I know. I was discussing scenarios in which the possibility that a person might have a gun prevents a crime.A criminal with a gun in a country where having a gun makes you a criminal can rob, rape, assault and molest anyone at gunpoint and often without it if he's bigger. a gun makes the confrontation different, as do other combinations of legal weapons. Blackadder said for two decades before World War I the British only fought people with no guns. He described one battle where the natives were armed with sharp guavas. "We didn't take prisoners. We just made a big fruit salad."
A firearm can certainly be used for self-defense and it does typically level the playing field if nothing more. It is reported that there are over one million times per year were a firearm stops a criminal act of aggression although this cannot be verified because only cases where the firearm is discharged are typically reported. The case were a woman pulls a gun to force an man out of her home to keep him from beating the crap out of her is rarely if ever reported. No actually "battery" occured but it was arguably prevented. My only concern is for those that feel "empowered" because they have a firearm and go from being a victim of aggression to the person committing an act of aggression. I have before mentioned the case of George Zimmerman and while I don't know if he violated the law in killing Trayvon Martin I do believe he felt "empowered" by having a concealed firearm and that his pursuit of Martin was an act of aggression. A person with a firearm should logically be the most "passive" of individuals ensuring that they never commit an act of aggression, no matter how slight, against another person (IMHO).
Aw shucks, an' Granny wanted to find out if Obama is a Kenyan Mooslamic... Court: State can block out of state use of FOIA 29 Apr.`13 WASHINGTON (AP) The Supreme Court ruled Monday that it's legal for a state to limit use of its Freedom of Information Act to its own residents.
Interesting but in reading this apparently the plaintiffs were not denied access to the public records but instead were denied access to priviledged (private) information on file with the Virginia child welfare agency. The plaintiff was provided with most of the information they sought, which I would assume the actual petition filed that would typically be public information that anyone can access, but was denied the internal documents held by the Virginia child welfare agency that are not public records. The States do have a responsibility to the citizens of the State to keep internal information about them out of the public domain. For example a person might be arrested and that is a public record but the internal police department detailed records related to the investigation can be withheld from the public as they might be used for nefarious reasons by others against the person arrested. As we know each Supreme Court decision is based upon the specific case presented before them and the arguments presented. In this specific case the Supreme Court ruled that the Rights of the Plaintiff were not violated as the State reasonabley complied with the FOIA and that the additional State limitations in protecting private information on internal documents that could be used for nefarious purposes did not violate the plaintiff's Rights. I support transparancy in the actions of our government but there are reasonable limitations to disclosure where such disclosure could cause harm to an innocent person.
Lets lower court ruling stand... Supreme Court rejects ban on funding Planned Parenthood May 28, 2013, WASHINGTON — Indiana had tried to block Medicaid funding of clinics that perform abortions, but the Supreme Court lets lower courts prevent the measure from going into effect. See also: Senate GOP asks High Court to invalidate recess appointments 5/28/13 All 45 GOP senators signed a brief calling Obama's appointments an unconstitutional abuse of power.
I agree completely with this decision by the SCOTUS. While the Supreme Court refused to hear the case as it lacked national importance and was exclusively a matter for the state of Indiana. The attempt to exclude funding to Planned Parenthood is a nefarious attempt by "anti-abortionists" to circumvent the Rights of the Woman to have an abortion established by Roe v Wade by denying them access to facilities that provide abortions. The goal of the legislation was clear in that they wanted to close Planned Parenthood by denying Medicaid payments for lawful services being provided. In fact the legislation that prevents abortion costs to be paid for by Medicaid are also based upon a nefarious agenda to circumvent Roe v Wade by anti-abortionists were they are denying coverage for a routine medical expense similar to many other expendatures covered by Medicaid. From a medical procedure perspective an abortion isn't really fundamentally different than removing a person's tonsils which is a covered by Medicaid and if one is covered then so should the other. The denial of Medicaid coverage for abortions is based upon "religious opinion" and as determined in the Supreme Court decision in Reynolds v United States (1878 ) our laws cannot be based upon religious opinion. IMO the prohibition of coverage for abortions under Medicaid is Unconstitutional as it imposes discrimination related to medical procedures based upon religious opinion that denies a woman her Constitutional Rights to choose to have an abortion.
What we need is a law that will deal with all the problems. First, redefine what being "in session" means. Recess appointments should only be allowed when Congress is out of session for over 30 days (which might never happen again.) second, reduce the number of federal employees who the Senate has to ratify. Only judges, cabinet members and department heads almost equal to cabinet members should be on the list. A civil service review should be enough for everyone else. Thirdly, make these people get the job immediately if the Senate has not granted them a hearing within six months (with precise grounds for extending that time presented.) Then this will never happen again.
Presidential appointments are addressed under Article II Section 2: http://constitution.findlaw.com/article2/article.html One of the issues I have is with the "appointment" of federal judges because they should not be selected by the president at all but instead should be appointed by the US Supreme Court under Article III Section 1. http://constitution.findlaw.com/article3/article.html While Supreme Court justices are appointed by the President and subject to Senate approval under Article II the "inferior" federal courts when established by Congress should be under the authority of the Supreme Court and the Supreme Court should be empowered to "employ" the justices that preside in these "inferior" courts. Federal judges should be "hired" as employees of the Supreme Court and the "Appeals Court" member should be selected by the judges within their districts and Congress shouldn't be involved at all. I would also agree with the proposition that only "Cabinet" level "appointments should be subjected to Senate approval. Subordinate department heads should be considered as employees of the "Department" represented in the "Cabinet" of the President. For example I would consider the EPA to be a subordinate "department" of the Department of Interior and the Sect of the Interior should have the authority to "hire" an executive to oversee the EPA without Senate approval. The same would be true for the executive "hired" to run the FBI as that is a sub-department of Attorney General and the Attorney General should "hire" the head of the FBI. Of note we could and should dramatically reduce the number of Cabinet positions. For example the Sect of Labor, Sect of Education, Sect of Commerce, Sect of Health and Human Services and several others should be subordinate the the Sect of the Interior and only the Sect of the Interior should be a cabinet level position.
Did John Marshall say anything about this? The Marbury versus Madison decision could have included that and Marshall could have stacked the court and lower judgeships with supporters for the next 30 years. (Jackson might have had him murdered for that in 1829, but then he would have to have killed, harassed or threatened all the other judges and justices to get his way. Then Congress would have had to impeach him and we would have had a civil war in the 1830s, not over slavery and succession but Presidential powers. The US would have become one dictatorship against a Democracy. Then the Democracy would have fought for Mexico against the dictatorship in the 1840s and won. Mexico would have had the gold rush and a prosperous country until the dictatorship folded and was reabsorbed into the US by 1860, forfeiting slavery as a default. If Jackson didn't kill Marshall it would have taken Taney a longer time to dominate American jurisprudence, but by 1861 he would have been able to bully Lincoln into letting the south leave. We can't even think what might have happened more recently.
Supreme Court okays takin' DNA from arrested suspects... Police can collect DNA from arrestees, court says June 3, 2013 WASHINGTON (AP) A sharply divided Supreme Court on Monday cleared the way for police to take a DNA swab from anyone they arrest for a serious crime, endorsing a practice now followed by more than half the states as well as the federal government.
This is another case where I wish it required a unanimous decision to uphold the actions of government under the Constitution. I agree with the minority opinion that this is a serious infringement upon the 4th Amendment and also see it as an infringement on the protections against self-incrimination protected by the 5th Amendment. I'm tired of the continuous errosion on our Constitutionally protected Rights because of split decisions by the US Supreme Court. Once agian I find the "minority opinion" to be compelling in establishing that the action of government in taking DNA samples without a court order is of dubious Constitutionality.
Friggin' golden comment. It is like they are negotiating just how much justice should actually be done, like it is something that can be weighed a measured. A bartering item. The concept of plea bargains mocks the justice system. And on another point, many times plea bargains are offered because the prosecution doesn't have jack to stick them with - perhaps you should just let them go if you have nothing on them eh?
Only synthetic DNA can be patented... Natural DNA Cannot Be Patented, Supreme Court Rules June 13, 2013 > In a decision that could have broad-reaching effects on the future of science and medicine, the Supreme Court that:
Winners in recent Supreme Court ruling... Supreme Court Gene Ruling Benefits Biotech, Breast Cancer Research June 13, 2013 > Everyone has BRCA genes in their cells. If you are a woman and one of your BRCA gene copies has a mutation, your risk of developing breast cancer is very high - up to 87 percent in some cases.
I've read other summaries of this decision and it makes fundamental sense. We cannot patent nature is the simply summary and that is a logical conclusion. We can patent that which we create that is not natural. In other summaries I've read that this decision will produce a very positive impact on overall biotech research expanding our knowledge and leading to many scientific and medical advancements.
Granny says dem judges is wrong - ya oughta have to be a citizen an' prove it to vote... Court: Ariz. citizenship proof law illegal June 17, 2013, WASHINGTON (AP) States can't demand proof of citizenship from people registering to vote in federal elections unless they get federal or court approval to do so, the Supreme Court ruled Monday in a decision complicating efforts in Arizona and other states to bar voting by people who are in the country illegally.
I both agree and disagree because there are problems both ways. Over 90% of all federal and state criminal convictions are obtained by plea bargains. The cost of each of these cases going to trial is astronomical and we don't have anywhere close to the necessary court system to support it. If all cases "went to trial" then we couldn't meet the Constitutional requirement for a "speedy trial" if the defense demanded it and many "guilty" people would have to be released without being prosecuted because the court system couldn't handle the load. Yes, we have a problem with what we call "over-charging" by prosecution but that is a vague concept. Remember that the prosecution must have evidence to support the charge because if it doesn't the court will dismiss the complaint during pretrial hearings. Sometimes the victim is the person being charged because plea bargains introduce coercion against the accused. Tommy Chong was a perfect example where the government "entrapped" him and he would probably won in court but the prosecution threatened to prosecute his wife and son if he didn't plead guilty to a lesser offense. That's one hell of a choice. We can also see coercion related to the Zimmerman case where a 2nd degree murder charge was made. I don't know if Zimmerman will be found guilty or not but he probably had the option of fighting the 2nd degree murder charge with a possible 25yr prison sentence or pleading guilty to aggravated manslaughter with about a 7 yr sentence. That's also a hell of a choice to make. Risk 25+ years in prison or spend about 7 years in prison. I'd hate to have to make that choice. Considering that about 1/2 of all those in prison are there for victimless crimes we could possibly assume that these crimes would be removed from the books so that they wouldn't have to be prosecuted in court if we removed plea bargains. Who know but the US has the highest per capita prison rate in the world and considering we're supposed to be the "Land of the Free" our prison population is a rather glaring example of the fact we're not.
" they have a chance "to escape a fair trial and get less punishment than they deserve." " isn't that what a plea bargain usually does, just exactly that.. otherwise it's not much of a bargain
The US Constitution does not impose a requirement on the States to limit State voting to citizens. A State can, under the State Constitution, allow non-citizens to vote on State issues and candidates. Federal elections are controlled by federal law and not by state law and that is what the Court decision reflects. Only the US Congress has the authority to impose regulations on federal elections. Of note the Court did establish that the State can impose regulation on State elections but this will actually lead to states having to conduct two elections with one for the State and one for the Federal election if there is a conflict between the regulations for each. Arizona, for example, can require proof of citizenship for the State election but cannot impose it for the Federal election so it would be required to have two elections, one State and one Federal, when there are Federal election issues. I see a huge cost to Arizona if it chooses to do this.
A quick Constitutional review shows that the US Constitution, while protecting the Right of Citizens to vote with two Amendments, does not prohibit non-citizens from voting and there is a valid argument why non-citizens should be allowed to vote in federal elections. The seats in the House of Representatives are allocated based upon the number of People, both citizens and non-citizens, living within the state based upon the census (that must be conducted every ten years). States with high immigrant populations count all residents which would include citizens, non-citizens there legally, and even as many non-citizens living there "illegally" as possible, in determining how many seats in the House they will have. When we look at states like California, Arizona and Texas that all report a large percentage of "non-citizens" they have disproportionate representation when the voting is limited to just citizens. We can also note that these states also receive more federal funding if the funding is based upon "apportionment" related to the number of People in the State. I can see a logical case for affording voting Rights to non-citizens in the US if they're here with a permanent immigrant status. If House Memberships reflects both non-citizens as well as citizens, which it does, then it makes sense that non-citizens should be allowed to vote for this representation in Congress.
The funny part of this is that if the state wants to use a registration form other than the federally approved for, it can ask the Election Assistance Commission, and it can appeal a decision of the commission in Federal Court if the Commission denies it's request, but the commission can't meet because it doesn't have a quorum, because the GOP filibusters all nominees to this panel, and doesn't have a budget, because the GOP refuses to put it in the budget. On June 5, the House voted to disband the commission. Which probably won't pass the Senate, so Arizona can appeal to a commission that can't schedule a hearing, this is fun.
Court says Congress needs to update the Voting Rights Act... Supreme Court: Key provision of Voting Rights Act cannot be enforced June 25,2013 > The Supreme Court ruled Tuesday that a key provision of the landmark Voting Rights Act cannot be enforced unless Congress comes up with an up-to-date formula for deciding which states and localities still need federal monitoring.
Granny says, "Dat's right - takes a man an' a woman to make a marriage... Supreme Court got it wrong on gay marriage Wed June 26, 2013 > Ryan Anderson: Supreme Court's decisions on marriage law are disturbing; He says the court got it wrong on the federal DOMA and California's Prop 8; Anderson: Marriage is about the union of one man and one woman
"Granny" has more right to say what is and what is not "marriage" under the law than the federal government and that is what the Supreme Court Ruled. The States and the People have the power to define marriage under the 10th Amendment while the federal goverment had no power to do this in DOMA Section 3. Now I wonder about the impact. For example we know that the federal government will have to provide Social Security benefits for the spouse of a legally married same-sex couple. What about all of those that were screwed out of these benefits because of an unconstitutional law? Shouldn't they be financially reimbursed for the benefits they were wrongfully denied because the Congress and President passed an unconstitutional law?
Depends on the circumstances, but I'd say the front moves and DOMA section 2 is the next target, that no state is required to recognize a same sex marriage performed in another state. Some states have laws that state that citizens of that state cannot get married out of state, if the marriage is against the laws of the state. But what if a legally married same sex couple moved to a state that doesn't recognize same sex marriage, that seems like a violation of equal protection. DOMA was meant to be unconstitutional, so it could go away when it was no longer needed. And it's no longer needed.
