Constitutional Rights

26 Jan 2013

Publius Digest

Today we want to bring you an update on what has been going on in the news both nationally and here in New Mexico. It was a busy week with the inauguration and the legislature arguing over, well, everything. Here’s some news and hope you all have a great weekend!

Inauguration day!!

National

Inauguration Day

Inaugurations nowadays seem to get even more excessive and gluttonous every time.

Congressional Quarterly’s comprehensive “Guide to the Presidency” helpfully explains that “the only part of the inaugural ceremony that is required by the Constitution is the taking of the oath of office.” If only somebody had bothered to check, we could have wrapped it all up Sunday when Chief Justice John Roberts swore Barack Obama in for his second term, and spared ourselves an extra day’s worth of pomp, circumstance and dreadful poetry.

After his swearing-in, “Calvin Coolidge simply went to bed in 1925.” George Washington’s admirably brief second inaugural clocks in at 135 words. But modern presidents fail to appreciate that for presidential inaugurations, as with presidential activism, less is more. In his first inaugural, in 1993, Bill Clinton suggested that the ritual of presidential anointment brings hope and life to the world: “This ceremony is held in the depth of winter. But, by the words we speak and the faces we show the world, we force the spring.”

In his unsettling second inaugural, in the midst of two bloody and seemingly endless wars, an unfazed George W. Bush pledged America to “the ultimate goal of ending tyranny in our world.”

Four years ago in his first inaugural, a newly anointed President Obama promised a transformational presidency that would “wield technology’s wonders” and “harness the sun and the winds.” He decried “the cynics” who dared to “question the scale of our ambitions, who suggest our system cannot tolerate too many big plans.”

This time around, the president seems not to have adjusted the scale of his ambitions downward. Columnist Steve Chapman summed it up on Twitter: “Shorter Obama inaugural speech: I’m a liberal. Deal with it.”

Would that it had been shorter. Though most of yesterday’s address was a high-minded word-souffle, light on specific policy prescriptions, several passages stuck out. For example: “We reject the belief that America must choose between caring for the generation that built this country and investing in the generation that will build its future.”

Read the rest the reason article here

Something else you might find interesting is the word cloud (most used words) of Obama’s 2013 inauguration address:

Revealing?

Women in Combat

Recently, the Pentagon announced it was removing a 19 year ban on women in combat.

WASHINGTON—Defense Secretary Leon Panetta signed an order Thursday striking down the two-decade-old rule excluding women from combat positions in the military, a move that will eventually open thousands of new jobs on the front lines.

The new policy recognizes that in modern warfare, everyone in a combat zone is on the front lines, Mr. Panetta said.

“There is no distinction that’s made between the sacrifices of men and women in uniform,” Mr. Panetta said. “They serve, they’re wounded and they die right next to each other. The time has come to recognize that reality.”

woman soldier What exactly are these implications? There aren’t very many details on what specific jobs women will actually be able to serve in where they were previously excluded. Many officials have commented that most likely infantry and special operations units would remain closed.

As a former combat veteran myself, I don’t hold any particularly strong opinion on a woman’s right to be in a combat unit. However, there are practicality issues that would compel me to be against such a matter. As of right now, physical standards in the military are different for male and female. If females are going to be allowed in physically demanding units where they’ll be pit against enemy ground troops, they must be able to meet the minimum standards that male combat soldiers must meet. I’m sure there are many who can meet such standards, while others can not. Either way, you can’t have separate standards if we wish to maintain an effective fighting force.

Another issue that concerns me is pregnancy. There were many examples of women in non-combat supporting units who got pregnant right before a deployment, precluding them from being deployed with the rest of us. I am not saying they would or would not get pregnant on purpose to avoid a deployment, however, the issue remains that it does happen and would be severely crippling to a combat unit. Let’s say half an infantry platoon is made up of women. Before departure date for a deployment half those women get pregnant. 25% of the platoon is now out of commission before they even set foot in theatre! If men could get pregnant, it’d happen to them, too.

There are other arguments for and against women in combat. While I believe if women chose to maintain the necessary standards and make the harsh sacrifices male combat troops make daily, they should be able to accomplish their goals, I also believe there are social dynamics, biological dynamics, and questions of morality that make women in combat a complicated issue. What do you think?

Gun Battles

It would seem President Obama will be using his political capital (apparently he still has some) to push his gun control agenda on the American people:

The Obama administration is bypassing Capitol Hill as it works to get gun-control efforts passed, with President Barack Obama and Vice President Joe Biden planning trips outside Washington to build public support.

Obama’s gun control plans depend on many Democratic senators who come from states with strong weapons rights supporters, and the administration’s plans to bypass them and take the cause to the people marks a more aggressive strategy than Obama took in his first term of office, reports the Washington Post.

The president is mobilizing supporters through his former campaign committee, Organizing for Action, which will run grassroots campaigns to pressure lawmakers. Plans are also under way for Obama and Biden to meet with police, clergy, hunters, and others who back their proposals.

Of course with America being a society that highly values the right of citizens to own guns, obviously there was some pushback. Especially among sheriffs across the country.

A collection of sheriffs across the country have sent Congress and the Obama administration a message: If we don’t like your gun laws, we aren’t going to help enforce them.

As of Thursday, 90 sheriffs, many from rural counties, have pledged not to enforce laws they deem unconstitutional, according to a list compiled by the Constitutional Sheriffs and Peace Officers Association, a Texas-based group that has “vowed to uphold and defend the Constitution against Obama’s unlawful gun control measures.”

Stories like this are popping up everywhere. Even here in New Mexico where sheriffs representing 30 of the 33 counties in the state and stood up for our right to bear arms. The current gun control vs gun rights fervor will doubtless be a hot topic in many state legislatures. Gun owners are definitely fired up as the NRA membership has sky-rocketed.

I know this story is a week or so old but if you haven’t seen the Reality Check video that went viral explaining the incorrect gun statistics claimed by Piers Morgan (in the now infamous Piers vs Alex feud) you should check it out. Ben Swann is one of the most objective reporters I’ve seen.

Debt Ceiling Deal

Debt-Ceiling-Gun

Looks like our political leaders got tired of the last debt ceiling fight and decided to just go ahead and kick the can down the road a few months right off the bat.

The House on Wednesday passed the “No Budget, No Pay Act,” a Republican bill that would effectively defuse the debt ceiling threat for several months.

The bill would let the Treasury Department borrow new money until mid-May. In exchange, the legislation would require lawmakers in both chambers of Congress to pass a budget resolution or have their pay withheld until they do.

The vote was 285 to 144, largely on the back of Republican support.

Read the rest of the article here

Of course the “No Pay” portion of the bill is just a bunch of the usual smoke and mirrors considering actually taking a member’s pay is a violation of the 27th amendment which prohibits changing congressional pay until the next election has passed. At best, their pay will be held in escrow until the next Congress, at which time they’ll probably be paid what was held.

New Mexico

Driver’s permits for Illegals, a compromise option?

The ABQ journal ran this story a couple days ago:

SANTA FE – Top Democratic leaders of the House and Senate indicated tentative support Monday for legislation that would grant a new driver’s permit to illegal immigrants In New Mexico but could not be used as legal identification.

The idea, spearheaded by Senate Minority Leader Stuart Ingle, R-Portales, and Senate Finance Committee Chairman John Arthur Smith, D-Deming, is being discussed as a possible solution to a two-year legislative impasse on Gov. Susana Martinez’s push to repeal a 2003 New Mexico law allowing illegal immigrants to get state driver’s licenses.

House Speaker Ken Martinez, D-Grants, and Senate Pro Tem Mary Kay Papen, D-Las Cruces, expressed cautious and conditional support Monday for the alternative that would create a new driver’s permit for illegal immigrants but would not be valid as identification to board an airplane or enter a federal building, as required by the federal Real ID Act. Martinez and Papen, elected as the top leaders of their chambers this year, have opposed the governor’s push to repeal the license law in the past.

“It’s a concept I support,” Papen said. “It’s a concept that hopefully could move us forward, but I wont commit to anything until I see a bill.”

Speaker Martinez said he would rather address public safety concerns related to the illegal immigrant driver’s licenses by making changes to the current driver’s license law. “If that doesn’t necessarily carry the day, you can look at a two-tier licensure system,” he said.

“Look at that (idea),” Martinez said, “but make sure it’s meaningful to the immigrant community, (that) it’s not something they would be reticent to get.”

You can read the rest of the article here.

Governor Martinez said she might be able to jump on board this proposal.

Gov. Susana Martinez, in a potential change of course, said Tuesday that she would consider legislation to create a driver’s permit for illegal immigrants if the proposed permit card could not be used for identification or used to get a driver’s license in another state.

“If we have something that proposes that, and takes care of public safety, I’m certainly willing to take a look at it,” Martinez said Tuesday.

Public safety concerns previously cited by the Republican governor have centered on non-residents fraudulently obtaining New Mexico driver’s licenses for identification purposes.

Her comments Tuesday are in contrast to her position during the 2012 legislative session, when she warned she would veto any legislation that would allow illegal immigrants to drive legally in New Mexico.

Although, there hasn’t been any legislation introduced yet, proposals are being drafted. It seems like something that could be passed and signed by the Governor. This bill brings up some issues that I’m curious about from a logical stand point. While it appears to be legislation that pleases the Governor or those against drivers licenses for illegals, at the same time it gives the Democrat’s (or those who supported driver’s licenses for illegals) an out in their support.

drivers_license_636 In this two-tiered system, what happens is that all it does is separate the illegals from the legals in identification. There is no reason why a person who is eligible to get the regular driver’s license will opt to get the permit. Only those who can NOT get a regular license, due to their illegal status, will opt to get the permit (if they decide to come out in the open like that). Who’s to say at a later point these permits won’t be used as a way to identify illegals and apprehend those in possession of them?

And if a police officer pulls over an individual and that individual hands them this new permit, doesn’t the officer then know there is a good chance that the driver is an illegal immigrant? In which case, does the officer have the probable cause to further investigate this individual based on the type of identification he holds? It seems logical that anybody who holds these types of permits are illegal immigrants and as such are easily identified and can be deported.

If this is so, I don’t see illegal immigrants going out to get themselves these new permits since they’d probably understand how easily it would identify them. So essentially, this would be the same as eliminating driver’s licenses for illegals.

Whatever one’s position is on the issue of driver’s licenses for illegals, I think this is a roundabout way of eliminating the driver’s licenses for illegals (wether intentionally or not).

NM Spaceport

As we all know, the infamous New Mexico Spaceport has soaked up over $209 million from NM taxpayers. Its been an extravagant government-sponsored money pit. With that being said, the costs are sunk, we’re stuck with it, and the best course of action to take right now is to allow it to function and operate so as to encourage its success as much as possible. Due to certain liability issues, the spaceport has been at risk of being stalled out and being abandoned by Virgin Galactic.

Here is the Rio Grande Foundation’s take on the issue:

From day one, the Rio Grande Foundation has been critical of the use of $209 million of New Mexicans’ tax dollars to build a spaceport.

For starters, government has a shaky track record of betting on “the next big thing.” The spaceport is also a classic example of wealth redistribution from New Mexico taxpayers (arguably the poorest state in the nation) to wealthy businessman Richard Branson and the millionaires who plan to spend $200,000 to fly into space.

Despite all of this, the project was built and is now open. Thus, it makes sense to make it as successful as possible. Unfortunately, to date New Mexico’s Legislature has failed to pass a law that protects manufacturers, suppliers and anyone else who builds and maintains spacecraft from liability lawsuits. This law would cost nothing to change and will not impact any New Mexican who does not choose to fly into space.

New Mexicans have spent $209 million on the spaceport. The Legislature would be committing an act of legislative malfeasance by failing to pass these basic protections.

Luckily, it seems the legislature and the Governor might being coming to terms on settling for a limited-liability agreement, as reported by the ABQ Journal:

Democratic leaders said Tuesday that an agreement has been reached on limited-liability legislation for Spaceport America and predicted the contentious issue soon would be settled, but some Republicans said they hadn’t seen the deal.

The Democratic leadership said their announcement followed negotiations that began last summer between Virgin Galactic and the New Mexico Trial Lawyers Association.

A bill reflecting the agreement was expected to be introduced as early as today, and the Democratic lawmakers suggested it would have bipartisan support.

Republican leaders, however, didn’t attend the hastily called news conference.

Liability problems have been called a threat to the state’s $209 million investment in Spaceport America. (Associated Press)

“We haven’t seen the details of any deal yet,” said House Republican Whip Nate Gentry of Albuquerque. “We’re hopeful that, whatever it is, is something that will allow the spaceport to be successful.”

Republican Gov. Susana Martinez’s office was noncommittal. Her spokesman said she met with Virgin Galactic officials on Tuesday “and is hopeful that the final legislation that passes will lead to the company’s commitment to stay in New Mexico, and that it will lead to making New Mexico capable of attracting other space industry business.”

School Choice Week In Albuquerque New Mexico

The Rio Grande Foundation is a co-sponsor of a national event by National School Choice Week occurring in Albuquerque, NM:

We’ll close off this week’s Publius Digest with an interview of Paul Gessing, the President of the Rio Grande Foundation, discussing School Choice Week in New Mexico:

Categories: Constitutional Rights, Illegal Immigration, National Politics, NM Politics Tags: driver's permit, gun control, gun rights, inauguration, school choice, spaceport, women in combat

10 Jul 2012

Roberts off the Rails?

By Dagny

In the wake of the surprising ObamaCare decision, a great deal of the post-decision commentary has focused on Chief Justice Robert’s role — and particularly on the suggestions that he switched his position mid-course:

Chief Justice John Roberts initially sided with the Supreme Court’s four conservative justices to strike down the heart of President Obama’s health care reform law, the Affordable Care Act, but later changed his position and formed an alliance with liberals to uphold the bulk of the law, according to two sources with specific knowledge of the deliberations.

Roberts then withstood a month-long, desperate campaign to bring him back to his original position, the sources said. Ironically, Justice Anthony Kennedy – believed by many conservatives to be the justice most likely to defect and vote for the law – led the effort to try to bring Roberts back to the fold.

Read Jan Crawford’s full story here. An interesting aspect of the story, beyond the obvious, is the evidence the story shows of leaks from the Supreme Court — an institution that is historically known for a lack of such leaks. The Volokh Conspiracy folks have some interesting posts on the leak story, see here and here. Slate has an informative story explaining that the Court’s reputation for a lack of leaks is actually undeserved:

The Supreme Court isn’t supposed to be like other institutions. It’s supposed to be something more, a place above partisan squabbling, insulated from the unseemly back and forth of politics. The court’s nine justices are the final arbiters of our biggest legal questions, and much of their work is supposed to be done behind closed doors. They hold oral arguments and release decisions—and remain a mystery to most people.

That’s what made CBS’s Jan Crawford’s story on July 1 so shocking. Crawford reported that Chief Justice John Roberts voted to strike down the heart of the Affordable Care Act before changing his mind and siding with the court’s liberal bloc. Her story cited “two sources with specific knowledge of the deliberations” among the justices, and it noted that Roberts’ “switch” was “known among law clerks, chambers’ aides and secretaries.”

The collective reaction of pundits and legal commentators seemed to be, gasp, “How could this happen? How could the Supreme Court leak?” Harvard Law School’s Jack Goldsmith hadjust argued that the court is typically “better at stopping leaks” than other government institutions. Time’s Adam Sorensen described Crawford’s story as a “once-in-a-lifetime scoop.” Robert Shrum, like many others, described the leaks as “unprecedented.”Meanwhile, Orin Kerr, a law professor at George Washington University, wrote on the legal blog The Volokh Conspiracy that “the leak is pretty incredible” and that he “can’t remember anything quite like” it.

No doubt the leak is incredible, and no doubt the justices are good at keeping secrets. But there is nothing unprecedented about the Supreme Court dishing on what happens behind the red curtain. The court has a long and colorful history of leaks that dates back to the mid-19^th century. Just like last week, leaks have sprung in the past commenting on a decision soon after the justices released it. Inside accounts of the personal relationships among the justices have long been served up to journalists. Indeed, some court opinions have leaked even before the justices had a chance to announce them.

Moving on from the leak issue, there are a great many stories analyzing the decision itself. Here are a few:

Clark Neily questions Roberts’ potential motivation of Peace for our Time.
Ilya Shapiro declares Roberts to be a Judicial Pacifist.
SCOTUSblog has an extensive symposium with posts from numerous scholars.
Peter Suderman examines the tax versus penalty debate.
David Kopel identifies an interesting flaw in Roberts’ tax analysis.

Also interesting are the looks at the aftermath of Roberts’ switch:

Jan Crawford notes the Discord at Supreme Court.
Damon Root explains that the Supreme Court’s Conservatives are Mad as Hell at Chief Justice Roberts.
Lyle Deniston considers the upcoming challenges for the Court.

It’s also worth checking out Rasmussen’s post-decision poll of the public’s view of the Supreme Court reported on July 1:

Public opinion of the Supreme Court has grown more negative since the highly publicized ruling on the president’s health care law was released. A growing number now believe that the high court is too liberal and that justices pursue their own agenda rather than acting impartially.

A week ago, 36% said the court was doing a good or an excellent job. That’s down to 33% today. However, the big change is a rise in negative perceptions. Today, 28% say the Supreme Court is doing a poor job. That’s up 11 points over the past week.

The new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey, conducted on Friday and Saturday following the court ruling, finds that 56% believe justices pursue their own political agenda rather than generally remain impartial. That’s up five points from a week ago. Just half as many — 27% — believe the justices remain impartial. (To see survey question wording, click here.)

On an interesting end note, Tom Goldstein has a lengthy investigative piece detailing the ten minutes or so on decision day when two major news outlets actually had the story wrong.

Here’s Paul Ryan’s take (click here to view video at foxnews):

No Related Posts

Categories: Constitutional Rights, Health Care, SCOTUS

28 Jun 2012

ObamaCare Decision: Early Roundup

By Dagny

For those wanting to dive right in, here is the opinion.

Up front, there are two silver linings: (1) the court did NOT vote that the Commerce Clause allows for the individual mandate (tiny solace there); (2) states CAN opt out of the Medicaid expansion without losing all federal funding — they only lose new funds. As Lyle Deniston of SCOTUSblog pointed out this morning:

The rejection of the Commerce Clause and Nec. and Proper Clause should be understood as a major blow to Congress’s authority to pass social welfare laws. Using the tax code — especially in the current political environment — to promote social welfare is going to be a very chancy proposition.

Other good news is political: this now gets hung around Obama’s neck for the duration of the election cycle.

On to the early explanations and analysis.

SCOTUSblog’s early “In Plain English” explanation of the decision from the Live Blog:

The Affordable Care Act, including its individual mandate that virtually all Americans buy health insurance, is constitutional. There were not five votes to uphold it on the ground that Congress could use its power to regulate commerce between the states to require everyone to buy health insurance. However, five Justices agreed that the penalty that someone must pay if he refuses to buy insurance is a kind of tax that Congress can impose using its taxing power. That is all that matters. Because the mandate survives, the Court did not need to decide what other parts of the statute were constitutional, except for a provision that required states to comply with new eligibility requirements for Medicaid or risk losing their funding. On that question, the Court held that the provision is constitutional as long as states would only lose new funds if they didn’t comply with the new requirements, rather than all of their funding.

The WSJ’s early analysis is out here:

The court said Congress was acting within its powers under the Constitution when it required most Americans to carry health insurance or pay a penalty—the provision at the center of the two-year legal battle.

The ruling is a victory for Democrats and President Barack Obama, who had passed the biggest reworking to the health system since the creation of Medicare in the 1960s and faced the prospect of the court nullifying their effort. It also averts disruption for hospitals, doctors and employers who have spent more than two years preparing for changes in the law.

* * *

Although the law survived the court challenge, it faces an uncertain future. Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney and GOP congressional leaders have pledged to repeal the law if they take control of Congress and the White House in November elections.

The court’s decision, while a relief to Democrats, could further energize voters who dislike the law to back Republicans in November. And it forces the Obama administration to continue defending the unpopular insurance mandate.

On the other hand, the court’s blessing could itself shape public opinion of the law, particularly among independents and undecided voters who view the justices as relatively free of the partisan agendas of the government’s elected branches. Polls consistently show that the public places greater confidence in the Supreme Court than either Congress or the presidency, although the justices’ approval ratings have slipped somewhat over the past year.

Analysis from SCOTUSblog:

Salvaging the idea that Congress did have the power to try to expand health care to virtually all Americans, the Supreme Court on Monday upheld the constitutionality of the crucial – and most controversial — feature of the Affordable Care Act. By a vote of 5-4, however, the Court did not sustain it as a command for Americans to buy insurance, but as a tax if they don’t. That is the way Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr., was willing to vote for it, and his view prevailed. The other Justices split 4-4, with four wanting to uphold it as a mandate, and four opposed to it in any form.

Here is early commentary from Reason:

In the main dissent from today’s Supreme Court ruling upholding the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, four justices (Antonin Scalia, Anthony Kennedy, Clarence Thomas, and Samuel Alito) say the individual health insurance mandate goes beyond anything that has passed muster under the Commerce Clause before:

The striking case of Wickard v. Filburn, 317 U. S. 111 (1942), whichheld that the economic activity of growing wheat, even for one’s own consumption, affected commerce sufficientlythat it could be regulated, always has been regarded as the ne plus ultra of expansive Commerce Clause jurisprudence. To go beyond that, and to say the failure to grow wheat (which is not an economic activity, or any activity at all) nonetheless affects commerce and therefore can be federally regulated, is to make mere breathing in and out the basis for federal prescription and to extend federal power to virtually all human activity.

Thomas goes further in a separate dissenting opinion, where he reiterates his longstanding position that the “substantial effects” test underlying Wickard “is inconsistent with the original understanding of Congress’ powers and with this Court’s early Commerce Clause cases.” Quoting himself, he says the test “has encouraged the Federal Government to persist in its view that the Commerce Clause has virtually no limits.”

Chief Justice John Roberts, who wrote the majority opinion, agrees with the dissenters that the mandate does not qualify as a regulation of interstate commerce (which is why his argument rests on the tax power instead)

On the lighter side, Katherine Mangu-Ward compiles the broccoli references in the opinions here.

From Roger Pilon at CATO:

Even though the Supreme Court action today is a setback for those of us who’ve fought for decades to revive limited constitutional government, it’s hardly the end of the road. The ideas this litigation put in play – in the court decisions below, in the oral arguments before the Supreme Court, and in the huge debate that has taken place across the country – will not go away. They’re the ideas of limited constitutional government that are as compelling today as they were when the Founders first articulated them over two centuries ago, even if this Court has found itself unable to give them force in this case.

But it’s not simply that the ideas are now “out of the bottle” as they haven’t been for a very long time. More deeply, it’s because they address the fundamental problem the nation faces today – out-of-control government, at all levels, giving us a looming economic disaster – that they’ll increasingly be in play. After today’s decision, it will fall to the people themselves, who’ve opposed this legislation from the beginning, to elect a Congress that stands for restoring limited constitutional government, such that a future Court will be better able to do what this Court should have done.

Human Events has some early GOP reactions:

The first reaction I saw came from Sarah Palin, via Twitter: “Obama lied to the American people. Again. He said it wasn’t a tax. Obama lies, freedom dies.”

Rep. Michele Bachmann, who said she would be present in the courtroom when the decision was announced, was quick to Tweet as well: “SCOTUS announced ObamaCare substantially upheld. Disappointing, but we move forward and we WILL repeal it.”

Statement from the office of House Speaker John Boehner: “The president’s health care law is hurting our economy by driving up health costs and making it harder for small businesses to hire. Today’s ruling underscores the urgency of repealing this harmful law in its entirety. What Americans want is a common-sense, step-by-step approach to health care reform that will protect Americans’ access to the care they need, from the doctor they choose, at a lower cost. Republicans stand ready to work with a president who will listen to the people and will not repeat the mistakes that gave our country ObamaCare.”

Rep. Tim Huelskamp (R-KS) was blunt: “When they look back on the American system of once-limited government, June 28, 2012 will stand as a definitive date in the advance of government tyranny. Today, a slim majority of the Supreme Court turned our Constitution on its head, and ruled that the federal government, in effect, can force upon the American people anything it damn well pleases – as long as it is called a tax. Unlimited federal power, combined with judicial activism, has crafted a new regime that has destroyed our Founders’ vision.”

Read full piece for more. Speaker John Boehner has promised a new vote to repeal ObamaCare in the U.S. House the week of July 9.

No Related Posts

Categories: 2012 Election, Constitutional Rights, Health Care, SCOTUS

25 Jun 2012

SCOTUS Update: Immigration and Campaign Finance

By Galt

The Supreme Court issued decisions in two significant cases this morning, and it is now clear the ObamaCare ruling will be handed down on Thursday morning at 10am on the east coast.

First, in the long-anticipated ruling on Arizona’s SB 1070, the Court struck down much of the law while leaving in place one of the more controversial measures (opinion). SCOTUSBlog has a good summary of the ruling:

Here is a rundown on the Court’s ruling with respect to each relevant challenge:

1.  Police Checks. Section 2(B) of the law requires the police to check the immigration status of persons whom they detain before releasing them. It also allows the police to stop and detain anyone suspected of being an undocumented immigrant. The Court held that the lower courts were wrong to prevent this provision from going into effect while its lawfulness is being litigated. It was not sufficiently clear that the provision would be held preempted, the Court held. The Court took pains to point out that the law, on its face, prohibits stops based on race or national origin and provides that the stops must be conducted consistent with federal immigration and civil rights laws. However, it held open that the provision could eventually be invalidated after trial.

2.  State Law Crime of Being In The Country Illegally. Although federal law already makes it illegal for someone to be in the country without proper authorization, Section 3 of the Arizona statute also makes it a state crime, subject to additional fines and possible imprisonment. The Court held that this provision was preempted and cannot be enforced. The Court held that Congress has left no room for states to regulate in this field, even to implement the federal prohibition.

3.  Ban on Working In The State. Section 5(C) of the statute also makes it a state crime for undocumented immigrants from applying for a job or working in the state.   It is also held preempted as imposing an obstacle to the federal regulatory system. Because Congress obviously chose not make working in the country without proper authorization a federal crime, states cannot enact additional criminal penalties Congress decided not to impose.

4.  Warrantless Arrest Of Individuals Believed To Have Committed A Deportable Crime. Section 6 of the statute authorizes state law enforcement officials to arrest without a warrant any individual otherwise lawfully in the country, if law enforcement officials have probable cause to believe the individual has committed a deportable offense.   The Court held that this provision is preempted. Whether and when to arrest someone for being unlawfully in the country is a question solely for the federal government.

The full post has additional information worth checking out. Here is the WSJ early story on the ruling. PubliusNM has earlier coverage of SB1070 here, here, here, and here.

Second, the Court reversed the Montana Supreme Court’s ruling on corporate spending in state elections (opinion). From the WSJ’s Law Blog:

The U.S. Supreme Court has issued a summary reversal of the Montana Supreme Court’s decision to uphold a state law that prohibited corporate spending in state elections. The U.S. court said the question in this case was whether the Citizens United decision, which established that corporate spending in elections is permitted as a matter of free speech, applied to the Montana state law. “There can be no serious doubt that it does,” the court wrote.

The summary reversal was not an unexpected outcome. As Adam Liptak of the New York Times pointed out earlier this month, the court has issued summary reversals nine times this year, prior to this case, in which it issued unsigned opinions ruling on the merits of a dispute without full briefing or oral argument.

Justice Stephen Breyer wrote the dissent and was joined by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Justice Sonia Sotomayor and Justice Elena Kagan. Justice Breyer said that he disagreed with the court’s holding for the same reasons laid out in Justice Stevens’ dissent in Citizens United, and added that the court’s legal conclusion “should not bar the Montana Supreme Court’s finding, made on the record before it, that independent expenditures by corporations did in fact lead to corruption or the appearance of corruption in Montana.”

Justice Breyer added that “given the court’s per curiam disposition, I do not see a significant possibility of reconsideration.”

In a third interesting ruling for those who follow criminal law and procedure issues, the Court ruled that mandatory life without parole sentences for juveniles violate the Eighth Amendment (opinion). Here is the SCOTUSBlog summary:

Justice Kagan announced the opinion for the Court in Miller v. Alabama andJackson v. Hobbs, holding, in a five-to-four vote, that “the Eighth Amendment forbids a sentencing scheme that mandates life in prison without possibility of parole for juvenile offenders.” The Court has previously shown leniency to juveniles, holding in Roper v. Simmons (2005), that juveniles cannot be sentenced to death, and in Graham v. Florida (2010), that juveniles cannot be sentenced to life without parole for non-homicide offenses. This case continues that trend.

Evan Miller and Kuntrell Jackson were each convicted of capital murder. At the time of the relevant offenses, they were fourteen years old. Neither committed his offense alone. In Miller’s case, he and another boy beat and robbed a neighbor, who died after they lit his house on fire; in Jackson’s case, he and two others robbed a video store, and one of the others shot and killed the store clerk. Both were convicted of capital murder and sentenced to life without parole, under sentencing regimes (in Alabama and Arkansas) that render such sentences mandatory, without consideration of the offender’s age or mitigating circumstances. According to the Equal Justice Initiative, which represented both Miller and Jackson before the Court, there presently are approximately seventy-nine individuals currently serving life-without-parole sentences for crimes they committed at age thirteen or fourteen. The Court further explains that approximately 2500 people are serving life without parole for crimes they committed before they were eighteen.

* * *

Justices Kennedy, Ginsburg, Breyer, and Sotomayor joined the majority opinion in full. Justice Breyer, joined by Justice Sotomayor, concurred separately to argue that on remand, if the state continues to seek the death penalty for Jackson, it will have to determine whether he individually killed or intended to kill the victim in his case.

The decision also provoked three separate dissenting opinions, by the Chief Justice, by Justice Thomas, and by Justice Alito, who read his opinion from the bench. The theme of the dissents is that the Court should have been more deferential to the moral judgments enacted by state legislatures, who are in a better position to determine the seriousness of crimes and to calibrate penalties appropriately. The dissents also expressed the view that the Court’s Eighth Amendment jurisprudence has become unmoored from objective standards, and that decisions like Graham and the decisions today continue that trend.

For those interested in real-time (or close to it) updates on the health care decision Thursday morning, SCOTUSBlog has useful resources in place as we described earlier.

No Related Posts

Categories: Campaign Finance, Constitutional Rights, Illegal Immigration, SCOTUS

29 May 2012

Free Speech and the Internet

By Dagny

The Institute for Justice’s latest case raises some very interesting First Amendment issues in this day of new media and even for us here at PubliusNM as bloggers.

The firm explains the case in this short video (click here to view in YouTube):

For more information on the case, visit the case page. Check out Steve’s blog here.

What say our PubliusNM readers? Should folks like Steve in the video be forced to jump through government regulatory hoops before providing dietary advice for a fee? What about other health advice? More importantly, do you believe the government’s regulation would actually serve to protect the public from harm in a case like this, or do more to prevent small-time guys like Steve from competing with larger companies? And if you believe the government does protect the public in this way, do you believe that is the proper role of government? Why or why not?

No Related Posts

Categories: Constitutional Rights

16 May 2012

Publius Digest

By Galt

National

A number of our readers and friends are members of the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) or have attended ALEC conferences. As the organization finds itself under significant fire, folks from Texas Public Policy Foundation take up its defense in the WSJ this week:

ALEC is under sustained attack from organizations that fundamentally disagree with its commitment to limited government and economic freedom. But instead of debating these issues, they are now accusing the 39-year-old council—a partnership of state legislators, entrepreneurs and civil-society organizations—of misdeeds ranging from voter suppression to indirect responsibility for the tragic shooting death of 17-year-old Trayvon Martin in Florida in February.

* * *

In a society where vote fraud is still a real problem, and where Americans are routinely required to show a picture ID to buy cigarettes, cash checks, or enter any major office building in New York City, ALEC dares to suggest that voters be required to show a picture ID. In the imagination of ALEC’s critics, it’s OK to require an ID to ride a train—but not to require an ID to determine the future of the greatest country in the history of the world.

There is now even an effort to link the Martin tragedy with ALEC-supported legislation, sometimes known as “stand your ground” laws, to allow people to defend themselves. Despite the disgraceful eagerness of opportunists to make political hay off a young man’s death, no actual linkage between that crime and the council exists.

ALEC’s real crime is this: For nearly four decades, it has been an effective, engaged facilitator of good governance and liberty-oriented legislation in statehouses across the country. Its critics don’t just object to one or two of the council’s programs, they object to its existence.

15 Dec 2011

Bill of Rights Day

By Dagny

Today is the 220th anniversary of the date the Bill of Rights became effective. Take a few moments to read the document at the National Archives here.

Tim Lynch at the Cato Institute has a review of how healthy our rights are today, and it is quite sobering:

The First Amendment says that “Congress shall make no law… abridging the freedom of speech.” Government officials, however, have insisted that they can gag recipients of “national security letters” and censor broadcast ads in the name of campaign finance reform.

The Second Amendment says the people have the right “to keep and bear arms.” Government officials, however, make it difficult to keep a gun in the home and make it a crime for a citizen to carry a gun for self-protection.

The Third Amendment says soldiers may not be quartered in our homes without the consent of the owners. This safeguard is one of the few that is in fine shape — so we can pause herefor a laugh.

The Fourth Amendment says the people have the right to be secure against unreasonable searches and seizures. Government officials, however, insist that they can conduct commando-style raids on our homes and treat airline travelers like prison inmates by conducting virtual strip searches.

The Fifth Amendment says that private property shall not be taken “for public use without just compensation.” Government officials, however, insist that they can use eminent domain to take away our property and give it to other private parties who covet it.

The Sixth Amendment says that in criminal prosecutions, the person accused is guaranteed a right to trial by jury. Government officials, however, insist that they can punish people who want to have a trial—“throwing the book” at those who refuse to plead guilty—which explains why 95 percent of the criminal cases never go to trial.

The Seventh Amendment guarantees the right to a jury trial in civil cases where the controversy “shall exceed twenty dollars.” Government officials, however, insist that they can impose draconian fines on people without jury trials.

The Eighth Amendment prohibits cruel and unusual punishments. Government officials, however, insist that a life sentence for a nonviolent drug offense is not cruel.

The Ninth Amendment says that the enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights should not be construed to deny or disparage others “retained by the people.” Government officials, however, insist that they will decide for themselves what rights, if any, will be retained by the people.

The Tenth Amendment says that the powers not delegated to the federal government are reserved to the states, or to the people. Government officials, however, insist that they will decide for themselves what powers they possess, and have extended federal control over health care, crime, education, and other matters the Constitution reserves to the states and the people.

Cato has prepared a related quick video that is similarly sobering (click here to view in YouTube):

Each year in Arizona, a group of folks celebrate Bill of Rights Day together and Patrick Henry routinely appears to speak. In 2010, Patrick Henry’s presentation was captured on video, so here is that entertaining and informative piece, the speech begins at about 5:30 minutes into the video (click here to view in YouTube).

Here is part 2 of the Henry speech (click here to view in YouTube):

No Related Posts

Categories: Constitutional Rights

12 Dec 2011

Publius Daily Digest

By Galt

National

Event Alert: this one is online. Tomorrow, December 13, at 1 p.m. PST the Reagan Foundation is hosting a Lecture with Peter Hannaford to discuss his latest book, Reagan’s Roots. Go here to view the webcast live.

Atlas Shrugged Alert: rumor has it that some Red Box locations are now renting copies of Atlas Shrugged Part 1. Check here to see if you can reserve a copy at a location near you.

Big news from SCOTUS this morning as the Court announced it will review Arizona’s controversial immigration reform law, SB1070. We’ve previously covered that law here, here, here, here, here, here, and here. SCOTUSblog hosted an online symposium in July on SB1070 with input from numerous scholars. From SCOTUSblog:

Adding further to the historic rank of the Supreme Court’s current Term, the Justices on Monday took on the searing constitutional — and political — controversy over state power to strictly limit the way undocumented immigrants live their lives in the U.S. Along with the politics-saturated but deeply consequential constitutional disputes over the new federal health care law and the role of federal courts in drawing up new election districts to protect minority voters’ rights, the Term that will run through late June is assured of being one of the Court’s most significant single years ever. The federal government is involved in all three disputes, and its main adversary in each is the same: prominent Washington lawyer and former U.S. Solicitor General Paul D. Clement, who is also battling the government in lower courts over same-sex marriage. The marriage issue, though, has only the slimmest of chances of getting to the Court this Term in any form.

* * *

The Arizona case puts before eight of the Justices — former U.S. Solicitor General and now Justice Elena Kagan will not take part — that state’s highly controversial bill, known popularly as “S.B. 1070.” That measure set a pattern among a number of states that have been growing increasingly impatient with what they consider to be the federal government’s lax enforcement of immigration controls, and the resulting harm that they believe illegal immigrants are doing to the quality of life for their citizens and legal residents. The Arizona measure, and one in Alabama that goes even further, were passed by state legislatures with the specific intent of making life so difficult for undocumented aliens that they would choose to leave the state. Other states are also passing similar measures.

Arizona’s governor, Janice Brewer, in taking the fate of S.B. 1070 on to the Supreme Court, is portraying the case as a major test of the sovereignty of the states to make their own social policies under traditional “police power” principles. The federal government, which tried unsuccessfully to persuade the Court not to get involved in the case at this point, is treating the case as a test of whether states may adopt their own immigration policies that frustrate specific goals of federal policy.

With Justice Kagan not taking part, presumably because she had something to do with the issue in her former role in the Obama Administration Justice Department, there is the possibility that the eight participating Justices will wind up split 4-4 in the case. That would have the effect of simply upholding a Ninth Circuit Court decision, but without opinion and without setting a nationwide precedent. The practical effect of that would be that Arizona could not enforce four key provisions of S.B. 1070, blocked by both the Ninth Circuit and, earlier, by a federal District judge in Arizona.

Big news indeed. Speaking of the administration, last week we noted Eric Holder’s testimony on the Fast and Furious operation debacle, and WSJ’s Law Blog has a good roundup of coverage from that testimony here.

Also, Steve Chapman notes that Obama is no friend of religious freedom in a thought-provoking column:

But look far enough in this pile of chaff and you find some wheat. On two major issues cited by Perry, Obama has broken with precedent to curtail religious freedom in a way that should alarm staunch secularists (like myself) as well as the devout.

The first instance arose after passage of his health care overhaul, when the Department of Health and Human Services ordered that all insurance plans cover contraceptives and sterilization for women, with no co-payment. The mandate means many Americans would have to be complicit in something their faith forbids.

* * *

Even more extreme is its position on a dispute involving an evangelical Lutheran church and school in Michigan. The school had dismissed a teacher who taught both religious and non-religious classes, and she went to court alleging illegal discrimination.

Federal courts have generally barred such lawsuits, leery of getting tangled up in church doctrine and discipline. But an appeals court ruled in favor of the teacher, and Obama’s Justice Department took her side.

Not only that, it said churches and their schools should be treated no differently from other employers. Taken to its logical conclusion, that would mean the Catholic Church could be forced to admit women to the priesthood.

When the case was argued before the Supreme Court, conservative Justice Antonin Scalia marveled at the administration’s claim: “There, black on white in the text of the Constitution, are special protections for religion. And you say it makes no difference?” Exclaimed liberal Justice Elena Kagan, whom Obama appointed, “I too find that amazing.”

From the 2012 primary updates:

WSJ Law blog describes how Rick Perry stumbles, again: “[W]e bring you Perry’s latest, a couple of missteps made during a sit-down with the editorial board of the Des Moines Register. In one, he blanked on the name of Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor. In the other, he referred to the Supreme Court as consisting of ‘eight unelected and frankly unaccountable judges.’”

Reason presents a Ron Paul roundup with some interesting tidbits and videos.

George Will explains how a third-party Ron Paul run leads to a second term for Obama:

When recently asked if he might mount an independent candidacy, he said: “I’m not thinking about it because, look, I’m not doing badly right now. … So we concentrate only on one thing: Keep moving up in the polls, and see how things come out in a month or two.”

He is in the top tier in Iowa, and would alienate Republican voters if he indicated an interest in bolting the party next autumn. Nationally, his ceiling is low, but his floor is solid: His supporters are inclined to accept no substitutes because no other candidate espouses anything like his high octane blend of libertarianism and isolationism.

Furthermore, he is now nationally known (he campaigned for the 2008 Republican nomination, and was the Libertarian Party’s 1988 presidential candidate), has a large base of small donors, and his intense supporters probably could get his name on most states’ ballots. He is not seeking re-election to his House seat, so what has he got to lose?

Well, his candidacy might guarantee Barack Obama’s re-election, and this might hurt the career of his son Rand, the freshman senator from Kentucky. Other than that, however, Ron Paul may think what his ideology implies – that Obama is only marginally more mistaken than Paul’s Republican rivals, who do not wake up each day angry about the 1913 Federal Reserve Act.

Video of the Day

Today’s video comes from PA Congressman Mike Kelly and his recent House Floor rant, definitely worth five minutes of your time (click here to view in YouTube):

New Mexico

Check out Steve Terrell’s column in Saturday’s online Santa Fe New Mexican, in which he asks whether the Tea Party activists and the Occupy activists have received unequal treatment by the Santa Fe government:

Santa Fe Republicans indisputably are in the minority. This often leads to grumbling about their treatment by the Democratic majority. Like all political beefs, from any side, sometimes the concerns are overblown. Sometimes not.

Last week a couple of local GOP activists raised a valid question about basic fairness. Jim and Sheryl Bohlander emailed that they don’t think it’s fair that they had to pay hundreds of dollars to use the Santa Fe Plaza for tea-party events while members of the Occupy Santa Fe movement camp out at the city’s Railyard Park for free.

“As two of the principal organizers of the 2009 and 2010 tea-party rallies on the Plaza, we can confirm that we had to secure a permit to use the Plaza, $400 for each event, plus we had to secure at liability insurance policy for both events, well over $300 each time,” the Bohlanders said in their email. “The permit fee for 2011 was $455. Additionally, we had to state specifically the time frame of the events.”

I realize some readers will be thinking, “What the heck? They’re Republicans. They can afford it.”

But setting political prejudices aside — if that’s ever possible — one can ask if it’s fair to make one group of citizens pay to use a city park for a political gathering while another group gets to use a park for free?

Read the whole column here and let us know what you think in the comments.

While we wait for the full results of the grand jury investigations into former Gov. Richardson’s conduct, the state’s most prominent current embarrassment is busy amassing additional assets, this time in Cape Cod, Mass.:

The couple secured a $675,000 mortgage from the Cape Cod Five Cents Savings Bank and purchased the 2,278-square-foot house from Gerald and Stephanie Coughlan of Wellesley. The Coughlans paid $1.6 million for the property on Nickerson Neck in 2004.

Most of the property’s value — $1.5 million — is in the 36,200-square-foot pond-front lot, according to Chatham assessing records. The assessed value of the three-bedroom house with 4.5 bathrooms was $297,900.

“Gov. and Mrs. Richardson will use this home as a vacation home,” Richardson spokesman Caitlin Wakefield emailed Friday. “Their primary residence will continue to be Santa Fe, N.M. Mrs. Richardson has longstanding ties in the Cape Cod area.”

More here. Continuing the New Mexicans in the national news theme, Murphygate has now made its way into the Los Angeles Times:

It wasn’t a good day for New Mexico’s judiciary when a district judge in Las Cruces, the state’s second-largest city, was indicted last spring on bribery charges for allegedly soliciting campaign contributions in return for political favors.

Then things went from bad to worse. The special prosecutor handling the case demanded that the chief justice of the state Supreme Court recuse himself for allegedly having made prejudicial comments and rulings.

And then came the release of a secretly recorded audiotape in which the indicted judge, Michael Murphy, could be heard casually spouting barnyard profanities, racial epithets and homosexual slurs.

The scandal has reverberated statewide, with some seeing it as evidence of rampant judicial corruption. Murphy’s allies portray it as little more than an indiscretion by someone caught talking out of school, and view the criminal charges as a broad interpretation of the bribery statute.

Full article here.

No Related Posts

Categories: 2012 Election, Constitutional Rights, Economy, Gary Johnson, Health Care, NM Politics

01 Dec 2011

Publius Daily Digest

By Galt

National

John Stossel has another great column out noting ways the government is Blocking the Paths Out of Poverty:

Have you noticed how often government takes sides against the little guy?

Street vending has been a path out of poverty for Americans. And like other such paths (say, driving a taxi), this one is increasingly difficult to navigate. Why? Because entrenched interests don’t like competition. So they lobby their powerful friends to erect high hurdles to upstarts. It’s an old story.

Now, growing local governments are crushing street vendors.

The city of Atlanta, for example, has turned all street vending over to a monopoly contractor. In feudalist fashion, all existing vendors were told they must work for the monopoly or not vend at all.

For more on the issue, check out the Institute for Justice’s lawsuit pending against Atlanta.

Speaking of the economy, Reason.tv has an interesting collection of videos related to the Occupy Wall Street movement, most interesting are the Peter Schiff videos. Check them all out here.

The 2012 GOP race continues to fascinate, check out this Talking Points Memo graphic of how things have progressed in Iowa (visit TPM for additional graphics from New Hampshire and the national race):

H/T Peter Suderman. According to Business Insider, as we get closer to the election there are 50 pundits–and only these 50–that we should pay attention to between now and next November:

Back in the days of the cigar smoke-filled backroom journalists like Walter Lippmann told you what to think while you drank your morning coffee. And then Edward R. Murrow told you what to think while you ate a T.V. dinner.

Those days are no longer.

These days the backroom has moved to Twitter and the front page is the viral video.

Nowadays things are a lot messier and a whole lot more fun. And for better or worse very few of the old standards and definitions apply.

In that spirit we’ve put together a list of the 50 essential pundits in no particular order you should be reading between now and election day. These are the true influencers.

Check out the full list here, it’s an interesting one. In terms of the candidates themselves, it seems Newt Gingrich is the most on the move toward positive gains, as noted in yesterday’s Political Diary:

At a campaign event in Naples, Fla., last week, Newt Gingrich announced, “I’m not the comeback kid. I’m the comeback grandparent.” And the latest polling seems to confirm the former House speaker’s claim.

The latest average of national polls from Real Clear Politics gives Mr. Gingrich a slight 2.5-point advantage over former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney. But that advantage is extended in several early primary states. An Insider Advantage/Majority Opinion Research survey released Tuesday found that 28% of registered GOP voters in Iowa support Mr. Gingrich — a 15-point advantage over number two Mr. Romney. The same poll found that Mr. Gingrich garners 38% of the vote among Republicans in South Carolina — a staggering 23-point lead over Mr. Romney.

Mr. Gingrich is also gaining ground in New Hampshire, where the most recent Rasmussen poll shows him just 10 points behind Mr. Romney. That’s by far the closest a candidate has come to the former governor in any Granite State Rasmussen survey. It was also the first poll taken after Mr. Gingrich picked up a key endorsement from the New Hampshire Union Leader newspaper. The same endorsement gave John McCain’s struggling campaign a boost in the 2008 primary.

“I don’t claim to be the perfect candidate. I just claim to be a lot more conservative than Mitt Romney and a lot more electable than anybody else,” Mr. Gingrich told WSC-AM radio in South Carolina Monday. Mr. Romney fired back in an interview with Fox News’ Bret Baier, saying Mr. Gingrich was “a lifelong politician.” He also contrasted their records. “He [Gingrich] spent his last 30 or 40 years in Washington. I spent my career in the private sector. I think that’s what the country needs right now.”

It will be interesting to see if today’s featured video has any impact on Gingrich’s surge. The Ron Paul campaign uploaded this to YouTube yesterday and more than 170,000 people have already viewed it, many sharing on social media sites like Facebook (click here to view in YouTube):

New Mexico

The biggest local news is, of course, the latest in the grand jury probes of former Gov. Bill Richardson’s conduct:

A federal grand jury is investigating an accusation that former Gov. Bill Richardson had supporters pay off a woman during his 2008 presidential campaign to keep quiet about their alleged extramarital affair, the Wall Street Journal is reporting.

Richardson’s political allies allegedly “gave $250,000 to placate a woman who was considering suing the governor in 2007, exposing their alleged extramarital affair, according to people familiar with the federal probe,” the Journal is reporting.

The Journal quoted the sources as saying the woman, who isn’t named in the article, “was a state employee at the time that she allegedly became romantically involved with Mr. Richardson around 2004.”

Richardson didn’t return calls and e-mails from the Journal seeking comment, and his office “declined to provide the names of his lawyers,” the article states.

More here.

Several good posts up at Errors of Enchantment, don’t forget to visit for more local info and commentary.

Categories: 2012 Election, Constitutional Rights, NM Politics Tags: Bill Richardson, Newt Gingrich

16 Nov 2011

Heinrich and Udall: No fans of the First Amendment

By Francisco d'Anconia

A little over a week ago, Galt reported that the esteemed, ahem, Senator Udall has jumped on the anti-free speech bandwagon of Democrats seeking to impose the government’s will on your political speech. Unfortunately, the cagey and politically driven Udall now has fellow New Mexican Martin Heinrich following suit:

Rep. Martin Heinrich (D-New Mexico) joined his colleague in the US Senate, Tom Udall, by offering up legislation aimed at repealing the US Supreme Court decision in the Citizens United case, calling for a Constitutional amendment and would allow Congress to regulate the campaign finance system.

On Monday (Nov. 14), Heinrich joined four other Democratic members of the US House of Representatives by introducing a companion amendment to the one Udall offered in the Senate along with Sen.Michael Bennet (D-Colorado).

More from New Mexico Watchdog.org here. If you’d like to know more about why Udall, Heinrich, and company are flat wrong on this issue and actually pose a danger to the bedrock principles of this nation through their continued nonsense, see the following pieces:

Citizens United and the Battle for Free Speech in America by Steve Simpson
Democracy Will Survive Citizens United by Roger Pilon
3 Reasons Not to Sweat Citizens United by Reason.tv
Reason’s coverage of the decision over the last couple years.
Free Speech Is Not a “Problem of Democracy” by Paul Sherman

Categories: Campaign Finance, Constitutional Rights Tags: Martin Heinrich, Tom Udall

26

Jan 2013

Related Posts:

10

Jul 2012

Related Posts:

28

Jun 2012

Related Posts:

25

Jun 2012

Related Posts:

29

May 2012

Related Posts:

16

May 2012

Related Posts:

15

Dec 2011

Related Posts:

12

Dec 2011

Related Posts:

01

Dec 2011

Related Posts:

16

Nov 2011

Related Posts:

PubliusNM via Email

More NM Politics

Posts by Author

Twitter