04+00:00</dc:date>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[I'm not sure why this would be a controversial statement:<blockquote>"You can murder anybody in the country and still not violate federal law, if you do it right."</blockquote>Thus (<a href="http://althouse.blogspot.com/2008/04/scalia-on-c-span.html">allegedly</a>) spake Justice Scalia recently.<br />
<br />
Stated differently, has the phrase "don't make a federal case out of it" ceased to have the clear colloquial meaning it once did? Note that Scalia did not say, "You can murder anybody in the country and still not violate <u>the</u> law, if you do it right." Or, "You can murder anybody in the country and get away with it, if you do it right." He just highlighted the basic legal truth that not every crime is (or ought be) a <b><i>federal</i></b> crime.<br />
<br />
Just as there would be, in a properly crafted society, federal public goods that are paid for with federal tax dollars, state public goods paid for with state tax dollars, and local public goods paid for with local tax dollars &mdash; with clear and inviolable demarcations among them &mdash; so too would an ideal criminal code limit federal crimes to truly federal (i.e., multistate) offenses and leave state/local criminal justice to state/local governments.<br />
<br />
The fact that we even need to discuss or reiterate such elementary principles as "not everything is a federal matter" is rather sad.<br />
<br />
(Via <a href="http://polysigh.blogspot.com/2008/04/charles-wittaker-watch-update.html">PolySigh</a>.)<br />
<br />
---<br />
<br />
Also be sure to contrast this (innocuous) Scalia proposition with Ron Paul's (hardly innocuous) brand of anti-libertarian "federalism," which holds not only that "certain things should not be a federal crime" (correct), but also that "anything can be a state or local crime" (i.e., if the local majoritarian mob decrees it as such). Anything &mdash; from <a href="http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul120.html">having gay sex</a> to <a href="http://kipesquire.powerblogs.com/posts/1198391397.shtml">drinking raw milk</a> &mdash; can be properly criminalized in the Paulbearers' utopia &mdash; just not by Congress.<br />
<br />
The fact that we even need to discuss or reiterate such elementary principles as "Ron Paul is not a libertarian" is even sadder.<br />
<br />
<center><iframe src="http://rcm.amazon.com/e/cm?t=astitcinhaste-20&o=1&p=8&l=as1&asins=1930865635&fc1=000000&IS2=1&lt1=_blank&lc1=0000FF&bc1=000000&bg1=FFFFFF&f=ifr" style="width:120px;height:240px;" scrolling="no" marginwidth="0" marginheight="0" frameborder="0"></iframe></center>]]></content:encoded>
</item>

<item rdf:about="http://kipesquire.powerblogs.com/posts/1207597458.shtml">
<title>More on "Trial Nullification" versus "Law Nullification"</title>
<link>http://kipesquire.powerblogs.com/posts/1207597458.shtml</link>
<description>In my last post on jury nullification, I noted the following:...</description>
<dc:creator>Kip</dc:creator>
<dc:date>2008-04-07T19:04+00:00</dc:date>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[In my <a href="http://kipesquire.powerblogs.com/posts/1206678642.shtml">last post</a> on jury nullification, I noted the following:<blockquote>[I]f, through no subterfuge of my own (i.e., I did not lie my way onto the jury), I suddenly found myself serving as a juror and witnessing a manifestly unjust prosecution (which would more likely involve wrongful <b><i>conduct</i></b> by the prosecutor or judge than a "bad law"), then I might very well vote to nullify <b><i>the trial</i></b>. But that is an altogether different question from traditional jury nullification of a <b><i>law</i></b>.</blockquote>This <a href="http://www.nypost.com/seven/04022008/news/regionalnews/judges_bizarre_ruling_aids_perv_104628.htm">fact pattern</a>, in reverse, is something close to what I had in mind:<blockquote>Maverick Brooklyn federal Judge Jack Weinstein issued the ruling in a child-porn case over which he presided -- chastising himself for not telling the jury that the defendant faced a minimum five-year sentence before it found him guilty. <br />
<br />
The drastic ruling says juries should be told what sentences certain criminals face, especially if the prison terms are particularly long. <br />
<br />
It attempts to reverse the long-standing rule that jurors not be given sentencing information so they can decide guilt or innocence, without letting the potential punishment color their thinking.</blockquote>This is all very wink-wink legal theater by Weinstein, who is known for making rules up as he goes along. Just as modern juries are only supposed to decide questions of fact and not to second-guess the propriety of the law itself, so too are they not supposed to consider the potential penalties a criminal defendant would face. The potential sentence a defendant may face is also part of the law and not "evidence" to be weighed by the jury.<br />
<br />
Weinstein knows this full well -- every lawyer does. But in order to grab a headline he self-righteously decides to declare a mistrial based on a perfectly incorrect reading of the law: that every jury should always know what potential sentence a defendant faces -- or at least the most onerous sentences.<br />
<br />
Weinstein's unprofessional antics were of course pro-defendant. But judicial or prosecutorial misconduct can also be anti-defendant. And in that instance, where I did not lie my way onto a jury, was attempting to perform my function in good faith, and was suddenly blindsided by an egregious miscarriage of justice, then -- and only then -- might I indeed choose to nullify <b><i>the trial</i></b>. Unlike an unjust law -- of which the defendant had or ought to have had fair knowledge beforehand -- an unjust <b><i>trial</i></b> is an abomination that one cannot anticipate or incorporate into one's decision-making calculus. It is outside the system of justice in a way that an unjust law is not. It is a different, and more malignant, kind of governmental abuse.<br />
<br />
When one party breaches a contract, the other party is typically not required to continue performing his end of the bargain. The first breach destroys the contract itself and therefore all subsequent duties under the contract. To the extent that a trial is a "judicial compact," and given a precedent breach of that compact by the judge or prosecutor, the duty of the juror to honor the compact terminates, and no juror has any ethical obligation to fulfill any original duty under the original judicial compact.<br />
<br />
The case is <i>U.S. v. Polizzi</i>, No. 06-CR-22 (E.D.N.Y, April 1, 2008) (<a href="http://www.nyed.uscourts.gov/pub/rulings/cr/2006/6cr22moj040108.pdf">PDF</a> - 288 pages)<br />
<br />
(Via <a href="http://sentencing.typepad.com/sentencing_law_and_policy/2008/04/judge-weinstein.html">Sentencing Law & Policy</a>.)<br />
<br />
---<br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/03/business/03cnd-tobacco.html?ex=1364961600&en=a7f26befa9f0c826&ei=5124&partner=permalink&exprod=permalink">Meanwhile</a>:<blockquote>In a legal victory for the tobacco industry, a federal appeals court on Thursday threw out an $800 billion class-action lawsuit on behalf of smokers who said they were misled that light cigarettes were safer than regular ones. <br />
<br />
Plaintiffs' lawyers had wanted to represent potentially millions of people across the country who had smoked light cigarettes, but the court found that it was impossible to tell why smokers chose light cigarettes, so the group could not be treated as a class. Instead, smokers will have to sue individually. <br />
<br />
"Individualized proof is needed to overcome the possibility that a member of the purported class purchased lights for some other reason than the belief that lights were a healthier alternative," the ruling said.</blockquote>Of course, every second-year law student knows that "commonality" is a requirement for certification of a class in a federal lawsuit.<br />
<br />
Guess who didn't know it -- or didn't care:<blockquote>The court decision was a setback for lawyers who thought that the ruling approving the class, issued by Federal District Judge Jack B. Weinstein in Brooklyn in September 2006, could have opened a new avenue for litigation against the tobacco industry, exposing cigarette companies to potentially large damages.</blockquote>I don't believe in "activist judges." But there certainly is such a thing as a rogue judge. Better to be correct in two pages than wrong in 288 pages. Better to apply uncomplicated and well-settled principles of federal civil procedure correctly than to grab a gratuitous headline at the expense of an industry that sells a legal product.<br />
<br />
At least the Second Circuit knows when it's proper to nullify.]]></content:encoded>
</item>

<item rdf:about="http://kipesquire.powerblogs.com/posts/1207358002.shtml">
<title>Punishing "Practicing Journalism Without a License"?</title>
<link>http://kipesquire.powerblogs.com/posts/1207358002.shtml</link>
<description>It makes perfect sense to two groups of people &amp;mdash; professional journalists* and bloodthirsty dictators:...</description>
<dc:creator>Kip</dc:creator>
<dc:date>2008-04-05T01:04+00:00</dc:date>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[It makes perfect sense to two groups of people &mdash; professional journalists* and <a href="http://www.rsf.org/article.php3?id_article=26465">bloodthirsty dictators</a>:<blockquote>At around 2 p.m. yesterday, a Zimbabwean police unit raided the York Lodge, a Harare hotel being used by several foreign reporters covering the elections. Five journalists were arrested. Three of them were later released, but two are still being held at Harare police headquarters. One of them is New York Times correspondent Barry Bearak.<br />
<br />
Their lawyer, Beatrice Mtetwa, said they would be charged ... with working without accreditation in violation of a 2002 press law known as the Access to Information and Protection of Privacy Act, under which journalists can be sentenced to up to two years in prison for working without a permit from Media and Information Commission (MIC).</blockquote>Look on the bright side: Zimbabwe's barbarian censorship laws (two years in jail) are better than <a href="http://kipesquire.powerblogs.com/posts/1207272073.shtml">China's barbarian censorship laws</a> (3.5 years).<br />
<br />
(*One example <a href="http://kipesquire.powerblogs.com/posts/1197678951.shtml">here</a>.)<br />
<br />
---<br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/05/world/africa/05zimbabwe.html?ex=1365048000&en=a0198038af11a6e0&ei=5124&partner=permalink&exprod=permalink">Meanwhile</a>:<blockquote>The inner circle of President Robert G. Mugabe of Zimbabwe met Friday to decide how to handle the outcome of elections that the opposition contends the president lost. <br />
<br />
The options that confront the senior leadership of the ruling party include having the president step down, holding a runoff vote later this month or prolonging their control over the country, regardless of the outcome national elections last Saturday.<br />
...<br />
Before the election, Mr. Mugabe repeatedly said he would not allow the opposition to take power, and since then his aides have said that he "is going to fight to the last."</blockquote>The first presidential inauguration I remember watching was <a href="http://www.bartleby.com/124/pres61.html">Reagan's in 1981</a>:<blockquote>The orderly transfer of authority as called for in the Constitution routinely takes place as it has for almost two centuries and few of us stop to think how unique we really are. In the eyes of many in the world, this every-4-year ceremony we accept as normal is nothing less than a miracle.<br />
<br />
Mr. President, I want our fellow citizens to know how much you did to carry on this tradition. By your gracious cooperation in the transition process, you have shown a watching world that we are a united people pledged to maintaining a political system which guarantees individual liberty to a greater degree than any other, and I thank you and your people for all your help in maintaining the continuity which is the bulwark of our Republic.</blockquote>Translation: <i>"Carter, you really sucked. In fact, you sucked so bad that the nicest thing I can say about you is that you at least didn't try to stage a coup when you lost so pathetically. Thanks for that &mdash; and don't let the door hit you on the way out."</i> I remember thinking, in my 14-year-old way, "This guy's supposedly a great orator? For saying stuff like that?" <br />
<br />
In retrospect, however, it really is the simplest things &mdash; like "we can throw the bums out" and "you don't need a license to write" &mdash; that make the United States so obviously superior to so much of the rest of the world. And here I am today, not 14 but 41, blogospherically screaming from the rooftop essentially the same simple message, because it so desperately needs to be screamed:<br />
<br />
We are a great nation for a reason. To the extent we forget the reason, we cease to be great.]]></content:encoded>
</item>

<item rdf:about="http://kipesquire.powerblogs.com/posts/1207271790.shtml">
<title>One More Torture Memo Hypothetical</title>
<link>http://kipesquire.powerblogs.com/posts/1207271790.shtml</link>
<description>Yesterday I wrote:...</description>
<dc:creator>Kip</dc:creator>
<dc:date>2008-04-04T01:04+00:00</dc:date>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[Yesterday I <a href="http://kipesquire.powerblogs.com/posts/1207184297.shtml">wrote</a>:<blockquote>Put succinctly, the president cannot be the commander-in-chief of an army if Congress doesn't give him that army in the first place.</blockquote>Which got me to thinking: If the president's Article II commander-in-chief power is unitary and plenary, then can the president unilaterally bring back the draft? (Recall that at least one presidential candidate has <a href="http://www.reason.com/news/show/118937.html">warned</a> that a draft might be necessary.)<br />
<br />
One would think, of course, that if the president cannot unilaterally seize steel mills for no other reason than "there's a war going on" then he certainly couldn't conscript people for no other reason than "there's a war going on," right?<br />
<br />
However, since the famous Jackson concurrence in <i><a href="http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0343_0579_ZC2.html">Youngstown Sheet & Tube v. Sawyer</a></i>, 343 U.S. 579 (1952), does not appear to be cited anywhere in the recently released "torture memo," such "simplistic" or "archaic" reasoning might not apply in the Yoo-based (as opposed to the sanity-based) jurisprudential community.<br />
<br />
Just wondering.<br />
<br />
---<br />
<br />
The leading source for torture memo analysis is undoubtedly Balkinization's <a href="http://balkin.blogspot.com/">Marty Lederman</a>. The alpha-and-omega <a href="http://balkin.blogspot.com/2008/04/full-employment-memo-for-bloggers-and.html">observation</a>:<blockquote>The memo cites numerous other, as-yet-unreleased memos that appear to contain equally outrageous legal analysis. (Recall Jack Goldsmith writing about Pat Philbin presenting him with a "short stack" of egregious memos.) Those memos should be released immediately. More importantly, I think Congress should strongly consider NOT CONSIDERING ANY ADMINISTRATION LEGISLATIVE PROPOSALS UNTIL ALL OF THE MEMOS HAVE BEEN DISCLOSED AND (APPROPRIATELY) REPUDIATED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE. There is simply no excuse for Congress to have allowed itself to be manipulated like this, and to be kept in the dark about the extent to which the Administration has ignored legislative statutes and treaties. They must use some of the leverage at their disposal.</blockquote>Sounds about right &mdash; especially the "October 2003 memo" referenced in Footnote 10 suggesting that domestic military operations are summarily exempt from Fourth Amendment limitations. That should be a fun read.<br />
<br />
---<br />
<br />
<i>For Discussion:</i> Some are pushing for U.C. Berkeley's Boalt School of Law to dismiss Yoo from its <a href="http://www.law.berkeley.edu/faculty/profiles/facultyProfile.php?facID=235">faculty</a>, based on academic incompetence (i.e., no one who is so wrong about such basic constitutional issues should be allowed anywhere near law school students). On the other hand: "tenure." Thoughts?]]></content:encoded>
</item>

<item rdf:about="http://kipesquire.powerblogs.com/posts/1207184297.shtml">
<title>Some "Torture Memo" Hypotheticals</title>
<link>http://kipesquire.powerblogs.com/posts/1207184297.shtml</link>
<description>All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives....</description>
<dc:creator>Kip</dc:creator>
<dc:date>2008-04-03T00:04+00:00</dc:date>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[<i>All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.</i><br />
--Article I, Section 1<br />
<br />
<i>The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America.</i><br />
--Article II, Section 1<br />
<br />
<i>The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish.</i><br />
--Article III, Section 1<br />
<br />
<i>Article II, Section 1 ... contrasts with the specific enumeration of the powers -- those "herein" -- granted to Congress in Article I.</i><br />
--Memorandum for William J. Haynes II (a/k/a the "Torture Memo")<br />
<br />
It has long been noted by the sanity-based legal community that John Yoo's "unitary executive" theory of Article II's war power is facially absurd for the simple reason that there are clear references to the military in the enumerated legislative powers of Article I, Section 8. Put succinctly, the president cannot be the commander-in-chief of an army if Congress doesn't give him that army in the first place.<br />
<br />
In John Yoo's <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/02/washington/02terror.html?ex=1364875200&en=6b62aaeac6be7ac8&ei=5124&partner=permalink&exprod=permalink">now-declassified</a> "torture memo," he asserts the following:<blockquote>In wartime, it is for the president alone to decide what methods to use to best prevail against the enemy. (Page 5)</blockquote>Really? Consider the following hypotheticals in a pre- or non-9/11 scenario:<br />
<br />
1. Congress, as part of a routine defense appropriation, authorizes the funding, commissioning and deployment of a fleet of naval destroyers for the specific and sole purpose of patrolling the Gulf of Mexico to protect U.S. oil rigs in that region. The legislation is unambiguous: the Navy ships are only for the Gulf of Mexico and only there to defend oil platforms. Can the president, under a purported "unitary and plenary" commander-in-chief power, order those destroyers to be redeployed to drug interdiction without a revised Congressional authorization? How would that not be an incursion upon Congress' "unitary" appropriation origination function?<br />
<br />
2. Could the president then constitutionally defy an explicit bill (assume a veto and override) reiterating the original legislation after the redeployment? How would that not be an incursion upon Congress' "unitary" veto override function?<br />
<br />
3. Now assume that a non-nation-state Islamic fundamentalist terrorist organization, in a coordinated attack, destroys the Golden Gate and George Washington Bridges. Could the president, without Congressional authorization, permanently redeploy those destroyers to New York and San Francisco, despite the original, unambiguous dictate by Congress that the destroyers not leave the Gulf of Mexico? (Ignore temporary redeployments under the War Powers Act.)<br />
<br />
4. The nation subsequently learns that the Islamic terrorist organization operates mainly from bases in Hypothestan. Subsequent to either a traditional declaration of war or some analogue to the AUMF, President Sally Kern deploys ground forces to Hypothestan to fight the Islamic terrorists -- and gays (who are, <a href="http://abcnews.go.com/TheLaw/story?id=4444956">recall</a>, a greater threat to America than Islamic terrorists). Congress did not authorize the use of military force against gays, and indeed expressly forbids it in subsequent legislation comparable to Hypothetical #2. Can Commander-in-Chief Kern disregard the "incursion" of Congress upon her "unitary and plenary" commander-in-chief power under Article II, to "keep America safe"?<br />
<br />
To the extent that these hypotheticals are absurd, they are nevertheless robust given how absurd the original thesis of the unitary executive crowd itself is. These people actually believe that the president is, or ought be, a literal dictator in a time of war -- disregarding the pesky fact that the War on Terror will last perhaps forever.<br />
<br />
Whatever those three "Section 1" pronouncements about "powers" were intended to mean -- it surely wasn't that.]]></content:encoded>
</item>

<item rdf:about="http://kipesquire.powerblogs.com/posts/1207073253.shtml">
<title>Plastic Dashboard Jesus: Bon Jovi Fan or Probable Cause?</title>
<link>http://kipesquire.powerblogs.com/posts/1207073253.shtml</link>
<description>The Fourth Amendment has become a lost highway:...</description>
<dc:creator>Kip</dc:creator>
<dc:date>2008-04-01T18:04+00:00</dc:date>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[The Fourth Amendment has become a <a href="http://fourthamendment.com/blog/index.php?blog=1&title=w_d_tex_religious_symbol_on_dashboard_ca&more=1&c=1&tb=1&pb=1">lost highway</a>:<blockquote>After verifying the tire was not in fact defective, the officer detained the driver, because among other things, the driver had a religious statue on his dashboard. The officer stated that in his experience and opinion, religious symbols are used to dispel suspicion of wrongdoing and are usually indicative of drug activity.</blockquote>So now having a plastic dashboard Jesus qualifies as "fits the profile"?<br />
<br />
Fortunately, the defendant had not Jesus but an "activist" judge metaphorically riding alongside him:<blockquote>The Court finds that religious symbols cannot be used to generate reasonable suspicion of drug dealing or criminality. To do so, violates religious rights secured by the First Amendment and consequently, the Fourth Amendment. After removing the impermissible element of the religious symbol from the officer's reasonable suspicion calculation, the Court finds the remaining factors do not rise to the level of warranting extending the detention.</blockquote>Need another gratuitous religious reference? Try "fruit of the poisonous tree" -- <blockquote>Because reasonable suspicion did not exist to extend the stop, once the officer realized a violation had not been committed, the purpose of the stop was fulfilled, and anything thereafter controverted Defendant's Fourth Amendment rights. Therefore, the Court grants Defendant's Motion to Suppress.</blockquote>I'm reminded of <a href="http://kipesquire.powerblogs.com/posts/1187370051.shtml">this infamous list</a> of self-contradicting "drug courier" descriptors used to justify airport detentions:<blockquote>--Arrive late at night?<br />
<br />
--Arrive early in the morning? <br />
<br />
--One of first to deplane?<br />
<br />
--One of last to deplane?<br />
<br />
--Deplane in the middle?<br />
<br />
--Use a one-way ticket?<br />
<br />
--Use a round-trip ticket?<br />
<br />
--Carry brand-new luggage?<br />
<br />
--Carry a small gym bag?<br />
<br />
--Travel alone?<br />
<br />
--Travel with a companion?<br />
<br />
--Act too nervous?<br />
<br />
--Act too calm?<br />
<br />
--Wear expensive clothing and gold jewelry?<br />
<br />
--Wear black corduroys, white pullover shirt, loafers without socks?<br />
<br />
--Wear dark slacks, work shirt, and hat?<br />
<br />
--Wear brown leather aviator jacket, gold chain, hair down to shoulders?<br />
<br />
--Wear loose-fitting sweatshirt and denim jacket?<br />
<br />
--Walk rapidly through airport? <br />
<br />
--Walk aimlessly through airport?<br />
<br />
--Fly in to Washington National Airport on the LaGuardia Shuttle?<br />
<br />
--Have a white handkerchief in your hand?</blockquote>Eventually some intrepid law school student will compile a similar list of suspicious indicia used for automobile stops, complete with "had a plastic dashboard Jesus" and "had no plastic dashboard Jesus."<br />
<br />
The case is <i>United States v. Magana</i>, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 24859 (W.D. Tex. March 13, 2008).]]></content:encoded>
</item>

<item rdf:about="http://kipesquire.powerblogs.com/posts/1206678642.shtml">
<title>A Nullification Denouement</title>
<link>http://kipesquire.powerblogs.com/posts/1206678642.shtml</link>
<description>WindyPundit weighs in:...</description>
<dc:creator>Kip</dc:creator>
<dc:date>2008-03-28T04:03+00:00</dc:date>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[WindyPundit <a href="http://www.windypundit.com/archives/2008/03/to_a_prosecutor_concerned_that.html">weighs in</a>:<blockquote>Unless you are truly devoid of moral reasoning, there must be some level of unjustness at which you will abandon the law to avoid complicity in unconscionable evil.</i></blockquote>One of the things I wanted to add to <a href="http://kipesquire.powerblogs.com/posts/1205637986.shtml">my podcast</a> on jury nullification, but didn't have time for, was to note that if, through no subterfuge of my own (i.e., I did not lie my way onto the jury), I suddenly found myself serving as a juror and witnessing a manifestly unjust prosecution (which would more likely involve wrongful <b><i>conduct</i></b> by the prosecutor or judge than a "bad law"), then I might very well vote to nullify <b><i>the trial</i></b>. But that is an altogether different question from traditional jury nullification of a <b><i>law</i></b>.<br />
<br />
But I found myself unable to devise a fact pattern where I could end up on a jury, after voir dire by competent lawyers and judges, in which a law I oppose to the point of wanting to nullify it was at issue. They would find me out before the trial started -- as is their prerogative, indeed their solemn duty.<br />
<br />
Then again, if I could devise such a "reluctant juror" fact pattern, I'd be John Grisham or Reginald Rose.<br />
<br />
---<br />
<br />
Meanwhile, <a href="http://nothirdsolution.com/2008/03/21/jury-nullification-the-only-moral-option/">no third solution</a> has a comprehensive post in response to my nullification podcast. While he makes some perfectly reasonable points, I don't think he adequately addresses (or, if you prefer, he underweights) two key issues:<br />
<br />
1. That libertarians do not have a monopoly on nullification, and therefore the maneuver is not intrinsically libertarian. Just as a gun can be used either for libertarian or anti-libertarian purposes, so too can nullification. It is therefore invalid for libertarians to claim a unique moral proprietorship of the act, as they so often do.<br />
<br />
2. The simple truth remains that lying your way onto a jury is not the moral high ground. "The ends justify the means" was, last time I checked, simply not a core libertarian premise -- quite the opposite, in fact.<br />
<br />
---<br />
<br />
Whether lying your way onto a jury can also constitute perjury is an utterly ancillary, jurisdiction-specific question that I feel no need to address. As for the question of whether <b><i>advocating</i></b> jury nullification <a href="http://bennettandbennett.com/blog/2008/03/guest-post-jury-nullification-a-prosecutors-view.html">can be a criminal act</a>: of course not -- See <i><a href="http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=395&invol=444">Brandenburg v. Ohio</a></i>, 395 U.S. 444 (1969).]]></content:encoded>
</item>

<item rdf:about="http://kipesquire.powerblogs.com/posts/1205459852.shtml">
<title>On the Constitutional Impropriety of Micro-Surveillance</title>
<link>http://kipesquire.powerblogs.com/posts/1205459852.shtml</link>
<description>Jack Balkin links, not unreasonably, the Spitzer scandal to the War on Terror:...</description>
<dc:creator>Kip</dc:creator>
<dc:date>2008-03-14T11:03+00:00</dc:date>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[Jack Balkin <a href="http://balkin.blogspot.com/2008/03/spitzer-case-and-national-surveillance.html">links</a>, not unreasonably, the Spitzer scandal to the War on Terror:<blockquote>These <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/13/nyregion/13legal.html?ex=1363147200&en=77bdccdd2ced1324&ei=5124&partner=permalink&exprod=permalink">events</a> offer a window into a much larger phenomenon, the National Surveillance State, in which the state increasingly identifies and solves problems of governance through the collection, collation and analysis of information. Governments have always used information, but today's techniques are made more powerful and more prevalent by lower costs of computing and data storage.<br />
...<br />
If computing power increases enough, there is no reason why governments might not lower the threshold for reporting of suspicious transactions, or, indeed, require that every transaction over 100 dollars be reported. All this information could later be sifted through by data mining programs, in order to spot patterns of suspicious activity. The only limit is the technology and the manpower that law enforcement is willing to devote to analysis of financial transactions.</blockquote>Of course, there ought to be another "limit," namely a rational basis for collecting such data.<br />
<br />
It's one thing to suggest that there is a reasonable inference that a transaction involving <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bank_Secrecy_Act">over $10,000 in currency</a> is likely, perhaps almost certain, to involve illegal activity, and that therefore the government has a rational basis to demand disclosure of all such transactions. That's not the libertarian conclusion, but it's not a facially absurd premise.<br />
<br />
Demanding disclosure of all currency transactions involving over $100, however, <b><i>is</i></b> facially absurd. Demanding disclosure of all transactions of any kind over $100 would leapfrog over "facially absurd" and straight into Orwell. A terrorist can't bring down a skyscraper with one $100 bill or with one prepaid $100 phone card. The fact that the government can now technologically and economically perform such micro-surveillance still does not mean that it can constitutionally perform it. <i>"You don't want another 9/11, do you?"</i> is simply not enough to justify turning over every ATM, credit card, debit card and EFT transaction, no matter how small, to the government.<br />
<br />
Even conceding (which libertarians <a href="http://www.catostore.org/index.asp?fa=ProductDetails&method=cats&scid=43&pid=1441192">ought never do anyway</a>) that some (indeed most) laws are subject to mere rational basis review does not mean that a law that fails rational basis review (i.e., an irrational law) should not be decried &mdash; and judicially invalidated &mdash; as such.]]></content:encoded>
</item>

<item rdf:about="http://kipesquire.powerblogs.com/posts/1205274214.shtml">
<title>Taser Thug Quote of the Day</title>
<link>http://kipesquire.powerblogs.com/posts/1205274214.shtml</link>
<description>"If they don't (comply), additional force is going to be used. Taser is an available option and if they don't comply at that point, then the trigger can be pulled again,...</description>
<dc:creator>Kip</dc:creator>
<dc:date>2008-03-11T22:03+00:00</dc:date>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[<i>"If they don't (comply), additional force is going to be used. Taser is an available option and if they don't comply at that point, then the trigger can be pulled again, and that's what happened."</i><br />
--Sheriff Greg White, Cole County, Missouri<br />
<br />
The <a href="http://www.columbiamissourian.com/stories/2008/02/28/deputy-uses-taser-angry-parent/">backstory</a>:<blockquote>A Cole County deputy tasered an angry parent twice Thursday morning when he refused to leave a middle school, Sheriff Greg White said.<br />
<br />
Ricky Campbell, 43, was arrested on suspicion of trespassing, peace disturbance and resisting arrest.<br />
<br />
At about 8:10 a.m., Cole County School Resource Officer Joe Essen received a call regarding an angry parent at Russellville Middle School.<br />
<br />
Essen attempted to arrest Campbell when he refused to leave, but he resisted, White said.<br />
<br />
The deputy then deployed his Taser.</blockquote>As I have <a href="http://kipesquire.powerblogs.com/posts/chain_1189164319.shtml">repeatedly blogged</a>, this attitude by law enforcement is both inconsistent with the original "sales pitch" of the Taser as a substitute for deadly force (i.e., if it was not appropriate for the deputy to shoot the parent, then it was also not appropriate to tase him), and also unreasonable as an independent question of law (since police force must be proportional to the circumstances).<br />
<br />
If the suspect or arrestee is not a direct physical threat to others (or himself), then the use of a violent, aggressive and dangerous weapon such a Taser is <i>per se</i> excessive. "Failure to comply" is simply not enough -- try calling for backup instead.<br />
<br />
(Via <a href="http://blog.wired.com/defense/2008/03/five-for-figh-5.html">Danger Room</a>.)<br />
<br />
<i>Technorati Tag: <a href="http://technorati.com/tag/Taser" rel="tag" class="techtag">Taser</a>.</i><br />
<br />
---<br />
<br />
Elsewhere in "law enforcement abuse" news:<br />
<br />
--Jared Massey, the Utah motorist who was wrongfully Tasered by a state trooper, and who rightfully <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IMaMYL_shxc&feature=related">posted the incident on YouTube</a>, has <a href="http://www.kxmc.com/News/217709.asp">won a $40,000 settlement</a> in his civil rights lawsuit against the state. Previous post <a href="http://kipesquire.powerblogs.com/posts/1196607029.shtml">here</a>.<br />
<br />
--A "<a href="http://www.nypost.com/seven/03102008/news/regionalnews/public_enemy_no_1_101271.htm">kids in cuffs</a>" incident, and lawsuit, in New York City:<blockquote>Lawyer Scott Agulnick said Jaden Diaz and Christopher Brito -- both then 4 and students at CS 211, The Bilingual School -- told their parents that a substitute teacher took them and another boy to an empty classroom on Nov. 17, 2006, and left them there alone. <br />
<br />
Soon, the lawyer said, the school-safety officer entered the room, cuffed the boys' wrists -- and further terrified them by telling they that they would never see their parents again.<br />
...<br />
"He was police," Jaden said. "He said, 'You know what happens when you don't go to sleep in there? ... 'When you go to jail, you're not going to have no fun, no TV, no toys.'"</blockquote>Why not just tase the kids next time? After all, they "failed to comply," right? (Previous "kids in cuffs" posts <a href="http://kipesquire.powerblogs.com/posts/chain_1112320991.shtml">here</a>.)]]></content:encoded>
</item>

<item rdf:about="http://kipesquire.powerblogs.com/posts/1205198541.shtml">
<title>Domestic Spying Update</title>
<link>http://kipesquire.powerblogs.com/posts/1205198541.shtml</link>
<description>Most private telephone subscribers may have their own numbers listed in a publicly distributed directory, but I doubt there are any who would be happy to have broadcast to the world...</description>
<dc:creator>Kip</dc:creator>
<dc:date>2008-03-11T01:03+00:00</dc:date>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[<i>Most private telephone subscribers may have their own numbers listed in a publicly distributed directory, but I doubt there are any who would be happy to have broadcast to the world a list of the local or long distance numbers they have called. This is not because such a list might in some sense be incriminating, but because it easily could reveal the identities of the persons and the places called, and thus reveal the most intimate details of a person's life.</i><br />
--Smith v. Maryland (Stewart, J., dissenting)<br />
<br />
<i>Privacy is not a discrete commodity, possessed absolutely or not at all. Those who disclose certain facts to a bank or phone company for a limited business purpose need not assume that this information will be released to other persons for other purposes.</i><br />
--Smith v. Maryland (Marshall, J., dissenting)<br />
<br />
The <i>Wall Street Journal</i> has a <a href="http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120511973377523845.html">feature story</a> today on the federal government's increasing use of data mining (i.e., gathering random information about vast numbers of citizens, without any individualized suspicion of wrongdoing) in the War or Terror:<blockquote>According to current and former intelligence officials, the [NSA] now monitors huge volumes of records of domestic emails and Internet searches as well as bank transfers, credit-card transactions, travel and telephone records. The NSA receives this so called "transactional" data from other agencies or private companies, and its sophisticated software programs analyze the various transactions for suspicious patterns. Then they spit out leads to be explored by counterterrorism programs across the U.S. government, such as the NSA's own Terrorist Surveillance Program, formed to intercept phone calls and emails between the U.S. and overseas without a judge's approval when a link to al Qaeda is suspected.<br />
...<br />
A number of NSA employees have expressed concerns that the agency may be overstepping its authority by veering into domestic surveillance. And the constitutional question of whether the government can examine such a large array of information without violating an individual's reasonable expectation of privacy "has never really been resolved," said Suzanne Spaulding, a national-security lawyer who has worked for both parties on Capitol Hill.</blockquote>The article mentions a famous &mdash; and atrocious &mdash; Supreme Court case from 1979, <i>Smith v. Maryland</i>*. The key holding in that case was that, since a person must "tell the phone company what number she is dialing," she cannot have any reasonable expectation of privacy in that phone number, and that the government can therefore demand that phone number from the phone company without a warrant based upon probable cause.<br />
<br />
Stated differently, the Court held, preposterously, that there is no difference between AT&T knowing whom you're calling and the government knowing it.<br />
<br />
(This idea that "your utility bills belong to the utility and not to you" is, incidentally, also the basis for "heat lamp warrants": the use by drug warriors of unusually high electricity bills &mdash; records obtained without a warrant, of course &mdash; as evidence to bring to a judge to obtain a search warrant for the premises.)<br />
<br />
Beyond the facial (i.e., telephonic) absurdity of <i>Smith v. Maryland</i> at the time, are the ominous new implications it has for modern electronic communications. To posit that the government can obtain your phone <b><i>logs</i></b> is bad enough, but that still does not mean that the government can listen in on your phone <b><i>calls</i></b> without a warrant (ignoring for the moment unconstitutional violations of FISA).<br />
<br />
But the information contained in, e.g., an email header often contains information that a phone number does not: the name (not just the email address) of the recipient, the subject matter, whether it is a reply or forwarded email, the size and file names of attachments, etc. For the government to simply declare, <i>"We can access that header without a warrant &mdash; see Smith v. Maryland,"</i> is insolent obliviousness.<br />
<br />
---<br />
 <br />
Equally insolent is the notion that "driftnet" surveillance &mdash; "get everyone's data and let the computers sort it out" &mdash; is somehow not problematic. This is the asinine proposition of, among others, <a href="http://kipesquire.powerblogs.com/posts/1135216266.shtml">Richard Posner</a>: that "a computer can't violate your rights."<br />
<br />
---<br />
<br />
More thoughts from <a href="http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/2008/03/nsas-warrantles.html">Threat Level</a>, <a href="http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2008/03/law-checking-wsj-article-domestic-spying">Deep Links</a>, <a href="http://www.concurringopinions.com/archives/2008/03/the_nsa_the_tot.html">Concurring Opinions</a>.<br />
<br />
---<br />
<br />
*<i><a href="http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=442&invol=735">Smith v. Maryland</a></i>, 442 U.S. 735 (1979)]]></content:encoded>
</item>

<item rdf:about="http://kipesquire.powerblogs.com/posts/1204248303.shtml">
<title>Land of the Free</title>
<link>http://kipesquire.powerblogs.com/posts/1204248303.shtml</link>
<description>One percent of the American adult population is now behind bars....</description>
<dc:creator>Kip</dc:creator>
<dc:date>2008-02-29T01:02+00:00</dc:date>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[One percent of the American adult population is now <a href="http://www.pewcenteronthestates.org/news_room_detail.aspx?id=35912">behind bars</a>.<br />
<br />
The more pertinent statistic, of course, is the fraction of that fraction who are incarcerated for wholly illegitimate crimes -- most notably drug-related offenders, but there are others.<br />
<br />
Another useful statistic would be the fraction who are nonviolent offenders. It is not <i>per se</i> irrational or unjust to imprison them -- "punishment" is just as valid a reason to incarcerate as "protecting society" -- but the staggering prison population (and its associated costs) suggest a re-evaluation of the issue is in order.<br />
<br />
One percent. In the land of the free.<br />
<br />
It defies comprehension.<br />
<br />
<center><iframe src="http://rcm.amazon.com/e/cm?t=astitcinhaste-20&o=1&p=8&l=as1&asins=1930865635&fc1=000000&IS2=1&lt1=_blank&lc1=0000FF&bc1=000000&bg1=D7BDBD&f=ifr" style="width:120px;height:240px;" scrolling="no" marginwidth="0" marginheight="0" frameborder="0"></iframe></center>]]></content:encoded>
</item>

<item rdf:about="http://kipesquire.powerblogs.com/posts/1204054624.shtml">
<title>My New Favorite "Activist Judge"</title>
<link>http://kipesquire.powerblogs.com/posts/1204054624.shtml</link>
<description>"The robbery offense in [the Hobbs Act] is to be utilized only in instances involving organized crime, gang activity, or wide-ranging schemes."...</description>
<dc:creator>Kip</dc:creator>
<dc:date>2008-02-26T19:02+00:00</dc:date>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[<i>"The robbery offense in [the Hobbs Act] is to be utilized only in instances involving organized crime, gang activity, or wide-ranging schemes."</i><br />
--Department of Justice, U.S. Attorneys Manual <a href="http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/eousa/foia_reading_room/usam/title9/131mcrm.htm#9-131.040">9-131.040</a><br />
<br />
We need to keep an eye on this guy:<blockquote>The effect of our Court's rulings is that every local robbery of a business in the United States is a federal crime. I acknowledge that the Supreme Court has held that Congress intended to include within the scope of the Hobbs Act* conduct that was already punishable under the state robbery and extortion statutes. However, I cannot believe that this is what the Founding Fathers intended. Moreover, I have harbored the hope that the Supreme Court in <i>Lopez</i> was seeking to restore a proper state-federal balance that gives actual meaning to the term federalism. I also hope that the Supreme Court will consider the issue[.]</blockquote>That from Senior Sixth Circuit Judge Richard F. Suhrenreich on the question of whatever happened to "new federalism" <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commerce_Clause#The_Rehnquist_Court">commerce clause jurisprudence</a>, and concluding that his circuit's precedents (which he felt compelled to apply in upholding a criminal conviction -- maybe he's not so "activist" after all) conflict with the landmark Supreme Court cases <i>U.S. v. Lopez</i>** and <i>U.S. v. Morrison</i>***, both holding, in essence, that the federal government should stick to its federal knitting and leave local crime to local law enforcement.<br />
<br />
The case is <i>U.S. v. Baylor</i>, No. 07-3002 (February 26, 2008) (<a href="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/08a0090p-06.pdf">PDF</a> - 5 pages) (Via <a href="http://howappealing.law.com/022608.html#032403">How Appealing</a>.)<br />
<br />
---<br />
<br />
*<a href="http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/1951.html">18 U.S.C. § 1951</a>.<br />
<br />
**<i>U.S. v. Lopez</i>, 514 U.S. 549 (1995) (federal government may only criminalize economic activity that "substantially affects" interstate commerce).<br />
<br />
***<i>U.S. v. Morrison</i>, 529 U.S. 598 (2000) ("the suppression of violent crime and vindication of its victims" has traditionally been a state and not a federal matter).]]></content:encoded>
</item>

<item rdf:about="http://kipesquire.powerblogs.com/posts/1203990997.shtml">
<title>Supreme Court to Review Post-Arrest Vehicle Searches</title>
<link>http://kipesquire.powerblogs.com/posts/1203990997.shtml</link>
<description>The Supreme Court has agreed to hear an important Fourth Amendment case regarding the search of an automobile after its driver has been lawfully arrested....</description>
<dc:creator>Kip</dc:creator>
<dc:date>2008-02-26T01:02+00:00</dc:date>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[The Supreme Court has agreed to hear an important Fourth Amendment case regarding the search of an automobile after its driver has been lawfully arrested.<br />
<br />
The procedural posture of <i>Arizona v. Gant</i>, No. 07-542, is a bit complicated. The facts are not:<blockquote>At the time of the search, Gant was handcuffed, seated in the back of a locked patrol car, and under the supervision of a police officer. The other two arrestees at the scene were also handcuffed and detained in the back of patrol cars, and the record reflects no unsecured civilians in the vicinity. At least four officers were on the scene. At that point, the police had no reason to believe that anyone at the scene could have gained access to Gant's vehicle or that the officers' safety was at risk. Indeed, one of the officers who searched Gant's car acknowledged at the evidentiary hearing that the scene was secure at the time of the search. Therefore neither a concern for officer safety nor the preservation of evidence justified the warrantless search of Gant's car. Absent either of these <i>Chimel</i>* rationales, the search cannot be upheld as a lawful search incident to arrest.</blockquote>That was the decision of the Arizona Supreme Court [<a href="http://www.supreme.state.az.us/opin/pdf2007/CR060385PR.pdf">PDF</a> - 28 pages]. The State of Arizona begs to differ.<br />
<br />
Arizona is asking the Supreme Court to extend the key case regarding post-arrest vehicle searches, <i>New York v. Belton</i>**, to the <i>Gant</i> fact pattern. That is asking too much:<blockquote>When the occupant of an automobile is subjected to a lawful custodial arrest, does the constitutionally permissible scope of a search incident to his arrest include the passenger compartment of the automobile in which he was riding? That is the question at issue in the present case.</blockquote>That was the very first paragraph of <i>Belton</i>, and it explains, quite succinctly, why that case in wholly inapposite to the <i>Gant</i> case: <b><i>Gant was simply not an "occupant of an automobile" in any meaningful sense of the word at the time he was arrested.</i></b><br />
<br />
He had driven up his own driveway, parked, turned the motor off and exited the vehicle before the police even spoke to him. He was eight to twelve feet away from the vehicle when he was arrested. The arrest was subsequent to an outstanding warrant, not to an immediate crime involving the vehicle. Gant had not been fleeing in the vehicle. The arrest warrant was not related to drugs, weapons or any other contraband (i.e., that might have been in the vehicle). And, finally, "the police had no reason to believe that anyone at the scene could have gained access to Gant's vehicle or that the officers' safety was at risk."<br />
<br />
The search of Gant's vehicle was a self-serving fishing expedition by the authorities, nothing more. This the police may not do, even to a lawfully arrested individual.<br />
<br />
Based on all that, how can anyone possibly conclude that this excessive, unjustified, warrantless search was reasonable and consistent with the Fourth Amendment?<br />
<br />
Then again, whoever said Supreme Court Justices are always reasonable -- especially about the Fourth Amendment?<br />
<br />
It will be some time before the Supreme Court hears and decides the case. Stay tuned...<br />
<br />
Links to case documents available at <a href="http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/uncategorized/todays-orders-19/">SCOTUSblog</a>.<br />
<br />
---<br />
<br />
*<i><a href="http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=us&vol=395&invol=752">Chimel v. California</a></i>, 395 U.S. 752 (1969)<br />
**<i><a href="http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=453&invol=454">New York v. Belton</a></i>, 453 U.S. 454 (1981)]]></content:encoded>
</item>

</rdf:RDF>