Constitutional Amendment VI

In our information age sometimes the right to a public trial guaranteed by Amendment VI interferes with the opportunity for an impartial jury also guaranteed there (especially in the district wherein the crime was committed).

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed; which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defence.

The principles are sound though that a person deserves to be confronted with the accusations against them and those making the accusations, and that they should have the power to present a defense against the charges.

Posted in General | Tagged , , , , , | 2 Comments

Constitutional Amendment V

We’ve all heard the concept of taking or pleading “the fifth {Amendment}” in court but there is more to that amendment than simply not testifying against yourself.

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.

The Grand Jury which must indict for capital crimes in in addition to, not in place of, a jury of peers that all other criminal cases receive. The only exception in this grand jury is military courts in time of actual service. This amendment also contains the provision against double jeopardy (I wonder if that ever worried the game show hosts) although that protection only extends to criminal cases – civil cases may be brought multiple times for the same offense. (I guess that would also cover the game show. 😉 ) It also appears that a person might be compelled to witness against themselves in a civil case. The statement that we cannot be deprived of life liberty or property nor have property taken for public use without compensation seem to stand as a second bulwark against unreasonable seizure as protected in the fourth amendment.

Posted in General | Tagged , , , , , | Leave a comment

Constitutional Amendment IV

Aside from any room for interpretation of the word “unreasonable” Amendment IV is pretty simple:

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.

Our government and its officers have no right or authority to seize our persons, houses, papers, or effects without cause supported by a claim of the particulars of who or what may be seized and where the seizure may occur.

Posted in General | Tagged , , , , , | 6 Comments

The Huntsman News

By Monday afternoon this is, of course, old news but if you visited here you must have been at least marginally interested in my opinion on the fallout from Huntsman being tapped to become the ambassador to China. First of all, I think that Bob Bernick captured the essence of the Big Utah Political Picture especially in the following sections:

Now 2010 in Utah is wide open.

Now there is an open governor’s race with a one-year incumbent . . .

There is also U.S. Sen. Bob Bennett, R-Utah, facing an intra-party challenger {or two}.

Adding to the mix will be the off-cycle governor’s race in 2010. Because Huntsman is leaving so early in his second term, Herbert must run again in 2010, the eventual winner serving only two years before he or she must run again in 2012.

That puts next year’s governor’s race off schedule — and incumbents like Attorney General Mark Shurtleff can seek the higher office without having to give up his current post. That’s also the case for Democrats Corroon and Salt Lake City Mayor Ralph Becker — all who can run for governor without risking their current seats.

And there’s a few state senators who just won re-election to their four-year seats in 2008 and so can run for governor or U.S. Senate next year without risking their current offices, as well.

. . .

2010 is suddenly a once-in-a-generation opportunity for many current and wanna-be Utah politicians.

So there’s the big picture. We’ll be holding two elections for Governor by 2012 and that Governor’s seat in 2010 added to Bennett’s seat in the Senate makes for a lot of opportunities for those (especially senators) who are not facing re-election in 2010 to take a shot at moving up in Utah politics.

Now for my opinion on the Huntsman move in particular.

In my very first political blog post I said of Huntsman:

I have spent months looking at everything I could find on the candidates and so far as I can tell the least promising republican candidate just won the republican primary

In all fairness I have to say that Huntsman exceeded my expectations as a Governor (which is why I suggested that he would be an improvement over Hatch in 2012). I like him better for some of the reasons that others dislike him, and dislike him for some of the reasons that others dislike him. Plus I still dislike him for most of the reasons I didn’t like him to begin with. So you can safely guess that I’m not sad to see him leaving. In fact, I believe that he is very well qualified to be our ambassador to China and I have high hopes that he will fill that post well.

Beyond being not sad to see Huntsman leaving I am very happy that he will be vacating the Governors seat officially because it’s been months since he left me with the impression that he was doing any more there than keeping the seat warm. If there is any way to leverage this political confusion to oust Bennett from his seat in 2010 so much the better but simply based on the fact that Huntsman had already moved on mentally from his position as governor I happily wish him well in his future endeavors and hope that Herbert and our future governors spend the bulk of their time in office proving that they are working for Utah more than for their personal political futures.

Posted in State | Tagged , , , , | 5 Comments

A Huge (but Pleasant) Surprise

Every once in a while I check where this blog might be ranked in the BlogNetNews Weekly Influence Index of Utah political blogs. The list has been published weekly for the last 20 months and I used to watch it every week to see where I was ranked. I always felt good whenever I was in the top 10 for the state. I was even more excited on half a dozen occasions when I was in the top 5 (I was once) which used to be displayed on the front page of BNN/Utah. As BNN/Utah began to expand and after I changed domains late last year my rankings became less consistent (meaning sometimes I was not in the top 20 anymore) and I stopped checking my ranking as regularly as I used to. When I looked today I was amazed to discover:
BNN/Utah #1

I was so surprised that I had to go look at the full list. I don’t think it was an error because the top 5 is still some select company.

May 17, 2009 Top 5 for BNN/Utah

Now I will return to more valuable content.

Posted in life, meta, State | Tagged , | 2 Comments

A Real American Hero

Lost in all the political bickering about the torture memos is are two significant questions. Does torture work? And is it compatible with American values? As an experienced interrogator who worked in Iraq Matthew Alexander has been speaking out on those two questions since at least November of 2008. I consider him a real hero because of his answers to those two questions and also because he is working so hard to advance this crucial debate so that our citizens may understand what is really at stake.

I really liked one quote from a Washington Post interview he did in November 2008:

My experiences have landed me in the middle of another war — one even more important than the Iraq conflict. The war after the war is a fight about who we are as Americans. Murderers like Zarqawi can kill us, but they can’t force us to change who we are. We can only do that to ourselves. One day, when my grandkids sit on my knee and ask me about the war, I’ll say to them, “Which one?”

By the way, his short answers to those two questions are “Not really” and “Absolutely not!” (My answers have always been “I have no experience with it but I suspect not” and “Absolutely not!”)

Posted in National | Tagged , , , , | Leave a comment

Constitutional Amendment III

Amendment III is very straightforward and needs no explanation:

No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.

It does remind me however that we are very fortunate as a nation to have never had a war upon our own soil in living memory. As I think about that I am reminded that we should not allow our cold wars and our wars on terror to be used as excuses to infringe upon this right or any other right that has been guaranteed under our Constitution. It also reminds me that we need to be much more selective in the foreign wars we choose to engage in.

Posted in culture | Tagged , , , , | 3 Comments

Our Broken Debate

The big question in the debate over torture right now is “who knew what and when did they know it?” That question is being used by Republicans right now to implicate Speaker Nancy Pelosi as having done nothing with what she knew and thus being complicit in any torture committed under the previous administration. The question and implications are very important questions that are worthy of debate in this country. The reason that I consider the debate to be broken is that the debate is avoiding the real substantive issue and just taking political potshots at the opposing party.

The fact is that speaker Pelosi is not in any way the only hypocrite in this debate – she is not the only one who knew and did nothing until it was politically advantageous. Democratic officeholders have been muttering under their breath (or less) about what the Bush administration was doing until Obama was elected and released the torture memos. In response the CIA is trying to defend themselves from these vocal attacks by revealing that Pelosi knew about this activity years ago.

If the Democrats were more interested in standing against torture in principle than they were in scoring political points and retaining personal power they would have been much more vocal about this issue. Speaker Pelosi would have been saying things like, “based on briefings I have had I am completely uncomfortable with what the administration is doing and willing to do to detainees through the CIA.” (Note that while that statement would open the door for discussion nothing in there would raise any national security concerns.) She would not have been alone either – other Democrats who had been briefed would also have stood up and echoed that sentiment if they had any backbone and cared about the issue. Senator Diane Feinstein would have been one of those who had also been briefed. I don’t know who else had been briefed, but all of them are guilty of doing nothing if they were uncomfortable with what they heard.

On the other hand, if the Republicans were interested in anything other than scoring points against their political opponents they would be naming the Republicans who had been briefed who were equally complicit with Speaker Pelosi. Republican officeholders have proven that they are perfectly content to have spineless and complicit representatives in office so long as they support the party line. They show that as a body they have no problem with institutionalized secrecy rather than open representation for their constituents and the other voters of the United States.

The voters need to demand that their representatives, whether of their own party or another party, quit playing politics in Washington and stick to the very serious business of leading our nation on to increased greatness – we should again be a shining city on a hill that the world can look to as an example of goodness. That can only happen if we quite trying to score political points and start having real debates about what is right and what constitutes greatness.

Posted in culture, National | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment

Pre-Announcement

Looks like Mark Shurtleff just made an accidental pre-announcement about running against Senator Bennett:

Mark Tweets

Of course what his choice is should be a surprise to nobody. I thought it interesting that he’s talking up how much he will be raising. My first thought was that he must be trying to scare off any competitors. Of course that was before I saw the later tweets:

. . . I’m announcing I’m running at 12 …

No, I just realized that I was responding to a text from u. I’m going to pull it off immediately

Posted in State, technology | Tagged , , , , | 3 Comments

Constitutional Amendment II

Amendment 2 is worded as an absolute:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

The prohibition on infringing upon the right of the people to keep and bear arms is not limited to the Congress. Although I think that some regulations are acceptable (such as requiring registration of ownership for firearms) this simple wording does not seem to allow any room for the banning of handguns or automatic weapons. (Personally I don’t see any reason that people would have cause to own automatic weapons but that’s beside the point.) The only possible wiggle room I can see in the wording is the purpose of having a well regulated militia as the reason for the right. If the goal is for a well regulated militia it could be argued that the government (state or federal) could prohibit gun ownership for convicted felons or those diagnosed with some significant type of mental disability because gun ownership among such people would detract rather than advance the cause of a well regulated militia.

Posted in National | Tagged , , , , , | 2 Comments