Law and order – No Runny Eggs

Violent Wisconsin political women – Manitowoc edition

steveegg — Mon, 29 Aug 2011 20:17:03 +0000

The Manitowoc Herald Times Reporter carried the story of a Manitowoc woman arrested last week for hitting her husband three times during an argument involving Gov. Scott Walker and financial burdens left behind by the woman’s deceased mother. While the story does not note the political affiliation of the woman, it does cite the police report in noting her alcohol-blood level was 0.265, more than 3 times the legal limit for motor vehicle operation.

Why do I get the feeling she voted for Justice Ann Walsh Bradley?

New FBI surveillance rules half-good, half-troubling

steveegg — Mon, 13 Jun 2011 17:48:06 +0000

Fox News reports the FBI plans on issuing new rules designed to allow it to expand its surveillance and catch “lone wolfs”.

The good part is that it will allow its agents to administer lie-detector tests to and search the trash of potential informants. Assuming the potential informant knows beforehand and accepts it, it is the functional equivalent of the FBI hiring the person.

The troubling part is that agents won’t need to so much as open up a low-level assessment to look up people on various databases. J. Edgar Hoover never had it so oppressive.

Revisions/extensions (1:32 pm 6/13/2011) – Over at Ace of Spades HQ, rdbrewer has a far better explanation of why the troubling part is troubling (hint; the Founding Fathers launched the American Revolution in part because of shit just like this), along with a wife-of-a-friend story of what a less-than-honest bureaucrat does with this kind of power.

Directive 10-289

Shoebox — Sat, 23 Apr 2011 18:17:06 +0000

This week, the NLRB filed a complaint against Boeing in an attempt to prevent them from opening an new manufacturing facility in South Carolina.

Boeing is opening the new facility for two reasons. First, it wants the ability to manufacture its new airliner in a redundant facility giving it greater capacity. Second, after several contentious years with the Union at it’s Washington State facility, Boeing was looking to find a location to mitigate the Union’s impact on production. Enter South Carolina.

South Carolina is a right to work state. Right to work means many things for employees and employers. Amongst them is that an employee can not be required to join a union and pay union dues as a condition of employment at a particular business i.e. “closed shop.” The benefits for Boeing are obvious. The benefits for Boeing are those that any prudent business would seek given the troubled labor history of Boeing’s Washington State facilities.

In what can only be the missing chapter from Atlas Shrugged, the NLRB’s complaint is based solely on Boeing’s desire to mitigate it’s labor challenges:

The NLRB said its investigation found that the company violated two sections of the National Labor Relations Act in 2009 when it picked Charleston International Airport as the site of its second 787 assembly plant rather than expanding its existing factory in Everett.

Specifically, Boeing officials made “coercive statements” to its unionized employees starting in 2009 that the company would shift or had shifted production work away from the Puget Sound area because of labor walkouts, the agency said.

Wow! “coercive statements,” including their desire to move away from labor disputes are the basis for the NLRB complaint! Can anyone possibly imagine that there may have been some “coercive statements” from the union that may have included threats to shut Boeing plants down which the have done on numerous occasions?

With his desire to “spread the wealth around” and now his NLRB agents attempting to dictate business decisions as basic as where they will do business, I’m beginning to believe that Obama doesn’t view “Atlas Shrugged” as fiction but rather as a road map for full implemention of his socialistic desires. Does anyone really believe Obama would not implement an “Equalization of Opportunity” plan or Directive 10-289?

Beauty 1, Beast 0

steveegg — Thu, 24 Mar 2011 02:18:37 +0000

(H/T – Dad29)

Fox News reports that Meghan Brown, the 2009 Miss Tierra Verde (Florida), successfully defended herself against a home invader, shooting the goblin dead. From the article:

(Alber Franklin) Hill (, a four-time convict,) barged into the home at around 3 a.m. after Brown responded to a knock at the front door, according to a police report. He allegedly grabbed the 110-pound Brown around her nose and mouth and dragged her to an upstairs bedroom.

The woman’s fiance, Robert Planthaber, said in an interview that he was quickly awakened by the altercation and ran to Brown’s side.

“I attacked him and took a severe beating to the head,” Planthaber told FoxNews.com. “But I got him off of her long enough for her to scramble to the room where she keeps her pink .38 special.”

Brown, who reigned as the 2009 Miss Tierra Verde, snatched her gun from a nearby bedroom and shot the suspect several times – hitting him in the chest, groin, thigh and back, her fiance said. Hill was pronounced dead at the scene.

Delivering the purple package

steveegg — Tue, 14 Dec 2010 16:44:46 +0000

Both Whitefish Bay Now and WITI-TV are reporting on a USPS carrier who delivered some mail naked the other Saturday. If one combines the two sources, it turns into a he-said/she-said deal on whether she dared him to deliver mail naked.

What was he thinking? Oh, that’s right. He’s a unionized government employee; as such, he is likely to end up in the TSA after a lengthy investigation.

“Net Neutrality” down, not out

steveegg — Tue, 06 Apr 2010 17:18:46 +0000

(H/Ts – Ed Morrissey and Owen)

The DC Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the Federal Communications Commission does not have the statutory authority to regulate an Internet Service Provider’s network management practices. That regulation is at the surface (do note I didn’t say heart) of “Net Neutrality”.

This is a good thing. Anybody who has tried to download multiple items at once knows what happens when there’s congestion. There are certain web applications, from VOIP phones, to IP-based television (present both on Time Warner in a limited form and on AT&T’s U-verse as its sole video delivery method), that need a certain amount of bandwidth to operate.

While the ruling pretty much deep-sixes the plan to use the FCC to regulate the Internet without any specific statutory authority from Congress, Americans for Prospoerity’s Phil Kerpen warns in his latest podcast that the plan is afoot to try to have the FCC declare the Internet as a “market failure” and reclassify it from a Title I information service to a Title II telecommunications service (i.e. Plain-Old-Telephone-Service), and regulate every aspect.

Hope, change, return to military commissions

steveegg — Fri, 05 Mar 2010 12:42:36 +0000

(H/T – Ed Morrissey)

The Washingotn Post is reporting that key advisers in the Obama administration are set to recommend that Attorney General Eric Holder be overridden and the trials of Khalid Sheik Mohammed and several others be conducted in the military tribunal system instead of civilian courts.

It remains to be seen whether the expiration of this particular promise to the Islamokazi-appeasing Left is due more to the incredible amount of bipartisan (original meaning) backlash it has caused or a cynical deal to unexpire the promise to close Club Gitmo.

Who Knew, I’m A False Positive!

Shoebox — Wed, 13 Jan 2010 11:36:06 +0000

ACLU Official Says It Is Not Realistic to Screen Air Passengers Against the Full Terrorist Watchlist

Get this:

Former FBI agent Mike German, now a terrorism expert with the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), said that using the Terrorist Screening Database (TSDB) of 400,000-plus names to screen airline passengers was not realistic, and added that it was “fundamentally ridiculous” to think the list was not flawed.

Oh, yeah! It’s particularly HIGHlarious for those us caught in its hilarity!

“One of the most disappointing things about the whole review of this situation was this idea that the terrorist watch-listing system is not, itself, broken, which is fundamentally ridiculous,” said German.

Ah yup! Big 10-4 there!

German said on Monday that the terrorist watchlist system has been broken “for years,” pointing out that names were added to the list incorrectly while others were kept on the list after investigators had cleared them of any involvement with terrorists.

Well, I guess I should be thankful that my portion of the list has only been broken for 11 days!

“There were people who were put on the list appropriately because they were under investigation, but when the investigation cleared them, they weren’t taken off the list,” said German. “There were people who were known terrorists, there were people who he [the IG] identified as known terrorists who were not on the list.”

Oh, don’t forget about the people who were put on the list inappropriately and whose paper work you “just can’t find!”

“The whole listing process is broken and needs a fundamental overhaul,” said German. “We’re creating a system of tremendous false positives. We’ve created a system that creates hundreds, and probably hundreds of thousands, of false positives every day.”

Hey, hey, over here. I’m false positive number 1!

And then they came for Michael Yon

steveegg — Tue, 05 Jan 2010 19:42:57 +0000

If Shoebox was wondering who the TSA would flag after him, he need not wonder any longer. Ed Morrissey reports that Homeland Security agents detained Michael Yon as he returned to the US from Afghanistan via Hong Kong because he refused to tell them how much money he makes. Quoting from Yon’s Facebook page:

Got arrested at the Seattle airport for refusing to say how much money I make. (The uniformed ones say I was not “arrested”, but they definitely handcuffed me.) Their videos and audios should show that I was polite, but simply refused questions that had nothing to do with national security. Port authority police eventually came — they were professionals — and rescued me from the border bullies.

When they handcuffed me, I said that no country has ever treated me so badly. Not China. Not Vietnam. Not Afghanistan. Definitely not Singapore or India or Nepal or Germany, not Brunei, not Indonesia, or Malaysia, or Kuwait or Qatar or United Arab Emirates. No county has treated me with the disrespect can that can be expected from our border bullies.

I would say that it’s un-fucking-believable, but given that the immigration/customs/security apparatus is interested in everything BUT stopping illegal aliens and terrorists, it’s entirely fucking believable.

Revisions/extensions (8:45 pm 1/5/2010) – There’s more from Michael Yon from Big Government, including the fact that it was TSA goons that accosted him.

Is this what Obama and Feingold wanted?

steveegg — Fri, 18 Dec 2009 18:44:08 +0000

(H/T – Ed Morrissey)

Back when the United States Senate was debating a “born-alive” protection act, then-Sen. Rick Santorum (R-PA) asked Russ Feingold (Moonbat-WI) what should happen if a baby happened to be born alive during an abortion procedure. Feingold’s answer of leaving it up to the woman and the doctor proved to be so repugnant that Feingold had the Senate record scrubbed of the answer.

Meanwhile, when he was in the Illinois State Senate, President Barack Obama voted against a “born-alive” protection act no less than three times, and went on to infamously say on the Presidential campaign trail, “But if they make a mistake, I don’t want them punished with a baby.”

Fast-forward to Rustburg, Virginia, where WSLS-TV is reporting that one fucked-up repugnant piece of repugnant shit bitch of a “mother” who smothered her newborn won’t be charged with anything because the baby was still attached to the mother. I’ll let Investigator Terry Emerson explain the state of the law in Virginia:

In the state of Virginia as long as the umbilical cord is attached and the placenta is still in the mother, if the baby comes out alive the mother can do whatever she wants to with that baby to kill it. She could shoot the baby, stab the baby. As long as it’s still attached to her in some form by umbilical cord or something it’s no crime in the state of Virginia.

Before you think that this is the first case of its type in Virginia, guess again. The WSLS story goes on:

The Campbell County Sheriff’s Office and Commonwealth’s Attorney’s office worked unsuccessfully to get the law changed after another baby died in the county in a similar case. Emerson says they asked two delegates and one state senator to take the issue up in the General Assembly. He says the three lawmakers refused because they felt the issue was too close to the abortion issue.

What. The. FUCK?!?!?!

What, Me Worry?

Shoebox — Wed, 18 Nov 2009 22:05:30 +0000

President Obama is now the Alfred E. Neuman of US Politics

AP: Obama, Holder predict conviction in 9/11 case

Ummmm…wasn’t this the same administration who said unemployment wouldn’t go over 8%?

I wonder if this will be another opportunity for Vice President Biden to tell us, after the fact, that the situation was “worse than expected?”

Can Obama Constitutionally accept the Nobel Peace Prize?

steveegg — Fri, 16 Oct 2009 23:01:21 +0000

(H/T – Hot Air Headlines)

Ronald D. Rotunda and J. Peter Pham address that in today’s Washington Post. Within the confines of a relatively-short column that is optimized for print (specifically, no links) and briefly goes beyond the bounds of the Nobel and into the Collar of the King Abdul Aziz Order of Merit (Saudi Arabia’s highest honor) accepted by both Presidents Barack Obama and George W. Bush, it is in the main a decent look. Before I get to my non-scholary look, however, I do have a point of order to make – as far as the Enoulments portion of the Constitution is concerned, the Constitution, and the laws and regulations set within the bounds thereof, do not care whether the impetus for an award issued by a foreign government is for past actions or the hope of future actions. Other portions of the American body of law may well distinguish between the two, but the discussion of that point, or the merits (or lack thereof) of the award itself is not germaine to this post.

Like Routunda and Pham, I start with Article I, Section 9, which states, “And no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince or foreign State.” Obama does hold an office of Trust, specifically the Office of President. The Norwegian Nobel Committee, which has announced that it will award the Nobel Peace Prize to Obama, is appointed by and reports to the Norwegian parliament, which makes it an agent of a foreign State.

Congress can pass a resolution consenting to Obama receiving the Peace Prize and all of its associated awards and gifts. If that is done, that would be the end of the Constitutional question. However, if that is not done, other mechanisms are in place to govern the implemtation of the Emoulment Clause.

While Routunda and Pham rely on a 1993 opinion from the White House Office of Legal Council that the clause applies when a foreign government acts through “instrumentalities”, I’ll head to 5 USC § 7342, which deals with the “(r)eceipt and disposition of foreign gifts and decorations”. By definition, the United States Code applies to the President, and also by definition, it defines a “foreign government” as:

(A) any unit of foreign governmental authority, including any foreign national, State, local, and municipal government;
(B) any international or multinational organization whose membership is composed of any unit of foreign government described in subparagraph (A); and
(C) any agent or representative of any such unit or such organization, while acting as such

The Norwegian Nobel Committee is appointed by the Storting, Norway’s Parliament, which makes it a unit of foreign governmental authority, and makes anything given by it subject to the United States Code.

Continuing with 5 USC § 7342, as well as the eCFR version of 41 CFR § 102-42 (current as of 10/14/2009, though I note that the official 2009 version of 41 CFR § 102 has not been released even though it was supposed to be released on 7/1/2009), it actually has different definitions for “gifts” and “decorations”, which is important because the 10 million Swedish crowns ($1.4 million at current exchange rates) given to the Laureate is not part of the Nobel award ceremony, and the US Code defines the disposition of the two differently. It defines a “gift” as “a tangible or intangible present (other than a decoration) tendered by, or received from, a foreign government”, while it defines a “decoration” as “an order, device, medal, badge, insignia, emblem, or award tendered by, or received from, a foreign government”.

While the US Code is silent on who the “employing agency” of the President is, 41 CFR § 102-42.70 states, “The National Archives and Records Administration normally handles gifts and decorations received by the President and Vice President or a member of the President’s or Vice President’s family.” Do keep this in mind because I will come back to it.

Since the US Code deals first with the disposition of “gifts”, I will first deal with the cash prize. 5 USC § 7342(c)(1) gives automatic Congressional consent to four types of gifts: those with “minimal value” (defined as under $335 as of last year), travel outside the US if allowed by the employing agency regardless of value, those of any value if the gift is accepted on behalf of the United States and the gift is given to the United States government upon acceptance, and those above the “minimal value” if refusal of the gift would “likely cause offense or embarrassment or otherwise adversely affect the foreign relations of the United States”.

In that last case, 5 USC § 7342(c)(2) says the person who accepts a tangible gift has 60 days to turn over that gift to his or her employing agency for disposal or official use. While 5 USC § 7342(e)(1) authorizes the employing agency to return the gift to the person who received it, 41 CFR § 102-42.20(b)(2)(ii) requires that all cash gifts that have “no historic or numismatic value” be deposited into the Department of the Treasury.

Allow me to restate that for those who missed the lengthy explanation – While Obama can accept the $1.4 million in cash without Congressional approval if he claims that refusing it would harm foreign relations with Norway, by law he must turn it over to the Department of the Treasury.

Now we can get to the Medal and Diploma, as well as the title itself. All three are inarguably “decorations” under the US Code. 5 USC § 7342(d) allows employees, including the President, to accept and keep decorations without specific Congressional consent only if they were “tendered in recognition of active field service in time of combat operations or awarded for other outstanding or unusually meritorious performance, subject to the approval of the employing agency of such employee. Without this approval, the decoration is deemed to have been accepted on behalf of the United States, shall become the property of the United States, and shall be deposited by the employee, within sixty days of acceptance, with the employing agency for official use, (or) for forwarding to the Administrator of General Services for disposal in accordance with subsection (e)(1)….” Since the Code of Federal Regulations states that the National Archives and Records Administration handles gifts and declarations foreign governments give to the President, unless they decide that it is being awarded for “outstanding or unusually meritorious performance”, while Obama can still be the person to temporarily take possession of the award, he must by law do so on behalf of the United States instead of himself, and must relinquish everything to the National Archives.

I may not have access to Nexis-Lexus, but a quick search through both Yahoo News and Google News yields no sources saying that the National Archives has done so. Of course, there are several weeks left for them to do so, or alternatively for Congress to explicitly consent to Obama receiving the award.

Again, let me restate – Without either National Archives or Congressional approval, while Obama can temporarily take possession of the non-monetary instruments of the Nobel Peace Prize, he must by law do so not in his name but in the name of the United States, and then by law must relinquish all instruments of same to the National Archives.

Weekend hot read – R.S. McCain goes to Big Creek, Kentucky

steveegg — Mon, 05 Oct 2009 01:38:25 +0000

I didn’t really follow the story of Bill Sparkman. Fortunately, Robert Stacy McCain took several days out of his life to try to find out what really happened in Big Creek, Kentucky about September 23rd.

Even though the first part of the series he worked up is 4,000 words, or perhaps because of it, I cannot do justice with an excerpt. You’re just going to have to go read the whole thing.

One housekeeping item – do hit his tip jar. If I can send some money his way, you can.

Barrett beaten for doing the right thing

steveegg — Mon, 17 Aug 2009 12:18:14 +0000

One of the bad things about going on the road is sometimes I miss important things. Milwaukee mayor Tom Barrett was beaten by a violent and vicious thug (hey lefties; don’t take my word for it; take Milwaukee police chief Ed Flynn’s) with a lengthy police record by the name of Anthony J. Peters when he broke up a domestic dispute. When Barrett and his family happened upon the scene while walking to his car after attending the Wisconsin State Fair, he asked his sister to take his daughters away from the scene and attempted to calm Peters. When Barrett took out his cell phone, Peters attacked with a lead pipe, leaving Barrett lying in a pool of blood with a broken hand. Barrett’s niece, who stayed at the scene, dialed 911 on her phone, and the West Allis Police Department responded quickly.

I offer my prayers for a quick and full recovery for Barrett.

Some people are wondering why Barrett didn’t have a police security detail with him. While the mayor of Milwaukee is entitled to one, and Barrett does use one when he performs official duties, Barrett typically does not use one when he goes out as a private citizen.

Sotomayor overturned in Ricci v. DeStefano

steveegg — Mon, 29 Jun 2009 17:00:45 +0000

(H/T – Gabriel Malor)

The Supreme Court ruled in a 5-4 opinion that New Haven, CT’s decision to discard the results of a 2003 fire captain/lieutenant examination because “too few” non-Hispanic minorities passed, and specifically none with a high enough score to qualify for promotion, violated the Civil Rights Act. Judge (and SCOTUS nominee) Sonia Sotomayor previously ruled that New Haven could discard those results.

The majority, Justice Kennedy (who wrote the majority opinion), Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Alito, Scalia and Thomas, avoided the Constitutional question of the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment. Instead, they decided that, since New Haven could not prove that following the results of the examination would have made it liable under the disparate-impact (the unintentional discrimination against minorities) portion of the Civil Rights Act, it violated the disparate-treatment (the intentional discrimination) portion of said Act. In fact, it stated that since the lower courts, including the appellate panel Judge Sotomayor was a part of, failed to establish any disparate impact, they inproperly applied the Equal Protection Clause.

Indeed, Justice Scalia states in his concurrence, “I join the Court’s opinion in full, but write separately to observe that its resolution of this dispute merely postpones the evil day on which the Court will have to confront the question: Whether, or to what extent, are the disparate-impact provisions of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 consistent with the Constitution’s guarantee of equal protection?”

Gabriel has a lot more insight over at the linked Ace of Spades HQ post. Meanwhile, Ed Morrissey wrote that Justice Alito’s concurrence, which addresses “calculated omissions” from the dissent written by Justice Ginsburg, that “…(Judge Sotomayor’s supporters’) big sell — that she was one of the appellate court’s most brilliant minds — just took a body blow on this decision.”

The obligatory L’affair Flynn-McBride post

steveegg — Fri, 19 Jun 2009 23:39:13 +0000

The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel’s Dan Bice broke the news that Milwaukee Police Chief Ed Flynn and UW-Milwaukee journalism lecturer/freelance journalist Jessica McBride (both married, and not to each other) had an affair at roughly the same time McBride wrote a lengthy piece on Flynn in Milwaukee Magazine. There are a few different directions I can take this bout of stupidity from the two of them.

First, if other rumors are true, this is not the first time either one of them have had an extramarrital affair. That limits my sympathies to the children of McBride and her husband, and any minor children Flynn may have.

Second, while this is a serious ding in Flynn’s credibility, it is not quite fatal for him. For those on the left that want to bleat hypocrisy, there is a major difference between Flynn and former President Bill Clinton – unlike the serial denier, who lied about L’Affair Clinton-Lewinsky to a federal grand jury investigating him for sexual harrassment, Flynn got out in front of this and admitted it, as well as apologized, before the story hit print. In fact, the Journal Sentinel reports that both Milwaukee mayor Tom Barrett and the Fire and Police Commission are standing behind Flynn.

The same cannot be said for McBride. She has in the past taught journalism ethics, so she knows that it is a serious breach of trust to be bedding one’s sources, whether it is before the stories are written or whether merely the spark is formed during the course of pursuing the stories with ignition shortly thereafter.

Revisions/extensions (2:07 pm 6/23/2009) – Thanks to James Wigderson, there’s a follow-up that includes Bice’s questionable tactics and writing, based on a revealing of the timeline.

Work Americans Won’t Do!

Shoebox — Mon, 02 Feb 2009 11:37:20 +0000

In his first two Executive Orders, President Obama began the process to close Gitmo and revoked President Bush’s order that allowed enhanced interrogation techniques. During the signing, President Obama explained:

“The message that we are sending the world is that the United States intends to prosecute the ongoing struggle against violence and terrorism, and we are going to do so vigilantly and we are going to do so effectively and we are going to do so in a manner that is consistent with our values and our ideals.”

Today the LA Times reports that President Obama has left himself a tiny, little, minuscule really, but never-the-less important loophole in dealing with people he thinks are bad:

Under executive orders issued by Obama recently, the CIA still has authority to carry out what are known as renditions, secret abductions and transfers of prisoners to countries that cooperate with the United States.

That’s interesting. I didn’t know that our “values and ideals” included asking other countries to do things we find objectionable. I guess this is what they mean when they refer to “work Americans won’t do!”

WFLD-TV (Chicago Fox affiliate) – Rahm Emanuel spoke with Blagojevich, Harris about filling Obama’s seat

steveegg — Fri, 12 Dec 2008 15:30:59 +0000

(H/T – Ed Morrissey)

I’ll start with the standard disclaimers that this comes from an unnamed source, that Barack Obama’s chief of staff, Rahm Emanuel, has not been named in the criminal complaint against Illinois governor Rod Blagojevich (D) and Blagojevich’s chief of staff, John Harris, and that the report referenced below does not actually state that Emanuel was actively selling the seat to Blagojevich and Harris.

WFLD-TV, the Fox affiliate in Chicago, aired a report last night asserting that a “reliable source familiar with the investigation” stated that Emanuel had conversations with both Blagojevich and Harris about candidates for the seat that has now been vacated by Obama. According to that source, the conversations, which took place on “multiple occassions” after Emanuel was named as Obama’s chief of staff November 6 (and after the wiretaps began), included a list of names “acceptable to President-elect Obama” given to the governor’s office. The source went on to say that the conversations were likely recorded by the FBI. The report notes that the source did not say one way or the other whether those conversations invovled any quid pro quo.

My gut feeling on this is that Obama cannot have January 20 come fast enough so he can oust US Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald and shut this down before any indictment against Blagojevich and Harris can be handed down, and before the taint can officially spread to his closest advisor. If a grand jury comes down with an indictment before then, and especially if things are as they appear (or worse), Obama is screwed.

Hmmmmmm

Shoebox — Wed, 10 Dec 2008 11:01:43 +0000

Alright, I heard when US Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald said that the criminal complaint against Blagojevich didn’t involve President-elect Obama.

I’ve now read the entire complaint and in 17 separate phone calls or conversations, the complaint documents Blagojevich and others discussing how to extract something for Blagojevich in return for his selection of the President-elect’s preferred person to replace him in the Senate.

That leaves me thinking that either Blagojevich and those around him are the most delusional people on the face on the earth or they were receiving feedback along the way. At this point I’m not suggesting that Obama was involved but if Blagojevich was getting feedback, someone was giving it to him. I think this investigation has the potential to make the Scooter LIbby situation look like first year law school stuff.

This could be fun.

A Constitutional Firewall?

Shoebox — Mon, 31 Mar 2008 12:00:31 +0000

Included in Article VI of the constitution is this direction regarding the enforcement power of treaties:

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

Up through the early 1900’s, this phrase was interpreted to mean that treaties would outline relationships between the US and another country but that the language of the treaty could not override the US or state constitutions. That interpretation changed in 1920 when a US Supreme Court case, Missouri V. Holland concluded that a treaty could override a State’s authority and in fact, become the “Supreme law of the land,” coequal with the constitution and supplanting state law.

One would think that well negotiated treaties, agreed to by the President and 2/3rds of the Senate would not be much of a concern. One would think wrong.

Twisting of international treaties has become the global warming fanatics latest front to enforce their world view. An example of this is the Law of the Sea Treaty (LOST).

At it’s face, LOST looks fairly innocuous as it purported to define rights and responsibilities for a nation’s use of the oceans. However, in the language of LOST are items like Article 194 which requires states parties to "take"¦all measures consistent with this Convention that are necessary to prevent, reduce, and control pollution of the marine environment from any source." Further, this provision requires that all means are addressed: "all sources of pollution of the marine environment"¦including those from land-based sources, from or through the atmosphere, or by dumping"¦."

It doesn’t take a very long leap, if a leap at all, to see how global warming fanatics will take their CO2 to ocean warming link and cry about that as pollution of the marine environment looking to use provisions of treaties like LOST to impose unintended responsibilities on the US.

With abuse like this, it appeared like our choice was coming down to either not signing any treaties and possibly cancelling some existing treaties that could be reinterpreted, or run the risk of have laws forced upon the US from outside sources.

last week the Supreme Court gave us a firewall.

Without going into all the details, in Medellin V. Texas a Mexico citizen was convicted of murder in Texas and sentenced to death. Medellin argued that his case should be thrown out because he was not specifically told he had a right to visit with a Mexican embassy consular. The International Court of Justice intervened on his behalf with the Bush administration and:

On February 28, 2005, President George W. Bush determined that the United States would comply with its international obligation to give effect to the judgment by giving those 51 individuals review and reconsideration in the state courts. However, the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals held that the President’s determination exceeded his powers, and it refused to give effect to the Avena judgment or the President’s determination.

The case was heard by the Supreme Court with the specific question of whether a treaty trumped state law. Surprisingly, at least to me, the Supreme Court in a 6-3 decision (Stevens, Kennedy, Alito, Scalia, Roberts and Thomas voted for) decided that in fact, unless specifically legislated otherwise, state law trumps treaties. The specific language was:

While a treaty may constitute an international commitment, it is not binding domestic law unless Congress has enacted statutes implementing it or the treaty itself conveys an intention that it be "self-executing" and is ratified on that basis.

What’s to learn from this?

Obviously, it’s necessary for the US to continue to negotiate, ratify and enforce treaties that serve our interest. However, Congress should NEVER but enabling language in the treaty i.e. language that makes the treaty law simply by the ratification of the treaty. By putting enabling language in a treaty, the treaty does become “Supreme law of the land” and language that is ambiguous, or open to interpretation has the potential to be used in ways to cause the US harm. Of course, we could always terminate a treaty that has become problematic but that isn’t always politically acceptable in an international sense. The safest course is for Congress to separately legislate laws that work to blend treaties with US law. By doing so, there would be research and debate that should cause more thoughtful consideration, by the House and the Senate, ultimately implanting within US law what Congress believed the intent of the treat was. Then, if something unexpected occurs, we have our Supreme Court with our Constitution and not some international court with their treaty, determining what the intent of our lawmakers and not international lawmakers might have been.

With their decision in Medellin V. Texas, the Supreme Court not only puts our constitution back in first place in the legal hierarchy, but they set a clear firewall from abuse by those who would use treaties in a perverted fashion. However, this firewall exists only if Congress is willing to do the work that the taxpayers are paying them for, determining the laws that apply to US citizens and not taking the easy route by simply “enabling” treaties

Freedom isn’t free….even in Berkeley, CA!

Shoebox — Mon, 18 Feb 2008 15:19:26 +0000

You’ve got to love this! It has cost Berkeley, CA nearly $100K to pay for police coverage of the protest at the Marine recruiting office.

So I’m thinking, rather than hold back the earmarks from them, maybe we should just get the Marines to open 10 more offices in Berkeley. With 10 more offices the protesters could bankrupt Berkeley within a year!

Darshan Dhaliwal, Pubbie-only donor?

steveegg — Fri, 18 Jan 2008 18:53:16 +0000

That is exactly what Raquel Rutledge, Jennie Tunkieicz, Ben Poston, and their editors at the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel would want you to believe. In their story about how Dhaliwal sold unbranded gasoline as BP gasoline, they gleefully point out how closely he was tied to both Tommy Thompson and President Bush.

Just one sliiiiiiiiiiight problem; they never heard of Jessica McBride. Her very-quick search through the Wisconsin Democracy Campaign archives revealed a who’s-who of Democrats and liberals very-amply supported by Dhaliwal, including $17,000 to Jim Doyle (almost twice the amount given to both the Thompson state and federal campaigns combined) and a $500 donation to Louis Butler during his previous, failed run for the state Supreme Court.

I decided to run Dhaliwal’s various donations, both state and federal (the latter from the FEC), through the spreadsheet, and imagine my surprise to find the following over the last 16 years (14 on the federal side):

– $75,980 in donations to 58 Democrats and liberal-leaning candidates and committees overall
– $53,280 in donations to the Wisconsin (not federal) campaigns of 48 Democrats and liberal-leaning candidates and committees
– $21,800 in donations to 13 Republican candidates overall (no non-Republican conservative-leaning candidates or committees)
– $17,500 in donations to the Wisconsin (not federal) campaigns of 11 Republicans

Hmmm, why do you think the Fifth Column at Fourth and State only mentioned Thompson and Bush, and went out of their way to avoid any mention of Democrats or Loophole Louis? Could it be that the presstitute-‘Rat alliance has elections to ste…er, win?

It’s a dog-eat-drunk world out there

steveegg — Fri, 11 Jan 2008 05:39:53 +0000

(H/T – Jib)

Today’s lesson of what not to do when drunk and in a crashed car comes to us from Durham, NC’s Josue Herrios-Coronilla and examiner.com: Do not step in a canine land mine as you stumble away from the wrecked car and then keep the uncleaned shoe on after you stagger into the getaway van.

Scum of the day entrant

steveegg — Fri, 04 Jan 2008 18:51:00 +0000

JSOnline’s DayWatch reports that 30-year-old Ryan A. Mueller of Sheboygan Falls was charged yesterday with felony burglary after DNA evidence linked him to the theft of $20 from a 2-year-old’s piggy bank. I’m trying not to unleash a string of expletives here, but who the is so depraved to go sneaking into a bedroom where a child is sleeping and take cash out of a piggy bank?

The good news is he was caught and now, if convicted, can get 9 years, 6 months to cool his heels in a state pen. The bad; it’s Sheboygan County, where the lawgivers-in-black tend to do stupid like let sex offenders who entice children walk (a from-the-archives special is over here.

Anti-military lawyer damages Marine’s car on eve of deployment

steveegg — Mon, 31 Dec 2007 20:00:29 +0000

The details are over at Blackfive. Short version:

– Sgt. Mike McNulty, who is on activation orders to go to Camp Pendelton and then Iraq on January 2, went to visit a friend in Chicago on December 1.
– Chicago lawyer Jay R. Grodner decided to key McNulty’s car, causing $2,400 worth of damage ($2,100 more than what the standard is for felony criminal damage to property in Illinois), and proceeded to verbally assault McNulty.
– In the first court appearance, Grodner tried to get off with paying McNulty’s $100 deductible, with McNulty’s insurance taking the rest of the hit. Despite “encouragement” from the Illinois States Attorneys, McNulty said, “Nuts,” and tried to push for the felony charge
– The State, saying that it wouldn’t be worth it to try to pursue felony charges because Grodner was a lawyer, countered with an offer to put Grodner on probation. Grodner rejected that, knowing the clock is ticking.

The next hearing in this case is today. Matt will be updating us with the latest developments.

Revisions/extensions (9:17 pm 12/31/2007) – Matt reports that the State will now be prosecuting Grodner to the full extent of the law. May the bastich be found guilty.