Category Archives: rights

NSA, Bulk Collection, and Security

Posted on by
Reply

For now, there is no bill extending in any form the NSA’s ability to bulk collect metadata about our telephone calls. The House-passed bill that would have kept those data in phone company possession and NSA-searchable under explicit court order failed in the Senate Friday, as did any effort to extend the existing capability, for any duration. At this point, the House and Senate are in Memorial Day recess and won’t return until the 31st. With the collection authority expiring on 1 June, that leaves the House and Senate only a few hours to figure something out or leave the thing expired.

Senator and Presidential Candidate Rand Paul (R, KY) said in the aftermath,

We should never give up our rights for a false sense of security. This is only the beginning—the first step of many. I will continue to do all I can until this illegal government spying program is put to an end, once and for all.

For all his braggadocio, Paul is right on the essence of this.

There is, and there always will be, creep; there is always expansion of government power, if not authority, no matter the good intentions for the original expansion. The best place to draw the line against further creep, the only effective place to draw the line, is at zero. The Constitution has transferred to government all the fraction of our liberty necessary; there need be no further transfer.

We can have security by giving up (some more) liberty? No. There is no security at all without liberty. The House-passed bill would have been a suitable intermediate step in winding down the bulk collection, and it should have been passed: a sudden disruption of the NSA’s necessary intelligence gathering can be dangerous. At best, though, it should have been taken as only that, and additional measures taken to complete the winding down.

Update: An earlier version of this post foolishly referred to Senator Paul as “Ron.”  That error has been corrected.

Another Judge Gets It Right on Guns

Posted on by
Reply

People in the nation’s capital no longer have to show a good reason to get a permit to carry concealed handguns outside their homes and businesses.

The District of Columbia’s police chief said Tuesday that she’s dropping this requirement, a centerpiece of the city’s handgun-control legislation, after a federal judge issued a preliminary injunction against it.

That’s entirely appropriate since government does not get to dictate the reasons for a man owning a gun.

The city’s law, one of the nation’s toughest, says a person must show a “good reason to fear injury to his or her person or property” or another “proper reason for carrying a pistol” to get a concealed-carry permit.

Balance that against the 2nd Amendment:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Try as I might, I can’t find anything in that Amendment, neither clause nor syllable, that says “agreeable with reasons approved by the government.”

What’s in Your Food?

Posted on by
Reply

It’s not PC to ask or to know, according to the World Trade Organization.

The World Trade Organization (WTO) just ruled that America’s popular country-of-origin labeling law (COOL) enacted in 2008 violates global trade standards because it erects a trade barrier to US meat imports from countries like Canada and Mexico.

Japanese customers don’t get to know that the beef they’re thinking about buying came from the US. Nor do PRC diners. Nor do American customers get to know that their beef is coming from Canada.

Such knowledge constitutes a trade barrier, don’t you know.

What’s next? WTO ruling that food labeling generally is illegal? After all, if the food is known to be not halal or kosher, Jews and Muslims might not buy the food. Trade barrier.

Specialized Judges, But for Whom Do They Work?

Posted on by
4

Joel Shapiro faced an uphill battle when he fought the Securities and Exchange Commission in an Atlanta court last year.

The investment-firm chief executive came before an SEC administrative law judge who has never fully cleared a defendant. In August, the judge found Mr Shapiro had violated securities law, showing “reckless disregard” for his duty to investors.

Shapiro’s outcome isn’t unusual. Shockingly, neither is that SEC admin judge’s record. Appeal? Don’t bet against the house [emphasis added].

The odds are once more against Mr Shapiro as he challenges this ruling. His appeal will be decided by the SEC’s five commissioners, the same body that decided the case against him should go forward in the first place.

Indeed,

The SEC won against 90% of defendants before its own judges in contested cases from October 2010 through March of this year, according to the Journal analysis. That was markedly higher than the 69% success the agency obtained against defendants in federal court over the same period, based on SEC data.

There’s nothing wrong with using judges specialized in an aspect of the law: we get faster results that more closely align with the law and with justice. That’s what bankruptcy judges do, for instance.

Specialized judges though, regardless of their specialty, need to be Article III judges—judges who are part of that third branch of our Federal government, like bankruptcy judges—not Article II judges. An Article II judge—that SEC judge, for instance—is created by the Executive Branch, and he works for the agency bringing the complaint.

No, the critical item here is the judge’s employer. With the SEC, for instance, it’s an Executive Branch judge, an SEC judge, adjudicating a case brought by a part of the Executive Branch, the SEC. That’s like the cop bringing his own judge to traffic court. Or a Federal prosecutor bringing his own judge to criminal court.

Maybe Shapiro has a case, and maybe he’s guilty as sin. It’s impossible to say in an SEC court. Can you say, “Conflict of interest,” boys and girls?

Gun Control

Posted on by
Reply

Or just control.

One guy, Cody Wilson, worked out a way to make pistols out of plastic and a 3-D printer, posted the information on the Internet, and tried to start a business out of the thing. Nothing secretive here; he wasn’t trying to hide anything.

The technology will break gun control. I stand for freedom[,]

he said.

But

…Wilson’s invention also caught the attention of the State Department, which came after him with both barrels blazing. The feds claimed Wilson violated the International Traffic in Arms Regulations, which “requires advance government authorization to export technical data,” and as a result, could spend up to 20 years in prison and be fined as much as $1 million per violation.

Wilson was ordered to remove the blueprints for The Liberator from his web site. The government also told him they were claiming ownership of his intellectual property.

Never mind that the “international arms trafficking” beef has no basis, unless simply identifying where firearms can be obtained and how to obtain them are somehow trafficking. Never mind that the “technical data” are old technology: 3-D printing is years old, and anyone can write a printing program. Nor is there anything magic about the plastic that is the printer’s ink. Indeed, that’s a major drawback for these 3-D weapons: they wear out quickly.

No, this is just an overreaching government trying to control for control’s sake. Nothing else.