Talking Point?

Bill Kristol thinks that Sarah Palin could beat Barack Obama in a one-on-one basketball game. One of the more relevant political points made this election year. I congratulate Kristol on sticking to the issues that people care about.

DC v. Heller

Today, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of an individual right to own guns. The decision overturns two essential components of the DC gun ban: the complete prohibition on handgun ownership, an the requirement that all guns possessed in DC (by individuals, rather than business) be stored in a completely unusable fashion.

The court did not go so far as to extend the Second Amendment to the states, however, as that was not in question. A footnote in the decision suggested that the second amendment right did not necessarily apply to the states, leaving gun bans that might exist beyond Federal jurisdiction intact.

Update: Tom Goldstein seems to think that the SCOTUS would incorporate the Second Amendment against the states.

Update 2: I am going to have to disagree with Mr. Goldstein after reading the footnote referenced above. Quoted here:

With respect to Cruikshank’s continuing validity on incorporation, a question not presented by this case, we note that Cruikshank also said that the First Amendment did not apply against the States and did not engage in the sort of Fourteenth Amendment inquiry required by our later cases. Our later decisions in Presser v. Illinois, 116 U. S. 252, 265 (1886) and Miller v. Texas, 153 U. S. 535, 538 (1894), reaffirmed that the Second Amendment applies only to the Federal Government. (Emphasis Added)

While this footnote is not binding precedent, as it is merely an extention of the dicta, it would seem to suggest that at least Justice Scalia believes that the Second Amendment does not apply to the states.

Selling Babies, Pt. 3

A couple may try to go the independent adoption route, but this route is haphazard and disorganized, and information about babies available for adoption through it is hard to come by. Some states, moreover, have outlawed independent adoptions. 6 It goes without saying that both adoption through an agency and independent adoption favor the wealthy and well connected. The final alternative is the black market, a form of independent adoption. The black market is by definition illegal, 7 and illegality forces price up and quality down and makes prospective buyers uneasy. Long queues, shortages, uncertain quality, a black market — these are the classic symptoms of excess demand, whether in the baby market or the Soviet food market.

67 B.U.L. Rev. 59, 62 (also here)

 

The above is a quote from a 1987 law review article by Judge Richard Posner, discussing and defending his position on taking a market approach to adoptions. In this article, as well as at least one earlier one, he argues:

When did they pass a “tenth” amendment?

The tenth amendment is the most ignored of the original ten. Until now. Oklahoma rediscovered that the Tenth Amendment seems to grant exclusive sovereignty to the states over all areas not granted to the federal government within the constitution.

It will be interesting to see what becomes of this. My instinct is that we should not be holding our breath waiting for a showdown between Washington and Oklahoma City. Nonetheless, it is an excellent reminder that federalism was the intent of our founders.

Pie Charts

Ross Perot, famous for his prime-time, pie-chart laden infomercials, is back with brand-new charts. Challenging America’s spendthrift ways, Perot argues that enormous deficits caused by entitlement programs are leading America down a path of destruction. 

The United States faces large and growing budget deficits mostly due to an aging population and rising healthcare costs. Unless we solve the problems caused by entitlement spending, there will be little money left to do anything else in the future. Over time, our standard of living, our national security, our standing in the world and the value of our currency could all be threatened. The sooner we confront these issues, the better. This presentation explains the problems.

Ross Perot compiled the work of former comptroller general David Walker and others. Professional wed-designers were hired to create 35 charts, which are explained through narration. Perot does not advocate any particular solutions, but does clearly point to large federal entitlement programs as the culprits of our overspending. 

Perot, who at 78 is older than John McCain, is not getting back into politics. At least not as a candidate. He is instead using one of the tools of his 1992 campaign for president to try and influence the direction of the nation going forward.

Judge Alex Kozinski

“Sex on the Internet?,” they all said. “That’ll never make any money.” But computer-geek-turned-entrepreneur Gary Kremen knew an opportunity when he saw it. The year was 1994; domain names were free for the asking, and it would be several years yet before Henry Blodget and hordes of eager NASDAQ day traders would turn the Internet into the Dutch tulip craze of our times. With a quick e-mail to the domain name registrar Network Solutions, Kremen became the proud owner of sex.com. He registered the name to his business, Online Classifieds, and listed himself as the contact.

Kremen v. Cohen, 337 F.3d 1024, 1026 (9th Cir. 2003).

The above is the opening paragraph of a Ninth Circuit opinion authored by now-Chief Judge Alex Kozinski; a favorite among libertarians and good-humored legal scholars alike.

As part of a rotation where appeals court judges are occasionally assigned to criminal trials, Kozinski was slated to preside over the federal obscenity trial of “shock-porn” filmmaker Ira Isaacs. The charges brought are for distributing pornography depicting bestiality, defecation, and probably a myriad other forms of kink (the case was brought after pressure was put on the DoJ by the Fundies).

Linkfest 2008

1. John McCain has issues with the Boumediene decision. He claims that our national security depends upon the government’s ability to imprison people indefinitely without charge or trial.
2. Exxon is getting out of the retail gas business, citing the difficulty of turning a profit.
3. Ireland rejected the Lisbon treaty in their recent referendum.
4. Pluto has given a name to a new class of quasi-planets.

Sheriff Arpaio’s Reign of Terror

Ray Stern of the Phoenix New Times writes about his confrontation with Sheriff Joe Arpaio’s deputies. Apparently he was threatened with a trip to Sheriff Joe’s prison-camp for asking to view Public Records.

Why did they take issue with that? Well, it was because he was requesting to view the same public records that the deputies were looking at.

Arpaio is in the process of investigating the Mayor of Phoenix, who recently expressed his dissent to Arpaio’s regime. The reporter was trying to investigate the extent of Arpaio’s investigation into the Mayor. Curious to see what exactly he had been trying to discover. Was this a legitimate police investigation, narrowly targeted to search for evidence of a crime, or was it a fishing expedition? We may never know.

What is most troubling to me is the level of veneration that Arpaio receives outside of Arizona from some groups for being a “law and order” type. Famous for the harsh conditions of his tent-city, a number of people hold Arpaio in high esteem for being “tough on crime.” What those people may not realize, is that he is just as tough on his critics.

Via: TheAgitator.com

Collegiate Chastity

Honestly, what could be more interesting than a chart that purports to display the rates of virginity at Wellesley College, by major. 

Boumediene v. Bush

Today the US Supreme Court issued a 5-4 decision in the case of Boumediene v. Bush. Justice Kennedy authored the opinion which held that the government may not hold prisoners indefinitely without charges at Guantanamo Bay. The right of Habeas Corpus applies even to “enemy combatants” who are held off-shore on a naval base. 

In Rome, President Bush said, ”We’ll abide by the court’s decision. That doesn’t mean I have to agree with it.”

SCOTUS Blog writes that the Court, “ruled that Congress had not validly taken away habeas rights.  If Congress wishes to suspend habeas, it must do so only as the Constitution allows — when the country faces rebellion or invasion.”

Perhaps I just don’t understand the “difficulties” of the situation, but if the government has any cause to hold these prisoners, why can’t they charge them with a crime? Why can’t we set a reasonable schedule to build a case and hold a trial?

The answer is that there is no reason why we can’t. 

For a quick run-down of what happened: Click Here

For a post on concurrences and dissents: Click Here