You are here: Home / Archives for Big Government

Fourth Amendment? What Fourth Amendment?

January 15, 2009 By 2 Comments

“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.”

It is another sad day when it comes to our constitutional rights. The fourth amendment – which protects our rights against illegal searches and seizures – has essentially been nullified. Wednesday, the Supreme Court ruled that evidence obtained illegally should still be valid in court as long as it was obtained as a result of a police error or mistake.

The case arose as a result of police entering the Alabama home of Bennie Dean Herring when they thought they had a warrant, when they legally did not. The warrant in question had been recalled over 5 months earlier, yet the police proceeded to act on it. Chief Justice Roberts said the evidence could be used “when police mistakes are the result of negligence such as that described here, rather than systemic error or reckless disregard of constitutional requirements.”

The Supreme Court ruled 5-4 on this issue. Ironically, the court recognized that this case violated Bennie Herrings 4th Amendment rights, yet they upheld the drug and gun conviction.

Up until this ruling, evidence obtained illegally – regardless of it was done intentionally or by mistake – would be thrown out of court.

The fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine has been what courts have followed; essentially, evidence obtained through information that has been illegally gathered is not admissible in court. Essentially, this doctrine has also been thrown out as long as the illegal gathering of evidence was because of a “police mistake.”

The real problem here, aside from the blatant disregard for the Bill of Rights, is that there is no method of determining what was a police mistake and what appears to be a police mistake. This has long since been a problem, but now it’s bound to increase drastically. If an officer illegally enters my home, finds evidence of something illegal, but did not realize he didn’t have a warrant, that is one thing; but if an officer pretends he didn’t know he didn’t have a warrant yet the evidence is still admissible in court, that is another thing entirely.

Many people will not realize the importance of this decision. This decision by the court will have long-term consequences. By the time the average American realizes it, it will be too late. Our fourth amendment rights are essentially gone, unless we keep our trust in the honesty of individual police officers (which I’m not too keen to do).

This is yet another step towards a police state. A huge step. In my mind, this is much worse that the illegal Bush wiretapping without a warrant. Now they can not only wiretap without a warrant, they can search your home!

Filed Under: Big Government, Crime and Punishment, Current Events Tagged With: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Today’s Choices Shape Our Future

December 26, 2008 By Leave a Comment

What we do today shapes our future; similarly, what we do shapes the country, and what the country does shapes the future of the world. Decreased freedom and the sacrilege of the constitution defile what our founding fathers intended for our nation to be. As a result, we are propelled on a slow but constant route towards socialism, which will ultimately destroy our country’s values, economy, and general success. The choices made by today’s political leaders influence the individual and their circumstances, worldviews, and future. Current restrictions and proposed laws will have a long-term impact on American thinking; examples include the near inevitable move towards socialized healthcare and the recent smoking ban that’s been passed in many places across the nation.

Many of the leading politicians want to socialize healthcare. If this proposition is eventually passed, it will set a foundation for the socialization of other vital industries in the United States, including banking, transportation, utilities, and communication companies. While their intentions may be pure, the impact of these decisions may have an irreparable impact on America. The socialization of healthcare has been tried throughout the world with varying degrees of success; in Canada, it takes months to get the proper care. Many Canadian doctors move to the United States to treat patients, which shows flaws in the system. History shows that when governments take control and monopolize any business, things turn out for the worse. An accurate example of this is the postal system; while the postal system worked perfectly fine as it was, the introduction of independent postal companies such as FedEx and UPS, revolutionized the shipping industry. With new competition, the U.S.P.S. had to work harder to compete, which resulted in better services for consumers. Competition produces better results in every industry, including shipping and healthcare.

One of the prime examples of decisions made today that will impact our future is the recent smoking ban in Illinois and many other states. This is a major breech on our freedom. However, because many people don’t smoke, they do not fight for their right to do so. While smoking is certainly not healthy, who is the government to tell us that we cannot do it on our own property? If a man owns a business, a bar, for example, he should have the right to allow people to smoke on his property. If other customers do not want to be around smoke, then they should go elsewhere. These choices today shape our future by giving the government more control. We have let them take away this freedom; as a result, more restrictions will follow. Because of this choice, in the future they will have more control over regulating many more aspects of business.

The basic duties of the government are to protect the people from foreign and domestic threats, establish a justice system, and coin currency. Anything beyond that can do little good and only harms the people and economy. Denying basic constitutional rights are only the beginning; socializing healthcare and banning smoking on private property are two choices that have been made today that will shape the future of our country, resulting in an imprisoned society fed, bred and manipulated from the cradle to the grave.

The above is an essay I wrote around a year and a half ago for a local short essay contest about how our choices today impact our future. If I recall correctly, it won 3rd place. This was written before Obama was the President Elect. Notice how I briefly mentioned how socialization in one industry (healthcare) will result in the socialization of other industries (investment/banking, transportation, utilities, and communication companies). While we have not yet passed socialized healthcare, we are beginning to socialize some companies in the banking and investment industries.

The concepts expressed in this essay hold true today. If we give up some of our rights, we’ll ultimately end up giving more. We sacrifice one thing because it doesn’t apply to us; eventually, when rights we care about are threatened, we cannnot do anything about it because we’ve already given up too much. It’s a slippery slope. It may be cliche, but it’s true nonetheless.

Filed Under: Big Government, Featured, Free Market Tagged With: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Should the Government Really Police Morality?

August 27, 2008 By 4 Comments

Over the past century, the size of the government has been growing. Its totalitarian reach has been extending, just as its spending has been increasing. Many times, with the increased legislation and laws, it apparently creates more problems than it solves. It seems, as of late, that the federal government intends to continue policing morality.

This appears to be the case with just about every issue – big government getting into your business. Ron Paul does a great job explaining how personal liberty should not be regulated by the government; rather, it should be a personal choice.

Why should the government tell you what you can and can’t do with your own body, in the privacy of your own home? As long as you aren’t putting someone else in danger or infringing on the rights of others, you should be free to do whatever you want.

This is the case with scores and scores of issues. Recently, I wrote briefly on lowering the drinking age; in hindsight, this is just on the fringe of many greater issues.

For example, take a look at the use of marijuana. Why should the government continue their (failing) war on drugs? Not just marijuana, but all drugs. Marijuana, for personal use, should be legal; it’s not dangerous, does little to no harm, and could even increase federal revenue through taxation. Additionally, marijuana may have some basis for medical use.

There is also the issue of prostitution. While I’m not an advocate for prostitution and would never hire a prostitute, I strongly believe that people should have the right to do so if they desire. By forcing thing such as a military draft or prohibiting things like prostitution, the government is effectively saying that they own its citizens and not the other way around. As Ron Paul briefly mentioned in the video I linked to above, prostitution and drug use may be related; he theorizes that the government may have indirectly increased prostitution by making drugs illegal. Because drugs are illegal, they’re harder to get and they cost more, leaving many women (and sometimes men) left to resort to prostitution to fuel their drug habits.

Other issues include telling us which types of food to eat and whether or not we can smoke. While these two issues are primarily issues on a local or state level, essentially they’re the same; government telling its citizens how to live their lives (and businesses how to run their business).

I could go on and on. We also have the issue of internet censorship (and censorship in general). We need to keep the net neutral. Broadband companies and the internet should not control what the internet user has access to. Be it pornography or file sharing, it is not the duty of companies or the government to police what people do.

The government should have zero involvmenet in most of these issues. Period. Envision a future where they tell you want to do, where to go, what to eat, where to live, what carreer to have, and so on, all done, alegedly, in your best interest. We would become a society without a choice and without a voice. It sounds absurd, but this path towards tyranny is where we are headed. The federal government – or any government, for that matter, – should not police morality. They can rant, they can make their recommendations on how to be moral, but come the end of the day, it should be the burden of the individual to decide what is right or wrong.

(don’t forget to digg this!)

Filed Under: Big Government, Censorship, Featured, Social Issues Tagged With: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Police Statism Shows Its Ugly Face in an Arkansas Town

August 13, 2008 By 2 Comments

In the small town of Helena-West Helena, Arkansas, authoritarianistic ideas are being enacted. The town is known for its high crime rates and poverty levels. Because of the increased violence and crime, the City Council imposed a 24-hour curfew based off a 9-0 vote. The curfew started out in a ten-block, high crime area of the city; however, yesterday the City Council expanded the curfew to cover the entire city. If police find people on the street, they can stop and question them. This has resulted in several arrests. The city went ahead with a city-wide curfew, despite an American Civil Liberties Union lawyer who warned them that these actions were unconstitutional. The City Council said that they want the shootings, drugs, and violence to stop, regardless of the cost.

“Now if somebody wants to sue us, they have an option to sue, but I’m fairly certain that a judge will see it the way the way the citizens see it here,” Mayor James Valley said. “The citizens deserve peace, that some infringement on constitutional rights is OK and we have not violated anything as far as the Constitution.”

“We’ve had people call us, expressing concern for their children,” Fielder, the Police Chief said. “They had to sleep on the floor, because of stray bullets.”

“As far as I’m concerned, at 3 o’clock in the morning, nobody has any business being on the street, except the law,” Councilman Eugene “Red” Johnson said. “Anyone out at 3 o’clock shouldn’t be out on the street, unless you’re going to the hospital.”

The Mayor seems to think that the Judge will side with something unconstitutional because it’s necessary; the Police Chief plays on the fears of the citizens; and the Councilman seems to think he knows what the people should and shouldn’t do, despite the fact there is no law to support his claim. That being said, so far it appears that, rather than arresting anyone for violating the curfew, the police simply ask questions. If they act nervous or odd, they’re further interrogated or searched.

The situation is obviously a delicate one. The city has to balance the rights of its citizens with increased crime; it appears, however, that the city has a high disregard for its citizens rights.

The U.S. Constitution says, in the first amendment:

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

A 24 hour curfew seems like a violation of the right to assemble. Why can’t a lawful citizen go out of their house when they like? According to the city’s government, it’s because of crime. However, is the threat of harm or unlawfulness sufficient enough to infringe on the right of the people? Most certainly not. Additionally, the city may have issue with our fourth amendment right, protection against unreasonable searches and seizures.

The fourth amendment states that:

“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.”

As of yet, it doesn’t appear this has been an issue, though it very well could become one in the near future. For example, say a police offer stops a man leaving his house (without cause). They have no bases to stop him, yet they do. They then deem that he is acting “suspiciously.” They can then search them. In such a situation, the police would be violating not one, but two fundamental rights of the American people.

It seems as if the city government is playing on the fear of its citizens. Essential, this is an example of extending government reach on a local level. The city has become, or is becoming, its own miniature police state where the local government can do whatever it wants, regardless of the rights of its citizens.

Remember, as Benjamin Franklin said, “Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.”

Filed Under: Big Government, Crime and Punishment, Current Events Tagged With: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Is Fast Food Immoral? LA Thinks So.

July 31, 2008 By 1 Comment

Well, the Los Angeles City Council has done it. They’ve successfully and unanimously passed an ordinance that prohibits the building of new fast-food restaurants in a 32-square-mile area. Over 500,000 low-income people live in this area. While it’s hard to deny the fact that eating fast food regularly is unhealthy, the LA City Council has crossed a dangerous line; they’ve actually banned selling fast food from new restaurants. Not only are they telling business owners how they should run their business, they’re telling consumers how to live their lives.

The ordinance hasn’t yet gone into effect since the mayor hasn’t yet signed it, but he is expected to. Fortunately, this ordinance doesn’t affect existing restaurants. It also only lasts for one year, but many members of the City Council hope to make it permanent. Essentially, the government is beginning to regular where certain types of businesses can and cannot run. They’ve already done this for liquor stores and now they’re doing this to fast food.

In a press release, Council member Jan Perry said, “This ordinance is in no way attempting to tell people what to eat but rather responding to the need to attract sit-down restaurants, full service grocery stores, and healthy food alternatives. Ultimately, this ordinance is about providing choices—something that is currently lacking in our community.”

Her argument is saying, essentially, that by prohibiting choice they’re bringing more choice. This is poor logic. No restriction on freedom can bring more freedom. Furthermore, it’s a restriction on free trade. If consumers don’t want to eat healthy, the government shouldn’t force them to do so.

There are all kinds of things wrong with this law. We have the increased regulation, which is particularly disturbing when coupled with a related ban on transfat elsewhere. There is also the problem of the increased fascist-like regulating of business. Why should the government, even a local government, tell business how to run their business? Just like with a smoking ban, it’s unnecessary and is an attack on freedom. Additionally, it infringes on the property rights of the business owner. However, none of these things that are wrong with this ordinance are as bad (or even as insulting) as the fact that the ban takes away the choice from the people. Not only does it take (or diminish, at least) the choice of locals to eat fast food when the please, it makes the assumption that the locals aren’t smart enough to make the right choice themselves. The government is effectively saying, “since you are eating fast food, you must be dumb. Don’t worry, we’ll manipulate the free market to take away what you want and give you something you don’t want. We’ll make you eat it anyway, even though you don’t want it, since we known what’s best for you better than you do.” This logic is very nearly insulting to the average citizen. Without choice, what are we?

One could present the argument that this ordinance is an attempt to regulate morality. Yes, the LA government thinks that eating fast food is immoral. If not, why the regulation? Why the destruction of freedom and personal liberty? Just what are they afraid of?

Filed Under: Big Government, Free Market, Legislation, Property Rights Tagged With: , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
« Older Posts
Newer Posts »
  • RSS
  • Twitter
  • Facebook