Category Archives: rights

The Mendacity of Zero-Tolerance Policies

Posted on by
Reply

Here’s another example.  A 17-year-old high school student (and volleyball player) in the North Andover Public Schools system, Erin Cox, was texted by a friend at a (underage) drinking party who needed a ride home.  Notwithstanding the judgment that brought the friend to such a gathering, this young lady retained the good sense to ask for help, recognizing that she was too drunk to drive herself.  Cox answered the call.

Shortly after she arrived to pick up her friend and bring her home, though, the police also arrived and made a number of arrests—not including Cox.  The police involved absolved her of any wrong-doing, recognizing she was there to help a friend and not a party participant.

That wasn’t good enough for Superintendent Dr Kevin Hutchinson, though.  He has a “No tolerance policy for drugs and alcohol.”  He suspended Cox for five games for her involvement in the party.  “No tolerance” apparently includes no tolerance for helping drunken friend who retained the judgment to call for help rather than trying to drive herself—since giving that help necessarily involved the alcohol that help-requesting friend had ingested.

Cox spoke a few days later to The Boston Herald.

I wasn’t drinking.  And I felt like going to get her was the right thing to do.  Saving her from getting in the car when she was intoxicated and hurt herself or getting in the car with someone else who was drinking. I’d give her a ride home.
…
I just feel very defeated.  When you’re in high school you’re supposed to stay perfect and be perfect, but everyone makes mistakes.

No.  This young woman made no mistake.  Her school’s “leadership” did.

School Choice

Posted on by
Reply

The Arizona State Court of Appeals (a level junior only to the State’s Supreme Court), Division One, ruled on a suit against that state’s creation of an education savings account (officially, Empowerment Scholarship Account) for grades K-12.  The Arizona ESA is designed to provide state funds to help parents send their children to schools of the parents’ choice (and away from failing schools), which might have included church schools.  The state had been sued on that last basis—the potential for state funds to be used in a religious environment.

The Appeals Court, politely, waved the BS flag at the suit:

The ESA does not result in an appropriation of public money to encourage the preference of one religion over another, or religion per se over no religion.  Any aid to religious schools would be a result of the genuine and independent private choices of the parents.  The parents are given numerous ways in which they can educate their children suited to the needs of each child with no preference given to religious or nonreligious schools or programs.  Parents are required only to educate their children in the areas of reading, grammar, mathematics, social studies, and science.

The ESA is neutral in all respects toward religion and directs aid to a broad class of individuals defined without reference to religion.  The ESA is a system of private choice that does not have the effect of advancing religion.  Where ESA funds are spent depends solely upon how parents choose to educate their children.  Eligible school children may choose to remain in public school, attend a religious school, or a nonreligious private school.  They may also use the funds for educational therapies, tutoring services, online learning programs and other curricula, or even at a postsecondary institution.  We therefore concur with the trial court that the ESA does not violate the Religion Clause.

Attorney General Eric Holder might want to keep this in mind as he sues Louisiana over that State’s use of state funds to subsidize parent choice.  The Louisiana case isn’t about separate of church and state, but it is, as was the Arizona case, very much about parents’ choice of schools for their children.

“Parents are required only to educate their children in the areas of reading, grammar, mathematics, social studies, and science.”  They can’t do that much when their children are trapped in failed schools.  Holder needs to get out of the way; the only serious outcome of his winning his suit is to keep Louisiana’s children trapped in that state’s failed public schools and so trapped in poverty.

Failed education is the first, and most important, link in the cycle of poverty.  By functionally denying children an education, Holder will be making it extremely likely that his victims grow up into either of two adult cycles of poverty: poverty and crime, or poverty and government dependence.

 

h/t AEIdeas

There’s Hope, Again

Posted on by
Reply

Both Colorado State Senators, including the President of the State Senate, facing recall over their gun control legislation lost those recalls Tuesday.  These were solid defeats, too, nothing cliff-hanger-ish about them: State Senator John Morse (D), the Senate President, lost 51%-49%, and his colleague, State Senator Angela Giron (D), lost 56%-44%.

Moreover, these were not California-style recalls, where the firing occurs in one election and a separate election is held later (in which the just-fired incumbent could be a candidate).  These Colorado recalls were elections themselves, and on losing the recall, Morse and Giron were replaced by their opponents—Republicans Bernie Herpin and George Rivera.

The State Senate remains in Democrat hands, and it remains to be seen whether Herpin and Rivera will be any more responsive to their bosses, the citizens of their districts, but this is a clear step in the right direction: those who try to limit our individual liberties—in this case, try to foist onto honest citizens restrictions on 2nd Amendment rights—can expect to be fired forthwith.

A State Supreme Court

Posted on by
Reply

…gets it right.

A Mississippi judge had held up the state’s recently passed firearm open carry law, insisting that it was unconstitutionally vague.  The law, in a burst of logic unusual for politicians [/snark], says in essence that “adults don’t need a permit to carry a gun that’s not concealed.”  The Mississippi Supreme Court overruled the state judge—by unanimous opinion—and allowed the law to take effect.  Justice Randy Pierce, writing for the Court, had this in part:

This court now finds that the circuit judge erred as a matter of law when he found House Bill 2 to be vague and, therefore, unconstitutional.  He also erred when he stated that a “reasonable person reading the bill could not discern what the law allows and what it prohibits[.]”

Indeed, that judge seems to have simply rubber-stamped the artificial and disingenuous argument that

it has caused confusion about where people may carry guns that aren’t concealed.  They also say it could put law enforcement officers in danger if people with no training are carrying guns.

This, of course, cynically conflates two separate arguments.  The first is deliberately obtuse.  There is no confusion: existing Mississippi laws clearly describe locations where guns are proscribed.  Not requiring a permit to carry a gun openly in no way permits carrying a gun where it’s banned.

The second argument is relevant to the open carry matter only to the extent that the cop who’s “in danger” knows it because the gun is in plain sight.  It’s the cop who’s dealing with a man with a concealed weapon who’s in danger—no matter the training of that man.

As an aside, the state circuit judge seems, himself, to have been willfully obtuse.  That’s dangerous to the rule of law, allowing a judge to overlay his whim on a law.  It’s good that wiser heads prevailed, this time.