…government is. Or so says Czar of all the Russias President Vladimir Putin.
Of course people wanted change. But [people] cannot impose illegal change…you need to use only constitutional means.
Never mind that the will of the people is what gives “constitutional means” legitimacy, since those means are the will of the people given concrete effect. But not in Putin’s world. In his world view, “constitutional means” are what government says they are, and government is constituted the way the men populating the organs of government say it is. No people, no citizens, are involved.
The Department of Homeland Security wants a private company to provide a national license-plate tracking system that would give the agency access to vast amounts of information from commercial and law enforcement tag readers, according to a government proposal that does not specify what privacy safeguards would be put in place.
Such a national license-plate recognition database, ostensibly, would “help catch fugitive illegal immigrants.” But once in existence, to what use would (not might) government put that database later? Can you say NSA, boys and girls? The danger is illustrated clearly, if unintentionally, by David Roberts, International Association of Chiefs of Police’s Technology Center Senior Program Manager:
…are what government says they are. Last week, though, the 9th Circuit, in a 2-1 decision, struck down a San Diego County, California law that asserted exactly that. This law
requir[ed] residents to show a “pressing need” in order to get a permit to carry weapons in public.
The judges found that in order to receive a permit, a person need only show a desire to defend himself outside the home.
Judge Diarmuid O’Scannlain, writing for the court, clearly does understand the situation. Addressing three other Appellate Court rulings upholding public carry restrictions (a fourth Appellate Court struck such restrictions), he wrote
A group of legislators in Maryland has introduced the “Fourth Amendment Protection Act” in the Maryland state legislature, a bill that would deny state support to Federal agencies engaged in warrantless electronic surveillance. This bill is aimed directly at the National Security Agency and its warrantless monitoring and tracking of US citizens (secret warrants? C’mon), and it would block the provision of “material support, participation, or assistance in any form” by any state entity or any entity of a political subdivision of the state, or by companies with state contracts.
Pinellas Park, FL, has a bible that sits on a dais in its city council chambers. This bothers Randy Heine a very great deal.
The Bible must go. It doesn’t belong in a government meeting. Every time I speak, it makes me feel awkward.
The Freedom From Religion Foundation has taken up the cause.
Not only is the city council sending a message of endorsement for Christianity over other religions and nonreligion [a letter of theirs to the city council asserts], but display of this King James Bible sends a message of endorsement of one particular Christian sect over all others.
…for the most part. Larry Bell, of Forbes, has the tale.
Federal Judge Edmond Chang, US District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, was blunt in his ruling:
Chicago’s ordinance goes too far in outright banning legal buyers and legal dealers from engaging in lawful acquisitions and lawful sales of firearms, and at the same time the evidence does not support that the complete ban sufficiently furthers the purposes that the ordinance tries to serve. …the ordinances are declared unconstitutional.
…in the Progressive war on women.
Here’s it’s the Obama administration’s response to Justice Sonya Sotomayor’s injunction staying Obama’s contraceptive mandate as it applies to the Little Sisters of the Poor and their nursing home/hospice in Colorado. Sotomayor, in issuing her injunction, had ordered the Obama administration to respond by last Friday morning with their argument for why the injunction should be lifted.
Solicitor General Donald Verrilli’s response boiled down to the Little Sisters have no legal claim: they aren’t harmed by authorizing contraceptives to be covered by an insurer in their name because they aren’t offering the coverage directly. Verrilli went on:
Are there other ways of being lawless that matter? Of course there are, but that’s for a different post. The foolishness of this example of the Obama administration’s lawlessness is the subject here.
HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius has announced (sotto voce, via a letter to selected Senators) the latest rewrite non-legislatively effected change to the Obamacare law.
She…would allow people who got cancellations and could not find affordable new coverage to qualify for a “hardship exemption” in order to avoid a penalty next year for not having insurance.