Constitution

Taking on ashcroft’s campaign

This entry was posted in ashcroft bush Constitution Domestic Terrorism Drug Laws Libertarianism Patriot Act on by

The Lawyers Committee for Human Rights filets an August 19th ashcroft speech.
ashcroft also announced a Patiot Act propaganda site: preserving life & liberty. blargblog took some issue with the campaign:

Angered by the ACLU’s lawsuit against what they consider the PATRIOT Act’s “radical expansion” of surveillance powers, the Ashcroftians have targeted three main ACLU claims as myths: 1) the suppression of political dissent through intimidation, 2) the surveillance of library usage and 3) the “sneek and peek” provision delaying notification of surveillance skirts the Fourth Ammendment. Go read it for yourself to see if you can spot gaping holes in the DOJ’s collective memory or some fine legal points it deliberately elides.

The Angry Bear found Dave Ross‘ defense of the patriot act wanting.
For a view supporting the patriot act from a philosophical perspective take a look at at David Veksler’s posts here and here.
Via beSpacific.

Interrogation and Rights

This entry was posted in ashcroft bush Constitution Domestic Terrorism Libertarianism Patriot Act US Politics War on Terrorism on by

From a recent Newsweek article:

The United States figures it can get plenty out of the newly captured Chemical Ali. But how? And are these �interrogation� techniques being readied for American citizens?

Apparently they are already being used on Americans. Read the whole article and then think again about the closing paragraph:

If the courts buy this line of argument, then we Americans can kiss our sweet rights goodbye. And reading the admiral�s brief, you have to ask yourself if that isn�t really the goal: to give the president and his people the power to treat all Americans like Jos� Padilla, unless and until we give the answers expected of us.

Via Perverse Action Memory.

Fair and Balanced Profit

This entry was posted in Constitution on by

Bilmon says it all:

Franken can laugh all the way to the bank about this one. You literally couldn’t buy book publicity like this.

as Fox loses the first and hopefully the last round of their lawsuit. Then again, Franken probably hopes they appeal.
Update: Mad Kane has some more thoughts on this and reminds us that it is not quite over.

ID Cards and Drinking

This entry was posted in Constitution on by

Matthew Yglesias supports a new “smart card” drivers license if drinking age limitations are removed:

In a rational country we would let teenagers drink and then I’d be cracking down on fake IDs in good conscience,…

I agree 100% with this position but I don’t support a tradeoff with new federally mandated drivers licenses.
The text of the 2002 bill, HR 4633, which NDOL says will be reintroduced is here. Its purpose:

… to establish standards for State programs for the issuance of drivers� licenses and identification cards, and for other purposes.

I don’t understand how congress gets to set state standards for this (it’s late, so help me out here) or how the $300 million bribe included in the bill to help the states implement the new smart cards would be near enough to entice the states to give up their authority to the feds.
There are other aspects of the proposed legislation that bother me much more.

(more…)

Cheney on Trial?

This entry was posted in bush cheney Constitution Democracy Law on by

From the Connecticut Law Tribune via Today’s Legal News

Vice President Richard Cheney may be added to the list of defendants in Dallas accounting fraud cases, if Colchester, Conn.-based Scott & Scott prevails in its federal court bid to overturn a pending $6 million settlement….
During that period, both Cheney and his successor CEO David Lesar shared responsibility, but only Lesar was named as a defendant in the lawsuit. Neil Rothstein, a Pennsylvania-based partner in Scott & Scott, said Richard Schiffrin did not name Cheney as a defendant, despite liability exposure, because it would be “inappropriate” to do so during the war on Iraq.

Somebody please help me understand why this was inappropriate.