Tag Archives: Constitution

October 27, 2014

Confused or hypocrites?

By Paul Stagg

I’m not sure if folks are confused, or if they are hypocrites, although I lean towards the former.  I like to believe the best of people.

How can anyone who says they believe the Constitution of the United States is the foundation of the laws and limits on government power also believe that placing someone in quarantine without a warrant or court order?

And, for the other side, if a Democrat had locked up the nurse, you would be silent.  How do I know?  Because you’re silent about Guantanamo Bay and drone assassinations.  Thing is, you shouldn’t be surprised, as this is the sort of government power you support.  As long as it isn’t used against a nurse.  Or something.

A refresher, in the event I’m right, and it’s just confusion:

Amendment IV

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Amendment V

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

For anyone having difficulty, that says you can not deprive a person of their liberty without due process.  PERIOD.

 

Advertisement

Leave a comment   |  tags: , , , | posted in Libertarian/Political Stuff

December 22, 2010

The Constitution Simply No Longer Matters

By Paul Stagg

From a the Washington Post article on the passage of the new food “safety” bill:

The measure also gives the Food and Drug Administration the authority to recall food; now, it must rely on food companies to voluntarily pull products off the shelves. And the bill would give the FDA access to internal records at farms and food-production facilities.

That, and that alone, makes the bill unconstitutional.  It’s not even debatable.

The 4th Amendment, for those of you who don’t remember:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

And the Fifth:

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation

In what reading of those two passages does the FDA have any authority or power to force a company to recall a product or have access to the records of any company?

Leave a comment   |  tags: , | posted in Food and Wine, Libertarian/Political Stuff

January 15, 2010

Decision on Massachusetts wine law could change the wine world

By Paul Stagg

A Federal Appeals Court has ruled that the current law in Massachusetts limiting wine shipments directly to consumers from out of state is unconstitutional.

A Massachusetts law that sharply restricts out-of-state winemakers from shipping their products directly to consumers in the state is unconstitutional, a federal appeals court ruled.

Thursday’s decision by the 1st Circuit Court of Appeals to uphold a lower court ruling could open the door for connoisseurs in Massachusetts to purchase more of their favorite wines online or by mail order from domestic producers.

The law, approved by the Legislature in 2006 over the veto of then-Gov. Mitt Romney, created a multi-tiered system in which wineries that produce more than 30,000 gallons a year must decide whether to sell retail in Massachusetts through an in-state wholesaler or apply for a license to ship wines directly to consumers. They cannot, however, do both.

The cap does not affect any of the nearly three dozen wineries based in Massachusetts, all of which are small and produce under the 30,000-gallon limit.

“We hold that (the law) violates the Commerce Clause because the effect of its particular gallonage cap is to change the competitive balance between in-state and out-of-state wineries in a way that benefits Massachusetts’s wineries and significantly burdens out-of-state competitors,” the appellate court wrote in its decision.

It seems to me this could have far-reaching effects in several states, as it isn’t much of a jump to go from this decision to any restrictions on wine shipments. There’s some confusion in the Constitution, the Commerce Clause and 14th amendment would make you lean towards agreeing that limiting interstate wine shipments is unconstitutional. On the other hand, the 21st amendment appears to give pretty broad power to the states, although the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Granholm vs Heald that power was not as broad as one might think, and did not override the Commerce Clause.

As a wine lover, I certainly hope this trend continues, and that the 15 states that ban direct shipments will soon have to reconsider their limits on our right to buy goods across state lines in the United States.

Crossposted at The Grand Crew

3 Comments   |  tags: , , | posted in Food and Wine, Libertarian/Political Stuff

January 10, 2010

Republicans aren’t fans of the Constitution, either

By Paul Stagg

At least Senator McCain isn’t.

Senator John McCain, the Republican nominee for president in the 2008 election, said it would be a mistake to try Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, 23, in a civilian court where he would “get lawyered up” and be afforded the right to withhold damaging information.

“To have a person be able to get lawyered up when we need that information very badly, I think betrays or contradicts the president’s view that we are at war,” McCain told CNN’s State of the Union with John King.

The Constitution is pretty clear.  It doesn’t say anything about who gets rights; it says a lot about what rights the US Government can’t take away.  One of those is the right to counsel.

This attitude sure doesn’t help them when they (rightly) call the health care bills unconstitutional.

Leave a comment   |  tags: , , | posted in Libertarian/Political Stuff

October 12, 2009

Health Care Question, Not Absurd

By Paul Stagg

Can someone please tell me where, in the powers listed below, Congress has the power to create a health care system or ‘public option’, or where is gives Congress the power to require citizens subjects to have health insurance, or where it gives Congress any say over health care, at all?

  1. The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
  2. To borrow money on the credit of the United States;
  3. To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;
  4. To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;
  5. To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;
  6. To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;
  7. To establish Post Offices and Post Roads;
  8. To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;
  9. To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;
  10. To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations;
  11. To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;
  12. To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;
  13. To provide and maintain a Navy;
  14. To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;
  15. To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
  16. To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
  17. To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings; And
  18. To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

Text from http://www.usconstitution.net

Leave a comment   |  tags: , , | posted in Libertarian/Political Stuff

September 19, 2009

A question on a law

By Paul Stagg

How is this Constitutional?

Americans who slap $1 pricetags on their used possessions at garage sales or bazaar events risk being slapped with fines of up to $15 million, thanks to a new government campaign.

The “Resale Round-up,” launched by the Consumer Product Safety Commission, enforces new limits on lead in children’s products and makes it illegal to sell any items that don’t meet those limits or have been recalled for any other reason.

The strict standards were set in the 2008 Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act after a series of high-profile recalls of Chinese-made toys.

The standards were originally interpreted to apply only to new products, but now the CPSC says they apply to used items as well.

“Those who resell recalled children’s products are not only breaking the law, they are putting children’s lives at risk,” said CPSC Chairman Inez Tenenbaum. “Resale stores should make safety their business and check for recalled products and hazards to children.”

In order to comply, stores, flea markets, charities and individuals selling used goods — in person or online — are expected to consult the commission’s 24-page Handbook for Resale Stores and Product Resellers (pdf) and its Web site for a breakdown of what they can’t sell.

Violators caught selling anything on the enormous list face fines of up to $100,000 per infraction and up to $15 million for a related series of infractions.

Have they just quit pretending any of this is covered by the Commerce Clause, and just do whatever they want? How is a garage sale interstate commerce, and where did the Congress or CPSC get the power to do this?

And where are all the bodies of children dead from the lead poisoning?

Leave a comment   |  tags: , , , , | posted in Libertarian/Political Stuff

%d bloggers like this: