Back to Basics

It appears that Rand Paul believes that it is beneficial for America to relax the current drug sentencing guidelines under federal law. One unintended consequence may be to put more petty thieves and dangerous drivers on the street – as well as step-up the need for politically-connected attorneys to allow “rich” people to skirt the law.  Read the press release for yourself.

Bipartisan Legislation To Give Judges More Flexibility For Federal Sentences Introduced  . . . Bill Would Expand ‘Safety Valve’ To All Federal Crimes

Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy (D-VT and Senator Rand Paul (R-KY) introduced bipartisan legislation Wednesday to allow judges greater flexibility in sentencing federal crimes where a mandatory minimum punishment is considered unnecessary.

The bipartisan Justice Safety Valve Act of 2013 expands the so-called “safety valve” that allows judges to impose a sentence below the mandatory minimum in qualifying drug cases to all federal crimes.  By giving judges this greater flexibility, they will not be forced to administer needlessly long sentences for certain offenders, which is a significant factor in the ever-increasing Federal prison population and the spiraling costs that steer more and more of the justice budget toward keeping people in prison, rather than investing in programs that keep our communities safe.

“As a former prosecutor, I understand that criminals must be held accountable, and that long sentences are sometimes necessary to keep criminals off the street and deter those who would commit violent crime,” Leahy said.  “Our reliance on mandatory minimums has been a great mistake.  I am not convinced it has reduced crime, but I am convinced it has imprisoned people, particularly non-violent offenders, for far longer than is just or beneficial. It is time for us to let judges go back to acting as judges and making decisions based on the individual facts before them.  A one-size-fits-all approach to sentencing does not make us safer.”

Paul said that “Our country’s mandatory minimum laws reflect a Washington-knows-best, one-size-fits-all approach, which undermines the Constitutional Separation of Powers, violates the our bedrock principle that people should be treated as individuals, and costs the taxpayers money without making them any safer. This bill is necessary to combat the explosion of new federal criminal laws, many of which carry new mandatory minimum penalties.”

Statement of Senator Patrick Leahy (D-VT), Chairman, Senate Judiciary Committee, On the Introduction of S. 619, the Justice Safety Valve Act of 2013
March 20, 2013

Today I join with Senator Paul to introduce the Justice Safety Valve Act of 2013, which will start to take on the problem of the ever-increasing Federal prison population and spiraling costs that spend more and more of our justice budget on keeping people in prison thereby reducing opportunities to do more to keep our communities safe.  This bill will combat injustice in Federal sentencing and the waste of taxpayer dollars by allowing judges appropriate discretion in sentencing.

Not so fast.

The “portion control” movement takes a hit:

A state judge on Monday stopped Mayor Bloomberg’s administration from banning New York City restaurants and other venues from selling large sugary drinks, a major defeat for the mayor who has made public a health initiatives a cornerstone of his tenure at city Hall.

The city is “enjoined and permanently restrained from implementing or enforcing the new regulations,” New York Supreme Court Judge Milton Tingling decided Monday.

The regulations are “fraught with arbitrary and capricious consequences,” the judge wrote. “The simple reading of the rule leads to the earlier acknowledged uneven enforcement even within a particular city block, much less the city as a whole….the loopholes in this rule effectively defeat the state purpose of the rule.”

Oddly enough, I think Bloomberg has two yachts named “Arbitrary” and “Capricious.”

Now the city’s stuck with a bunch of 17-ounce inspection cups that the mayor will probably have converted into three bedroom loft apartments.

Providing another example of why judicial review needs to be reviewed is U.S. District Court Judge James C. Fox, who just ruled that North Carolina may not offer its “Choose Life” license plates. And wait till you hear his reasoning (if you can call it that). Writes MyFox8.com:

A federal judge has ruled it is unconstitutional for North Carolina to issue pro-life license plates unless the state offers similar plates supporting abortion rights.

[…]Judge Fox concluded, “The State’s offering of a Choose Life license plate in the absence of a pro-choice plate constitutes viewpoint discrimination in violation of the First Amendment.”

Allow me to translate: “I, Caesarean Judge, don’t like pro-life messages. So I’m going to rule against the choose-life plate — because I can.”

Providing another example of why judicial review needs to be reviewed is U.S. District Court Judge James C. Fox, who just ruled that North Carolina may not offer its “Choose Life” license plates. And wait till you hear his reasoning (if you can call it that). Writes MyFox8.com:

A federal judge has ruled it is unconstitutional for North Carolina to issue pro-life license plates unless the state offers similar plates supporting abortion rights.

[…]Judge Fox concluded, “The State’s offering of a Choose Life license plate in the absence of a pro-choice plate constitutes viewpoint discrimination in violation of the First Amendment.”

Allow me to translate: “I, Caesarean Judge, don’t like pro-life messages. So I’m going to rule against the choose-life plate — because I can.”

Question: where in the Constitution is it forbidden for states — or the feds, for that matter — to engage in “viewpoint discrimination”? The Founding Fathers included no such provision, and for good reason.

They were neither on mind-altering medication nor were insane.

The fact is that the very business of governing involves “viewpoint discrimination.” After all, the state must enact laws. And a law, by definition, is the imposition of a viewpoint.

As an example, the battle over Obamacare involved many viewpoints, two of which were “The federal government has no right to force citizens to purchase a product or service” and “The federal government does have a right to force citizens to purchase a product or service.” And the feds not only discriminated between those two viewpoints, they decided to impose one at the end of a gun.

So here is what’s implicit in Judge Fox’s reasoning: if the government’s viewpoint discrimination involves the forcible imposition of the viewpoint on others, it’s acceptable. But if the government is simply offering a vehicle through which citizens can voluntarily display a viewpoint, it’s not.

Another example of government viewpoint discrimination is public-service announcements. For instance, when the government uses tax money to promote the notion that our strength lies in our diversity, it has discriminated against the viewpoint that our strength certainly does not lie there.

Another issue here is hinted at by Chris Brook, legal director of the organization that filed the lawsuit against the pro-life plates, the American Civil Liberties Union of North Carolina Legal Foundation. He rendered the opinion, writes MyFox8.com, that “the government cannot create an avenue to express one side of a political issue while denying an equal opportunity to citizens with an opposing view.” He perhaps was very clever to use the word “an” as opposed to “the,” as issues can suggest far more than just two viewpoints.

Just consider the matter at hand. The ACLU would find it acceptable if NC offered an opposing message such as the euphemistic “Respect Reproductive Freedom,” but this would still leave great discrimination. What of the viewpoints, “Abortion Controls the Population,” “Abortionists Should be Aborted,” “Abortion is a Good,” and “Abortion is Racism” (an inordinate percentage of aborted babies are black)? Sure, these are fringe opinions, but so what? It is now our position that a viewpoint may suffer discrimination if it’s held only by a minority?

Of course, that is our position, as illustrated with the examples of laws and public-service announcements.

We are daily inundated with bad news. In fact, just about every piece of news coming out of Washington, D.C., is bad. And since the mainstream media, for the most part, does absolutely nothing to truly inform the American citizenry regarding the incessant assaults against their liberties from the miscreants inside the Beltway, it is left to independent journalists and columnists to serve as modern-day Paul Reveres. This usually means warning people to the evil machinations of those who seek to vanquish constitutional liberties. Occasionally, however, there are positive reports that people need to know about. This is one of those weeks. I want readers to be aware of two significantly positive events that have taken place. One is at the federal level; the other is at the State level.

*A Federal Judge Has Made Permanent The Decision To Invalidate The Indefinite Detention Provision Of The NDAA

The New American magazine covers the story: “On September 12 a federal district court judge made permanent an earlier order temporarily blocking enforcement of provisions of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) purporting to empower the president to deploy the U.S. military to apprehend and indefinitely detain people suspected of ‘substantially supporting’ al-Qaeda, the Taliban, or ‘associated forces.’

“On May 16 Judge Katherine Forrest of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York had issued a preliminary injunction preventing the Obama administration from exercising the indefinite detention authority granted the president by Section 1021 of the NDAA.

“The temporary block has now been made permanent. In the opinion handing down the injunction issued yesterday, Judge Forrest wrote:

“‘The due process rights guaranteed by the Fifth Amendment require that an individual understand what conduct might subject him or her to criminal or civil penalties. Here, the stakes get no higher: indefinite military detention — potential detention during a war on terrorism that is not expected to end in the foreseeable future, if ever. The Constitution requires specificity — and that specificity is absent from § 1021(b)(2).’

“This is similar to the language she used in the 68-page opinion accompanying the temporary injunction order. In that order Judge Forrest disagreed with the federal government’s argument that the relevant provisions of the NDAA merely restate existing law. She wrote: ‘Section 1021 is not merely an “affirmation” of the AUMF [Authorization for the Use of Military Force].’

“Pointing out that were Section 1021 and the AUMF identical then the former would be redundant, Judge Forrest held:

“‘Section 1021 lacks what are standard definitional aspects of similar legislation that define scope with specificity. It also lacks the critical component of requiring that one found to be in violation of its provisions must have acted with some amount of scienter–i.e., that an alleged violator’s conduct must have been, in some fashion, “knowing.” Section 1021 tries to do too much with too little–it lacks the minimal requirements of definition and scienter that could easily have been added, or could be added, to allow it to pass Constitutional muster.’

“Scienter is defined as ‘a state of mind often required to hold a person legally accountable for his or her acts.’ In other words, the indefinite detention provisions of the NDAA are too vague and aren’t specific enough to permit a person to know whether he or she has violated the law.

“While admitting that preventing the federal government from enforcing a congressional act is a sober matter that must be attended to with caution, Judge Forrest writes that ‘it is the responsibility of our judicial system to protect the public from acts of Congress which infringe upon constitutional rights.’”

See The New American report at:

http://tinyurl.com/ctw7txo

As you can imagine, the Obama administration had the audacity to announce that Judge Forrest’s ruling is “unconstitutional” and is appealing her decision to the US Supreme Court.

It is very unusual for a judge to be removed from a case in this way.  I had thought Judge Lester was behaving improperly, but it is nice to have this decided.

A Florida appeals court today ordered Judge Kenneth Lester Jr. to disqualify himself in George Zimmerman’s trial for the alleged murder of Trayvon Martin.

The Fifth District Court of Appeals in Daytona, Fla., voted 2-1 that Lester should be disqualified. Zimmerman’s attorney, Mark O’Mara, had appealed to the court in early July for Lester to be removed.

His motion to disqualify the judge came in response to Lester’s order setting Zimmerman’s bail at $1 million. In it Lester wrote that Zimmerman had “flaunted the system” and practiced “deception upon the court” after it was revealed that Zimmerman and his wife Shellie had not told the court he had two passports and tried to hide the amount of money their defense fund had raised. record. They were also accused of speaking in code in reference to their assets.

In a 17-page document O’Mara accused Lester of having a bias against Zimmerman, writing that “the court made gratuitous, disparaging remarks about Mr. Zimmerman’s character, advocated for Mr. Zimmerman to be prosecuted for additional crimes; offers a personal opinion about the evidence for said prosecution; and continues to hold over Mr. Zimmerman’s head the threat of future contempt proceedings.” . . .

A hearing regarding the notebook of the Aurora theater shooting suspect James Holmes that he mailed to his psychiatrist has been postponed for one week. The subject was supposed to be debated during Thursday’s court hearing in Holmes’ murder case.

But in his ruling on Wednesday, Judge William Sylvester granted a motion to postpone the debate until August 23.

Meanwhile, members of the nation’s journalism community won a slight victory when the Colorado judge ordered several documents regarding the Batman movie killing in Aurora unsealed on Monday, but upheld the sealing of other documents at the request of both the prosecution and the defense.

James Holmes, 24, was arrested outside a theater after allegedly killing 12 people and wounding another 58 at the midnight showing of a Batman movie on July 20. He made his first court appearance three weeks ago.

The journalists‘ access to the files is expected to provide the public with a clearer view of one of the worst mass-shootings in U.S. history. A media coalition has been pushing for all records relevant to the case to be released. Steven Zansberg, a lawyer representing the media coalition, applauded part of the decision and but wasn’t pleased about the overall ruling.

The attorneys for both the prosecution and defense had argued for the documents to remain sealed with the prosecutor saying his office wished to assure the integrity of the continuing investigation, and the defense saying they wished to protect Holmes’ right to a fair trial.

Chief Judge William Sylvester, of the 18th Judicial District, ruled that more than 30 court documents about the proceedings of the case, including a motion for access and preservation of the crime scene and evidence, would be unsealed.

“While the court is cognizant of the important role media petitioners play in informing the public’s legitimate interest in knowing the actions taken by government officials responsible for the investigation, prosecution and trial of the defendant, the court also will not jeopardize the integrity of the process and the truth-seeking functions of our justice system by authorizing the premature release of records,” Sylvester wrote in his ruling.

Following the arrest of suspected murderer James Holmes on July 20 (12CR1522 The People of the State of Colorado v. James Holmes), the judge had imposed a ban that severely limited the news media’s access to the documents. The judge’s rationale for the ban was that if the information contained in the documents were to be disclosed, they could jeopardize the ongoing investigation and violate the defendant’s right to a fair and impartial trial.

Although many files were ordered unsealed, Judge Sylvester ruled that confidential Holmes’ information at the University of Colorado, where he was a former neurology Ph.D. candidate, would be off-limits to reporters and the public.

In addition, Judge Sylvester issued an order clarifying his limited gag order which prohibits defense team members, prosecutors and law enforcement officials from disclosing certain information to the media.

The Law Enforcement Examinerreviewed the files unsealed on Monday. Readers may review the files in their totality at: 12CR1522 The People of the State of Colorado v. James Holmes

Additional research and investigation into the controversial National Defense Authorization Act  found something very interesting is not apparently being reported by the U.S. media.  Readers will recall that controversy that surrounded the liberty-threatening NDAA legislation, passed with bipartisan support in the House and Senate and signed into law by Barack Hussein Obama last New Year’s Eve. That law essentially gave the government the right to arrest and detain, without due process, American citizens on significantly vague and broad charges ostensibly related to terrorism. The legislation opened a “Pandora’s box” of unpleasant possibilities that undermine our Constitutional rights and threaten our liberties unlike any other time in our national history.

Supporters of the NDAA, along with the media, were quick to point to a “signing statement” penned by Obama expressing his concern over the liberty restricting rights of the law, as if that somehow made the language of the new law suddenly conform to the U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights. Obviously, it did no such thing, but people were apparently comforted by this eight-page cross-my-heart promise that Obama and his redesigned national security apparatus would never use it for “bad.” Obama said he was uncomfortable with the particular language of section 1021 (and related portions) that called for arrests and indefinite detentions of U.S. citizens under the broad brush of terrorism.

Despite what you’ve been told, it is obvious that Obama and his cohorts are not uncomfortable with those provisions, and are quietly fighting to make sure the controversial provisions remain.

A legal challenge goes unreported

It appears that the fight against tyranny and oppression creates some interesting alliances on both sides. On January 13, 2012 a group of plaintiffs that include socialist and anarchist Noam Chomsky, political activist Daniel Ellsberg, the U.S. Day of Rage, and others filed a suit in the United States District Court, in and for the Southern District of New York, challenging the Constitutionality of the controversial sections of the NDAA. They asked the court for “preliminary and permanent injunctive relief with respect to one section, (indeed one page) of that voluminous legislation: Section 1021″ (of the NDAA). The case was heard by Manhattan federal court Judge Katherine Forrest.

The defendants of this case were names as Barack Obama (individually and as a representative of the United States), Leon Panetta, John McCain, John Boehner, Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, Mitch McConnell and Eric Cantor.

Despite any sentiments that might be evoked by the identity, social and political views of the plaintiffs, even the most conservative among us would be hard pressed to argue with the merits of their lawsuit. The NDAA shreds the Constitution, and these plaintiffs took legal action to stop it. Those are simply the unbiased facts of the matter, all which apparently are of little interest to the Obama-pandering corporate media. But wait, it gets better.

After an expedited discovery process, an evidentiary hearing was held on March 30, 2012. The federal judge in this matter is All of the plaintiffs showed up in person at that hearing except one, who provided testimony by sworn declaration pursuant to previous authority granted by the court. No one from the government offered any testimony, provided any documentation, or made the slightest noise at the hearing.