A Stitch in Haste

To review: One of my core political-jurisprudential premises is that there is no such thing as "activist" judges, but there are activist politicians (and bureaucrats and prosecutors), and that it is patently absurd to fear the former more than the latter.

Armed with that, time to clean out the aggregator:

---

ITEM: Jesus warned, "everyone who looks at a woman with lustful intent has already committed adultery with her in his heart." Well, it seems that if you even think about advocating repeal of drug prohibition in New Hampshire, then you are a drug dealer:

Earlier today I decided to write my representative, Delmar Burridge, an e-mail to voice my support for HB92, decriminalizing marijuana. Unfortunately I was very disheartened by the response I got to my letter. ... "I am copying two members of the Keene Police Department in case you want to change your ways and act legal and save your friends."

MY TAKE: Two hasty stitches — (1) This gives new meaning to the term "thought police;" (2) Where is your "Free State Project" now? (Via Hit & Run. More thoughts at All Clear, No Quarters, Liberty Papers.)

---

ITEM: People in Miami Beach know how to throw a party, which apparently is a problem —

A proposal to ban certain house parties in the city of Miami Beach is one step closer to reality.
...
The ordinance would make it illegal for owners to receive payments or exchanged goods and services in excess of $100 for an event.

Alex Heckler, an attorney representing some of the homeowners, said the ordinance was too broad. "The intent of the ordinance we support. However, the way it's written, it actually affects everyday homeowners and residents from having their own private events," Heckler said. "Any event where you receive over $100 in gifts, goods or services would, therefore, be illegal and you would be fined."

MY TAKE: The $100 ceiling is a total figure, not a per-person fee. So if, for example, you were to invite seven people over to watch the Super Bowl and each brought $15 worth of beer or food, then you will have broken the law and could face a $15,000 fine. Of course, if it were a seven-person orgy, then the conduct would be constitutionally protected under Lawrence v. Texas. Go figure. Noise ordinances are one thing, but blanket pre-emptive prohibitions on social use of one's own private property raise very serious due process issues. Do privacy rights really apply only to the bedroom and not the living room? Meanwhile, "house parties" in Miami Beach are often associated with a certain three-letter word (hint: begins with "G" and ends with "AY"). But I'm sure that's just a coincidence. Oh, and you better not be a sex offender, either. (Via Fark.)

---

ITEM: New York may become the latest state to have a "no violent games sold to minors" law struck down —

This bill would prevent minors under the age of 18 from purchasing video games that have a mature or violent rating, and it requires the purchaser to show a valid form of identification in order to purchase the game. These games, containing adult images such as morbid violence, rape, alcohol and illegal drug use, as well as other malicious acts, which are not appropriate for children under 18.

The bill, A02024, would actually go further and prohibit even the display of such games where minors might see them. Every single state law trying to do the same has been struck down as unconstitutionally vague — every single one. Which, when you're an activist legislator, is no reason to stop trying. Incidentally, notice the language: "are not appropriate" versus "may not be appropriate." If you believe the former, then why not go all the way and imprison parents who allow their children to play such games? (Via Slashdot.) (POST SCRIPT: The European Union, under the leadership of German politicians, is considering banning "violent" video games outright.)

---

ITEM: And any minor who tries to buy a violent video game will get a good spanking!

Or maybe not:

[California] Assemblywoman Sally Lieber, D-Mountain View, wants to outlaw spanking children up to 3 years old. If she succeeds, California would become the first state in the nation to explicitly ban parents from smacking their kids.
...
"I think it's pretty hard to argue you need to beat a child 3 years old or younger," Lieber said. "Is it OK to whip a 1-year-old or a 6-month-old or a newborn?"

The bill, which is still being drafted, will be written broadly, she added, prohibiting "any striking of a child, any corporal punishment, smacking, hitting, punching, any of that."

MY TAKE: Notice the bait-and-switch, bouncing from "spank" to "beat" or "whip" to "any of that." Par for the course with activist legislators: ban first, clarify later. In any event, libertarians (myself included) often grapple with the question of where the rights of the parent end and the rights of the child begin. But aren't such questions best left to as-applied analyses rather than one-size-fits-all, warm-fuzzy-feeling bans? (Via LP Blog, with several libertarian commenters who are diametrically opposed on the issue. Go figure.)

---

ITEM: Back during the height of the bigot amendment "backlash," one of the leading panderers to the mob was Georgia governor Sonny Perdue, who not only pushed hard for that state's "no nothing never" variation of the amendment, but also railed against (an ultimately unsuccessful) post-passage challenge based on the "single question" doctrine. It's hard to find a more unrepentant "let the people decide" majoritarian than Perdue.

Or maybe not:

Gov. Sonny Perdue said Wednesday he does not support letting Georgians vote on the question of allowing Sunday beer and wine sales at grocery and convenience stores.
...
"Think of it this way," the governor added in the radio interview. "It really helps you plan ahead for the rest of your life — buying on Saturday, rather than Sunday. Time management."
...
A religious conservative who does not drink, Perdue has vetoed several alcohol bills in the past.

MY TAKE: If you thought scrambling to find a "rational basis" for a patently irrational law couldn't get worse than "we need to steer straights, but not gays, into marriage for breeding purposes," well you were wrong: "We need to ban liquor sales on Sunday so people will learn time management skills." What a miserable, hypocritical little twerp. (Via Fark.)

---

ITEM: Another current favorite of activist politicians is banning so-called "payday loans." Eleven states already ban the "unconscionable" practice between consenting adults for mutual benefit in the context of a competitive business. Virginia may become the twelfth. I reviewed, unfavorably, such "soft paternalism" measures in this post. (Via Liberty Papers.)

---

ITEM: Apparently having nothing better to do, Forest Service bureaucrats are giving Woodsy Owl a makeover —

"In the early '90s Woodsy began to lose popularity," [a bureaucrat] acknowledged. "Focus groups told us to update him or get rid of him. We knew we had a valuable resource who could reach the American people — so we began to explore ways to change him to make him more appealing and relevant."

He also has new motto: "Lend a Hand — Care for the Land" replaces "Give a Hoot, Don't Pollute." My take? As you may have guessed, I'm unimpressed. (Get it?) Need more: The government even dictates the "proper" way to destroy old Woodsy costumes (i.e., incinerate "beyond recognition") — supervised, of course, by Forest Service personnel. (But, um, "Burn the suit means you will pollute!" Go figure.) FUN FACT: Woodsy, together with his partner Smokey Bear, have their own provision in the United States Code. See also 18 USC 711a (federal crime to profit from use of either image). (Via Boing Boing.)

An addendum to my recent post:

---

ITEM: It's one thing for the government to insist that children go to school. It's another thing for the government to insist that parents go to school too —

A bill [in Texas] would fine parents who neglect particular meetings with their child's teacher.

[The bill] seeks criminal penalty for parents who fail to attend conference meetings requested by their child's teacher. This would not apply to the annual parent-teacher conferences, only meetings requested to address behavioral and educational issues. The offense could be punishable by a fine similar to children who break truancy laws.

MY TAKE: Let's call this what it is — giving subpoena power to teachers, as if they were on a par with judges or prosecutors, and giving fining power to school boards, as if they were on a par with the criminal justice system. Not every "good idea" warrants criminal penalties for non-compliance, and fines such as this will only foment bitterness in the parent — probably not the best prescription for those already behaving sub-optimally. The entire concept is facially absurd — and this particular version also happens to be unconstitutionally vague, because it exempts "legitimate" reasons for missing a meeting. "Legitimate" — to whom, by what standard? Such undefined, subjective, discretionary gobbledygook terms are simply not permitted under our standards of due process. (Via Cato@Liberty.)

---

ITEM: Here's one way to combat global warming —

Three years ago, [Binghamton, New York] City Councilman Pat Russo counted 22 times as the same vehicle passed his Pine Street porch. Either the truck could make only right turns, Russo said, or the driver had an eye out for vice in a neighborhood plagued by crime.
...
Russo has asked the city attorney to draft legislation that would prohibit cars from cruising in designated areas at certain times. Under the law Russo would like to see drafted, vehicles that pass by a specific sign more than three times in a three-hour period could be stopped, questioned and fined.

MY TAKE: Consider the implications: Simply driving your car in the "wrong" manner (i.e., in a circle) could now not only be reasonable suspicion for a Terry stop, but could also constitute a per se criminal offense subject to fine. Just like merely standing on a street corner can now, without more, be considered "vagrancy" or even "attempted prostitution." All because some local bumpkin politician is annoyed. The drug war claims more collateral damage. (Via CrimProf Blog.)

---

ITEM: Nanny-state politicians insist that smoking bans are a good idea, except when they're not —

Smokers who plan to watch the Bears-Saints NFC title game Sunday at an Orland Park, Oak Forest or Tinley Park bar won't have to chance missing a Brian Urlacher fumble recovery while sneaking outside to light up.

All three of the [Illinois] towns' boards voted Friday to temporarily lift new smoking bans for taverns and eateries in time for the 2 p.m. kickoff.

The bans are on hold until March 14 in Orland Park and Oak Forest and until Feb. 21 in Tinley Park — post-Super Bowl.

MY TAKE: It's either wrong to "put a dollar value on human life" or it isn't; there is no middle ground or "special exemptions" — especially for something as petty as a sporting event. Say what you want about us "cold, heartless, brutal" capitalists; at least we're intellectually honest about our belief that "almost everything has its price." So what's the politicians' excuse? Oh, right — I forgot: Da Bears. (Via Out of Control.)