Let’s Repeal the Bill of Rights

Why not? Let’s just go and repeal all of those bothersome constitutional amendments that seem to protect people we don’t like.

Like that most bothersome First Amendment. What a hodgepodge. I mean it. I mean in one single amendment we guarantee too many rights. First, the right of anyone to believe in any deity at all, or not believe in any for that matter. Who ever thought it would be used to protect the rights of a religious group we all agree to hate? Then there’s that bothersome right of free speech. Does it mean that someone I don’t like, like a NAZI or a Teabagger has the right to spout their crazy vile ideas? I think not. Free press? Does this mean we allow people to publish their lies and stupid points of view? Get real. The government knows what is right and that’s all that matters.

On the other hand, there’s that pesky 2nd Amendment. The one about the militia. If we all have guns, they thought, no one would be able to replace our government with a tyranny. But who is fooling whom? Can you buy Uranium depleted ammunition for your 50 caliber machine gun? What about an RPG? Heck, anyone have a suitcase nuke? On the other hand, how many tyrannical governments have we overthrown?

(Actually, like Tom Toles, I am serious about this one)

Or that 3rd Amendment. About quartering of troops. This is an issue anymore?

But the 4th Amendment, that whole search and seizure thing. How the heck are we going to be able to find incriminating things to charge the bad people with? Especially the bad people we don’t like? Like, you know, liberals. And what the heck, how will those electronics stores be able to check out the stuff in your shopping bags as you leave the store?

Oh, they do that anyway?

But this is the one I hate the most, that 5th Amendment. Don’t we have torture as a tool to question suspects now? How can we torture people and then NOT use what they tell us against them? That doesn’t make any sense at all.

And that 6th Amendment stuff about speedy trials and witnesses. All it does is protect criminals and people we don’t like. Chuck all of that and throw them all in the slammer where they belong.

The 7th? You want to have a jury trial for all matters over $20? Ever heard of inflation? Back in 1787 you could buy a house for $20.

And about that 8th Amendment. Punishment is supposed to hurt. It is by definition, cruel and unusual. Cruel and unusual punishment is an oxymoron if ever there was one. Keep your oxymorons out of my Constitution.

Then there’s the 9th Amendment. Heck I don’t even know what it means.

Oh and by God there’s the 10th Amendment. That stupid thing about states rights. Who follows that anyway? I mean it. The 10th says that any powers not listed in the Constitution are reserved to the states. When have they followed that one? Is Medicare in the Constitution? Social Security? No, but they take money out of your paycheck for them, don’t they? And not for you, either, but for some other guy. That’s . . . that’s . . . socialism.

And yes, if you were wondering whether I have gone certifiably crazy, the odds are that you would be correct.

Summer is over. School starts next week.

Whatever Happened to the 10th Amendment?

I’ve been listening to the House debate on HR 3962 since it began this morning. This is a rare luxury for me because I usually find myself at work during House debates. But today congressmen are working on a Saturday, giving me the opportunity not only to listen to the progression of a debate, but a very important debate on healthcare reform.

Something keeps coming up at least once or twice per hour, always brought up by some minority Member or another.

The minority bill, it seems includes a provision for health insurance customers to shop across state lines for their insurance. They want Americans, in short, to have that freedom to go across state lines to get healthcare insurance.

This is so very wrong on two related levels.

At present Americans must buy health insurance coverage offered in the state that they reside in. This is because each and every state regulates insurance companies through one state bureaucracy or another. In Texas, health insurance is regulated by something called the Texas Department of Insurance. The Department of Insurance is currently headed by Mike Geeslin, appointed by Governor Perry in May for a 2-year term. Geeslin is a political animal a former staffer with 2 years of experience in the insurance field as a deputy commissioner of insurance policy.

In California, the state of my origin, insurance is regulated (a little more regulated, you might say) by the California Department of Insurance, which is headed by the Insurance Commissioner – an elected position. The current commissioner Steve Poizner, is a Republican who is going to run for governor next year.

States regulate insurance companies within their boundaries just as they regulate public utilities. What seems obvious to me is that should the federal government allow insurance to be bought across state lines, state regulation of these companies goes right out the door.

And this is a problem for me, and should be one for the Republican congressmen who support sales of insurance across state lines.

A problem because this would apparently violate the 10th Amendment of the Bill of Rights. Something that Governor Perry and every other teabagging conservative were wildly supportive of earlier this year.

Amendment 10 reads like this:

“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.”

Now my guess is that insurance has been regulated by states because in the past, the feds have not, for the most part, dappled in this. Medicare and Medicaid being the exceptions, although those are federally regulated programs, and not state ones. My guess is that if insurance can be sold across state lines, this is an abrogation of the 10th Amendment, taking away a power from the states that they have enjoyed for years and years.

So I find it odd, in this case, that the tables are truly turned in this case. As we debate healthcare reform in America on a federal level, I find it odd that conservative lawmakers want to nationalize the whole shebang.

There Goes a Miranda Right

Ironic isn’t it, that on the day President Barack Obama nominates Judge Sonia Sotomayor to replace Justice David Souter on the US Supreme Court, a move to preserve a liberal presence on the high bench, The Supremes today handed down another 5-4 decision that takes away another of your rights.

The right to the presence of an attorney before questioning.

The case they heard was Montejo vs. Louisiana a case that overturned a long-standing (since 1986) ruling – in Michigan v. Jackson. The decision isn’t posted at their website yet, so we have to rely on what information that the Houston Chronicle

In Michigan v. Jackson the court ruled that the police may not interrogate a suspect if the person either has a lawyer or requests a lawyer.

In reading the opinion, Justice Antonin “I Stole the Presidency from Gore” Scalia said of the previous ruling, that “it was poorly reasoned, has created no significant reliance interests and (as we have described) is ultimately unworkable.”

Besides, reasoned Scalia, we have Miranda.

“Miranda”is from a landmark 1966 (I think) ruling from which the “Miranda Warning” statement came. In case no one has ever read those rights to you from that pocket-sized card, here is what it says on the card that the police are supposed to read to you when they place you under arrest:

“You have the right to remain silent and refuse to answer questions. Do you understand?
Anything you do or say may be used against you in a court of law. Do you understand?
You have the right to consult an attorney before speaking to the police and to have an attorney present during questioning now or in the future. Do you understand?
If you cannot afford an attorney, one will be appointed for you before any questioning if you wish. Do you understand?”

“If you decide to answer questions now without an attorney present you will still have the right to stop answering at any time until you talk to an attorney. Do you understand?
Knowing and understanding your rights as I have explained them to you, are you willing to answer my questions without an attorney present?”

Scalia said this:

“Because of the protections created by this court in Miranda and related cases, there is little if any chance that a defendant will be badgered into waiving his right to have counsel present during interrogation.”

But if you look at the warning again, it says that the accused has the RIGHT to consult an attorney before questioning.

That’s not true anymore, is it?

Because if you look at the second paragraph of the Miranda Warning, that whole thing is all about badgering the accused to talk.

All about it.

No, in my humble opinion all this does is convince the accused that there is no upside to talking to the police without a lawyer being present.

Senate Votes on FISA Today – Part 1: Amendments

Today the Senate takes up debates and votes for amendments to HR 6304, the bill just passed in the House that would, among other things, do something I haven’t really ever seen before: it provides a grant of immunity from civil suits against telecommunications firms that went along with government-ordered eavesdropping on the conversations of American citizens – orders that did not have the benefit of a warrant.

In other words, illegal search and seizure occurred. And now the Senate is in the process of placing their seal of approval on these illegal acts.

HR 6304 has three amendments to be voted on today.
Three Amendments upon which the survival of the 4th Amendment depends.

A roll call vote was requested for all three.

Senator Dole’s amendment to strike Title 2 from the bill, the part of it that grants immunity to telecom firms, came to bat first.

32 Aye – 66 Nay.

Strike one.

Then Arlen Spector’s amendment “to limit retroactive immunity for providing assistance to the United States to instances in which a Federal court determines the assistance was provided in connection with an intelligence activity that was constitutional,” came up next.

37 Aye - 61 Nay

Strike Two.

Senator Bingaman’s amendment “to stay pending cases against certain telecommunications companies and provide that such companies may not seek retroactive immunity until 90 days after the date the final report of the Inspectors General on the President's Surveillance Program is submitted to Congress.”

This is the last hope that we have for our 4th Amendment. Bush has threatened to veto any legislation that puts a delay on any telecom cases until people can see whether any laws were broken and who broke them.

42 Aye – 56 Nay

Strike Three.

On that last vote, those Aye votes appear to be 42 solid votes to deny passage of the FISA bill, don't they? Not so. Barack Obama, who voted Aye three times today, has promised to vote for the bill, as have others.

But I guess we’ll see.

After the Senators get their lunch.

Wouldn't want to yank the guts out of the 4th Amendment without a full belly.