Category: crime and punishment

Categories
crime and punishment First Amendment rights general freedom initiative, referendum, and recall nannyism national politics & policies political challengers responsibility too much government

A Private Party

Donald Trump, delegates, unbound, convention, crime, vote

Virginia delegate Beau Correll won’t cast his first ballot vote at the Republican National Convention for Donald Trump, and won’t go to jail, either.

As discussed last Thursday, at issue is a state statute requiring* delegates to vote for the plurality winner of the party’s primary. On the Republican side, that’s Mr. Trump. Yesterday, Federal Judge Robert Payne ruled the law unconstitutional, no law at all, because it violates Correll’s First Amendment rights to speak and associate politically.

“In sum, where the State attempts to interfere with a political party’s internal governance and operation,” the federal judge wrote, “the party is entirely free to ‘cancel out [the State’s] effort’ (Def. Resp. 28) even though the state has expended financial and administrative resources in a primary.”

Love ’em or hate ’em, political parties are private associations, properly protected by the First Amendment.

But is it fair to hold primary elections, at taxpayers’ expense, and then ignore the votes of so many people?

Easy answer: NO.

Sure, Judge Payne correctly struck this statute, but it doesn’t follow that states must foot the bill for party primaries and national conventions or provide legal preference. Up to now, incumbent politicians have quietly legislated a relationship of too-​friendly collusion between government and the major parties.

It’s time for citizens to look at initiatives to mandate separation of political party and state.

More immediately, the implications for the coming GOP convention in Cleveland are obvious and far-​reaching. “The Court’s decision,” as Correll’s attorney David Rivkin summarized, “follows more than 40 years of precedent in firmly rejecting Donald Trump’s legal opinion that delegates are obligated by law to vote for him.”

The delegates are free.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

 

* Penalty for non-​compliance? One year in prison.

Printable PDF

Donald Trump, delegates, unbound, convention, crime, vote

 

Original photo credit: Gage Skidmore on Flickr

 

Categories
Accountability crime and punishment general freedom national politics & policies political challengers responsibility

Delegates Imprisoned

Republican, convention, delegates, unbound,

Can you go to jail for voting for the wrong person?

We may find out today, in a federal court in Richmond, Virginia. Judge Robert Payne will hear motions in the case of Correll v. Herring. Attorney General Mark Herring is being sued in his official capacity by Beau Correll, a Republican delegate who refuses to vote for Donald Trump.

Correll is the named plaintiff in this class action challenge to a Virginia statute that binds delegates attending presidential nominating conventions to vote for the plurality winner of their state party primary, which was Mr. Trump.

The penalty for not tallying for Trump? As much as a year behind bars. And a fine.

Correll’s attorney, David Rivkin with Baker & Hostetler, has asked the judge to issue an injunction blocking enforcement of the statute against Correll and all other Virginia delegates. The ruling wouldn’t affect delegates beyond Virginia, yet the implication would be obvious: state laws binding party delegates to vote according to the primary results are unconstitutional.

Trump supporters aren’t taking this lawsuit lightly; several have moved to intervene — on the side of the AG. They’re right to be concerned: a delegate revolt to dump Trump has been brewing for weeks. And the legal precedents are all on the side of political parties controlling their own nominating process, leaving state governments no legitimate role.

It’s long past time to break the crony connections between government and the two major political parties.

Let’s stop all taxpayer subsidies for party primaries and conventions. But let’s also recognize that the delegates meeting in convention should be free to do … well, whatever they choose. After all, it’s their party.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

BIG PICTURE: Why the case really matters!

With the results of Correll vs. Herring, we may also find out if the Republican and Democratic (and Libertarian and Green) Parties are private organizations, with First Amendment protection for their freedom to associate without government interference. Nothing could be more heavy-​handed than threatening delegates with incarceration if they vote their conscience — or even follow the state party’s rules, which call for delegates to be awarded proportionately rather than winner-​take-​all as Virginia’s statute requires.

Printable PDF

Republican, convention, delegates, unbound,

 

Categories
Accountability crime and punishment government transparency national politics & policies

The Servers of the Self-Serving

Hillary Clinton, investigation, FBI, crime, server, email

Feel like Charlie Brown? That football … yanked away again.

Yesterday, FBI Director James Comey announced he’s not recommending prosecution of former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, the presumptive Democratic presidential candidate.

“Although there is evidence of potential violations of the statutes regarding the handling of classified information,” Comey stated, “our judgment is that no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case.” He saw the evidence as not strong enough, “especially regarding intent.”

It doesn’t appear that Mrs. Clinton purposely divulged classified material, though her “intent” in setting up a private server for State Department work was self-​centered, and purposely not transparent. She was clearly more concerned with shielding her communications from the U.S. Government and the public, than shielding classified information from the Russians, Chinese, Iranians or ISIS.

While the FBI noted that Clinton and her aides lacked any apparent intent “to violate laws governing the handling of classified information,” the investigation discovered ample “evidence that they were extremely careless in their handling of very sensitive, highly classified information.”

Not a sterling report card for someone seeking to be the commander-in-chief.

Donald Trump’s negative standing with voters, 70 percent disapproval in a recent survey, may save Mrs. Clinton. Still, standing in her way remains the fact that a majority of voters just don’t trust her.

That won’t change with yesterday’s news.

“Key assertions by Hillary Clinton in defense of her email practices have collapsed under FBI scrutiny,” read the lead of an Associated Press story, detailing six public statements made by her that the investigation found to be false.

Let’s split the difference: neither prosecute Hillary nor elect her president.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Printable PDF

Hillary Clinton, investigation, FBI, crime, server, email

 

Photo credit: Toms Norde /​ Valsts kanceleja on Flickr

Categories
crime and punishment free trade & free markets general freedom nannyism national politics & policies Second Amendment rights too much government U.S. Constitution

What Doesn’t Fly

Pulse, Orlando, shooter, background, registration

After the Orlando massacre, isn’t it time to get guns out of the hands of … licensed security guards?

Omar Mir Seddique Mateen, who murdered 49 people and wounded 53 others in The Pulse nightclub, worked for the globe’s largest security firm, Britain’s G4S. He passed two background checks conducted by the company.

Mateen’s government credentials included “a Florida state-​issued security guard license and a security guard firearms license.” Twice, he was investigated by the FBI, in 2013 and again in 2014, and cleared — investigations closed.

Should we talk about security failures?

Instead, a filibuster by Connecticut Sen. Chris Murphy and a sit-​in protest by House Democrats changed the channel to gun control. The Senate voted on four bills that threatened more than the Second Amendment. Our Fifth Amendment rights to due process were also in the sights of crusading Democrats and appeasing Republicans and still are.

Not to mention the Ninth Amendment, freedom to do all manner of things, including travel.

Hillary Clinton says that “if you’re too dangerous to get on a plane, you’re too dangerous to buy a gun.” Yet, the problem comes in government simply declaring someone too dangerous to fly or to buy a gun, without ever publicly bringing a charge — you know, with evidence — much less convicting that person of a crime.

Having a government agent place a name on a secret list doesn’t even approximate due process of law. And, accordingly, doesn’t justify stripping a person of fundamental liberties.

Terrorism is terrifying … but not any more so than politicians who, in pursuit of their political agendas, don’t think twice about our freedoms or their constitutional limitations.

It’s not all right.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Printable PDF

Pulse, Orlando, shooter, background, registration

 

Categories
crime and punishment folly general freedom media and media people national politics & policies too much government

Not Buying a Stairway to Riches

Led Zeppelin, copyright, lawsuit

I am not a writer by trade. I don’t make a living off of these daily and weekly writing gigs. I give this stuff away, for free. The donations I ask for are there to cover bandwidth, website expertise, artwork, etc. They don’t cover my contributions.

But that doesn’t disqualify me from my occasional wonder and amazement (and worse) at how intellectual “property” is handled in America.

This week a Los Angeles jury found that the great rock band “Led Zeppelin did not plagiarize the opening chords of the rock epic Stairway to Heaven from the U.S. band Spirit,” the BBC reports. “It said the riff Led Zeppelin was accused of taking from Spirit’s 1967 song Taurus ‘was not intrinsically similar’ to Stairway’s opening.”

So, my surprise, and perhaps yours too, is that a riff, a mere riff, taken from one song and put into another, could be actionable at law. It seems to me that this would be like suing over an essay title (one has no private property rights to your headlines, no matter how original), or clever turn of phrase. Writers copy this stuff all the time. Even more commonly, they inadvertently regurgitate these writerly “riffs” from the far corners of their minds, or even think up these things separately.

But honestly, I didn’t think one could sue over a riff. Riffs and chord progressions vary in originality, but some of the best songs use the same three chords, so there is a lot of apparent “stealing” going on.

Thankfully, the jury wisely knew the difference between What Is and What Should Never Be.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Printable PDF

Led Zeppelin, copyright, lawsuit

 

Categories
Accountability crime and punishment folly free trade & free markets general freedom ideological culture nannyism national politics & policies

Digs at the Gig Economy

Uber, Lyft, sharing, economy, HIllary, Bernie, illustration

In Texas’s progressive enclave of Austin, the government has regulated Uber and Lyft out of the city.

Massachusset’s uber*-progressive Sen. Elizabeth Warren cautions that the “much-​touted virtues”of the “gig economy” that these services represent are actually dark signs of the times, providing workers a false “step in a losing effort to build some economic security in a world where all the benefits are floating to the top 10 percent.”

Vermont’s Sen. Bernie Sanders, the independent candidate for the Democratic Party’s presidential nomination, is also no fan. Why? These services are not regulated.

Sanders’s charge that these person-​to-​person (P2P) ride-​sharing services are “unregulated” is of course the opposite of the truth. They are self-​regulated for safety and efficiency in ways that taxi services never were. How much extra value did governments add, with their regulations of the taxicab industry? They just reduced competition and made cabs more expensive.

P2P online cooperation is revolutionary. And “progressives” are stuck in the past, itching to suppress that revolution. “Initially,” writes Jared Meyer in the July issue of Reason, “hostility mostly came from state and municipal governments, at the behest of local special interests.” But as the services became more popular, opposition shifted. To the national Democrats like Sanders, Warren and … Hillary Clinton. She promises to “crack down on bosses who exploit employees by misclassifying them as contractors or even steal their wages.”

Par for the course: the Internet provides more opportunity than ever, and all some progressives see are the old socialist fears of “exploitation” and “greed” … while they greedily suck up to unions and special interests.

The bright side, Meyer argues, is that they are on the losing side.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

 

*I guess the pun here is intended. Or not. You choose, P2P style.

Printable PDF

Uber, Lyft, sharing, economy, HIllary, Bernie, illustration