Tag Archives: freedom

More Racism

Posted on by
Reply

The Wall Street Journal reported Wednesday that the New York City Districting Commission has resubmitted its redistricting plan for the 51 New York council districts following the 2010 census.

According to a news release, the plan creates 35 so-called minority districts in which “protected racial and language-minority groups” represent an overall majority of the total population of these districts.  By comparison, the 2003 districting plan had 30 such districts.

This is blatantly racist.  The Constitution—and the New York State constitution is no different in this regard—specifies one man, one vote.  From the 14th Amendment of the Federal Constitution:

Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State….

From Article II, Section 1, of the New York State constitution:

Every citizen shall be entitled to vote at every election for all officers elected by the people and upon all questions submitted to the vote of the people provided that such citizen is eighteen years of age or over and shall have been a resident of this state, and of the county, city, or village for thirty days next preceding an election.

There’s nothing in here that differentiates one American, or one New Yorker, from another.  We’re all Americans; in the present case we’re all New Yorkers.  Neither constitution admits of giving special voting privileges to some Americans over others, neither constitution contemplates the racism of “protected racial” or “protected language-minority”…groups.

Both constitutions—quite properly—insist that a man’s ability to vote is based not on the color of his skin or the thickness of his accent but on the status of his citizenship.

It’s time to stop racist gerrymandering.  All of us look alike in the eyes of God, before the law, and in our right to vote.

The Racism of the Supreme Court

Posted on by
1

During oral arguments concerning Shelby County v. Holder, a case that asks whether the several states and lesser jurisdictions must, in accordance with Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, continue to submit their voting plans to Federal supervision and prior permission, came these shocking remarks:

Justice [Elena] Kagan: “Under any formula that Congress could devise, it would capture Alabama.”

Never mind that under any other formula that Congress could devise, it would not notice Alabama at all.  Formulae of this sort find what their developer want found—it’s the purpose of the formulae.  Kagan knows this.

Justice [Sonya] Sotomayor: “It’s a real record as to what Alabama has done to earn its place on the list.”

True enough.  It’s also a real record as to what Alabama has done to earn it way off the list.  Sotomayor knows this.

Justice [Stephen] Breyer: “Imagine a state has a plant disease, and in 1965 you can recognize the presence of that disease. … Now it’s evolved. … But we know one thing: The disease is still there in the state.”

Once a racist, always a racist.  Because we know.

These liberal…Justices…need to look in a mirror.

Police Surveillance

Posted on by
Reply

Little Rock, AR, is expanding the surveillance capability and power of its police patrols:

A police car with a device that photographs license plates moves through the city and scans the traffic on the streets, relaying the data it collects to a computer for sifting. Police say the surveillance helps identify stolen cars and drivers with outstanding arrest warrants.

It also allows authorities to monitor where average citizens might be at any particular time. That bothers some residents, as well as groups that oppose public intrusions into individual privacy. The groups are becoming more alarmed about license plate tracking as a growing number of police departments acquire the technology.

More (worse?) [emphasis added]:

Little Rock Police Chief Stuart Thomas said the law enforcement benefits outweigh any concerns about possible abuse of the information, which, as a public record, is legally available for anyone to see.  He said the department may get more of the devices.

No irony there at all.  Nosirree.  Thomas went on:

Should that potential of misuse therefore eliminate the capacity of law enforcement to collect data which has a legitimate purpose for the safety of our officers or the appropriateness of enforcement actions?  I don’t think so[.]

But he misses the point.  This isn’t a private citizen, for whom prior restraint constraints are properly illegal—there has to be a crime committed (of which conspiracy is one, but which requires probable cause to interrupt).  This is a government, which is hard enough to control.  Prior restraint of government is a necessary precondition for freedom.  It’s why probable cause and warrants are a for restraining governments.

There are other dangers of the police—the government—creating this particular database, also pointed out in the article.

[City Director Ken] Richardson said he didn’t hear about the device until after it had been collecting data for months.  He said he said he hasn’t heard many complaints.

“It’s hard for you to have a problem with something if you don’t know it’s going on,” he said.

So, Chief, why all the secrecy, if it’s so innocuous?

And as [Catherine, of the New York American Civil Liberties Union] Crump points out,

Given how few rules are currently on the books to protect our privacy, it’s plausible that private investigators and data-mining companies could acquire this location data[.]

And nefarious individuals posing as those.  This is a neat-sounding idea that’s highly dangerous.

The US Flag Is Litter?

Posted on by
Reply

An Alabama home owners association thinks so.  This is an image of the letter sent to residents of a condo unit (the unit is owned by one of the resident’s parents).

In case it’s hard to read in this post, the typed part of the letter reads

Resident,
It has come to our attention that you have items in plain sight that are not to be visible from the parking lot by rules and guidelines stated in the home owners association bylaws.  Please remove the following listed item(s) as soon as possible to keep the community as tidy as possible.

The hand written part reads

Your flag attached to the stairs has to be removed ASAP!

When the recipients of this clean-up letter posted it on a number of veteran advocacy Facebook pages, the resulting uproar included a flood of communications to the home owners association president and condo property manager, Carol Coffey, objecting vociferously to the demand and to the implication that the American flag is just litter to be swept away.

In fact, such association bylaws that ban the US flag from public display on (condo owners’, for instance) private property are a violation of Federal law [emphasis in the original; a copy of the law can be seen here or here]:

A condominium association, cooperative association, or residential real estate management association may not adopt or enforce any policy, or enter into any agreement, that would restrict or prevent a member of the association from displaying the flag of the United States on residential property within the association with respect to which such member has a separate ownership interest or a right to exclusive possession or use.

Coffey had this to say to justify her clean-up letter:

I served in Afghanistan, I served in Iraq, and I served in Kuwait.  I am not anti-veteran, and I am not a communist[.]

And

In order to maintain the integrity of that asset [the condominium complex], we have certain rules because people could put anything out here if we let them.

Because, she says, the association bylaws are in place to maintain property value, and naturally, the American flag is just any old thing, and it depresses property values.  Coffey also claimed that she realizes there are laws that protect the right to fly the American flag, but said those are for private property and this condo was not private property, because the condos are owned by a community of people—then she said that the “community of people” who own this particular condo consists of the parents of one of the residents, as noted above.

Coffey had this whine, also:

I think they are persecuting us without knowing all the facts.  And here’s one thing that really bothers me…this person got the letter from our management team and instead of coming to the board and expressing his concern, he went and posted something on two or three veteran’s sites without all the information and without us knowing anything about it, and now we’re being threatened—that’s not right.

That’s valid as far as it goes; she shouldn’t be getting threatened.  But.  In most (all?) other legal matters, a fundamental doctrine is that ignorance of the law is no excuse.  And she’s already said she knew the law; it wasn’t a matter of her not “knowing anything about it.”  She sent her clean-up letter anyway.

Since she already knew her letter was…invalid…it’s also hard to see what good spending time protesting to her about her letter would have done, especially since that time would have violated her ASAP demand.

The right answer is to stop “considering” waivers, but to correct her homeowners association bylaws so as both to not conflict with Federal law and separately to recognize that our flag, in its own right, is a proper item to display.

Score One for the Other Part of the 1st Amendment

Posted on by
Reply

The Wall Street Journal’s Law Blog describes a victory for religious freedom.  In a case about which I first wrote just after its inception, a gang known as Freedom From Religion Foundation sued the village of Warren, MI, for having the temerity to put up a Christmas display without permitting FFRF to put up a sign next to it announcing that religion is “myth and superstition that hardens hearts and enslaves minds.”

First, Mayor James Fouts told them to take a hike, followed by their suit:

If you requested permission to put up a sandwich board saying that there is no Santa Claus, you would be met with the same response.  Santa Claus lives in the minds and hearts of many millions of children.  The belief of God and religion lives in the hearts and minds of hundreds of millions of people and is as much a part of the fabric of America, as the belief in democracy and freedom….

Your non-religion is not a recognized religion.  Please don’t hide behind the cloak of non-religion as an excuse to abuse other recognized religions.

Then a Michigan district court told these folks to take a hike.

Then the 6th Circuit told this…crowd…to take a hike.  On the matter of Warren’s alleged favoring of the religious over the secular, they had this:

That is not true even on its own terms.  All but one of the objects in the holiday display are nonreligious.  Ribbons, ornaments, reindeer, a lighted tree, wreaths, snowmen, a mailbox for Santa, elves, wrapped gift boxes, nutcrackers, poinsettias, candy canes, a “Winter Welcome” sign—all of them, all that is but the nativity scene—are secular…

A city does not run afoul of the Establishment Clause by including a creche in a holiday display that contains secular and religious symbols.

On the matter of the “Winter Welcome” greeting in particular, the 6th expanded with this [emphasis added]:

When one neighbor greets another in mid-December with “Happy Holidays,” it is the rare person who hears “Happy Holy Days.”  What was once the most religious of invocations has become one of the most faith-neutral, even secular.  One indeed can fairly wonder who has co-opted whom over time with these displays and words.  But that is a matter for another day.

On the gang’s bellyache that Fouts’ letter was itself some sort of cynical violation, the 6th had this:

These are not the words of someone trying to establish any one religion or religion in general; they are the words of someone trying to explain the common sense risks of disparaging faith-based and secular symbols, whether a creche or a Santa, alike….

It may be true that the Mayor misapprehended the Religion Clauses when he implied that atheists receive no protection from them by saying that the Foundation’s “non-religion” was “not a recognized religion.”  In this respect, the Mayor, apparently untrained as a lawyer, may not have missed his calling….  But this defense of his actions, premised on a misreading of precedent, does not transform his actions or the City’s display into an establishment.

On the gang’s crying about their free speech rights, here’s the 6th, again:

[Warren] could choose to add a Santa.  And it could choose to deny a sign saying, “There is no Santa.”  It could choose to incorporate a message about Ramadan.  And it could choose to deny a message disparaging any one religion or religion in general.  Just as Congress’s creation of a National Day of Prayer on the first Thursday of May does not compel the legislature to recognize a National Day of Non-Prayer each year, so too the City of Warren could opt to have a holiday display without a Winter Solstice sign.  Such holiday displays are quintessentially government speech….

And the Foundation, like everyone else, is free to urge the City to add or remove symbols from the display each year or to try to elect new officials to run the City—the customary answer to permissible government speech and the customary answer to policies with which citizens disagree.

FFRF Co-President Annie Laurie Gaylor responded to her loss without any sense of irony:

Apparently we are a Christian nation, and cities may prefer religion over non-religion[.]

On the first, well, duh.  On the second, she needs to ask her lawyer to read the 6th‘s opinion to her.  It’s not what they said.  Her lawyer can find that opinion can be found here.

Thus we see the benefit of not taking the easy way out—the coward’s way out—and acceding to the demands of such anti-freedom fighters as these as soon as the latter threaten.

These lose—as all bullies lose—when faced with forthright and just opposition.

Facing down bullies is expensive, certainly.  However that expense pales beside the expense of meekly surrendering freedoms for the demanding.  Once you pay the Danegelt, you never get rid of the Dane.