Romney will not be able to control the agenda

In the last post, I suggest that Mitt Romney, the Republican presidential candidate, is not strong enough to hold back the extreme conservative agenda.  As if custom made, the Todd Akin issue offers proof of my case.  While the issue is much deeper than just Todd Atkin’s comments on Fox News, Romney was not able to get Atkin to back down for the best of the party (and the country for that matter.)

Atkin is just one of the extreme conservative representatives and senators that will be running the government if Romney wins.

Oh, and more on Atkin and the abortion issue in the next post.

More concerned with the right than with Romney

Romney’s problem with the Responsible Community isn’t so much his stance on the issues, we all know them. (well, we know them today, perhaps they will change tomorrow.)  He is against abortion, medical marijuana, wants less restrictions on guns, less restrictions on the financial industry, he will change Medicare in ways that will harm the coverage for some in the short term and many in the long and says he will do away with the health care act.

The problem is the unknowns.  If Romney wins in the fall, he will bring with him a Republican majority in the senate and the house will maintain its majority.  This will empower Romney to enact many of his proposals for the economy and the culture.

But, it will not stop there.

If Romney wins the Presidency and sweeps in Republicans, they will be controlled by the Tea Party or the extreme right.  Evidence of this is the amount of Republicans that are winning in the primaries right now that are supported by the Tea Party and other conservative groups.  Many of these individuals do not understand running on the right as a position and governing from the center.

Every extreme idea will be built into almost every piece of legislation that passes.  Even if the riders have nothing to do with the original bill.  Romney, someone who has switched positions on almost every issue, will be powerless to stop them.  Not because they will such a strong force, of which they will of course, but because he will be weak to stand up to them.  He will want to run for a second term and will need their support.

That would not be bad for those that agree with the positions that Romney holds in the first paragraph.  But, you have to ask yourself, how far right are you willing to go?

States can't have it both ways

States can’t have it both ways when it comes to DNA evidence and other modern law enforcement tools.  They use it for all cases that are relevant or not.

Law enforcement officers in Maryland arrested Alonzo Jay King, Jr. on an assault charge.  The state requires that people arrested for certain crimes have a DNA sample taken.  It was later found that his DNA matched a sample found during a rape investigation of a cold case from a few years early.  Alonzo, partially based on the DNA evidence, was convicted of the rape.

Alonzo’s lawyer contested the evidence on the grounds that it was a violation of his Fourth Amendment rights.  The Fourth Amendment reads:

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.

After moving through the state courts, a Maryland Court of Appeals agreed with Alonzo and overturned the conviction on the rape.

Chief Justice John Roberts was watching the case.  The chief justice after conferring with the other judges on the court placed the lower court ruling on hold.  Roberts believes it is a case that is likely to be taken up by the court when its term begins in October.

Maryland Attorney General Doug Gansler said in a statement that he applauded the chief justice’s decision.  Gansler said it allows the state “the uninterrupted use of this critical modern law enforcement tool” that helps authorities solve crimes. Since Gansler wants to continue using “modern law enforcement tools” to solve crimes, he will file an application to the high court in August to overturn the lower court ruling.

There are two issues in this case that is important.  The first is the obvious Fourth Amendment issue that asks if evidence from one case can be used in the investigation of another case.  Keep in mind, the DNA sample taken from Alonzo on the assault charge is legal.  It is important to identify an individual charged with a crime and match it against any evidence found on the crime scene.  This would be no different than taking finger prints, or for that matter, a photograph.  This evidence, once collected, is now part of the public domain.  If police have DNA evidence of the suspect, they should be able to use it just like finger prints or a photograph.

But, there is a paradoxical problem here.  It isn’t about using collected evidence from one case to identify a suspect in another.  It is about using “modern law enforcement tools” as the attorney general of the state of Maryland said, to help solve crimes.

If government is tasked with any job, it is to protect individuals living in the community.  The obvious task is to protect individuals from other people that may do them harm.   But, it is also to protect individuals from the system.  Communities need to also be sure that a suspect is the correct person, even after conviction.

Before DNA testing as a modern law enforcement tool was widely available, samples were not collected from individuals or from other evidence discovered by the investigating authorities.  In most cases, it can now be collected, even from much smaller samples then previous thought.  Some people that have been convicted of a crime are asking the states to use DNA testing on the evidence used to convict them.  But, in many cases, states have refused to or would only conduct the testing if forced to by the courts.

States claim that there must be certainty in a conviction.  The theory is that since the cases were prosecuted with the best resources available at the time, the conviction should stand.  That any review opens up the community to an endless drain on resources that could be better used to pursue current cases.

But, that is the paradox.  Prosecutors may not want to reopen cases that ended in a conviction, but there is no prosecutor, that wouldn’t reopen a cold case if DNA could be used to enhance the evidence.  (That is exactly what happened here.)  If they are willing to use modern law enforcement tools to reopen cold cases they should also use it to re-assure the community that they have the right person in prison.

As a community, we start with the presumption of innocence to anyone that is the focus of a criminal investigation and prosecution.  (The phrase presumption of innocence, by the way, is not used in the Constitution.)  After conviction, there is no reason that when new evidence presents itself by advancements in law enforce tools we should not at least give the benefit of the doubt to the individual.

Chick-fil-A

Dan Cathy of Chick-fil-a could have ducked and weaved his way around questions about his support of “Biblical” definitions of marriage.  But, instead he chose to stand his ground saying he doesn’t support gay marriage.  Well, good for him.  At least he has the guts to support his convictions.

Many around the web are now asking for a boycott of the Chick-fil-A restaurants across the nation.  There are a few locations in Michigan.  The response has been polarizing as you can imagine.  Others say that Cathy should be supported because he stands his ground and doesn’t hide in public relations no man’s land.  To boycott the restaurant is to be against free speech. 

But, Cathy made it an issue.  Those that will boycott the restaurant would perhaps have never known about the support provided to anti-gay groups either by the company or Cathy himself.  Their hard earned dollars would have continued to be spent at the restaurant so that some of those dollars could work against them.  It is almost like buying the gun that will shoot you.

But, the great issue here has nothing to do with Cathy’s support of anything.  It has everything to do with the political PACs that spend billions of dollars in political races throwing around a lot trash talk that isn’t supported. 

How is it that I can make that connection?  This seems a long ways away from keeping your name or your company’s name out of the political arena but spending lots of money to influence elections that will benefit you.  Can you see the connection now?

If the name of every person and company was known who donated to a political PAC, it would place a target on their company sales.  People who have a pet political agenda would boycott the companies because of its support of an opposing agenda.  But, companies can give money and other material support to organizations that are not required to provide a list of where the money comes from.  Unlike Cathy, many hide behind this wall of silence.

This is all the result of Supreme Court rulings.  It struck down campaign laws on the federal level and recently struck down laws on the state level that required full disclosure.  Even arguably the most conservative justice on the court disagreed with the ruling.  Anthony Scalia as recently as today during an interview with National Public Radio said that to understand political speech you must know who is speaking. 

In a community, an open discussion of the issues is important.  To have some that are involved in the discussion to be unknown is in violation of the political process.  We all condemned the “decisions made in smoked filled rooms behind closed doors” of many years ago.  Well, by not knowing who the supporters are of any speech means we are right back there. 

I am glad that Cathy has the guts to support his convictions.  I will have the guts also to not visit my local Chick-Fil-A for lunch, just because of his public announcements.  This is the way the process is suppose to work.

Where is the nation debate on guns?

The NRA has accomplished one of its goals, to keep guns “free” while squashing the freedom of speech.

Over the last week, the news has been filled with the shootings in Colorado.  A man was able to purchase four guns including two assault rifles that have only one mission: to kill as many people as possible.  He also purchased over 6,000 rounds of ammunition on line.  This same man was denied entrance or membership to a shooting range, because the manager could hear something in his voice. We can all assume that the manager that denied the shooter access is a pro-gun kind of guy. Twelve people were killed; scores wounded and even more lives traumatized forever.

What should happen after an event like this is a national discussion about guns and weapons designed to kill people.  But, there is has been near silence on the topic.  The NRA has worked so hard in the past with their campaigns of fear to their brotherhood of gun totters and spread their cash around to politicians like whiskey in a cowboy saloon that no one wants to start the debate.  If someone did, the advertising and campaigns about “freedom” would rage with their slanted view.

The freedom to bear arms has its place.  Even if you think that arms are guaranteed in the United States Constitution to support militias, that still makes it a right in our country.  Even lacking a Constitution that vaguely supports the right to bear arms, a Responsible Community should allow the ownership of guns.

With that in mind, there is no argument that can be made that the authors of the Constitution and those that supported its adoption ever thought that reasonable controls could not be placed on any of the rights, including the right to bear arms.  There are restrictions on speech, publishing, religion and other rights.  Can we not work at finding the balance between guaranteeing the freedom of arms and the safety of the community?

One argument that would arise, if the NRA’s strong arm tactics didn’t clamp down on speech, is that even absolute restriction would not have stopped the gunman in Colorado.  He would have found a way to get the guns anyway.  Perhaps that is true.  But, it would have taken longer.  This may have been enough time for those that would protect the lives and safety of people in the community to respond.  It may have also allowed enough time for the gunman, who was sane enough to make the purchases and develop a detailed plan to come to his senses.

Maybe enough time would have past to keep just this one event from happening.  The 12 people that died and the scores of others that were shot by him could have just enjoyed the movie.

The Chief Justice to the rescue

In the midst of a very strongly contested Presidential election, partisan politics running at its deepest and arguments over the role of government taking on new passion not seen since the 60’s, a true leader arises.  The leader isn’t from any elected office, not a president or legislature, but an appointed official, the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court.

Thought of as a conservative and nominated by a conservative president, Chief Justice John Roberts was not seen by anyone as being a swing vote to support a “liberal” cause.  But, Roberts was the vote that allowed the health care act to survive.  Even more to his credit, Roberts’ argument in support of the health care law was that congress has the right to tax – taxes not being a favorable thing on the conservative side of the aisle.

Roberts did not side with those that said the act was allowed under the commerce clause of the Constitution.  That clause grants the power to congress to control commerce among the several states.  But, controlling commerce that voluntary takes place and commerce that is forced are two different things in Roberts’ view.  To force people to purchase something, in this case health care, is not what the clause is about, according to Roberts.

Instead, Roberts went off the reservation held by the other conservatives on the court that passionately disagreed with him. (Passionately being a polite word given the degree of anger expressed in the dissenting opinion.)  He applied the clause in the Constitution that grants the power of the congress to tax.  The penalty you pay if you don’t purchase health insurance is not a fine, but a tax according to Roberts and those that support the health care bil.  Therefore, congress can write that into legislation.

Think about it for a moment, in a twist not thought of before Roberts’ opinion.  There are other things that I pay dearly for if I don’t do something.   If I don’t purchase a house with a mortgage, I pay a penalty.  There is a higher tax liability because I don’t have interest payments to deduct.  If I don’t give to charity, I pay a penalty because I don’t have a deduction.  In a twist on this twist, I don’t pay an additional tax when I don’t buy cigarettes.

Roberts reasoning is sound, but that isn’t the point of this blog post.  To his real credit is that he stood up to follow conservatives on the court and faced down conservatives across the spectrum that did not share his opinion.  (Roberts even stood firm on his opinion of not allowing cameras in the court.  A group of Republicans had requested filming of the opinion a few weeks ago.  Roberts turned down the request, avoiding the dragging of the Supreme Court into the morass that is our political landscape right now.)

In a time when leadership is lacking, when the two parties can’t figure out a way to get things down, a leader arises.  Roberts placed politics aside and provided a well-reasoned opinion.

Thank you Chief Justice John Roberts.

Let's jail owners of abandon property

If it has never happen to you and your neighbors, imagine for a moment.  You have a great house in what you thought was a good neighborhood.  Then, the owners of two houses on the block stop making repairs to their homes.  Maybe there were rental properties that went vacant because of the leaky roof or the electrical problems that haven’t been repaired.  Brush piles up, the pool in the back yard fills with swampy water creating a hazard for kids in the area, not to mention the mosquitoes.

After many violation tickets and years of issues, the property still doesn’t get fixed. 

According to a study by the University of Michigan, in Flint and other areas around the state, the value of a home in a neighborhood drops by 10% for every blighted house.  Not just on your block, but in a two block radius. 

A law proposed by Senator Virgil Smith that is getting some attention in Lansing would help with that problem.  Property owners that don’t care of their property could be jailed for a second offense.  It could be a year in the slammer for a third offense.   It would also speed up the process of placing liens on properties and prevent land owners with liens of obtaining building permits on other property.

People have the right to own property.  But, with any right, there comes responsibility.  When any right is exercised, as in purchasing property, the responsibility takes effect.  Property owners that don’t take care of their property, endanger the safety of people in the community and have a detrimental effect on the value of other property need to eventually lose their right to own property. 

This is a bigger problem than someone losing their job and not being able to take care of their property.  There are solutions to issues like that.  This issue is focused on properties owners that own multi properties and are abusing their right.  This is focused on banks that take over foreclosed property and don’t maintain them.

These bills in Lansing need the support of the community.  If we are to maintain our living environment, everyone needs to live up to their responsibility.  If not, they lose their rights. 
-----