Tag: Rights Dealing with Amendments Lower or Higher Than Two

Mandatory Health Care

A Virginia federal judge just ruled the clause in the Insurance Company Enrichment Act requiring peasants citizens of the United States to purchase health insurance is unconstitutional:

Judge Henry E. Hudson ruled Monday for the state’s claim that the requirement for people to purchase health care exceeds the power of Congress under the Constitution’s Commerce Clause or under the General Welfare Clause.

“It is not the effect on individuals that is presently at issue — it is the authority of Congress to compel anyone to purchase health insurance,” wrote Hudson, who was appointed to the federal bench in 2002 by President George W. Bush.

I’m glad somebody understands the fact that the federal government doesn’t have the power to put a gun to your head and make you purchase something. What’s interesting are the reactions from my liberal friends. Many are citing Social Security and Medicare as validation for the clause in the Insurance Company Enrichment Act. I don’t quite understand how using two unconstitutional programs as justification for another unconstitutional program really works.

Does that means it’s OK if I break into their home and steal their television if I’ve already broken in and stolen their computer and stereo? Two wrongs usually don’t make a case for doing yet another wrong.

I am also at a complete loss as to how somebody can justify government theft. Each of the programs mentioned in this post give the government the authority to use their monopoly on force to coerce you into buying into something. It’s interesting that these same people are against anybody besides the government stealing from them, but once it is the government that theft is deemed OK. There has to be come major cognitive dissidence to believe that.

Either way I hope this ruling actually amounts to something since the Republicans already “compromised” with the Democrats and agreed to fund the Insurance Company Enrichment Act until September (you guys really only want to hold those seats for a short while huh?).

Illinois Police Stealing Money

Illinois has appeared twice on this site today, how unfortunate for them. First Mayor Daley of Chicago is whining that his beloved database of peasants who are armed isn’t ready. Now I learned via Dvorak Uncensored that the Aurora Police Department are refusing to comply with a judge’s order to return $190,040 of money they stole:

Though neither Jose nor Jesus Martinez is charged with a crime, authorities are seeking forfeiture of $190,040 found in Jesus’ truck when he was stopped by an Aurora police officer on Oct. 18.

A Kane County judge ordered the money returned, but the city has refused.

The police followed the “logic” that anybody who has a large quantity of cash on hand is a drug-dealer and thus the money can be forcefully stolen by the state. What’s most interesting is a judge ordered the police to return the stolen money but they are refusing. I think this is a little outside of their authority. Then again I don’t understand where they received the authority to steal money from private citizens with no evidence or charges of any wrong doings.

These officers should be arrested themselves for armed robbery (they were armed when they stole the money so might as well do the same to them as they would do to any of us).

I Like This Judge

Some poor schmuck is being sent through the legal wringer because it made a side business of modifying Xbox 360 systems. Well the judge in the case isn’t too happy with the government agents who are bring the case out and went on a 30 minute rant against the actions of the government in this case. Here’s my favorite part:

Among the judge’s host of complaints against the government was his alarm that prosecutors would put on two witnesses who may have broken the law.

One is Entertainment Software Association investigator Tony Rosario, who secretly video-recorded defendant Matthew Crippen allegedly performing the Xbox mod in Crippen’s Los Angeles suburban house. The defense argues that making the recording violates California privacy law. The other witness is Microsoft security employee Ken McGrail, who analyzed the two consoles Crippen allegedly altered. McGrail admitted that he himself had modded Xboxes in college.

“Maybe two of the four government witnesses committed crimes,” the judge said from the bench. “I think it is relevant and the jury is going to hear about it –- both crimes.”

The government had fought to keep the witness conduct a secret from the jury.

So the actions of two witnesses may have been criminal and the government wanted to conceal that from the jury. Are they any people remaining who question my distaste of the government?

What I find most interesting is the fact this case exists at all. I understand the actions of the man being prosecuted were in violation of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act but frankly that piece of legislation itself is unlawful. If I purchase a piece of hardware and want to pay somebody to modify it that’s my business, not the governments. My Xbox 360 is mine, I own it. Microsoft succeeded all rights to it upon my legal purchase of the device.

This is where many people will point out the license agreement that appears on the screen when you first power on the Xbox. Guess what? I never agreed to that before purchase and have no recourse should I disagree with the license. Would it be OK if I tossed in a license agreement to a car I sold that only became visible after somebody had purchased the car? “Oh hey I see you’re starting this car for the first time, just an FYI but doing so you agree to give me all the money in your bank account. K THANX BAI!”

Everything You Need to Know About the Recent TSA Fiasco

With all the shit flying about the recent TSA molestation of airliner customers it’s become very difficult to keep up with events as they unfold. Thankfully Bruce Schneier has a really good summary covering pretty much everything. Read it.

Elections

I’m went early today to get my vote on and let me be very honest, there were far too many unopposed people running. Before you say anything I do realize the hypocrisy of making such a statement and not running to oppose any of these yahoos… but that’s not going to stop me from making the statement.

In case anybody is curious I voted for Emmer. Since getting the nomination Emmer has been kind of alienating me by pandering to the neocons but at the same time he’s pro-gun, anti-tax, and for the most part pro-liberty. What put me over though is the fact he’s not Mark Dayton (who will probably win because the majority of votes in this state seem to like pain).

I left quite a few spots blank. When I was first old enough to vote I believed that somebody who was running unopposed deserved my vote for just being willing to run. I no longer believe that and have decided if you’re running unopposed I won’t vote for you.

Because I’m an idiot I forgot to post the Minnesota Gun Owners Civil Rights Alliance Political Action Committee (GOCRA) endorsement link. I really do like how GOCRA does their endorsements because they explain why they are behind the people they endorsed.

A Failure of Understanding

Quite a while ago a socialist news site did an article entitled Top 10 Jobs in Libertarian Paradise. It was the usual socialist stream of bullshit that proclaimed doom and gloom should big government ever go away. I mostly ignored it as it was over-the-top stupid but then I saw the very well done counter-article on The UK Libertarian (I’m pleasantly surprised they still have libertarians in the UK).

The main problem with people who’ve grown up with large government is they are completely unable to imagine a world that works without said government. Anybody with some knowledge of history knows that countries can survive and prosper without a large government. If you’re in the first group I highly advise you to read the linked UK Libertarian article and learn how those of us on the other side of politics think.

Hope and Change Baby

It’s so good we rid ourselves of that evil and tyrannical Bush administration and replaced it with the good civil rights aware Obama administration:

The Obama administration is developing plans that would require all Internet-based communication services — such as encrypted BlackBerry e-mail, Facebook, and Skype — to be capable of complying with federal wiretap orders, according to a report published Monday.

Oh… wait.

An Old Fashion Book Burning

In a bastion of free speech an expression no such thing as a book burning can take place:

The Defense Department is attempting to buy the entire first printing – 10,000 copies – of a memoir by a controversial former Defense Intelligence Agency officer so that the book can be destroyed, according to military and other sources.

So much for America being a bastion of free speech and expression. I’d say at least it’s going to cost them a lot of money to censor this book but it’s our taxpayer money so it’s actually costing us a lot of money to censor ourselves.

A Slight Bias

The Supreme Court is going to be hearing a case in November dealing with California’s ban of “violent” video games to minors. A story making the rounds today is that 72% of adults approve of such laws. Anybody who has been in the gun rights scene long enough recognizes a bias survey when they see it.

In this case an advocacy group called Common Sense Media (their name of course being doublespeak as they lack common sense) were the ones who commissioned the study. Taking a look at their web site I think their mission page says a lot:

We believe in media sanity, not censorship.

Please tell me the difference between sanity and censorship. Censorship is censorship regardless of how you look at it. Trying to rephrase it as “media sanity” is a lot like rephrasing war as a policing action.

We believe parents should have a choice and a voice about the media our kids consume and create. Every family is different but all need information.

They believe parents should have a choice but also believe California’s law banning the sale of “violent” video games to minors is hunky dory. What if a parent is OK with their children playing “violent” video games (my parents for instance had no problem with me playing Doom or Duke Nukem 3D and I didn’t turn into a blood thirsty killing machine).

We believe that the price for free and open media is a bit of extra homework for families. Parents need to know about the media their kids use and need to teach responsible, ethical behavior as well as manage overall media use.

The price of freedom is always personal responsibility. This statement is one of the few I can say is correct. Parents need to know what their kids are doing and determine if they feel it is appropriate. If my memory serves me I believe that’s actually a parents job. Providing a mechanism for parents to learn about different types of media is good. On the other hand:

We believe appropriate regulations about right time, right place, and right manner exist. They need to be upheld by our elected and appointed leaders.

Doublethink alert! How can an organization be for the right of parents to make informed decision and also in favor of government telling parents what is right? Making informed decisions is the exact opposite of something in authority telling you what you will do. This right here is the ultimate problem they want parents to make specific decisions, not informed ones. You no longer have choice once a law is enacted besides obey or break said law.

If there is a law banning children from playing “violent” video games (as there are laws against children smoking cigarettes) for instance a parent no long as the choice to determine whether or not their child can play “violent” video games.

This organization is biased. Cases are different on a child by child basis and parents have to know what their children are doing and if they find it appropriate. For instance Common Sense Media state:

Media violence is especially damaging to children under 8 because they cannot easily tell the difference between real life and fantasy, according to the American Academy of Ophthalmology

I never had any such problem as a child. I knew that shooting Dr. Wily’s robots in MegaMan 2 was fantasy violence. When I watched Transformers I understood Optimus Prime sending a laser blast through Decepticon scum was fantasy. Other children may not be able to determine such things though and in that case the parents need to make a decision on whether to allow their kids to play or watch such things. Making a law just fucks everybody over and gives the government more power to determine how you will live you life.

More on Righthaven

The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) has a nice write up on the recent copy-right troll factory known as Righthaven. They’ve been going around suing everybody they can find who’s used any text from any story in a news article they own the copyright to. The main problem is Righthaven is doing several things different than other copyright holders. The two things I have the biggest issues with are the following:

Righthaven lawsuits are demanding that courts freeze and transfer the defendants’ domain names. Imagine if a single copyright infringement on Huffingtonpost.com or Redstate.com could result in forfeiture of the entire domain. Effectively asking for control of all of a website’s existing and future content — instead of only targeting the allegedly infringing material — is an overreaching remedy for a single copyright infringement not validated by copyright law or any legal precedent. This also indicates that the attorneys are willing to make overreaching claims in order to scare defendants into a fast settlement.

Righthaven goes straight for litigation. Righthaven isn’t sending cease and desist letters or DMCA takedown notices that would allow the targeted bloggers or website operators to remove or amend only the news articles owned by Righthaven. Instead, Righthaven starts with a full-fledged lawsuit in federal court with no warning. It’s sue first and ask questions later, which smacks of a strategy designed to churn up legal costs and intimidate defendants into paying up immediately, rather than a strategy aimed at remedying specific copyright infringements.

Yeah screw the whole idea of being nice and first requesting any infringing material be taken down. Going straight to a lawsuit is obviously the best idea out there. Seriously they are total douche bags.