The Supreme Court agrees to hear "issue-ad" cases in anticipation of the 2008 Presidential Election.
This is a big deal. Issue-ads and the supposed "527s" went wild in the 2004 Presidential Elections. They were basically unchecked and were free to spend as much money as they want, while being held to a "zero accountability" standard for the content of their commercials.
What is a 527 you might ask? An easy answer is provided by our friends at Wikipedia:
A 527 group is a type of tax-exempt organization named after a section of the United States tax code, created primarily to influence the nomination, election, appointment or defeat of candidates for public office. Although candidate committees and political action committees are also created under Section 527 of the Internal Revenue Code, the term is generally used to refer to political organizations which are not regulated by the Federal Election Commission or a state elections commission and not subject to the same contribution limits as PACs.
The question for the high court is whether issue ads aired mainly on television -- and funded by businesses, labor unions, and other groups -- can be banned 60 days before a general election, and 30 days before a primary.
The two cases being looked at by the U.S. Supreme Court are FEC v. Wisconsin Right to Life (06-969) and McCain v. Wisconsin Right to Life (06-970).
The issue arose with the passing of The Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 (BCRA), §203, 116 Stat. 91, which prohibits corporations from using their general treasury funds to pay for any "electioneering communications." The BCRA section defines "electioneering communications" as any broadcast, cable, or satellite communication that refers to a candidate for federal office and that is broadcast within 30 days of a federal primary election or 60 days of a federal general election in the jurisdiction in which that candidate is running for office.
By its own language, the BCRA was designed "to purge national politics of what [is] conceived to be the pernicious influence of 'big money' campaign contributions." There can be a mutual agreement in this country, by both sides of the aisle that, while the merits of these numerous groups may be correct and their intentions genuine, they fall outside the bounds of acceptable campaign spending. They create an enormous loophole to current Federal Election law by allowing a few wealthy investors (people and corporations) to greatly direct the national attitude in elections.
Its laughable that these groups contend their actions are the "essence" of grass-roots politics.
There are, of course, 1st Amendment issues here when limiting speech, but the rights afforded to us by the Constitution are not (nor were they intended to be ) absolute. That is one reason it is illegal to scream "fire" in a crowded auditorium. There are compelling public interests that must be protected, and one of the paramount interest our society must protect is the sanctity of our election process. These groups are given a voice other methods of conveying their message (i.e. the internet, townhall meetings, door-to-door campaigning). They don't need these inflammatory commercials, meant only to divide our nation with fear and hatred.
Oral arguments are scheduled for April, with a decision expected in June. I don't know what the court will do with this issue, but I hope they find a way to preserve the integrity of our population-driven government, and will stop the sale of American interests to the highest bidder.
Stay Tuned...
Americans are now spending in excess of $1,000,000,000 (thats right BILLION) to imprison people on marijuana charges.
For those to lazy to click a link, below you will find some excerpts:
American taxpayers are now spending more than a billion dollars per year to incarcerate its citizens for pot. That's according to statistics recently released by the U.S. Department of Justice's Bureau of Justice Statistics.
According to the new BJS report, "Drug Use and Dependence, State and Federal Prisoners, 2004," 12.7 percent of state inmates and 12.4 percent of federal inmates incarcerated for drug violations are serving time for marijuana offenses. Combining these percentages with separate U.S. Department of Justice statistics on the total number of state and federal drug prisoners suggests that there are now about 33,655 state inmates and 10,785 federal inmates behind bars for marijuana offenses. The report failed to include estimates on the percentage of inmates incarcerated in county and/or local jails for pot-related offenses.
Multiplying these totals by U.S. DOJ prison expenditure data reveals that taxpayers are spending more than $1 billion annually to imprison pot offenders.
This begs the question - Is it time for our society to re-evaluate its stance on possession of marijuana that falls short of the quantity needed for an "intent to distribute" charge?
I believe it is. If you look around the world at the current state of the law on this matter you will see that in the last ten to fifteen years, almost all of the major industrialized nations have moved away from the harsh penalties for personal marijuana use and possession. The reason? The people that are locked up with those quantities do not pose a serious risk to society (at least not on account of that), and beyond the $1 billion dollars we are spending annually, we also put valuable and productive members of our society in jail for negligible offenses.
People want to make some slippery slope argument that you can't legalize pot because its a "gateway drug" and if you allow people to use it, it will only lead to more drug use, and harder drug use. My question is, how is alcohol any different? The "intoxication" people derive from alcohol is addictive, they become dependent. It destroys families, lives, and communities. How do we draw a line and say "you are an adult, and a citizen of this country. You are free to make your own decisions, both good and bad."? Easy! We make you wait until you're 21 years old, and we regulate the HELL out of the distribution of alcohol. Another positive side effect in this scenario? The government brings in significant tax revenue from the sale of alcohol.
So? Let the government finally come out in the open and tell us what we have known all along: The only reason that pot is illegal is because the cotton lobby was afraid of hemp 140 years ago, and convinced (paid?) the legislature to make sure that the cheaper, more durable, lighter weight hemp wasn't available.
Make it illegal to "smoke and drive" just like it is to "drink and drive". Make it illegal to posses with the intent to distribute, but make that a violation of the tax code, because the government should be the sole provider (unless it licenses individuals). You save money in the criminal realm (less police work, less court cases, less prison time), and you make money on the other end (taxes).
Remember, this doesn't mean you have to smoke pot. It doesn't mean that everywhere you go people will be smoking pot. You don't have to drink alcohol. I bet you don't find that everywhere you turn you see people getting drunk.
Live your life by your own standards, but we have an opportunity in this country to make a bottom-line, dollars-and-cents, cost-benefit decisions that can make a significant difference on our burdened courts, prisons, and economy.
Now that I sound like a huge liberal and pot-head, I'm going to go find something really pro-gun to write about before people assume to much about me.
Stay Tuned...
By the way, my favorite quote from Reefer Madness:
Jesus: "Jimmy. Take a hit of God instead, you think you can handle the high? Eh eh eh."
Here's the "long and short of it" so that this might make some sense...I've been reading a series of about a dozen cases that illustrate how international law is interpreted and enacted in American courts. There are two basic sources of this law, the first is your "formal" or "traditional" international law, which is derived from Treaties and each country literally signs it (which is how a sovereign nation can be bound by international law - their signature is their "assent").
The second is "informal" or "non-traditional" international law. This article is meant only to discuss how American Courts have generally integrated "informal" or "non-traditional" international legal standards into American law. These are the "non-consensual" sources of law, because the states don't specifically put their signature on a document agreeing to this legal standard. The so-called "non-traditional international legal norms" are derived from such sources as: (1) Customary International Law [how do states generally act towards each other, and how has America acted in the past], (2) General Principles of law [Lawyer-Client Privilege is a universally accepted necessity], and (3) jus cogens [or a "compelling norm" - something that every reasonable human being should be able to agree is good or bad. Piracy is the only example that comes to mind].
The one overwhelming problem I have with this case is that I find it generally failed to explain why extradition was not proper. This might be more for my lack of understanding of the laws of extradition but it occurs to me that if the court is going to hold that the Verbal Assault took place on “French territory” because it was the ministers official residence, then for all intents and purposes the crime too place in France. Is it not generally accepted that in cases such as this, where the crime occurred on foreign soil, that the criminal be extradited back to the country who sustained the injury? It seems to be that would have been proper.
What would not have been proper, and the court handled well, would be to allow the crown of France to determine the length of the sentence for De Longchamp. That would (as the note after the case asked) result in a ceding of a serious amount of our “early judiciary” sovereignty (at a time when it was critical to the development of the United States that we assert our sovereign power).
I was entirely shocked that the majority was able to justify brushing aside international customary law, and (what would seem to be) common sense and validate the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT taking such actions. This appears (as the dissent properly articulates) to be a major violation of the sovereign rights of Mexico. One of the keystones of American sovereign authority should be that a foreign government couldn’t enter American soil (in an official capacity none the less) and go about the business of kidnapping an American citizen in order to try then in foreign courts.
That is behavior that our government would never condone, and I think that the majority decision in this case ran contrary to the public interest of this country. It’s a door that we have no business opening. The quotes on vengeance, and the pressure to get retribution really capture the importance of upholding our law, and the law of nations in trying times. The one thing I’m not sure of is where the murder took place. It was unclear from the facts whether the crime for which Alvarez-Machain was kidnapped was in the U.S. or not.
The first two potions of the test are pretty clear judicial cannons – if this is a question for the legislature to determine, the courts are generally adverse to “legislating from the bench” and would prefer only to deal with matters that have law to be analyzed. Similarly they defer to the Executive branch when appropriate (as they did in the series of cases in part A of this chapter that questioned the Presidents power). The third prong however struck me as odd:
That is a mighty open ended “out” that Justice Powell left the courts. When is this appropriate? Only in foreign matters? What about domestic issues that carry particularly important political implications. Should the Supreme Court have refused to address the 2000 Presidential Election controversy? What about such things as gay-marriage? Is it best to leave that to the legislature and get involved only when asked if specific legislation or executive action is contrary to a constitutional right? I don’t have answers to these questions, but as I read this material, I found it surprising that the court would have such a dramatically undefined “escape pod” for hot button issues.
- Michael Ricks (Juco - committed to Tide out of HS too)
- Marques Maze (WR out of B'ham 3*)
- Kourntei Brown (4* DL out of Carolina's - he was a Bama commit, but his stock shot up and he became a hometown hero for staying and signing with Clemson tomorrow I think)
- A potential "shocker" that is being said to be "off everyone's radar" but its still a "fluid" situation
- Nick Fairley (OL/DL from Mobile - probably go to Auburn)
- Pat Lezar (LB from Maryland - lots of off the field issues, not sure if he has a Bama offer, but is a stud LB)
NFL spokesman Greg Aiello said Thursday the league stands by its interpretation of copyright law and would look into any violators that comes to the league’s attention.
Aiello said the league has a longstanding policy against “mass out-of-home viewings” of the Super Bowl, even if the hosts don’t charge admission.
Posts
All Comments
