That Good Night - U.S. Law

Controlled Substances vs. Compassionate Use

Wed, 01 Dec 2004 07:44:28 -0800

Alaska, Arizona, California, Colorado, Hawaii, Maine, Montana, Nevada, Oregon and Washington: Watch Ashcroft v. Raich carefully. The government is upset that your citizens are finding relief for terminal and chronic conditions without lining the pockets of Pfizer, Merck and their co-conspirators.

What's the deal with drug laws anyway? They're so arbitrary, they don't even make any sense. "Uhh, tobacco, yeah that's legal because it's just a plant. It grows naturally. Marijuana on the other hand, well, yeah it's a plant too -- but it's an EVIL plant. You can tell because it's pointy."

Other ridiculousness:
-The TV ad that claims marijuana use is bad because it "often involves criminal activity." Well, no fucking shit. It's illegal. Would it often involve criminal activity if it weren't illegal? Is murder bad because it involves criminal activity, or is there another reason? This is like the poll after the election that showed 51% of the country satisfied with the results. I could have told you that, and I didn't need to conduct a poll to do it.

-The radio ad which claims that marijuana use is bad because "all teens who use cocaine also used marijuana." Therefore (the ad claims) marijuana use leads to cocaine use. Following the same logic train, all people who have been to the moon are men. Therefore, all men have been to the moon. More seriously, it seems much more likely that the kind of person who uses cocaine isn't likely to say to themselves: "Yeah, I do coke, but I draw the line there. That marrajoowanna is some wack shit."

Given the efficacy of the war on drugs, the war on poverty and the war on terror, I'm glad that the government and the 51-ers have declared war on science and logic. Things are looking up for the results-oriented, reality-based community.

(Incidentally, while searching Google for a picture of a tobacco leaf, I came across this picture. I think it's supposed to illustrate something about smoking, but I came away with a different impression.)

Hate Amendment Can't Even Make it to Vote

Thu, 15 Jul 2004 08:49:33 -0700

The Hate Amendment didn't even make it to a vote in the senate yesterday. Most of the headlines on online news sites are heartening (Bush's Push for Gay Ban Blocked By Senate) in that they clearly link the proposed constitutional amendment with Bush himself.

The measure only received 48 votes for cloture (60 required), meaning that less than half of the senate even wanted to vote on it. Had the measure gone to vote, the level of support would have been even lower because of a number of Republicans who opposed the amendment itself even though they supported taking it to vote. I doubt that the amendment would have gotten even 40 senate votes of 67 required.

It's a Good Thing There's No Winter in Texas

Thu, 08 Jul 2004 17:25:11 -0700

In Austin, TX, a radio host was arrested after wearing a ski mask into a convenience store, purchasing a pack of gum and leaving (Boston Globe). The charge? Making a terrorist threat.

It's a good thing there's no winter (or even skiing) in Texas. I don't even think that George W. Bush, a boatload of arrogance and an imperial war for Iraq could create as many terrorists as winter in Texas would.

Boston-Bound Buses Searched

Wed, 07 Jul 2004 11:24:09 -0700

The Boston Globe has a story about how Police are beginning searches of buses leaving the Londonderry, NH Concord Trailways station. If my understanding (based on the article) of this situation is correct, I have no problem with it whatsoever although I still object to the "random" searches on Boston's MBTA trains and buses.

First of all, Concord Trailways is a private company which runs a transportation service on private property (buses). Based on this article, it seems that the company is voluntarily complying with a police wish the search buses. Passengers who refuse to be searched are refused a seat. Since we're talking about a private company, I have no problem with that.

Assault Weapons Ban Sunset

Thu, 09 Dec 2004 09:37:42 -0800

As I have done before, I'm posting this here but not on my personal journal, simply because I don't feel like writing something long and biting, but I think people should be aware.

No surprises here: there is a site dedicated to preventing the 1994 assault weapons bans from being renewed when it expires in 11 weeks. Of specific interest to me was the Why Would Anyone Want to Own One? section. It occured to me as I read the essay on this page that with only the sightest of modification it could easily be changed to Why These Weapons are so Horrifically Dangerous.

Israel's Rule of Law

Wed, 30 Jun 2004 08:31:52 -0700

There's not much in the American or Israeli governments that gives me hope. Their strikingly similar arrogance and unilateralism gives me grave concerns about the futures of both nations. Something Israel has going for it, however, is a judicial branch that believes strongly in the rule of law.

Israel's Supreme Court issued a ruling today that ordered the government to reroute the planned separation wall to avoid placing undue hardship on Palestinians in the West Bank (Reuters).

MBTA Searches: Constitutional?

Tue, 29 Jun 2004 20:13:25 -0700

Inspired by poot's comment in a prior thread, I went to FindLaw.com and did my own search.

All I was able to come up with were the following three cases:

United States v. Drayton et al
Florida v. Bostick
Florida v. Rodriguez

The thrust of which is that police can ask to search persons on public transportation, but that the passengers have a fourth amendment right to refuse the search. No surprise there. I honestly don't think that there is any precedent for whether refusing to submit to a search means that you can be denied access to public transportation.

'Rule of Law' Defeats George W. Bush

Mon, 28 Jun 2004 19:48:00 -0700

In what is at least a partial victory for the rule of law and decency against George W. Bush, the Supreme Court ruled today that the Bush administration cannot deny terrorism suspects access to the legal system by labling them "enemy combatants" (ABCNews).

This is good news for the detainees in Cuba, as I don't doubt that many are innocent, but also good news for U.S. citizens, whom the Bush administration wants to trample:

The administration also must take extra precautions when it apprehends U.S. citizens and accuses them of being combatants. Those citizens are entitled to some rights like traditional criminal suspects.

So far, I have been too lazy to read the ruling in its entirety, but I would hope that this would mean that it is no longer legal for the government to secretly kidnap U.S. citizens without charging them or informing anyone of their whereabouts.

Which, you know, sounds like a step forward to me.

Lawsuit Over MBTA's Totalitarian Practices

Mon, 28 Jun 2004 08:29:17 -0700

Boston civil rights groups are planning to file a lawsuit to stop the "T" from instituting a policy that would require riders to be subject to searches (Boston Globe).

"Public transportation is a community resource that should be available to everybody without requiring people to sacrifice their constitutional rights in order to use it," said Michael Avery, president of the Massachusetts chapter of the National Lawyers Guild.

I am wholeheartedly against the search policy that the MBTA wants to implement. For a while, I have been thinking about how I would deal with it if they tried to search me. I realize that I'm a young, clean-looking white person, and the odds that I would be searched (MBTA claims it's random -- I don't believe that it can be) approach zero. But just because it probably won't affect me, doesn't mean that I can let it happen.

The Newdow 'Pledge' Supreme Court Case

Tue, 15 Jun 2004 08:48:21 -0700

I'm sure everyone knows by now that the Supreme Court rejected Mr. Newdow's petition to have the words "under God" stricken from the Pledge of Allegiance.

I'm sure that everyone also knows that the reason had nothing to do with the merits of the case, the court instead decided that Newdow didn't have standing to file the case.

I think the justices of the Supreme Court are shirking their duties here. I don't even particularly care whether they decide that having "under God" in the pledge is constitutional or not, I just want them to stand up and decide.

Since when did the court let standing get in the way of making a decision it wanted to make? We don't have to look back any further than Bush v. Gore in 2000 to see that they don't let it get in the way. There is absolutely no legal way, no matter how twisted the language, that Bush had standing to file the case. And yet... Here we are.

America's Mortal Danger

Wed, 26 May 2004 21:35:12 -0700

Part I

On January 30, 1933, Adolf Hitler became chancellor of Germany. Over the following six and one-half years, Hitler pursued an agenda that allowed him to gain complete dictatorial control over the country. It was done slowly -- the stripping of rights from citizens and Hitler's accumulation of personal power. Everyone knows the outcome of these events. Beginning on September 1, 1939 with the invasion of Poland, Hitler began an immense war of aggression and was responsible -- directly and indirectly -- for the deaths of about 50 million people including millions of Jewish, Roma, homosexual and handicapped civilians who were murdered with brutal industrial efficiency.

Texas Exempts Itself from Church and State Separation

Wed, 19 May 2004 21:31:15 -0700

I am not an expert on the legal issues involved in the separation of Church and State. However, I think that Texas has gone off the deep end (Off the Kuff).

Basically, Texas is denying the legitimacy of the Unitarian Universalist Church by refusing them tax-exempt status. I'm taking this personally, because the Unitarian history goes back a long way and includes John Adams and John Quincy Adams who I am related to. Furthermore, the Unitarian Church as a whole is something that I have a lot of respect for.

Stop The Insanity!

Mon, 17 May 2004 21:36:18 -0700

Is there anything more ridiculous than George Bush praising the Brown vs. Board of education ruling today, on its 50th anniverary?

Had Bush been the President when that ruling was issued, he would have complained about "activist judges" and registered his strong support for a constitutional amendment requiring school segregation.

You know it's true. Bush has a very predictable "policy." Whatever progress is, do the exact opposite.

Congratulations Are In Order

Sun, 16 May 2004 21:46:37 -0700

In a few short hours, Cambridge, Massachusetts will become the very first municipality in the country to grant a fully state-sanctioned marriage license to a gay or lesbian couple. I offer my congratulations to all of the couples who will be among the first to be married tomorrow. I also offer my congratulations to those congregations and communities who choose to support and celebrate with their gay and lesbian members. It's a bigoted world, and those who bravely stand up for that which is right deserve commendation and recognition.

But we as a country deserve a pat on the back as well. We are living in one of the least democratic, least free and least inclusive periods of time in America's history. Yet the system still finds a way to work from time to time. I used the following quote very recently, but I think it's precient and wise enough to deserve reuse. These are remarks given by the President of the Israeli Supreme Court, Aharon Barak, at Brandeis University's commencement last May, when I was a graduating senior:

Supreme Court Knows Their Place

Fri, 14 May 2004 22:01:52 -0700

The United States Supreme Court declined without comment to intervene in Massachusetts' issuance of marriage licenses to gay and lesbian couples beginning on Monday (Boston Globe).

There's nothing really to add, other than it seems that only God himself could prevent the marriages from occurring at this point.

The court cases will be heard on the merits at a later date.