Alabama Trying to Ban Use of Welfare $$ for Alcohol, Cigarettes, Strip Clubs, and Psychics.

Alabama Bill Introduced Would Prohibit Spending Welfare $ on Alcohol, Cigarettes...and Psychics. (Link!)

          It's sad that we even have to discuss the need for a law prohibiting these sorts of things.  Welfare dollars being spent on booze? On cigarettes?  At strip clubs?  I'm sure it's not a stretch to the imagination for most people.  Corruption exists among the rich and poor alike.  But these problems are certainly no endorsement of the welfare system in general.  Alabama is trying to join states all over the nation which are passing laws banning such use of welfare dollars.  And before someone argues that such laws are just partisan politics at play, consider that this state bill introduced by an Alabama Republican is very similar to a new national bill just signed into law by President Obama.

Gun Control - The Solution or the Scapegoat?

           

           

            The tragic events in Aurora, Colorado last week are still rippling throughout the country.  In the wake of such a heinous crime, it's natural to ask what could have been done to prevent such senseless killing.  The options are many, however I’m not sure any of them would have prevented something like this from happening.  Many point to gun laws, and argue that further restricting the availability of guns is the best solution.  I have even heard some argue that the 2^nd Amendment to the U.S. Constitution (establishing the fundamental right to bear arms) should be repealed, in favor of laws totally restricting the possession of firearms to those serving in law enforcement or military.  Personally, I find this argument unpersuasive and absurd.  It is my understanding that the primary purpose of the 2^nd Amendment was to allow the people (that’s us) to stand against tyrannical governments that no longer functioned for the people.  Another purpose of the 2^nd Amendment is to provide the individual with the ability to protect him or herself from others.  As it’s been argued countless times before, a dangerous criminal is bound to find a gun whether legally or illegally, and whether they are readily available or not. 

            So, short of a repeal of the 2^nd Amendment or some sort of a complete ban on personal use firearms, should we further restrict the acquisition and possession of firearms?  Perhaps to the level of a county such as Norway, which completely bans automatic weapons, limits ownership of handguns to one gun per caliber, and forbids the carrying of loaded guns, among other strict regulations?  While this may sound appealing to many, keep in mind that one of the world’s worst mass murders occurred one year ago yesterday – in Norway, by a Norwegian named Anders Breivik.  Breivik went on an orchestrated killing spree, which lasted around 90 minutes, and left around 70 dead and many more wounded.  While I would never second guess the actions taken by the innocent victims in Norway, I do wonder how things may have been different if looser gun laws would have allowed one of those victims to carry a weapon for self defense.  How many lives could have been spared, if the killer wasn’t the only person there with a gun?  As is the case in Norway, the United States, and every other country on the planet, sick, deranged people walk in our midst everyday.  No matter how strict the gun laws are, every once in a while, these things are going to happen.  I believe rather than tighten gun laws, all we can really do is try to look out for each other and be aware of the mental state of those around us – and never allow the actions of a monster to steal the freedoms granted to us under our Constitution.

Woman Jailed After Warning Motorists of Speed Trap

            A woman in Texas was jailed for 12 hours after she held up a sign warning drivers that police officers were pulling cars over for speeding.  According to the woman, she was standing on the sidewalk at the time. According to the officer she was standing in the road, and thus he arrested her for that, not for holding up the sign.  It seems somewhat unlikely that a person would be arrested and jailed for any period of time for an offense such as standing in the road.  Who knows which person is telling the truth, but let’s assume the woman was lawfully standing on the sidewalk and the officer was irritated by her warnings to other motorist.  Does the First Amendment protect a person’s right to warn other motorists of a speed trap or is that some form of obstruction of justice? 

            Currently, I have a client who has been charged with hindering prosecution because she allegedly provided the authorities with “misinformation” after U.S. Marshals asked her about the whereabouts of a suspected criminal.  While we maintain her innocence in this matter, I will say that if my client did knowingly provide such false information, under the statute, she would be guilty of the crime with which she is charged. 

            So is warning drivers of an approaching speed trap analogous to my client’s situation?  Is it hindering prosecution or some other form of obstruction?  Or is it constitutionally protected free speech?  And what’s the difference between this woman’s actions and the occasional public service announcements we hear informing us of a “take back the highways” blitz where State Troopers are beefing up their highway patrols (such as during this week’s holiday)?  Aren’t this woman’s actions and those public service announcements both aimed at slowing people down before they receive a ticket?

Did the Obamacare vote almost go the other way?

          There's been a lot of speculation over what led to Chief Justice Roberts' vote in upholding Obamacare and whether he changed his mind at some point.  Sometimes the Justices will discuss their general feelings towards the law and their opinions on how the Constitution should be interpreted, but getting commentary on a particular decision may be unlikely.  This article may be as close as we get for some time.  Did Roberts switch his vote?

Supreme Court Uses Backdoor to Let Health Care Law In

           

            As everyone has surely heard by now, the United States Supreme Court has upheld the Health Care Law.  The impact of this ruling is both obvious and extreme.  A quick read of any number of news websites will tell you what that impact is.

            However, the way that the Supreme Court arrived at its decision is perhaps as significant, and surprising, as any effect the law will have.  When the law was passed by congress, it included a provision mandating that, for the most part, all individuals were required to purchase insurance or face a fine.  Importantly, the legislation was written without the word “tax” being used in that provision.  People running for office know that voting for taxes is generally not the best way to get reelected.  So it was called a “penalty.”  The distinction is more than simple politics at play.  Congress has undisputed broad powers to tax almost any person or any thing that it chooses…but it does not have power to enact penalties for these types of things.  By using the word “penalty” members of congress (and Barack Obama, who pushed for and signed the Bill into law) were trying to avoid the dreaded “T” word that could doom their reelection chances.  At the same time, many believed by trying to save their reelection chances, and calling it a “penalty,” they had doomed the Health Care Law’s ability to pass. 

            Apparently, the Supreme Court decided that words do not in fact mean certain things.  The Court basically interpreted (even manipulated) the language of the law in an effort to allow the law to pass.  The penalty was interpreted as a tax and the law was largely allowed to stand, because of congress’ broad taxing powers.  Or as the conservative dissenters of the Supreme Court wrote "The Court today decides to save a statute Congress did not write. It rules that what the statute declares to be a requirement with a penalty is instead an option subject to a tax."

            The immediate impact is the upholding and enacting of a law which is unpopular with the people of this country.  The ultimate impact may be those same unhappy people voicing their displeasure in November – displeasure for the legislators and president responsible for what now becomes one of the largest tax increases in United States history.

Supreme Court Nixes Life Without Parole for Juveniles

In 2005, the United States Supreme Court abolished capital punishment for defendants who committed their crimes while juveniles.  This week, in a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court has taken it a step further, and now has also abolished the practice of sentencing juveniles to life without parole.  Many states have mandatory sentencing schemes that call for a life sentence without the possibility of parole, for capital offenses where the death sentence is not given. 

In Miller v. Alabama, the Supreme Court ruled that sentencing juveniles to life without parole violates the Eighth Amendment prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment.  (As an interesting side note, Justice Kennedy, often viewed as the moderate “swing vote” on many controversial issues sided with the 4 liberal Justices on both the 2005 case and this case). 

One basis of the Court’s opinion resides in the belief that a juvenile’s mind is not as well-developed as the mind of an adult, and thus the punishment for his misdeeds should not be as severe.  Of course, logic may tell you that a juvenile capable of the type of cold-blooded murder that would qualify for life without parole is not likely to see his mind develop for the better.  In fact, it may be that a 16 year old capable of such heinous crimes will escalate even further later in life, perhaps even murdering again. 

Supreme Court Splits the Baby on Immigration Law

       

            In a case that will have a significant impact on a similar Alabama law, the Supreme Court has partially upheld the controversial Arizona immigration law enacted in 2010 to combat the influx of illegal aliens in the state. 

            The Supreme Court actually struck down 3 of the 4 provisions at issue, however the remaining provision is perhaps the most important.  That provision, known as the “show me your papers” provision, requires Arizona police officers making any stop, detention, or arrest to make efforts to verify the suspect’s immigration status, if the officer has reasonable suspicion that the person is illegally in the United States.  So for example, if a person (whether he be named Jose, Jamaal, or John) is stopped for speeding or arrested for vandalism, and the officer has reasonable suspicion (less concrete than both “probable cause” and “beyond a reasonable doubt”) that the person is illegally in the United States, the officer is required to check into their immigration status, either by asking for proof of citizenship, or checking with the Feds (ICE).  Opponents of the law have called this portion legislative racism, while supporters have called it a necessary course of action after the Federal government has neglected immigration enforcement for decades. 

            The Obama administration (after weeks of political turmoil) and like-minded liberals are claiming a victory because of the provisions that were overturned.  The AZ governor and other conservatives are claiming a victory because of the Court’s approval of the “show me your papers” provision.  The truth is, neither side will be very happy with the result, as the left will cry foul over the possibility of racial profiling with the “show me your papers” provision, while the right will long for the banned provisions that would have enabled the state and local governments to punish illegal immigrants located within the state. 

But in any event, by allowing the “show me your papers” provision of the AZ law to stand, the Supreme Court is basically saying that that portion of the law is not unconstitutional on its face, and that the state has a right to administer the law and see how it plays out.  There will certainly be challenges to the methods used by the police officers and state officials so we may see this law, as well as a similar law enacted in here in Alabama in front of the Court again, so the Court can rule on the specific manner in which the states are carrying out the law.  But until that time, you will see both sides spin the latest Supreme Court decision in the light most favorable to them, in the ever-present battle for political capital heading into the election this fall.