Category Archives: Courts

This is Backwards

Posted on by
Reply

Here’s another case of government’s men who should know better, not knowing.

From the New Jersey Law Journal comes a description of a court considering the (mis)use of one law to feed the impact of another.  Sorry about the paywall; here’s a summary [emphasis added].

COURT TO DECIDE IF SEAT BELT LAPSE CAN SUPPORT A CRIMINAL CONVICTION The New Jersey Supreme Court has agreed to decide whether violation of the 1984 law that made seat belt wearing mandatory can support a criminal conviction under another statute.  To be reviewed is an appeals court holding that not wearing a seat belt can be a predicate offense for N.J.S.A. 2C:40-18, which criminalizes “knowingly violat[ing] a law intended to protect the public health and safety” through reckless conduct that injures another.  In State v. Lenihan, A-4667-10, the Appellate Division found the statute’s language gives no indication the Legislature would object to how it is being applied in this case, where the unbelted driver’s passenger was killed.

Leaving aside the question of how far a court—or any other government branch—should reach in order to criminalize an activity, giving no indication of objection is not the same as positively approving.

The principle embedded in our Federal Constitution in the 9th and 10th Amendments is this: negatively, enumeration in the Constitution does not limit or deny the not-enumerated to the people, and positively, powers not delegated to the United States are, in their remaining infinite entirety, left wholly to the States and to the people.  Moreover, these Amendments are to a Constitution that was written by We the People—an acknowledgment of the sovereignty of the members of our social compact over the government we members, we citizens, hire to administer and to protect our rights.

If that principle is valid, though, it’s valid everywhere.  The citizens of each State of these United States are sovereign over each of their State governments, also.  Hence, here, too, positive action must be taken to proscribe a thing.  Absent active proscription, that thing must remain within the province of the individual, either acting alone or in concert with (some of) his fellows, to do or not do.

Thus, unless the New Jersey (or any other State) legislature definitively states, in the present case for instance, that not using a seat belt criminalizes other behavior under other law, it cannot be so used by a court.

Another Victory over Big Government

Posted on by
Reply

Here’s the long and the short of it, as summarized in The Wall Street Journal:

A federal judge this week struck down a controversial set of laws allowing the Federal Bureau of Investigation to seek people’s records without a court’s approval, saying the strict secrecy orders demanded by the laws are not constitutional.

US District Judge Susan Illston (Northern District of California) ordered the government to stop sending national security letters or to stop trying to enforce gag orders related to them, but she stayed her order pending the government’s appeal.

Of course, it’ll go to the 9th Circuit, which means it will go on to the Supreme Court, so the fight isn’t over.  But this is an excellent start.

Illston’s opinion decried these violations of Americans’ individual freedom:

[The] pervasive use of nondisclosure orders…creates too large a danger that speech is being unnecessarily restricted.

She added [emphasis added]:

[T]he statute impermissibly attempts to circumscribe a court’s ability to review the necessity of nondisclosure orders.  …the NSL nondisclosure provisions significantly infringe on speech regarding controversial government powers.  …  As written, the statute expressly limits a court’s powers to modify or set aside a nondisclosure order to [certain] situations….  The statute’s intent…is incompatible with the court’s duty to searchingly test restrictions on speech.

There are two problems with these letters.  One is that they allow searches without a court’s warrant.  The FBI can use them to search for phone data and for financial and electronic records, and all the FBI agent needs is his Field Office Special Agent in Charge to say it’s all jake.  This is a clear violation of our 4th Amendment.

The other problem worsens this exponentially: the FBI can require (or could before Illston’s ruling) the recipient of the letter to keep quiet about his receipt—denying the owner of the records any opportunity to respond to the search before it happens.  This also denies two critical aspects of the 1st Amendment: that right to speak of receipt and the duty of a court to adjudicate any allegation of a 1st Amendment violation.

Illston’s ruling can be read here.

Another Victory for the 1st Amendment

Posted on by
Reply

AP is reporting it.

US District Judge Lawrence Zatkoff granted a preliminary injunction against enforcement of the contraception provision of the law against Tom Monaghan and Domino’s Farms Corp, a management company located near Ann Arbor, MI.

HHS had argued from the outset that its contraceptive rule was not an infringement on Monaghan’s religious freedom.  HHS continued, additionally, to elide the other religious freedom clause in the 1st Amendment—that minor bit about government not being able to interfere with the free exercise of religion.  Zatkoff waved the BS flag at all of that.

Plaintiffs’ constitutional right to freely exercise religion is at issue in this case. It is in the best interest of the public that Monaghan not be compelled to act in conflict with his religious beliefs.

And

Finally, the Court must balance the harm to Plaintiffs if the injunction is denied with the harm to the Government if the injunction is granted.
…
As discussed above, denying Plaintiffs’ motion will result in a substantial burden on Monaghan’s

right to free exercise of religion, since the mandate requires him to choose whether to comply and violate his beliefs, or accept the financial consequences of not doing so.  And, as noted, such an infringement upon Plaintiffs’ First Amendment rights—even if for a short time—constitutes irreparable injury.
…
The Government will suffer some, but comparatively minimal harm if the injunction is granted.

It really is that simple.

Nevertheless, the government made its argument.  The health care law and HHS’ rule, they insisted,

are narrowly tailored to serve two compelling government interests: improving the health of women and children, and equalizing the provision of preventive care for women and men so that women who choose to can be a part of the workforce on an equal playing field with men.

The fact is, though, this cynical argument doesn’t hold water.  In the first place, contraceptives are not health care, except to the extent that some religious groups argue that contraceptives run counter to children’s health by preventing their existence in the first place.

Additionally, the availability of contraceptives at others’ expense has nothing to do with “equal playing fields.”  Further, non-market oriented coverage, barring risk-based premiums, or violating religious freedom have nothing to do with “equal playing fields” from individual Americans’ perspective.

However, any government intrusion into the religious freedoms of individual Americans has everything to do with “equal playing fields” by tilting those fields toward government-favored groups.  Any government intrusion into a free market—including into the insurance (risk transfer for a fee) industry—has everything to do with “equal playing fields” by tilting the fields toward government-favored groups.

Zatkoff’s ruling can be read here.  Easter came early last week.

War, Politics, and Power

Posted on by
Reply

Karl von Clausewitz noted that war is an extension of politics.  President Barack Obama, with his reliance on drones and seeming decision utterly to eschew capture (with its attendant intelligence value), is making simple killing an extension of politics.

What is the impact on political power of this evolution?

After Attorney General Eric Holder’s evasive testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee about drone use, Senator Rand Paul (R, KY) filibustered John Brennan’s confirmation as Director CIA, and this finally convinced Obama to have Holder write a letter to Paul, which says in its entirety:

It has come to my attention that you have now asked an additional question: ‘Does the President have the authority to use a weaponized drone to kill an American not engaged in combat on American soil?’  The answer to that question is no.

But what does it mean to be “engaged in combat?” It means whatever the President needs it to mean.

As Richard Fernandez noted in an aptly titled post [emphasis added],

Lawyers have rarely been able to contain power.  As practical matter power is constrained only by politics, which as Clausewitz once observed can be another name for another thing….

He went on:

Power is limited by the degree to which an executive authority can enforce obedience.  It is constrained by the extent to which authority can expect an order to be followed.  It is bounded by the fear of political repercussions; by the dread of losing office and ultimately, by the apprehension that having lost office a person might face jail.

Obama has assured us through his pressman, Jay Carney, that neither he nor his Justice Department would never abuse such power.  And Obama is an honorable man; So are they all, all honorable men.

But with an expansive and expanding government, and Obama’s apparent extension of the tools of politics, our hold on government is growing tenuous.  We cannot allow this to continue.  As a man once said, elections have consequences.  We’re seeing some of those consequences.  It’s time to have different election outcomes.

A Cascade

Posted on by
Reply

…that needs to be encouraged.

Since the DC Circuit’s ruling that the Obama “recess” appointments to the NLRB were unconstitutional—the Senate actually being in session at the time—some 87 enterprises, including a few unions, are citing the ruling in their lawsuits to overturn a variety of the NLRB’s actions.  After all, with the board lacking a quorum, it was legally powerless to do anything at all.

The actions these enterprises are seeking include overturning/blocking union elections, undoing penalty payments to fired workers, halting subpoenas, and so on.

Here’s the cascade: 10 or more NLRB regional directors are argued also to be illegally appointed since they were seated by Obama’s unconstitutionally manned NLRB.  Extending from this, those regional boards’ decisions also must be voided, since those rulings were issued by illegally constituted regional boards.

Lafe Solomon, NLRB acting General Counsel, objects.

It’s already having a huge impact.  At every stage…we’re seeing attacks….

Indeed, as the WSJ reports,

The surge of challenges tied to the court ruling is overwhelming the NLRB, a federal agency that referees disputes between companies and employees.  Working through them is delaying resolution of cases alleging unfair labor practices, including whether workers can fairly hold union elections[.]

There’s no doubt the new workload is inconvenient to the Federal government.  That’s just too bad.  The inconvenience of our employee, the government, can never be an excuse for its behaving illegally.  Our employee, through the NLRB, brought the present inconvenience on itself through its patently illegal behavior.

The NLRB—Solomon—is merely blaming the employer for the employee’s own inconvenience.