• About
  • Blog (Ext.)
  • Books
  • Contact
  • Education Resources
  • News Links

PERRIN LOVETT

~ Deo Vindice

PERRIN LOVETT

Tag Archives: Constitution

The Doves of Peace and the god of War

06 Sunday Sep 2015

Posted by perrinlovett in Legal/Political Columns, News and Notes

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

America, Constitution, crime, freedom, government, law, military, Nazi germany, police, police state, Posse Comitatus Act, rights, The People, troops

Last week I posted a short bit about an odd, illegal police shooting in Atlanta. I caught a little flak from readers – mostly over the “innocent” nature of the subject home invasion and aggravated assault.

I saw the story as further proof of the American police state (no longer a theory nor “emerging”).

Nonetheless, I recognize some folks will support the police no matter what. Some have a love affair with government. Some see government as a god. These same people sometimes sport “Support Our Troops” bumper stickers and similar ornaments. Strangely, these same people usually view other parts of the state as dangerous – but they love the heavily armed parts. Weird, I know.

Such is the love and admiration for government troops that some will even take up arms to guard the very troops who supposedly guard the guards. Confusing, I realize. It gets even murkier when one considers that the endangering element from which the guards must be guarded was created by and imported by the government. No mind. The troops must be supported no matter what. Even when they, like the police, invade your property without cause and hold you at gun point. Read this:

Texas Air Force Personnel Detain Dove Hunters on Private Property

outdoorhub-texas-air-force-personnel-detain-dove-hunters-at-gunpoint-on-private-property-2015-09-03_15-20-26-880x503

Outdoorhub.com.

On Tuesday, the opening day of dove season in Texas, six hunters were detained by base personnel while traveling through private farmland adjacent to the base. The property was leased by the company that organized the hunt, Wildlife Systems, and had been used previously for hunting. Despite that, 17th Training Wing Security Forces entered the property and detained the hunting party—which reportedly also included the property owner.

…

“On a farm field that we lease that’s adjacent to the Base, surrounded by a security fence, they swarmed our group of 6 hunters, made them lay on their belly, spread eagle, for almost 30 minutes at gunpoint, two of them on asphalt in almost 100 degree temps and would not let them move, with our hunters pleading with them. One was laying in a red ant bed and they would not let him move.”

Base officials later stated that the hunters were detained because they were believed to be a threat, especially due to their proximity to the base. After it was determined that the hunters were only after doves, base officials said they were promptly released.

  • Outdoorhub.com.

I read the comments which accompanied this story. Roughly half were rightly indignant. The other half expressed unwaivering, religious support for the state’s criminal actors. In the clouded eyes of the latter group, dove hunting on your own land is akin to terrorism and worthy of assault or worse. Nothing must offend the (very sensitive) god-king.

I immediately thought this was a Posse Comitatus Act violation. The PCA forbids, under criminal penalties, the use of the federal military for civil law enforcement. Upon further consideration I realized this was just a case of law breaking, rather than enforcement. The MPs or “base personnel” are just guilty of trespassing and felony kidnapping.

They will not be published. One does not punish the god-king of the state. All those wacky laws, as applied to the government, are null and void. Even the revered Constitution has fallen:

“So you’re a Constitutionalist? We’ve had problems with this before!”

Long Valley, CA — Last month, the Feinman family was driving through a constitutionally questionable interstate checkpoint. This checkpoint is not on the US/Mexican border; it is along Highway 395N between California and Nevada.

When driving through these in-country checkpoints, you are not required to answer the agent’s questions (usually starting with “Are you a United States citizen?”). Nor are you required to consent to any searches.

Please note this story occurred in the United States not in Nazi Germany. The foolish family asserted their rights as free people and were promptly seized and arrested. The criminal state agents noted they had prior problems with Constitutionalists which means they have a problem with the Constitution – at least the parts concerning individual liberty.

To the sane among us it is patently obvious there is no legal protection in this country for us or our freedoms. The insane, the stupid, the craven will support the police, the troops, the government unto the bitter end. Something has to give.

The moral of the story is: support the government or they will invade your property, shoot your dog, and throw you to the ants.

 

Friend of Freedom: My Remembrance of Bobby Franklin

26 Wednesday Aug 2015

Posted by perrinlovett in Legal/Political Columns

≈ 2 Comments

Tags

abortion, America, Bobby Franklin, children, Christian, church, Constitution, Courts, Devil, Federal Judges, freedom, George Bush, Georgia, God, government, guns, legislation, murder, politicians, press, principles, regulations, Second Amendment, Senate, taxes, The People

Several days ago several of my friends lamented both the constant barrage of stories about abortion and the subject itself.  All averredly pro-life they are none-the-less tired of hearing about Planned Abor…Parenthood, pro-choice, pro-life, and broken Republican rhetoric.  One asked, “why doesn’t anyone just do something?”

Someone tried.  Oddly enough it was an elected Republican from Georgia who actually used his position of power to make a difference.  He tried time and again.  Failure to him only meant another chance to try again.

He was dead serious about protecting children in addition to championing various other causes of freedom.  He was one of the very few living politicians I admired. I knew the man personally.  His name was Bobby Franklin.

Robert “Bobby” Franklin represented Georgia’s 43rd House District (Cobb County) from 1997 until his death in 2011.

RepBobbyFranklin

Bobby Franklin at work.  Google.

A self-made businessman he served on the House Banking Committee, among others.  At one time he was chairman of the House Reapportionment Committee.  He consistently stood for less government and more freedom.  He was never shy of controversy.

His most famous stand was for those unborn Georgians.  In 2011 he made sure the very first bill in the House hopper was one which would have made abortion a felony punishable by either death or life in prison.  See: H.B. 1, 2011.  He rightly considered the practice a form of murder.

His hardest critics, had they not been weak cowards, would have possibly tried to murder Bobby himself for his stance.  Of course, they resorted to base distortion and lying, going so far as to say Bobby would criminalize ordinary miscarriage. These were and are the same sort of satanists who laugh while discussing chopping up living babies and then selling the parts.

You can read and judge for yourself the would-have-been effects of H.B. 1 via the link above.  Here is the pertinent part of the Bill, concerned with protecting the rights of all citizens:

bobby bill

H.B. 1, 2011, GA Gen. Assembly.

Extreme, huh?

Upon his untimely death his detractors still mocked:

Bobby Franklin was the demagogue the Founding Fathers feared and warned us about, a perfect example of the excesses of democracy that would strip the common American citizen of his or her rights.

If you must have a eulogy from me this morning, it will be this, and this only: Bobby Franklin was a danger to democracy and a danger to women and now he’s dead.

Hrafnkell Haraldsson, No Eulogies for Georgia State Rep. Bobby Franklin, 
July 28, 2011. 

Nonsense, all of it.  The free people of the state had no better friend.

Bobby did want to strip away certain things from out the overfilled lumber room of Georgia law.  He wanted to strip out taxes.  He wanted to strip away regulations.  He wanted to strip away government involvement in people’s lives – to include abolishing the requirement for a state-issued driver’s license.

Had the ultra-left not been so preoccupied with killing babies they might have recognized Bobby’s position of licenses as similar to those of the 1960’s counter-culture.

“Free people have a common law and constitutional right to travel on the roads and highways that are provided by their government for that purpose,” Franklin’s legislation states. “Licensing of drivers cannot be required of free people, because taking on the restrictions of a license requires the surrender of an inalienable right.”
In an interview with CBS Atlanta News, Franklin claimed driver’s licenses are a throw back to oppressive times.

“Agents of the state demanding your papers,” he said. “We’re getting that way here.”

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/muckraker/georgia-republican-nobody-should-need-a-driver-s-license

TPM Muckraker, Feb. 2, 2011.

He further proposed other “unthinkable” freedom-centered legislation, to include:

*The sole use of gold or silver as currency (where did he ever get that idea???);

*Taxing and regulating the Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta like any other bank;

*Banning forced vaccinations;

*Eliminating the state income tax;

*Eliminating property taxes;

*Banning eminent domain;

*Recognizing that civil government is last and least after family, religion, and community;

*Protecting the right to bear arms and to use them in self-defense;

*Making it legal to carry a firearm into a Georgia church (actually passed three years after his death); and

*Mandating that questions of Constitutional Law be settled by elected officials in the General Assembly rather than the Courts.

Bobby never quite trusted the courts nor lawyers (maybe to include me..).  He was not afraid of them and did not worship their decisions as most lawyers do.  In fact, his H.B. 1, supra, would have specifically banned federal courts from reviewing his law, as they lacked jurisdiction (true if moot today):

bobby bill2

H.B. 1, 2011. Federal courts need not apply.

A little known fact about Bobby Franklin was that he actually wanted to become a Federal District Court Judge.  He once called me, during the early 2000s, to ask what the qualifications were and, specifically, if one had to be an attorney.  I explained to him he met all the (very few) technical qualifications.  There is no requirement that a federal judge of any sort be an attorney.  Some of the finest of all American jurists have been (long ago) non-lawyers.

We then discussed the political qualifications.  Politically, one does need to be an attorney.  One also needs to contribute heavily to a President’s campaign.  One must be capable of passing U.S. Senate scrutiny after securing a nomination.  I asked him if he thought George Bush (the dimmer) would nominate such an outspoken, relentless champion of liberty.  We laughed and he apparently dismissed the idea.  That was a shame.

I think what had stirred him to this unlikely career change idea was the flap over the separation of church and state caused by the public display here and there of the Ten Commandments.  I’m sure he had other reasons too.  He would have made a fantastic judge.

Bobby was a fantastic man.  A man in real life in addition to the newspapers and the state house.  We attended a men’s wild game dinner at the First Baptist Church in Woodstock together.  Then governor Sonny Perdue gave a short sermon before shotguns were raffled off.  Sometimes Georgia is a damn fine place!  Perdue actually gave a decent homily, concerning the wrath of the devil in our lives: “Be sober, be vigilant; because your adversary the devil, as a roaring lion, walketh about, seeking whom he may devour.”  1 Peter 5:8, JKV.

That is a powerful verse and Perdue’s usage was well placed.  Powerful also was Bobby Franklin’s response to a joking question asked that night by another speaker.  Remember, it was a men’s group.  The speaker laughingly asked how many of us were “henpecked.”   A thousand or so of us sheepishly raised our hands.  Bobby did not.  Real. Man.

I found out he was gone one day when I was poking around my Facebook feed and realized Bobby wasn’t on anymore.  A Google search revealed his death to me.  As could be guessed from his legislative history, Bobby was a staunch Christian.  His death was discovered when he failed to show as usual at his church on Sunday morning.  He died of well-hidden heart problems.  One would have never suspected he took prescription medications of any kind – he was as physically fit as he was steadfast to his principles.

The popular press was a bit kinder than the lunatic left in its obituary:

“He was one of the few politicians who stood by what he believed in, whether you agreed with it or not.” …

“He would want to be remembered first as a person of faith and second as a person who loved his country and loved liberty.” …

“While he certainly was controversial, he was never vitriolic and was never mean. This is a very sad day for Georgia.”

Franklin could also often be a thorn in the side of Republican leadership. While his go-it-alone attitude was rarely problematic, he could tie up committee meetings for hours. A member of the Judiciary Non-Civil Committee, he would frequently attempt to add anti-abortion language to unrelated bills to the exasperation of his colleagues.

He also was unafraid to challenge the speaker of the House, an act somewhat akin to challenging a king. On several occasions, even challenging a member of the same party, Franklin would force a vote of the full House in an attempt to overrule the speaker. This was true under both former Speaker Glenn Richardson, R-Hiram, and current Speaker David Ralston, R-Blue Ridge.

Franklin Remembered, AJC, July 26, 2011.

I suppose this is my belated good-bye to Bobby.  His loss was a sad blow to Georgia and America.  Also, sadly, we will not likely see his kind again.

Secrets of the Trade (and other Bullsh*t)

14 Sunday Jun 2015

Posted by perrinlovett in Legal/Political Columns

≈ 3 Comments

Tags

America, Amerika, Boehner, CAFTA, Congress, Constitution, corporations, Democrats, economy, evil, freedom, government, H.R. 1314 (2015), jobs, Marcus Aurelius, money, NAFTA, Obama, politicians, President, Rand Paul, rats, Republicans, Rick Allen, Ron Paul, secrets, SHAFTA, The People, Thomas, TPA, trade, Trade Act, Wall Street, Washington, White House

Recently I wrote of the coming wave of destructive evil from Washington (the latest, as that tide ever brings the same).  Courtesy of Barry Obama and John (the tan smoker) Boehner “your” federal government is moving towards new, secret, and purely ruinous foreign trade powers.

Frequently I deride the horrors of politicians and politics in general – see these links for details.  The New York Times and NPR report that, as of Friday, the malicious train of ObamaTrade has been temporarily derailed.  I say temporarily because things like this are usually a done deal once they start.

“Eighty-six Republicans voted for the program, more than double the 40 Democrats who supported it. But the trade adjustment assistance bill failed when 303 voted against it.

Republican leaders then passed, in a 219-to-211 vote, a stand-alone bill that would grant the president the trade negotiating authority he sought. But that measure cannot go to the president for his signature because the Senate version of the legislative package combined both trade adjustment and trade promotion.”  New York Times.

I was pleased the popular press reported on this issue – they lacked the zeal these reserve for important stories (say, about Caitlyn Jenner) – but they did, at least, report.  I was a little dismayed they left off important reference information for the inquisitive public. The Bill in question is H.R. 1314(EAS), the Trade Act of 2015.

This gem of K Street legalese would, among other things, amend the Tax Code of 1986 in order to help large organizations make more money at your expense.  It would also grant the President new and unprecedented unilateral trade powers.  Pay no heed to that Congressional consent nonsense in the Constitution.

Get a load of this:

(b) Principal Trade Negotiating Objectives-
(1) TRADE IN GOODS- The principal negotiating objectives of the United States regarding trade in goods are–
(A) to expand competitive market opportunities for exports of goods from the United States and to obtain fairer and more open conditions of trade, including through the utilization of global value chains, by reducing or eliminating tariff and nontariff barriers and policies and practices of foreign governments directly related to trade that decrease market opportunities for United States exports or otherwise distort United States trade; and
(B) to obtain reciprocal tariff and nontariff barrier elimination agreements, including with respect to those tariff categories covered in section 111(b) of the Uruguay Round Agreements Act (19 U.S.C. 3521(b)).
(2) TRADE IN SERVICES- (A) The principal negotiating objective of the United States regarding trade in services is to expand competitive market opportunities for United States services and to obtain fairer and more open conditions of trade, including through utilization of global value chains, by reducing or eliminating barriers to international trade in services, such as regulatory and other barriers that deny national treatment and market access or unreasonably restrict the establishment or operations of service suppliers.
(B) Recognizing that expansion of trade in services generates benefits for all sectors of the economy and facilitates trade, the objective described in subparagraph (A) should be pursued through all means, including through a plurilateral agreement with those countries willing and able to undertake high standard services commitments for both existing and new services.

            – H.R. 1314, Sec. 102. TRADE NEGOTIATING OBJECTIVES.

More:

(4) AGGREGATE REDUCTION; EXEMPTION FROM STAGING-
(A) AGGREGATE REDUCTION- Except as provided in subparagraph (B), the aggregate reduction in the rate of duty on any article which is in effect on any day pursuant to a trade agreement entered into under paragraph (1) shall not exceed the aggregate reduction which would have been in effect on such day if–
(i) a reduction of 3 percent ad valorem or a reduction of 1/10 of the total reduction, whichever is greater, had taken effect on the effective date of the first reduction proclaimed under paragraph (1) to carry out such agreement with respect to such article; and
(ii) a reduction equal to the amount applicable under clause (i) had taken effect at 1-year intervals after the effective date of such first reduction.
(B) EXEMPTION FROM STAGING- No staging is required under subparagraph (A) with respect to a duty reduction that is proclaimed under paragraph (1) for an article of a kind that is not produced in the United States. The United States International Trade Commission shall advise the President of the identity of articles that may be exempted from staging under this subparagraph.
(5) ROUNDING- If the President determines that such action will simplify the computation of reductions under paragraph (4), the President may round an annual reduction by an amount equal to the lesser of–
(A) the difference between the reduction without regard to this paragraph and the next lower whole number; or
(B) 1/2 of 1 percent ad valorem.

            – H.R. 1314, Sec. 103, TRADE AGREEMENTS AUTHORITY.

Make any sense to you?  Of course not. And, this is the part that is open for public inspection.  A shadow bill, the real law, is still locked up and under armed guard in the Capital basement vault.  What kind of government operates like this?  Sadly, “ours’ does.

secret-doors-matt-boyle-breitbart-640x480

(Breitbart.)

Members of the respective houses of Congress can (allegedly) enter the vault to read the shadow text.  Rand Paul did so.  “’I think I am not supposed to reveal the details of it, but I can tell you it was about 800 pages long,’ Paul said.” Breitbart.  “Paul said he thinks the secretive process makes it look like the government has “something to hide” and that he thinks if Obama opened up the process it’d make it easier for several Senators—and the American people—to truly understand what it is they’re voting on.” Id.

They do have something to hide.  They always do.  The details are in the vault, so to speak.  The fact that a U.S. Senator has to keep mum about the text demonstrates this without question.

Another telling facet is the desperation among Republicans and the White House to pass this filth.  “The fate of the trade legislation now depends on Obama’s ability, along with business-friendly interests, to persuade dozens of Democrats to switch their votes before a planned do-over vote early next week.”  Washington Post.

The President is literally pleading with his own party to help him screw the American People.  He’s already won over many of the “loyal opposition.”  At a Washington Nationals ballgame last week “a bizarre scene unfolded as the crowd crammed inside Nationals Park lurched into a chant about the legislation. ‘TPA! TPA! TPA!’ chanted Republican congressional aides seated near the first base dugout when Obama stepped onto the field at the top of the fourth inning.”  Fox News. “TPA” refers to Trade Prostitution Act.

Another telling feature is the desires of large U.S. corporate interests to pass the Bill. The more power their political puppets have, the more money they can make.  You and your retirement plans be damned.  “’Manufacturers will not back down in this fight for expanded trade, for the future of our industry and our country,’ the National Association of Manufacturers said in a statement.”  Business Leaders React With Dismay to Defeat of Trade Bill, New York Times.  Naturally, they have yachts to buy.

Some out here in the real country get it.  “Do you remember back in the 1990s when the United States entered into the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA)? And the subsequent Central American Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA)? These trade agreements have not worked out well for American workers. American jobs went to Mexico. American workers were laid off and communities devastated. American companies, just to increase their profits, built their production plants in Mexico and paid their workers pennies on the dollar for their labor.”  Remember NAFTA and CAFTA? Well, here comes SHAFTA, Economy in Crisis.

Unfortunately, we have not learned our lesson — even after two decades of failed trade agreements. Right now Congress is considering entering into another trade agreement with South Pacific countries named the Trans Pacific Partnership, otherwise known as TPP. However, this trade agreement is even more onerous than previous failed trade agreements.

* The TPP was constructed in secret by corporations. Congress and the public had no input. This is fundamentally undemocratic and undermines transparency in government.

* It is a trade deal that increases corporate power and CEO bonuses.

* Thousands of jobs out-sourced to countries that do not respect human rights or worker’s rights.

* It allows transnational corporations to sue countries if they believe they have been harmed (sometimes speculatively) in a trade agreement written by corporations and behind closed doors.

* Expands the deregulation of banks, hedge funds and insurance companies. Remember the Wall Street crash of 2008 due to deregulation? Regulations keep corporations honest and prevent them from harming us.

* Harms environmental regulations in counties that are part of the TPP.

The corporations are now done writing their secret trade agreement, and Congress now has to vote up or down on the law. The Obama administration is seeking “fast track” authority from Congress in order to complete the negotiations. This means there will be no committee hearings, expert testimony or amendments. The Obama administration is taking this anti-democratic approach because they know if this treaty was debated, it would never become law.

              – SHAFTA, Id.

Read that again.  Let it sink in.

Last week, prior to the vote and temporary corporate profit defeat, I called my Congress Critter, one Rick Allen, for his input.  While I live in his District, he does not necessarily represent me.  Since the departure of Ron Paul I have had no semblance of representation in Washington.  So it goes.

Amerika being what it is these day I was unable to speak directly with my employee. Rather, I had a conversation with a polite young fellow named Eric.  He laughed and admitted, yes, much of the Bill is secret. (F’ing hilarious!) He did note that I could read all about the public parts – see Thomas quotes, above.  True to his position and the nature of his work he would not say definitively whether my boy Allen was in favor of sending more jobs oversees and more money to Wall Street.

As an aside, Allen did vote against the Bill.  Then he immediately voted to keep it alive for future consideration.  How very political of him.

Eric was well aware of the TPA chant at the baseball game.  Though he was not present he did state that several of his office mates were.  I warned him of what Marcus Aurelius said about this kind of thing.  The Roman leader and philosopher was solidly against jingoistic public displays of partisan passion.  My warning was likely lost – then and now.

If you care you may contact some staffer of your “representative,” whoever that may be.  Just click this little link to locate your dedicated servant: http://www.house.gov/representatives/find/.

You may be able to visually pick him/her out of the following picture.  This photograph is of a general Congressional pow-wow over the Bill last week:

Rats-Caitlin-Mitchell

(They do all look the same.  Google.)

 

 

 

 

The Lesser American Flag Flap

06 Wednesday May 2015

Posted by perrinlovett in Legal/Political Columns, News and Notes

≈ Comments Off on The Lesser American Flag Flap

Tags

America, banks, Bill of Rights, Constitution, Courts, criminals, Facebook, First Amendment, flag, freedom, Georgia, government, insanity, IRS, Libya, Mordor, NFL, people, protest, slavery, taxes, theft, Tom Brady, War, Washington

A long time ago I penned a column called The Great American Flag Flap (I think).  It was published somewhere and I think it was about the attempt of various rednecks to anger blacks by flying the Confederate Battle Flag.   Maybe I have the parties backwards.  It was about nonsense nonetheless.

It has come to my attention that there currently rages across the land a new flag-related issue.  This time it concerns the American Flag.  Maybe you’ve heard the news. A group of black (???) students at a Georgia University (always in Georgia, God help us…) decided to walk on the U.S. Flag in protest of … something.  There’s a lot to protest in Amerika today.  I fully understand that.

Those students have drawn considerable protest of their protest.  Also, other students (?) elsewhere have started threading on flags.

flag beard

(Here some bearded yahoo stands on the Flag for something… WDTN.com.)

By the letter of the law (in a book somewhere) this activity is illegal flag desecration. However, the courts have consistently ruled that flag walking (burning, etc.) is free speech protected by the First Amendment.  Remember the First Amendment?  The Constitution?  Rule of law and all that???

I call this post The LESSER American Flag Flap for a reason.  The fact is, all things considered, flag trampling does not overly concern me.  Some of my friends on Facebook see it otherwise.  I have received several requests to condemn these flag protests as a dire threat to everything America allegedly stands for.  I understand this but I am still not concerned.

The protest protesters say things like the following.  Cleetus from Heehaw Junction, West Virginia says, “that thar flag stands for the men who died for our freedoms!”  Lucy Lou from South Hick, Mississippi screams, “theys don’t understand what we has been through as democratic peoples!”  Jethro from the upstate of New York avers: “We have a flag for a democrats.  The country needs a hero.  Yous guys needs to know that the service of the armed forces means more work here.  The terrorists are everywhere!” Well said, Jethro.

I disagree with all of these statements though I respect the sentiment behind them all – except Jethro’s – not sure what he’s rambling about.

Here’s my problem.  Right now, we have a government hell bent on taxing and regulating our people into the grave.  The same government wants to bomb and invade all other peoples on earth.  The police run around murdering people SS style.  There are no jobs.  The children can’t read or eat.  We are beset with hoards of illiterate invaders who are determined to obtain every benefit the welfare office offers.  Bridges are collapsing.  James Brown is dead.  Amidst all this, I’m supposed to be upset because some kid somewhere stepped on a piece of fabric?  I think not.

I just heard the NFL received a 243 page report on Delate-gate.   Tom Brady is in the crosshairs.  Mind you, that’s about 243 more pages than we saw about the 2012 death and destruction at the Benghazi Consulate.

It’s worse.  The head cover-upper of Benghazi is the Democratic front runner for President in 2016.  The leading Republican is a guy named Bush.  See a pattern?

The short, pointless war in Libya was designed solely to steal the soverign wealth fund of that country from the long-suffering people of Libya.  Some $200 Billion dollars worth of funds were whisked out of Libya and into the hands of a British Bank.  No explanation given, no questions asked.  The predicament now over that money is how much our criminal friends at Goldman Sachs were entitled to.

Keep your eye on the soft football, folks.

The crown of insanity sits atop the head of our central imperial government.  Despite robbing a hundred million Americans every year, the IRS still claims you have rights!

IMG_20150506_141614198

(The Tax Slave Bill of Rights.  IRS/Morgoth.)

Ten rights to be exact.  Do not confuse these with the defunct Bill of Rights which once accompanied the charter of the Mordor on the Potomac.  The tenth “right” brought laughter to my lips: The right to a fair and just tax system!  I tell you that no such thing exists in nature or in fiction.  The system is place is plain but in no way fair.  You simply pay what they tell you or they seize your property and put you in jail.  Resist and they will do away with you.  Just, huh?

Maybe I’m wrong.  Maybe a little more respect for flags and footballs is all necessary to cure the ills of the free world.  Maybe the sun will rise in the West tomorrow.

An Unexpected Gift: Christmas at the Supreme Court

22 Wednesday Apr 2015

Posted by perrinlovett in Legal/Political Columns

≈ 2 Comments

Tags

Caballes, citizens, Constitution, Courts, crime, de minimis, detention, drugs, Eighth Circuit, Fourth Amendment, freedom, government, guns, libertarian, Liberty, Nebraska, police, probable cause, Rodriguez v. U.S., Supreme Court, Terry v. Ohio, The Nine, traffic, United States, War

Usually my legal and political writings center on the wrongs of government … and rightly so.  My assessment of court rulings, of the Supreme Court in particular, are often negative: The Affordable Care [SIC] Act; the end of the Fourth Amendment; etc.

Yesterday, however, a gleam of sunlight emanated from the High Court.

From coast to coast the police are profiling drivers in an attempt to find any reason to arrest otherwise free citizens in the ongoing War on Freedom.  A simply traffic stop, for something as innocuous as driving on the shoulder of the road, is used to extend the parameters of the stop to facilitate a deeper investigation.  This investigation is aimed at discovering illegal drugs, guns, or cash.  The initial routine stop is a pretext for a subsequent felony search, in the absence of probable cause to suspect any felony has been committed.  In plain words, the stop is a fishing expedition.

In Rodriguez vs. United States, 575 U.S. __, Slip Opinion No. 13–9972 (April 21, 2015), the Court declared these after-the-fact exploratory searches illegal.

Denny Rodriguez was stopped by a Nebraska law enforcement officer for temporarily driving his SUV on the shoulder of a road.  The officer checked Rodriguez’s license and issued a warning regarding his road departure.  Things then got out of hand and out of Constitutional bounds:

Officer Struble, a K–9 officer, stopped petitioner Rodriguez for driving
on a highway shoulder, a violation of Nebraska law. After Struble attended
to everything relating to the stop, including, inter alia, checking
the driver’s licenses of Rodriguez and his passenger and issuing a
warning for the traffic offense, he asked Rodriguez for permission to
walk his dog around the vehicle. When Rodriguez refused, Struble
detained him until a second officer arrived. Struble then retrieved
his dog, who alerted to the presence of drugs in the vehicle. The ensuing
search revealed methamphetamine. Seven or eight minutes
elapsed from the time Struble issued the written warning until the
dog alerted.
Rodriguez was indicted on federal drug charges. He moved to suppress
the evidence seized from the vehicle on the ground, among others,
that Struble had prolonged the traffic stop without reasonable
suspicion in order to conduct the dog sniff. The Magistrate Judge
recommended denial of the motion. He found no reasonable suspicion
supporting detention once Struble issued the written warning. Under
Eighth Circuit precedent, however, he concluded that prolonging
the stop by “seven to eight minutes” for the dog sniff was only a de
minimis intrusion on Rodriguez’s Fourth Amendment rights and was
for that reason permissible. The District Court then denied the motion
to suppress. Rodriguez entered a conditional guilty plea and was
sentenced to five years in prison. The Eighth Circuit affirmed. Noting
that the seven or eight minute delay was an acceptable “de minimis
intrusion on Rodriguez’s personal liberty,” the court declined to
reach the question whether Struble had reasonable suspicion to continue
Rodriguez’s detention after issuing the written warning.

Courts have, for eons it seems, held “de minimis” or short deprivations of liberty acceptable in the War on Freedom.  I and a minority of libertarian legal scholars hold that any deprivation without cause (and the War itself) is illegal.  In an amazing turn of events the Court has agreed – in part.

“In Illinois v. Caballes, 543 U. S. 405 (2005), this Court held that a dog sniff conducted during a lawful traffic stop does not violate the Fourth Amendment’s proscription of
unreasonable seizures. This case presents the question whether the Fourth Amendment tolerates a dog sniff conducted after completion of a traffic stop.” Rodriguez, Slip Op. at 1.

I do not agree with Caballes but I am more than willing to take what the Court offers with Rodriguez:

“We hold that a police stop exceeding the time needed to handle the matter for which the stop was made violates the Constitution’s shield against unreasonable seizures. A seizure justified only by a police-observed traffic violation, therefore, “become[s] unlawful if it is prolonged beyond the time reasonably required to complete th[e] mission” of issuing a ticket for the violation.”  Id.

“A seizure for a traffic violation justifies a police investigation of that violation. ‘[A] relatively brief encounter,’ a routine traffic stop is ‘more analogous to a so-called Terry
stop . . . than to a formal arrest.’”  Id, at 5.  This is true so long as the stop is for a violation of a valid law (few and far between).

However, “[t]he scope of the detention must be carefully tailored to its underlying justification.”  Id.  Such justification goes only with the underlying traffic stop.  “A dog sniff, by contrast, is a measure aimed at detecting evidence of ordinary [non-traffic related] criminal wrongdoing.”  Id, at 6.

The presence of overt indications of attendant criminal activity – the smell of marijuana, contraband plainly visible to an officer, etc. – may give rise to a further search, investigation or detention.  Concerns for “officer safety,” as nebulous a concept as may be imagined, may also justify a stop beyond what would ordinarily be necessary.  Absent these factors further detention is untenable.  Id, at 9.

Thus, the next time you are stopped for a simply traffic violation and you receive either a warning or a ticket, you are free to go at the conclusion of the incident.  You may deny an officer’s request for additional harassment citing Rodriguez.  Mind you, the police are as likely to comply with this ruling as they currently comply with the Constitution itself.

Police-dog

(Nothing to worry about.  Google.)

Should you be foolish to argue the old “ain’t doing nothing wrong, ain’t got nothing to worry about,” then, please, don’t be troubled when you find yourself surrounded one night by gun-wielding officers with attack dogs.  Even if trouble arises, and you live through it, maybe The Nine will eventually smile on you.  Then I can happily write here about your case.

The Unfriendly Skies: Drones Banned In Augusta

18 Wednesday Mar 2015

Posted by perrinlovett in Legal/Political Columns, News and Notes

≈ Comments Off on The Unfriendly Skies: Drones Banned In Augusta

Tags

Augusta, Augusta National, Charlottesville, citizens, Constitution, Courts, crime, drones, illegal, laws, Liberty, Masters, privacy, stupid, Syracuse, Thomas Jefferson, torts

Should you have the honor of attending this years Masters Tournament you may breathe easy – no pesky drones will disturb your golf gazing.  I doubt you were concerned to begin with.  You probably hadn’t even considered the idea.

Never apt to miss out on a non-issue the idiots of the Augusta City Commission has outlawed the (private) use of unmanned aircraft during this year’s tournament. “Hoping to prevent a drone disruption at this year’s Masters Tournament, Augusta commissioners approved a county-wide ban on launching or operating the remote-controlled aircraft between April 2 and April 13.”  Susan McCord, Drone ban in effect April 2-13, Augusta (GA) Chronicle, March 18, 2015.

The reasoning behind the ban is as solid as the air above the Augusta National: “Drones ‘have gotten very sophisticated,’ and Augusta has a ‘very big, international event’ coming up, said sheriff’s Col. Robert Partain.”  This is as logically connected as saying there are a lot of people in India and pillows are very soft, thus we must own lawnmowers…

drone1

(Bad drone.  Google Images.)

I was not present for the drafting, discussion or voting on this ordinance.  I really don’t think that matters.  The thing smells funny.  The Chronicle mentions a single incident whereby an event was disrupted by a drone – one event in Europe.  I have heard of no threat posed by non-government drones in America.  Government drones are another story; see: Don’t Drone Me, Bro! and Droning On and On.

Drone11111111-156150-165663-166189-172588-640x480

(Good drone.  Google.)

Other American cities (Charlottesville, VA, Syracuse, NY, etc.) have previously banned drones.  However, their bans are directed towards drones nefariously used by government agents in an effort to defend civil liberties.  Charlottesville, home of Thomas Jefferson’s home and University, has a “long tradition of promoting civil liberties.” Augusta has a long tradition of the opposite kind.

Here follows the pertinent and sensible resolutions of Syracuse’s ordinance:

BE IT RESOLVED, that this Resolution declares that no agency of the City of Syracuse, nor any agents under contract with the City, will operate Drones in the airspace over the City of Syracuse until federal and state laws, rules and regulations regarding the use of Drones are adopted that adequately protects the privacy of the population as guaranteed by the First and Fourth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution; and

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Syracuse Common Council urges our Federal and State officials to create and adopt such laws, rules and regulations regarding the use of Drones which ensures Constitutional protections of individuals; and

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that, to the extent permitted by law, it is the policy of this Common Council that no Drones will be purchased, leased, borrowed, tested or otherwise utilized by the City of Syracuse or its agencies, directly or through contract, until such Constitutional safeguards are in place, the appropriate personnel are trained and fully authorized by the FAA to safely operate Drones and that the Corporation Counsel of the City of Syracuse certifies that all City of Syracuse personnel engaged in the use of Drones have been trained in federal, state and local privacy laws, regulations, and enforcement mechanisms affecting drone operations and any data collected by drone operations…

Note that this ordinance is aimed at ensuring “Constitutional protections of individuals.” The Georgia version ensures a media monopoly for a single sporting event at the expense of the liberty of hundreds of thousands of individuals in the surrounding area. It is as stupid and illegal as it is unnecessary.

The National naturally desires to keep the most prestigious sporting event in the world private.  That is understandable; they have a right to privacy.  Happily, their rights and the rights of their patrons and golfers are protected by existing laws.  Flying a drone over the property without permission already would constitute a trespass and a nuisance – prohibited by both existing criminal and civil tort law.

Now, should you, as a news reporter, wish to film from the air the crowd entering the National patron gate, you are out of luck.  If you’re the President needing to remotely bomb demonstrators (terrorists), no problem.  A real estate broker surveying land, not this week.  A cop spying on a gardener, sure, why not.  Concerned citizen keeping an eye on one of the cops’ illegal roadblocks, you are a criminal.  See where this is going?

Something tells me that, if challenged, the Augusta ordinance will fall in Court – after the tournament is over, of course.  I have already heard of plans to defy the law.  One aviator proposes to use a balloon or kite to launch a camera skyward.  Whether the city defines these devices as drones or not they will likely prosecute this man.  They will lose. They will face a lawsuit.  Those hundreds of thousands of citizens whose liberties have been infringed will be forced to pay damages.  Sadly, those citizens will continue to re-elect the Commission.  The beat goes on.

If you come to Augusta for the tournament, enjoy it.  You’ll have a great, drone free experience.  If you live in the Garden City, consider moving somewhere else where your rights are valued.

 

 

It’s Your Money, They Want It Now

04 Wednesday Mar 2015

Posted by perrinlovett in Legal/Political Columns, News and Notes

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

banking, civil forfeiture, Congress, Constitution, Courts, crime, executive order, government, immigration, IRS, jail, law, Lincoln, money, Obama, robbers, Structuring, Supreme Court, taxes, theft

If you are unfortunate enough to view television these days undoubtedly you have seen a J.G. Wentworth commercial. They feature a variety of folks (opera singers, bus drivers, etc.) singing about the virtues of cashing in on structured settlements.   They’re kind of catchy.

timthumb

(Your money’s in the bank – go to jail noooow!  Google Images.)

The federal gubmint has a similar scheme to cash in on your settlements.  They call it “structuring” too!  I wrote about the program several years ago.  It is illegal to split cash deposits (your money mind you) so as to evade the banks’ legally mandated cash reporting process.  Why the government needs to know how much money you deposit or that you deposit it, period, is beyond me.  Something about fighting drugs and terrorists.  Or was it drugged terrorists?  Anyway, it’s all codified in 31 U.S.C. 5324.

Why split up the deposits?  Beats me.  That’s your business – or it should be.  These days everything necessarily has to involve the government.  Here are two examples of otherwise innocent splitting now criminalized by our kind friends in Washington:

“2. Jane needs $18,000 in cash to pay for supplies for her wood-carving business. Jane cashes a $9,000 personal check at a financial institution on a Monday, then cashes another $9,000 personal check at the financial institution the following day. Jane cashed the checks separately and structured the transactions in an attempt to evade the CTR reporting requirement.”  CTR Pamphlet, www.fincen.gov.

“3. A married couple, John and Jane, sell a vehicle for $15,000 in cash. To evade the CTR reporting requirement, John and Jane structure their transactions using different accounts. John deposits $8,000 of that money into his and Jane’s joint account in the morning. Later that day, Jane deposits $1,500 into the joint account, and then $5,500 into her sister’s account, which is later transferred to John and Jane’s joint account.” CTR Pamphlet,www.fincen.gov.

Plain as can be.  Jane and John are hardened criminals and need to spend time in jail. They will.  Or, at least they will get probation and “forfeit” their money to the feds.  So will Janet Malone of Dubuque, Iowa.  Janet’s husband died and left her with the cash rewards of his gambling hobby.  Janet decided the money would be better off in a bank rather than scattered around her house.  She deposited some of it in a fashion which seemed reasonable to her.  The IRS, always knowing better, objected.

With all the courtesy of starving termites they seized her money and have charged her with criminal structuring.  She will probably enter some sort of guilty plea.  Most people do.  The IRS will likely keep her cash under civil forfeiture laws.  There’s really nothing civil about it.  Between 2005 and 2012 the IRS so seized about a quarter of a billion dollars in this fashion.  It gave some of it back.  Some.  This is the same agency that now pays tax refunds to criminal illegal aliens who never paid taxes in the first place. Something smells on the Potomac.

Congress is incensed by this blatant theft from the people.  They could just repeal the law or, better, abolish the IRS completely.  They won’t.  Instead they have convened a committee!  It’s focus will center on stopping IRS abuse of small businesses.  As an aside they may also examine the effects of Rearden Metal exposure on unicorns.

Know this: the government wants what you have.  And, they’ll get it.  They don’t even need a law to justify their thievery.  The White house wants to raise taxes by executive decree.  Abe Lincoln did this during the war between the States.  The Supreme Court belatedly found this unconstitutional.  Don’t hold your breath this time.

Do not look to Congress for any help.   Remember the illegals?  His Excellency, President Obama, has been using his pen to flout immigration laws.  The brave Republican “opposition” collapsed faster than a jellyfish beneath a steam roller.  This is the way it is.

As is, either keep your money to yourself or comply with the ridiculous law whilst banking.  Otherwise, you’ll end up a poor inmate somewhere.  It’s kind of like the old highwayman’s motto: “your money or your life.”  Except these robbers write the law.  Now you know.

Right of Rebellion

25 Sunday Jan 2015

Posted by perrinlovett in Legal/Political Columns

≈ 2 Comments

Tags

America, anarchy, arms, Constitution, Declaration of Independence, freedom, Hew Hampshire, King George, law, Natural Law, Plato, revolution, Saint Augustine, Saint Thomas Aquinas, Second Amendment, The People, tyranny

I have an affection for New Hampshire.  The air is clean.  The people are friendly.  They have mountains and beaches relatively close together.  There’s no income tax.  It’s close to Boston.  It’s far enough away from Boston.  The Granite State is just a beautiful place and bears a beautiful motto – Live Free or Die.

The State Constitution is also unique among written political charters.  While generally resembling other such State documents as well as that of the United States this New England version has a stark difference.  It’s something I am not aware of, in writing, anywhere else in the world.  It contains a “Right of Revolution,” which I, here, call a Right of Rebellion (semantics).

“Government being instituted for the common benefit, protection, and security, of the whole community, and not for the private interest or emolument of any one man, family, or class of men; therefore, whenever the ends of government are perverted, and public liberty manifestly endangered, and all other means of redress are ineffectual, the people may, and of right ought to reform the old, or establish a new government. The doctrine of nonresistance against arbitrary power, and oppression, is absurd, slavish, and destructive of the good and happiness of mankind.”  N. H. Const., Sect. I, Art 10 (entirety, as amended, 2007).

old_man

(The Old Man of the Mountain [NH natural wonder], Google Images)

Re-read the above and let the meaning sink in.  The free people not only have a natural right but a duty to reform a corrupted government.  When all other usual and peaceful methods of redress fail, the people are authorized to resist evil.  Otherwise the people become subjects – slaves.  That’s what “slavish” means: “of or characteristic of a slave; especially : basely or abjectly servile…”  Webster’s English Dictionary, http://www.merriam-webster.com.

Further, such acquiescence is “absurd,” being illogical and futile.  This is the literary embodiment of that spirit which lead early Americans to cast off the yoke of King George III.

“When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.”  U.S. Declaration of Independence, Para. 1, July 4, 1776.

The Declaration proceeds with a long list of oppressive grievances committed by the King. A recount of usual redress follows: “We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.”

Then, the Declaration: “That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States; that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved…”

Mind you, this is the spirit of the former America.  Today such sentiment is almost sacrosanct.  Look into the heart of nearly any purported American and one finds either a zealous appreciation for total government or, at the least, a complete resolve to do nothing conducive to the ends of liberty.  Worse than the loss of freedom in Columbia is the veneration of the forces which have brought forth the doom of tyranny.  There exists in America today a cult of statism.

The New Hampshire Constitution provides an outline for the heretics who would still be free.  The entire document is worth reviewing – please click here and read.

Article one artfully defines the sole legitimate reason for government: “All men are born equally free and independent; therefore, all government of right originates from the people, is founded in consent, and instituted for the general good.”

Article two evokes the Natural Law: “All men have certain natural, essential, and inherent rights – among which are, the enjoying and defending life and liberty; acquiring, possessing, and protecting, property; and, in a word, of seeking and obtaining happiness. ”  Made-man law is or is supposed to be an expression of the natural law. David Miller, et al., eds, The Blackwell Encyclopedia of political Thought (Oxford 1987).

Plato asserted that freedom from and doubt of human law is the “indispensable” beginning of the search for natural law.  Strauss, Natural Right and History, pg. 84, U. Chicago Press, 1953.

St. Thomas Aquinas and Saint Augustine posit that any law “which is not just seems to be no law at all.  Hence a law has as much force as it has justice.”  St. Thomas, Treatise on Law, R.J. Henle, S.J., editor, pg. 287, U. Notre Dame Press, 1993.  St. Thomas goes on to say that a civil or earthly law with conflicts with natural law is a perversion rather than a law.  Again, once an entire government loses its claim to justice the people have a duty to reform or disband said non-government.

Article two-a, mimics the Second Amendment and puts teeth behind the other declarations: “All persons have the right to keep and bear arms in defense of themselves, their families, their property and the state.”  New Hampshire, with some of the least restrictive gun laws in the nation, has an on-again, off-again habit of allowing carry even inside the State Capital building.  N.H. lawmakers allow concealed weapons in House chambers, Boston Globe, Jan. 7, 2015.  Note that NH consistently ranks as one of the safest, crime free states in the Union.  101 Reasons to Move to New Hampshire, Free State Project.

Those aiming to reform government or create anew must be able and willing to forcefully defend their cause.

The question arises as to when, exactly, does new for such cause becomes necessary and proper.  People acting out individually whenever they are personally slighted does not seem just cause.  Such action would inevitably lead to anarchy in the lowest sense of the word.

Article three notes, to this end: “When men enter into a state of society, they surrender up some of their natural rights to that society, in order to ensure the protection of others; and, without such an equivalent, the surrender is void.”  However, Article four affirms that “Among the natural rights, some are, in their very nature unalienable, because no equivalent can be given or received for them.”

So, while individuals may not personally rebel without great need, they must retain the means to do so should collective need present itself.

How do or how will we know when this time comes?  I do not pretend to be an expert nor arbiter of this process.  For now I offer only mental food for thought.  I do, however, reserve the right to expand on this theme in the future.

PS: the forgoing is not a paid endorsement of New Hampshire.

Swabbing The Fourth Amendment

04 Tuesday Jun 2013

Posted by perrinlovett in Legal/Political Columns

≈ 4 Comments

Tags

Alito, Amerika, Antonin Scalia, Breyer, Constitution, crime, DNA, evidence, Fifith Amendment, Founders, Fourth Amendment, Ginsburg, government, Hagan, innocence, justice, Kennedy, King George, law, Liberty, Maryland, police state, Roberts, searches, slippery slope, Sotomayor, Supreme Court, The People, Thomas, Virginia Declaration of Rights

Yesterday, June 3, 2013, the Supreme Court neatly planted new, green sod over the grave of the late Fourth Amendment.  In Maryland v. King, 569 U.S. ___, Slip Op. No. 12-207 (June 3, 2013), the Court held, 5 – 4, obtaining DNA samples from criminal suspects via oral swabbing in permissible under the Fourth Amendment.  The high priests of the Temple of “Justice” divined the procedure analogous to fingerprinting and photographing.

The growth of government power knows no bounds; the ruling itself was not a surprise.  The nature of the close vote was, itself, of slight interest.  The opinion was penned by Justice Anthony “Swing Man” Kennedy.  Joining him were the arch-“conservative” trio of Chief Justice Roberts, Justice Alito, and Justice Thomas.  “Liberal” milk toast Justice Breyer joined in for grins and giggles.

Standing firm for the Constitution and Liberty were the Court’s three Divas, Ginsburg, Sotomayor, and Kagan.  The ladies backed the dissent of Antonin Scalia, the originalists’ originalist and the only Justice usually worth reading or quoting.  Scalia read his dissent aloud in Court.  I’ll examine that dissent in a second.

antonin_scalia-photograph1

(Putting the “justice” in Justice.  Google.)

First, in all fairness, let me paraphrase the majority opinion for you: The government can (as always) do whatever the hell it wants.  Good enough?  Good.

Scalia began: “The Fourth Amendment forbids searching a person for evidence of a crime when there is no basis for believing the person is guilty of the crime or is in possession of incriminating evidence.”  Maryland v. King, supra, at Slip. Op. Scalia Dissent 1.  Citing the Virgina Declaration of Rights, § 10 (1776), Scalia recalled the Founder’s distrust and hatred for “general warrants” whereby persons were searched by the King’s agents without regard to evidence or suspicion.  These warrants were, rightly, considered “grievous and oppressive…”  Id, at Scalia 2.

Like most of the Bill or Rights, the Fourth Amendment has been under continual assault from an ever-growing list of “exceptions.”  Scalia notes these, including suspicionless searches in public prisons…er…schools, but notes that they all (purportedly) derive from some extra-law enforcement need of society.  He goes on to detail how the DNA swabs are intended only for general law enforcement purposes – for the gathering of evidence of criminal wrongdoing.  Id, at 3 -4.

As usual Scalia blasts the majority with its own lame arguments: “The Court hastens to clarify that it does not mean to approve invasive surgery on arrestees or warrantless searches of their homes.  [Internal Cite].  That the Court feels the need to disclaim these consequences is as damning a criticism of its suspicionless-search regime as any I can muster.” Id, at 4.  “Sensing (correctly) that it needs more, the Court elaborates at length the ways that the search here served the special purpose of ‘identifying’ King.  But that seems to me quite wrong – unless what one means by ‘identifying’ someone is ‘searching for evidence that he has committed crimes unrelated to the crime of his arrest.'”  Id, at 5.

The process of “identifying” Mr. King by his DNA took many, many months.  During that time King moved through many stages of the court process on his original charges.  Maryland knew, without a doubt, who they were dealing with.  The DNA was unnecessary for identification; rather, it was critical for a fishing expedition aimed at discovering other potential crimes also committed by King.  This is an affront to both the Fourth and the Fifth Amendments.  By the way, for viewing purposes, the Fifth is buried conveniently next to the Fourth at Constitutional Memorial Gardens.

“King was not identified by his association with the sample; rather, the sample was identified by its association with King. The Court effectively destroys its own ‘identification’ theory when it acknowledges that the object of this search was ‘to see what [was] already known about [King].'”  Id, at 9.  Both the Governor and the Attorney General of Maryland are on record praising DNA collection, not as a suspect identification, but as one designed to fight unsolved crimes.

Scalia knocked the assertion that DNA swabbing is no different, Fourth Amendment wise, than fingerprinting: “The Court asserts that the taking of fingerprints was constitutional for generations prior to the introduction’ of the FBI’s rapid computer-matching system.  This bold assertion is bereft of citation to authority because there is none for it.  The great expansion in fingerprinting came before the modern era of Fourth Amendment jurisprudence, and so we were never asked to decide the legitimacy of the practice.”  Id, at 15.   

I love the following quote: “Solving unsolved crimes is a noble objective, but it occupies a lower place in the American pantheon of noble objectives than the protection of our people from suspicionless law-enforcement searches. The Fourth Amendment must prevail.”  Id, at 17.  Sadly, it did not prevail.

The following is also memorable and, in Scalia’s estimate, “most regrettable”: “All parties concede that it would have been entirely permissible, as far as the Fourth Amendment is concerned, for Maryland to take a sample of King’s DNA as a consequence of his conviction for second-degree assault. So the ironic result of the Court’s error is this: The only arrestees to whom the outcome here will ever make a difference are those who have been acquitted (so that their DNA could not have been taken upon conviction).  In other words, this Act manages to burden uniquely the sole group for whom the Fourth Amendment’s protections ought to be most jealously guarded: people who are innocent of the State’s accusations.”  Id, at 18. 

Classic Scalia: “I doubt that the proud men who wrote the charter of our liberties would have been so eager to open their mouths for royal inspection.  I therefore dissent…”  Id, at 18.

DNA%20swab%20for%20web

(Say Ahhhhhh…for the children and such.  Google.)

This ruling pushes us all a bit further down the slippery slope of the modern Amerikan police state.  Scalia noted as much: “Searching every lawfully stopped car, for example, might turn up information about unsolved crimes the driver had committed…”  Id, at 5.  The King case concerned (nominally) serious cases, felonies.  However, the next time you’re stopped for speeding or blowing through a stop sign, don’t be surprised if the officer demands you open your mouth for a good old swabbing.  “If one believes that DNA will ‘identify’ someone arrested for assault, he must believe that it will ‘identify’ someone arrested for a traffic offense.”  Id, at 17.  It’s all for the children or something, you know…

News From the Senate!

27 Saturday Apr 2013

Posted by perrinlovett in Legal/Political Columns

≈ Comments Off on News From the Senate!

Tags

citizens, Congress, Constitution, freedom, Honorable Lovett, influence peddling, letters, Second Amendment

As you know I played a pivotal role in helping defeat the anti-freedom gun vote in the Senate a week or so back.  My letters to Senators Johnny Isakson and Saxby Chambliss convinced them to vote in favor of the Second Amendment. 

Johnny’s office sent me a “thanks” email for my efforts.  Saxby replied with a more substantial, if generic reading, response.  I have included it for you:

****

“Dear Honorable Lovett:

Thank you for your recent correspondence regarding the right to keep and bear arms as guaranteed by the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution. Your taking time to contact me is appreciated.

I have always been and remain a strong supporter of the Second Amendment, and it is Congress’ responsibility to make sure that Americans’ constitutional rights are protected. We must make certain that the rights and freedoms of law-abiding citizens are not unfairly impeded. I believe that the ability of sportsmen, hunters, gun enthusiasts and citizens concerned with their personal safety to own a gun, whether for sport or protection, is clearly defined in the Constitution and must not be compromised.

In response to recent tragic and high-profile acts of violence, there has been a renewed focus on government regulation of guns. Congress has had an extensive and detailed debate about the potential causes of these crimes, including mental health issues, depictions of violence in television, movies, and video games, and firearms.

It is my belief that implementing improved background checks could significantly impact the ability of individuals who are a danger to themselves and to others from obtaining guns. For this reason, I voted in favor of the Grassley/Graham/Cruz amendment # 725 to S. 649, the “Safe Communities, Safe Schools Act of 2013,” to improve the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) and to address mental illness in the justice system. Ultimately, this amendment failed on April 17, 2013 by a 52-48 vote margin.

Additionally, Senators Manchin, Toomey, and Schumer offered amendment # 715, which in certain instances would criminalize the private transfer of firearms by law-abiding citizens. Specifically, this amendment would require individuals who sell their firearms to lifelong friends, neighbors, and even family members to obtain the federal government’s permission to exercise a fundamental right or face prosecution. I voted against the Manchin-Toomey amendment #715, which failed passage by a 54-46 vote margin.

The dialogue regarding acts of violence will likely continue with additional legislative proposals seeking to address the underlying causes. As Congress continues this conversation, I will be sure to keep your thoughts in mind.

Please do not hesitate to contact me if I may be of assistance to you in the future. In the meantime, if you would like to receive timely e-mail alerts regarding the latest congressional actions and my weekly e-newsletter, please sign up via my web site at: www.chambliss.senate.gov.”

****

Yes, I’m sure the above response was canned and ready in an intern’s computer, but it was nice to hear back.  Click on that last link if you live in Georgia and want to add anything to our dialogue.  Together we can make a difference!

 

← Older posts
Newer posts →

Perrin Lovett

From Green Altar Books, an imprint of Shotwell Publishing

From Green Altar Books, an imprint of Shotwell Publishing

Perrin Lovett at:

Perrin on Geopolitical Affairs:

Archives

  • February 2026
  • January 2026
  • December 2025
  • November 2025
  • October 2025
  • September 2025
  • August 2025
  • July 2025
  • June 2025
  • May 2025
  • April 2025
  • March 2025
  • February 2025
  • January 2025
  • December 2024
  • November 2024
  • October 2024
  • September 2024
  • August 2024
  • July 2024
  • June 2024
  • May 2024
  • April 2024
  • March 2024
  • February 2024
  • January 2024
  • December 2023
  • November 2023
  • October 2023
  • September 2023
  • August 2023
  • July 2023
  • June 2023
  • May 2023
  • April 2023
  • March 2023
  • February 2023
  • January 2023
  • December 2022
  • November 2022
  • October 2022
  • September 2022
  • August 2022
  • July 2022
  • June 2022
  • May 2022
  • April 2022
  • March 2022
  • February 2022
  • January 2022
  • December 2021
  • November 2021
  • October 2021
  • September 2021
  • August 2021
  • July 2021
  • June 2021
  • May 2021
  • April 2021
  • March 2021
  • February 2021
  • January 2021
  • December 2020
  • November 2020
  • October 2020
  • September 2020
  • August 2020
  • July 2020
  • June 2020
  • May 2020
  • April 2020
  • March 2020
  • February 2020
  • January 2020
  • December 2019
  • November 2019
  • October 2019
  • September 2019
  • August 2019
  • July 2019
  • June 2019
  • May 2019
  • April 2019
  • March 2019
  • February 2019
  • January 2019
  • December 2018
  • November 2018
  • October 2018
  • September 2018
  • August 2018
  • July 2018
  • June 2018
  • May 2018
  • April 2018
  • March 2018
  • February 2018
  • January 2018
  • December 2017
  • November 2017
  • October 2017
  • September 2017
  • August 2017
  • July 2017
  • June 2017
  • May 2017
  • April 2017
  • March 2017
  • February 2017
  • January 2017
  • December 2016
  • November 2016
  • October 2016
  • September 2016
  • August 2016
  • July 2016
  • June 2016
  • May 2016
  • April 2016
  • March 2016
  • February 2016
  • January 2016
  • December 2015
  • November 2015
  • October 2015
  • September 2015
  • August 2015
  • July 2015
  • June 2015
  • May 2015
  • April 2015
  • March 2015
  • February 2015
  • January 2015
  • July 2014
  • June 2014
  • September 2013
  • August 2013
  • July 2013
  • June 2013
  • May 2013
  • April 2013
  • March 2013
  • February 2013
  • June 2012

Prepper Post News Podcast by Freedom Prepper (sadly concluded, but still archived!)

Create a free website or blog at WordPress.com.

  • Subscribe Subscribed
    • PERRIN LOVETT
    • Join 42 other subscribers
    • Already have a WordPress.com account? Log in now.
    • PERRIN LOVETT
    • Subscribe Subscribed
    • Sign up
    • Log in
    • Report this content
    • View site in Reader
    • Manage subscriptions
    • Collapse this bar
 

Loading Comments...
 

You must be logged in to post a comment.