Well in a few hours our nation celebrates its Independence from the Tyranny of the British Royal Crown. A few years after the decision to cede from British rule and after a war, we finally settled on a Constitution (there was a loose confederacy of states before that but we ultimately chose a federal system of government)to govern us. This Constitution tried to embody as much of the Declaration of Independence as it could, however the original document was thought lacking by the Declaration's author Thomas Jefferson, so he persuaded his friend John Madison to lobby through an embodiment of the Rights of Man our American Bill of Rights.
Jefferson wanted to preserve the fervor and feelings of his Declaration of Independence which begins with a statement about the self evident nature of the rights of man (meaning God Given rights) but he was well aware that tyrannizing politicians could do away with these rights as the King did to the Colonialists. Jefferson, wary of a big federal government wanted to limit the abuses that could become our government if Monarchists ever obtained an upper hand in our government.
In a large sense however, the Monarchists may have won if the goal was a large centralized government and a federal presence in the decisions of our daily lives such that the states have little to say about how they run themselves and we as citizens have little access to our Representatives. Our leaders appear only on news shows and before reporters who will report their views their ways and will not ask hard questions. Both major parties favor large government when it suits them and states rights when it doesn't.
For example Republicans favor states rights on Abortion and Immigration policy because they can't seem to get control of the federal government long enough to shove their view down our throats.On the other hand, they want a federal standard if a state doesn't follow their lead on an issue. In other words "States who agree with us get rights the rest of you be damned."
Democrats want state government to decide issues such as gay rights and gambling because they can't get the votes to work these out to their constituency favor on a national level. They favor state rights to decided what a marriage is, but would not allow states to determine what a "life" is.
I don't care where you stand on the issues of Abortion, gay marriage, Internet poker or the like. I care that things are actually interpreted by our Constitution with a view toward the Jeffersonian approach to our government. I'd also like to see a sense of shame when a party acts hypocritically.
Here is how some of this would shake out under my view of the world. Interstate commerce and Immigration policy are national in scope as are issues of Defense. These areas are reserved for Federal control. The Internet is also a federal issue, why? Because it is EVERYWHERE!
Health, Sex, Gambling, all criminal activity except for terrorism, treason, bank/mail/and wire fraud are state issues. There is an exception to that and that is that the Fraud must not just use the wires or mail to be committed, but must be committed against citizens or corporations on a national scope. Hence just because someone in NY calls someone else in NY to commit a fraud on a NY corporation, that use of the phone would not make for a federal case just because the phone line routed the call through a national grid of phone lines etc.
In my world, elementary education would be left up to the states, civil rights are federal. Secondary education (High school and up would be a mixture of Federal and State control depending on the issue however as somethings (like law or science) are things that need to be shared nationally we do need some national standards.
The feds could set standards that each state need to meet in the area of dealing with the imprisoned or the poor, but it would be up to the states to implement the standards. Economic Policy is a shared item as well. National Parks need to be part of a 3 way discussion Fed, State and local governments need to participate together. OTOH, the feds need to stay out of our homes, our hotel rooms our bank accounts and anything else that concern us as individuals.
Anyway, I could go on, and I will, but I want to know what you think of this whole concept of Independence. What does it mean to you, not personally, but as it relates to how we as citizens obtain a government that will uphold our right to live and conduct ourselves in the freest of fashions.
Edited to add a couple of links and clean up some spelling errors.
Showing posts with label Liberty. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Liberty. Show all posts
Judge Scalia: The Constitution Permits Sexual Discrimination
In an interview with the California Lawyer Magazine US Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia declares that the 14th Amendment to the US Constitution does not prohibit discrimination based on one's sex or sexual orientation.
Scalia is an "Originalist" is one who adheres to the words of the law and what the framers of the law meant when they wrote the words and the document was passed (by the electorate.
A fairly simple guide to Originalism and non-Originalist thinking can be found here
As a general fan of Scalia's I was asked if I agreed with his statement that the 14th does not encompass equal rights for women. I do not. That is because within the Originalist camp, there are two distinct branches. Scalia is an Intentionalist- Someone who interprets the Constitution according to the way he thinks the people who wrote it meant for it to be passed. This style of interpretation is popular among Neo-conservatives but a number of Classical liberals (libertarians) also hold the view.
I am a textualist. I believe the text means what the text says. I would probably be closer in vision to the late Justice Hugo Black who would decide 1st Amendment issues by reminding his colleagues that "Congress shall pass no law" meant NO. LAW. Textualists look at the words and give to them the meaning that they have. We do not believe that one can go back and decide what the collective voice of the people was except by using the words themselves.
Getting back to Scalia if he is correct that the people who framed the 14th amendment as well as the people who voted for it were not concerned with sexual equality or the equal treatment of those with non-traditional views of sexual orientation then in his view such discrimination would be as legally legislated as the banning of such discrimination.
I do not believe however, that the Constitution is limited by what the majority of people thought at the time of passage. I doubt we can truly discern that. I fall on the side that says read the statute literally as it is the only document we know was voted on. So in this case the 14th Amendment at least for me as a classical liberal means what it says:
Section. 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Broken down: All persons (Male female black white other etc)born or naturalized in the United States (meaning born here not born here of documented or non documented aliens, BORN. IN THE USA. or given citizenship by us after birth somewhere other than IN THE USA),are Citizens of the US and the state where they reside (So the states do not have a choice in who they may bestow rights upon.)
No State (NO. STATE.)shall make or enforce any law (ANY LAW) which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person (ANY. PERSON)of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
I think Justice Scalia needs to rethink even his sense of Originalist thought. I do not believe that voters (who were mostly male at the time of the adoption of the amendment) did not think their wives or daughters were not persons or citizens. Whether they could conceive the law would someday be applied to women they could have understood it would. After all they failed to exclude them and they could have done so if they never wanted the amendment to apply to these women. I think that trying to apply what they would have decided to do had they issue been debated is just not possible. The original words speak for themselves Women were citizens. The end.
I expect to see Tea Party people try to limit the scope of the 14th amendment and claim to other conservatives that the original intent requires that the amendment not apply to citizenship of the American born children of undocumented aliens. THAT IS NOT WHAT THE AMENDMENT SAYS. Further I can guarantee none of those types of people are smart enough to discern what Americans of 1865 thought. They have no idea what Americans today think I don't want them straining to go back 150 years.
Hattip: Huffington Post
Scalia is an "Originalist" is one who adheres to the words of the law and what the framers of the law meant when they wrote the words and the document was passed (by the electorate.
A fairly simple guide to Originalism and non-Originalist thinking can be found here
As a general fan of Scalia's I was asked if I agreed with his statement that the 14th does not encompass equal rights for women. I do not. That is because within the Originalist camp, there are two distinct branches. Scalia is an Intentionalist- Someone who interprets the Constitution according to the way he thinks the people who wrote it meant for it to be passed. This style of interpretation is popular among Neo-conservatives but a number of Classical liberals (libertarians) also hold the view.
I am a textualist. I believe the text means what the text says. I would probably be closer in vision to the late Justice Hugo Black who would decide 1st Amendment issues by reminding his colleagues that "Congress shall pass no law" meant NO. LAW. Textualists look at the words and give to them the meaning that they have. We do not believe that one can go back and decide what the collective voice of the people was except by using the words themselves.
Getting back to Scalia if he is correct that the people who framed the 14th amendment as well as the people who voted for it were not concerned with sexual equality or the equal treatment of those with non-traditional views of sexual orientation then in his view such discrimination would be as legally legislated as the banning of such discrimination.
I do not believe however, that the Constitution is limited by what the majority of people thought at the time of passage. I doubt we can truly discern that. I fall on the side that says read the statute literally as it is the only document we know was voted on. So in this case the 14th Amendment at least for me as a classical liberal means what it says:
Section. 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Broken down: All persons (Male female black white other etc)born or naturalized in the United States (meaning born here not born here of documented or non documented aliens, BORN. IN THE USA. or given citizenship by us after birth somewhere other than IN THE USA),are Citizens of the US and the state where they reside (So the states do not have a choice in who they may bestow rights upon.)
No State (NO. STATE.)shall make or enforce any law (ANY LAW) which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person (ANY. PERSON)of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
I think Justice Scalia needs to rethink even his sense of Originalist thought. I do not believe that voters (who were mostly male at the time of the adoption of the amendment) did not think their wives or daughters were not persons or citizens. Whether they could conceive the law would someday be applied to women they could have understood it would. After all they failed to exclude them and they could have done so if they never wanted the amendment to apply to these women. I think that trying to apply what they would have decided to do had they issue been debated is just not possible. The original words speak for themselves Women were citizens. The end.
I expect to see Tea Party people try to limit the scope of the 14th amendment and claim to other conservatives that the original intent requires that the amendment not apply to citizenship of the American born children of undocumented aliens. THAT IS NOT WHAT THE AMENDMENT SAYS. Further I can guarantee none of those types of people are smart enough to discern what Americans of 1865 thought. They have no idea what Americans today think I don't want them straining to go back 150 years.
Hattip: Huffington Post
The Firing of Juan Williams: Liberals & Neo-Cons Two Peas in a Pod. They Only Favor Free Speech of Those With Whom They Agree.
Juan Williams is a reporter and commentator for NPR (National Public Radio). He also tries to provided the "balance" on Fox News Network presenting the so called "Liberal" side of the Fox equation.
The other night, Bill O'Reilly was discussing whether or not America had a "Muslim Problem." (If we do it is in great part O'Reilly's fault. He went on "The View" last week and announced that "Muslim's killed us on 9-11." In reality it was 21 Muslim fanatics and their murderous handlers abroad) Williams was his guest. Williams said the following:
Of course all the usual suspects (NAIR, Andrew Sullivan, and NPR brass) all started hand-ringing and accusing Williams of being prejudiced. Then in the expected second act, the NPR Brass fired him. Why? Because he had the temerity to express in words that he feels fear when he is placed in a situation where people of a certain background have in the past created havoc.
Sorry guys you are wrong.
I sent the following letter to the NPR Obudsman. I reprint it in full below.
To whom this may concern:
You and your organization have seen the last dollar you ever will from me. Are you all a bunch of crazy people? I am a Criminal Defense Attorney and a Civil rights lawyer.I have news for you. I represent thugs, gangsters, and the seriously deranged individuals. I walk the streets of ghetto neighborhoods and I am often in dangerous places around people who do not look like me.
I represent Muslims and Sheiks and all types of religious, ethnic and sexual orientations. I also represent gang members from Bikers, to Russians to Spanish (el Salvadorian and Mexican) to Italian and Albanian. I do not consider myself to be prejudice.
That said, I also see people who dress in a certain way or are in certain places and I feel nervous. It isn't prejudice, ITS SMART. Being aware of your surroundings is important. Being on guard when you are the odd person out is wise. Neither Juan nor I am advocating doing something stupid like not getting on a plane or leaving a restaurant. It was a true and natural reaction to what is going on.
If I walk into a Mosque I am not afraid. I am not unwilling to speak to a Muslim or anyone else. I am aware and a bit anxious when I see people wearing gang colors. I watch what they are up to. I observe more. I see a bunch of kids in the mall and they are dressed like Gangstas I watch them more, I look for behaviors like their creating a scene while another steals something. It happens occasionally. I see a bunch of Muslims speaking in foreign tongues and I watch them. I worry that maybe this is the next shoe bomber. I don't report them to security but I watch. It is the right and smart thing to do. It doesn't uncover deep seated prejudice. This didn't happen before 9-11-01. It isn't a deep seated fear. It is not something that happens in restaurants but it happens on trains buses planes. Around synagogues too.
Firing Juan Williams was a terrible error in judgment. I agree with the commentator that describes liberals as all for freedom of speech as long as they agree with it. You are no better than tea party activists. I am a libertarian. When I have the money I have donated to Public Radio stations in NY and to Public TV. I want more than one opinion. I don't want dishonesty. Williams is NOT the only person of reasonable mind who feels this way. His expression on O'Reilly was how he felt. It gives permission to others to admit their fears and to address them.
Juan Williams is not the problem. He is a solution. Frank discussion and truth are the ways to address the issues and pretending that people who are intelligent do not harbor fear because of the situation is a good way to be sure the underlying issues are never addressed.
The other night, Bill O'Reilly was discussing whether or not America had a "Muslim Problem." (If we do it is in great part O'Reilly's fault. He went on "The View" last week and announced that "Muslim's killed us on 9-11." In reality it was 21 Muslim fanatics and their murderous handlers abroad) Williams was his guest. Williams said the following:
"I mean, look, Bill, I'm not a bigot," Williams continued. "You know the kind of books I've written about the civil rights movement in this country. But when I get on the plane, I got to tell you, if I see people who are in Muslim garb and I think, you know, they are identifying themselves first and foremost as Muslims, I get worried. I get nervous."
Of course all the usual suspects (NAIR, Andrew Sullivan, and NPR brass) all started hand-ringing and accusing Williams of being prejudiced. Then in the expected second act, the NPR Brass fired him. Why? Because he had the temerity to express in words that he feels fear when he is placed in a situation where people of a certain background have in the past created havoc.
Sorry guys you are wrong.
I sent the following letter to the NPR Obudsman. I reprint it in full below.
To whom this may concern:
You and your organization have seen the last dollar you ever will from me. Are you all a bunch of crazy people? I am a Criminal Defense Attorney and a Civil rights lawyer.I have news for you. I represent thugs, gangsters, and the seriously deranged individuals. I walk the streets of ghetto neighborhoods and I am often in dangerous places around people who do not look like me.
I represent Muslims and Sheiks and all types of religious, ethnic and sexual orientations. I also represent gang members from Bikers, to Russians to Spanish (el Salvadorian and Mexican) to Italian and Albanian. I do not consider myself to be prejudice.
That said, I also see people who dress in a certain way or are in certain places and I feel nervous. It isn't prejudice, ITS SMART. Being aware of your surroundings is important. Being on guard when you are the odd person out is wise. Neither Juan nor I am advocating doing something stupid like not getting on a plane or leaving a restaurant. It was a true and natural reaction to what is going on.
If I walk into a Mosque I am not afraid. I am not unwilling to speak to a Muslim or anyone else. I am aware and a bit anxious when I see people wearing gang colors. I watch what they are up to. I observe more. I see a bunch of kids in the mall and they are dressed like Gangstas I watch them more, I look for behaviors like their creating a scene while another steals something. It happens occasionally. I see a bunch of Muslims speaking in foreign tongues and I watch them. I worry that maybe this is the next shoe bomber. I don't report them to security but I watch. It is the right and smart thing to do. It doesn't uncover deep seated prejudice. This didn't happen before 9-11-01. It isn't a deep seated fear. It is not something that happens in restaurants but it happens on trains buses planes. Around synagogues too.
Firing Juan Williams was a terrible error in judgment. I agree with the commentator that describes liberals as all for freedom of speech as long as they agree with it. You are no better than tea party activists. I am a libertarian. When I have the money I have donated to Public Radio stations in NY and to Public TV. I want more than one opinion. I don't want dishonesty. Williams is NOT the only person of reasonable mind who feels this way. His expression on O'Reilly was how he felt. It gives permission to others to admit their fears and to address them.
Juan Williams is not the problem. He is a solution. Frank discussion and truth are the ways to address the issues and pretending that people who are intelligent do not harbor fear because of the situation is a good way to be sure the underlying issues are never addressed.
We Are Not The Land Of The Free Until We Stop The Nanny State Bull Hockey
I don't have the time for a long post today. I love America. I believe in its promise. I get frustrated however when I see that we refuse to trust our people with their own money and their own bodies. There are natural consequences from every act, but legal consequences must not be based on someone Else's subjective test of right and wrong.
My test for right and wrong in a law is simple: Does this law seek to prohibit an act that hurts no one but the doer of the act? If so then it should not be illegal. It is said that "the freedom to move one's arm ends at the tip of the nose on the next guys face." If it doesn't hit him, then his discomfort at the fact that I move my arm is not illegal.
Ok I don't have the time to go into all of it, but look at this story about a federal prosecution of a Doctor who asked two girls to come across state lines to "service" him. Not minors, not Sex Slaves or Human Traffic, 2 adult willing women who wanted to have sex w/ this guy and to get money for their effort.
Then look at this YouTube Video of Rep Barney Frank one of the US Congress' most liberal members and Rep Peter King, one of its most conservative members. They are on the same side of the fight to restore the rights of Americans to spend their money and time the way they want. Only a question about Liberty could get these two on the same side of an issue.
Now do something about this. Let your Senators and Congressmen know that these types of Nanny-State laws are unacceptable. Tell them to stay out of our bedrooms and our pockets. Do it for Freedom, Liberty and the American way. Do it today.
Happy 4th of July.
My test for right and wrong in a law is simple: Does this law seek to prohibit an act that hurts no one but the doer of the act? If so then it should not be illegal. It is said that "the freedom to move one's arm ends at the tip of the nose on the next guys face." If it doesn't hit him, then his discomfort at the fact that I move my arm is not illegal.
Ok I don't have the time to go into all of it, but look at this story about a federal prosecution of a Doctor who asked two girls to come across state lines to "service" him. Not minors, not Sex Slaves or Human Traffic, 2 adult willing women who wanted to have sex w/ this guy and to get money for their effort.
Then look at this YouTube Video of Rep Barney Frank one of the US Congress' most liberal members and Rep Peter King, one of its most conservative members. They are on the same side of the fight to restore the rights of Americans to spend their money and time the way they want. Only a question about Liberty could get these two on the same side of an issue.
Now do something about this. Let your Senators and Congressmen know that these types of Nanny-State laws are unacceptable. Tell them to stay out of our bedrooms and our pockets. Do it for Freedom, Liberty and the American way. Do it today.
Happy 4th of July.
Judge to School District: "PISS OFF!!" & Let the Kids Play Chess!!
Sometimes I love writing the title of these pieces can you tell? :P
When has a school district "nanny stated" itself too far?? Well in California, it seems that when the Shasta Union High School District wanted to drug test kids on the CHESS TEAM, a court said, uh NO!!! (Emphasis added...)
The district wanted to know who was using drugs so that they could ban them from school trips and other activities. So if the kid was in the Band, played on the Chess Team or was raising a pig for the state fair, he had to pee in a cup first. The reasoning is that the school has to supervise these kids while they are on school trips and if they are in a club or in the band they are more likely to have to go on overnight trips and they might be harder to supervise if they use drugs or alcohol. Brilliant! So we will just keep them out of supervised activities so they can take part in unsupervised activities... (No wonder Johnny can't think. These people have no idea about teaching anything.)
Now I have had the pleasure of "chaperoning" a few Forensic overnight trips, and while they have the ability to get out of hand, they don't, because DEBATE CLUB KIDS CAN'T DO DRUGS AND STILL PERFORM WELL!!
I have a feeling the same goes for members of the CHESS CLUB! Not to mention, it is far harder to play classical flute music than to improvise a new riff while you are high. Nonetheless, these examples of student spirit were told "pee in the bottle or no Drama club."
Now the SCOTUS, which is filled by people so old they don't remember BEING in High School, ruled about a dozen years ago that you can force a kid to take a drug test if he is even attending your school. Justice Marlow the judge in the case at bar held that under the California State Constitution the right to privacy is protected. One can debate whether such a right is in the US Bill of Rights, but Californian's passed this right in 1972.
I think the court in this case is right. It is the good kid who must give up his or her right to privacy while the slacker who does nothing in school but shows up can come and go as he pleases. Moreover, it shouldn't be a rule that to participate you have to allow someone to watch you urinate in a cup. High school is hard enough without having to pass every adult test. I'd like to know what you think however.
I could not find a copy of the decision to post, so if you know of one, pass it to me ok?
Thanks, TLD.
Hattip: Raw Story
When has a school district "nanny stated" itself too far?? Well in California, it seems that when the Shasta Union High School District wanted to drug test kids on the CHESS TEAM, a court said, uh NO!!! (Emphasis added...)
The district wanted to know who was using drugs so that they could ban them from school trips and other activities. So if the kid was in the Band, played on the Chess Team or was raising a pig for the state fair, he had to pee in a cup first. The reasoning is that the school has to supervise these kids while they are on school trips and if they are in a club or in the band they are more likely to have to go on overnight trips and they might be harder to supervise if they use drugs or alcohol. Brilliant! So we will just keep them out of supervised activities so they can take part in unsupervised activities... (No wonder Johnny can't think. These people have no idea about teaching anything.)
Now I have had the pleasure of "chaperoning" a few Forensic overnight trips, and while they have the ability to get out of hand, they don't, because DEBATE CLUB KIDS CAN'T DO DRUGS AND STILL PERFORM WELL!!
I have a feeling the same goes for members of the CHESS CLUB! Not to mention, it is far harder to play classical flute music than to improvise a new riff while you are high. Nonetheless, these examples of student spirit were told "pee in the bottle or no Drama club."
Now the SCOTUS, which is filled by people so old they don't remember BEING in High School, ruled about a dozen years ago that you can force a kid to take a drug test if he is even attending your school. Justice Marlow the judge in the case at bar held that under the California State Constitution the right to privacy is protected. One can debate whether such a right is in the US Bill of Rights, but Californian's passed this right in 1972.
I think the court in this case is right. It is the good kid who must give up his or her right to privacy while the slacker who does nothing in school but shows up can come and go as he pleases. Moreover, it shouldn't be a rule that to participate you have to allow someone to watch you urinate in a cup. High school is hard enough without having to pass every adult test. I'd like to know what you think however.
I could not find a copy of the decision to post, so if you know of one, pass it to me ok?
Thanks, TLD.
Hattip: Raw Story
Announcing The Tony(c) Awards : That Lawyer Dude Honors His Favorite Blogs and Podcasts. Today We Honor The Agitator Blog
Over the course of the next 21 days I will be slowly, tantalizingly rolling out the Tony(c) Awards. Instead of one big post on all my favorites, I do it the way the Nobel Committee does it, over the course of a few days. Why?
1. It gives me a lot of posts and one never knows when I will announce another so maybe I will coerce a few potential winners into reading and commenting on the blog over the last few weeks of the year, and
2. It is my award and I can
Now, less anybody here believe that the (c) is a copyright or that I am laying claim to the Awards that honor Broadway's greatest shows (which btw is a far better show than the Oscars and Grammy's and all the other garbage award shows put together) I am not. It is just that as many of our readership knows I sign off on most of my e-mails with the end TonyC. and since that is my name and my sign off, I thought it would be apt to name these awards that way.
In case anyone is wondering why I of all people should have an award named after me, or better why anyone should care who I think blogged best this year, I will point you to this post by one of my Blogging mentors Dennis Kennedy who each year gives out his Blawggies. (Find it in the 12-26-04 post at the end.)
Now if you don't want to read the blogs I read, or if you think this is a bad idea, or a good idea, give out your own awards and give a link to a deserving blog or blogger.
For my First Tony(c) Award 2008, I am going to give a big Shout out to:(Cue the drum roll please)
The Agitator which is my favorite blog about Politics. If you aren't reading Radley Balko you ought to be. He is intelligent, conservative, and he is controversial without being shrill (Malkin you listening??). Most importantly he is funny. Funny is a good thing. I like a blog that can make me laugh and think at the same time.
So the very First Tony(c) award goes to Cato Institute and Reason Magazine's favorite bad boy The Agitator,and its real life voice Radley Balko.
PS. Help Radley to keep blogging buy the button/magnet shown on the top of this post by clicking here and following the instructions. It only costs a couple of dollars. Come on the kid needs to eat.
Libertarianism Defined: Not Safe for the Kids
Stripper blogger Renegade Evolution has a rather vulgar but very accurate description of why a younger generation is turning away from the Republican Party that chooses Sarah Palin as one of it's standard bearers. RenEv as she calls herself, is not kidding in her reasons or the strength of her belief in liberty. I am not sure the founders would have been able to dream her dream, but I think that any fair reading of the Constitution would agree with the reasons she is drawn to the concept of Liberty. I for one think that the days of the old Republican party are drawing to a close. I think you will soon see a viable third party that takes back the mantel of liberty from both the Democrats and the Republicans. It may not be called the Libertarian party, but it will have as main tenants of its platform a socially liberal fiscally conservative bent. While I have seen these sentiments put more eloquently, this a succinct and simple definition worth the read, for ADULTS ONLY.
Meanwhile, I am headed to the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers (NACDL) Meeting in Tampa Florida. Follow me on Twitter at http://twitter.com/ThatLawyerDude. Hopefully I will get a full blog up before the end of the week. I still need to blog about big and little lies and how a good cross-examiner works with them.
Meanwhile, I am headed to the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers (NACDL) Meeting in Tampa Florida. Follow me on Twitter at http://twitter.com/ThatLawyerDude. Hopefully I will get a full blog up before the end of the week. I still need to blog about big and little lies and how a good cross-examiner works with them.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)