Tag: civil rights

Categories
Fourth Amendment rights judiciary property rights

Against Government Invasion

property, rights, invasion, civil rights

Unconstitutional searches of private property by a renegade Tennessee government agency may be coming to an end.

Unanimously upholding an earlier decision, a Tennessee Court of Appeals has ruled that no, Tennessee Wildlife Resources Agency employees have no right to ignore No Trespassing signs on private land — not even to enter it, let alone install cameras there in search of a crime.

The court ruled in a case brought by the Institute for Justice on behalf of Terry Rainwaters and Hunter Hollingsworth.

“TWRA claimed unfettered power to put on full camouflage, invade people’s land, roam around as it pleases, take photos, record videos, sift through ponds, spy on people … all without consent, a warrant, or any meaningful limits on their power,” says IJ attorney Joshua Windham.

“This decision confirms that granting state officials unfettered power to invade private land is anathema to Tennesseans’ most basic constitutional rights.”

The ruling cites the observation of legal scholar John Orth that “‘general warrants’ and ‘writs of assistance,’ authorizing officers to search anyone, anytime, for evidence of any crime” were among the abuses leading to adoption of the Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution prohibiting “unreasonable searches and seizures.”

“The various state constitutions adopted after the Revolution almost invariably forbade the practices,” Orth notes.

According to the new ruling, Tennessee’s constitution does too. But we may not be quite done. The TWRA can appeal, which means that the case may end up in the Tennessee Supreme Court.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

PDF for printing

Illustration created with PicFinder and Firefly

—

See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)

See recent popular posts

Categories
folly Fourth Amendment rights property rights

Can They Do That?

Zion, Illinois, apartment, inspection, civil liberty

Residential tenants in Zion — and their landlords — can breathe a sigh of relief.

The Zion, Illinois, government can no longer send officials to barge into rented homes at will to conduct obnoxious inspections.

The inspection regime was instituted in 2015 by a mayor who blamed an excess of renters for the town’s financial troubles. The motive for the searches, then, may have been to make it more uncomfortable to rent in Zion. Seriously. As dumb and thuggish as that.

Robert and Dorice Pierce and their landlord were among the victims of this regime.

When an inspector showed up at the Pierces’ door, they told him to get a warrant. But judges don’t generally accept “important to harass tenants” as a reason for issuing warrants. In any case, any respect for constitutional constraints was incompatible with the very nature of these intrusive practices.

So Zion’s response was to threaten the landlord, Josefina Lozano, with daily and mounting fines until she compelled the Pierces to capitulate. That’s when the trio turned to the Institute for Justice and decided to go to court.

This was familiar territory for IJ, which in the 1990s had successfully fought a similar inspection regime in Park Forest, Illinois.

And now, after three years of judicial proceedings, IJ and its clients have secured a consent decree prohibiting the warrantless inspections and prohibiting the fines.

But those who enacted this outrageous regime deserve a reprimand more stern than merely a loss in court. 

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

PDF for printing

Illustration created with PicFinder​.ai and DALL-E2

—

See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)

See recent popular posts

Categories
Accountability general freedom international affairs

Chain of Command?

truckers, Canada, Justin Trudeau, civil rights violations

Early this year, Canadian truckers rebelled against the Canadian government’s tyrannical response to the pandemic by protesting en masse — in their trucks.

The truckers objected to being forced to accept experimental non-​vaccines in order to go back and forth across the Canada‑U.S. border.

The Canadian government could have instantly solved the problem by rescinding the nonsensical travel ban and letting truckers truck freely.

Instead, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau deployed a dormant triple-​the-​tyranny measure called the Emergencies Act to make the truckers regret that they had ever dared lift a pinky in protest against the assault on their lives and livelihoods. The insanity included imposing freezes on their bank accounts and suspending their vehicle insurance.

Now Trudeau’s actions are being investigated in the Canadian parliament.

And guess what’s come to light? You’ll get a kick out of this if you’re one of my United States readers: Trudeau was urged to do something about those darn truckers by none other than the Biden administration.

February 10: the director of the U.S. National Economic Council spoke to Canadian officials. 

Same day: U.S. Transportation Boss Pete Buttigieg asked the Canadian Transportation Boss about Canada’s plan to cure the protests. 

February 11: President Biden and Prime Minister Trudeau spoke.

Don’t worry, Trudeau told Biden. He had a plan to end the protests. Somehow I doubt that Biden said “Fine, so long as it’s not about stomping the truckers even harder.”

Three days later, Trudeau invoked the Emergencies Act.

Correlation ain’t causation, but a schedule of influence indicates … almost … a conspiracy.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

PDF for printing

Illustration created with DALL-​E2

—

See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)

See recent popular posts

Categories
general freedom international affairs

A Naïve Victory

gold medal, Olympics, China

The warning was loud and clear. It came from China’s government and was echoed by Nancy Pelosi: during the Beijing Olympics, don’t dare protest the brutal policies of China’s government lest it come down upon you like a ton of bricks.

An Olympic athlete has found a way to both heed and spurn this counsel.

In what the New York Times calls a “rare rebuke,” Swedish speedskater Nils van der Poel has given one of his gold medals to the daughter of a Chinese-​born Swedish publisher being imprisoned by the Chinese government.

Last November, Nils saw a production by Civil Rights Defenders that told of how Gui Minhai, a publisher of works criticizing the Chinazi regime, is now incarcerated in China. He had been abducted by Chinese operatives while vacationing in Thailand.

The skater felt obliged to do something in protest “since I had the opportunity that very few people have.”

Gui’s daughter, Angela, shrugs off any suggestion that the skater’s gesture, lacking immediate power to free her father, must be naïve.

“A little bit of naïveté is important to try to effect change,” she says. “I think it’s very important that Nils giving me his medal to honor my father is understood as honoring political prisoners like him, many of whom are increasingly Hong Kongers and Uyghurs.”

What about it, fellow Olympic winners? If you follow Nils’s example, you’ll no longer have your medal. But you’ll still have your victory. 

And a little more.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

PDF for printing

—

See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)

See recent popular posts

Categories
First Amendment rights national politics & policies too much government

A Modest Extrapolation

civil rights, discrimination, 1st Amendment, free speech,

The big news from yesterday’s Supreme Court decisions (in June, they typically come in chunks) regards discrimination law, in which the court decided, 6 – 3, with Neil Gorsuch writing the majority opinion, that discrimination “against an employee for being gay or transgender violates the Civil Rights Act of 1964.” As covered at Reason it makes for fascinating reading.

Still, there are many problems here. The whole employment discrimination issue assumes that people have a right to be judged suitable for employment based only on strict consideration of job performance.

This is intrusive into private decision-​making, and opens up hiring and firing to huge legal costs.

But a bigger issue lurks here.

It is now commonplace for employees to be fired under public pressure for merely having political opinions that have little or nothing to do with their jobs.

Anti-​discrimination civil rights law was designed to curb this sort of thing — public pressure for reasons of antipathy and social mania — but only on a limited number of criteria, racism and sexism against protected groups being the areas carved out.

Since we have a First Amendment right to speak, mightn’t that right be applied via discrimination law to prohibit mob deplatforming or resulting loss of employment?

Sure, 1964’s Civil Rights Act limited the scope of its intervention into employment contracts and the “public accommodations” realm of commerce to the above-​mentioned isms, on grounds of a long history of bigotry and invidious private discrimination. But right now, that sort of discrimination is primarily an ideological matter, not racial or sexual. 

Extending the scope of the First Amendment via an anti-​discrimination rationale would seem a natural.

At least for those who favor consistent government intervention over freedom. 

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

PDF for printing

—

See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)

See recent popular posts

Categories
crime and punishment First Amendment rights general freedom moral hazard property rights too much government

A Cakewalk Case?

Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission, Supreme Court, civil rights, first amendment

The Justices seem split — on the “gay cake” case. 

A Christian baker had no trouble selling a gay couple a pre-​made cake, out of his showcase, but balked at selling a custom wedding cake of any kind. According to NPR’s Nina Totenberg, the couple understood that requesting a “gay” themed cake would go too far. But the baker’s refusal to decorate any wedding cake seemed unacceptable.

In Colorado, where the cake didn’t get made, there is a public accommodations law that says businesses must serve all customers regardless of race, religion, or sexual orientation. So Colorado went after the baker, the baker hired a lawyer, and Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission was heard by the Supreme Court this week.

Commonly billed as a conflict between First Amendment-​guaranteed religious freedom* and the civil rights of citizens as defined and protected by a state law, it almost defies easy solution. 

One could argue that the First Amendment right to freely associate (including the right not to associate) should extend to business. But that goes against legislation built up since the 1964 Civil Rights Act, which in many places ended an often violent racial segregation** no one wants back. However, a custom-​made wedding cake is also expressive and therefore speech.

One could decide for Colorado on federalist grounds. And the late Justice Antonin Scalia, Ms. Totenberg tells us, argued that a general law not directed at a religion does not allow a specifically religious defense.

But one defense of the baker may work. The Colorado Civil Rights Commission has not applied its rulings equally. It sided with non-Christian bakers who refused to make cakes for Christians requesting Bible-​verse cakes.

And that “takes the cake.”

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob

 

* In this regard, Justice Kennedy stated from the bench that it seemed to him “that the state in its position here has been neither tolerant nor respectful of Mr. Phillips’ religious beliefs.” Kennedy will likely be the swing vote.

** No small amount of this violence, segregation and discrimination was coerced by state laws in defiance of the Fourteenth Amendment and the Bill of Rights.

PDF for printing