The other day, I watched a presentation on YouTube. There were three featured speakers, Glenn Greenwald, Noam Chomsky and Edward Snowden. The subject of the talk was privacy, and it was appropriately called, "A Conversation on Privacy".
There were many interesting and intelligent comments from the speakers, my favorite line coming from Snowden, when asked what he thought of the idea that (major paraphrasing) "those with nothing to hide nave nothing to fear, and therefore do not need to worry about privacy rights". His response was, "that's like saying freedom of speech doesn't matter because you have nothing to say". While I have been skeptical of Ed Snowden for years, this talk assuaged all my doubts about him, and affirmed in my the belief that he is a thoughtful, intelligent and important American.
I don't want to talk much about the topic of privacy, but rather how someone like Edward Snowden should be treated by his government. What fascinates me about this issue is that he committed treason against the US Government, but NOT against the US population. We live in a country that is increasingly falling into an US (the general population) vs THEM (our dear leaders) scenario. What is good for the government may be bad for the people, and vice versa. This is a problem because regular everyday Americans have a difficult enough time already, getting their politicians to do what we want them to do. Why are our elected leaders allowed to persecute someone who has stood up for the people that put them in office? How would Ed Snowden be re-integrated into American society?
Speculating on Obama's true opinion about the Snowden situation is impossible. However, as a constitutional lawyer, he should be familiar with the 4th Amendment, which protects people's privacy from "unreasonable search and seizures". Obviously this is open to some interpretation. But let's say officials in our government crossed a major line, and violated the 4th Amendment, because you would have to be insane - or Tom Cotton - to think there was any legitimate excuse to basically wiretap every cell-phone in America. Why isn't the person who pointed out the crime at least NOT being treated like a criminal. And why are the actual criminals still more or less at large?
I suppose the answer is obvious, as nobody in the government is going to willingly incriminate themselves, least of the President, who is immune from prosecution anyway. Still, very sad.
Ed Snowden's story is a tragedy. In spite of heroic action, he will be a prisoner of sorts, for the rest of his life. Even if he were to return to the US, he would need a 24/7 security detail to protect him. My only hope is that we as a nation, seize on the opportunity to hold our elected leaders accountable for unconstitutionally spying on the people they are supposed to represent. My fear is that it is already too late.
Friday, May 13, 2016
Sunday, April 24, 2016
Interpreting the 2nd Amendment
In The District of Columbia v. Heller, a decision was reached that gave the right to police officer Dick Heller to have an unregistered gun in his home. The District of Columbia had previously confiscated the weapon, and Mr. Heller filed suit claiming his 2nd Amendment rights had been violated due to the confiscation. The majority decision was written by Justice Scalia. He argued that according to the 2nd amendment, all citizens should be allowed to have a weapon in their home, not just for purposes of joining a militia, but mostly for self-defense. The dissent was written by Justice Stevens. He argued that the 2nd Amendment gave the right to legislators to regulate non-military ownership of weapons, or rather that the 2nd Amendment didn't guarantee a citizen to unlimited rights to gun ownership for self-defense purposes.
A more recent decision was made by the Texas legislature allowing students and faculty at all public Universities in Texas to carry a concealed firearm on campus, provided it is legally owned and registered to the owner. This decision has created a lot of controversy and protest on University campuses around the State. These two cases represent two sides of the gun debate - one a legitimate debate about interpreting the 2nd amendment and public safety, the other a dangerous game of politics and propaganda.
The 2nd Amendment is one of the most controversial in the Constitution. Like the other amendments, there is a lot of room for interpretation. Conservatives tend to argue that gun rights are necessary as citizens have the right to protect themselves from aggression. They tend to read the 2nd Amendment as a literally meaning that American citizens can arm themselves to the teeth, with no restriction. Liberals argue while self-defense is a legitimate reason to own a gun, there should still be restrictions on gun ownership for the good of the public. They point to other cultures where gun ownership is rare, and where murders by firearm are also rare. "Why can't we be like them?", they seem to say.
I think that both arguments have merit, and I agree with the Conservative argument that guns are an effective means for self-defense (they can certainly be effective). However, I also agree with the Liberal argument that unrestricted ownership of guns for all is dangerous.
I appreciate the debate, as long as it is earnest, and I think in the first example DC v Heller, the debate was. However, I can't imagine how in the second example I provided - concealed carry on campus - that there was any earnest debate at all - at least from the Conservative side. It seems to me that the only real excuse to vote for allowing concealed carry on campus is to show the gun lobby and your constituents just how "pro-gun" you can be. But why? I believe it is the NRA lobby. They are crazy and I doubt whether they have the public good at heart - just as I doubt that politicians that want to disarm the public wish to do so for the public's good. The law allowing concealed carry on public university campuses has nothing to do with public safety, except insofar as it degrades it, and everything to do with advancing the interests of the gun lobby and their politicians.
Now, my belief is that gun companies just want to sell more guns, and thus they need their market to expand as much as possible. Like any capitalistic entity, they are weary of competition, and are actively trying to decimate it. And politicians, as well as the NRA lobby, just want to get more influence - their form of capitol. The two working together is a recipe for disaster. While some gun laws are passed in the interest of public safety, many are passed in the interest of gaining attention and political power. This is a dangerous game, and it makes a mockery of the 2nd amendment, which I believe was designed to protect the citizenry, not make them gun-crazy, or on the other end of the spectrum, gun-phobic.
Guns are dangerous, useful and effective at doing two things - killing and maiming. It is necessary that any debate about gun ownership should be taken with the utmost seriousness by all parties involved, as I believe both sides have arguments worth hearing. I wouldn't mind hearing the Supreme Court's debate Texas' concealed carry law.
A more recent decision was made by the Texas legislature allowing students and faculty at all public Universities in Texas to carry a concealed firearm on campus, provided it is legally owned and registered to the owner. This decision has created a lot of controversy and protest on University campuses around the State. These two cases represent two sides of the gun debate - one a legitimate debate about interpreting the 2nd amendment and public safety, the other a dangerous game of politics and propaganda.
The 2nd Amendment is one of the most controversial in the Constitution. Like the other amendments, there is a lot of room for interpretation. Conservatives tend to argue that gun rights are necessary as citizens have the right to protect themselves from aggression. They tend to read the 2nd Amendment as a literally meaning that American citizens can arm themselves to the teeth, with no restriction. Liberals argue while self-defense is a legitimate reason to own a gun, there should still be restrictions on gun ownership for the good of the public. They point to other cultures where gun ownership is rare, and where murders by firearm are also rare. "Why can't we be like them?", they seem to say.
I think that both arguments have merit, and I agree with the Conservative argument that guns are an effective means for self-defense (they can certainly be effective). However, I also agree with the Liberal argument that unrestricted ownership of guns for all is dangerous.
I appreciate the debate, as long as it is earnest, and I think in the first example DC v Heller, the debate was. However, I can't imagine how in the second example I provided - concealed carry on campus - that there was any earnest debate at all - at least from the Conservative side. It seems to me that the only real excuse to vote for allowing concealed carry on campus is to show the gun lobby and your constituents just how "pro-gun" you can be. But why? I believe it is the NRA lobby. They are crazy and I doubt whether they have the public good at heart - just as I doubt that politicians that want to disarm the public wish to do so for the public's good. The law allowing concealed carry on public university campuses has nothing to do with public safety, except insofar as it degrades it, and everything to do with advancing the interests of the gun lobby and their politicians.
Now, my belief is that gun companies just want to sell more guns, and thus they need their market to expand as much as possible. Like any capitalistic entity, they are weary of competition, and are actively trying to decimate it. And politicians, as well as the NRA lobby, just want to get more influence - their form of capitol. The two working together is a recipe for disaster. While some gun laws are passed in the interest of public safety, many are passed in the interest of gaining attention and political power. This is a dangerous game, and it makes a mockery of the 2nd amendment, which I believe was designed to protect the citizenry, not make them gun-crazy, or on the other end of the spectrum, gun-phobic.
Guns are dangerous, useful and effective at doing two things - killing and maiming. It is necessary that any debate about gun ownership should be taken with the utmost seriousness by all parties involved, as I believe both sides have arguments worth hearing. I wouldn't mind hearing the Supreme Court's debate Texas' concealed carry law.
Sunday, April 17, 2016
An emotional plea from a bereaved parent
In a moving editorial published in USA Today, Nicole Hockley argues that Remington, manufacturer of the AR-15, the assault rifle used during the Newtown Massacre, which claimed the life of Dylan Hockley, 6, should shoulder responsibility for the killings. Her reasoning is simple, and direct: Remington spends a fortune marketing the AR-15 assault rifles. The rifles serve only one purpose, which is to inflict massive carnage on a battlefield. Therefore, their pushing of a military grade killing machine on the public should merit sanctions.
There is a bill that gives gun companies immunity from prosecution in the event of a massacre, etc. However, as the author cites in her editorial, there are 6 scenarios where gun companies can be held liable. The one she offers, the one that is meant to uphold her argument, is this: gun companies can be held liable if they create an unnecessary risk, and then ignore it. Mrs. Hockley says that marketing a weapon as deadly as an AR-15 to young, and sometimes angry men, through video games. is creating an unnecessary risk. Because a person can often buy an AR-15 without proper screening, marketing the weapon to anyone at all is dangerous.
In my opinion, it is very irresponsible to have assault riles floating around the public sphere. It would also be irresponsible to market weapons of this sort in any way, if you were the manufacturer. I think there is a valid argument that Remington shares some of the blame, however, I say that with reservation. They aren't breaking any laws, and if we don't like what they are doing, we should take action to prevent them from selling assault rifles to people in the first place, not simply punish them after a massacre. However, I agree with her point, and feel deeply for her loss.
There is a bill that gives gun companies immunity from prosecution in the event of a massacre, etc. However, as the author cites in her editorial, there are 6 scenarios where gun companies can be held liable. The one she offers, the one that is meant to uphold her argument, is this: gun companies can be held liable if they create an unnecessary risk, and then ignore it. Mrs. Hockley says that marketing a weapon as deadly as an AR-15 to young, and sometimes angry men, through video games. is creating an unnecessary risk. Because a person can often buy an AR-15 without proper screening, marketing the weapon to anyone at all is dangerous.
In my opinion, it is very irresponsible to have assault riles floating around the public sphere. It would also be irresponsible to market weapons of this sort in any way, if you were the manufacturer. I think there is a valid argument that Remington shares some of the blame, however, I say that with reservation. They aren't breaking any laws, and if we don't like what they are doing, we should take action to prevent them from selling assault rifles to people in the first place, not simply punish them after a massacre. However, I agree with her point, and feel deeply for her loss.
Thursday, April 14, 2016
Replacing Scalia
The editorial Senate Republicans Lose Their Minds on a Supreme Court Seat argues that Republicans are being irrational in their attempts to prevent President Obama from nominating a potential replacement for the recently deceased Antonin Scalia. According to the author, President Obama has the prerogative to nominate a successor to Antonin Scalia - whether or not the Republicans like it. And whether or not President Obama expects his nominee to be confirmed.
In my opinion the article is well written and well argued. The author provides links to outside sources to substantiate his opinions, or clarify certain claims. I appreciate this, as it gives me background on how the author shapes their own political views. Links tell the reader pertinent information about the issue being discussed, and the sources of this information can tell you a lot as well. However, this is what leads me to the one problem I have with this editorial, which is that each link takes me to another article published by The New York Times. A greater variety in source material might make the argument seem a little less one-sided.
That being said, I agree with the author that the president
In my opinion the article is well written and well argued. The author provides links to outside sources to substantiate his opinions, or clarify certain claims. I appreciate this, as it gives me background on how the author shapes their own political views. Links tell the reader pertinent information about the issue being discussed, and the sources of this information can tell you a lot as well. However, this is what leads me to the one problem I have with this editorial, which is that each link takes me to another article published by The New York Times. A greater variety in source material might make the argument seem a little less one-sided.
That being said, I agree with the author that the president
Friday, February 12, 2016
"Clean Power Plan" placed on hold by Supreme Court in partisan decision
An article in this month's issue of The Economist outlines the details of a recent Supreme Court decision to pause implementation of the Obama Administration's "Clean Power Plan". A semi-ambitious plan to help the US cut 870 millions tons of carbon emissions from power plants (as measured against 2005 levels) by 2030, the Clean Power Plan met with resistance, mostly from coal producing states. The Supreme Court decision was reached along partisan lines, with the 5 conservative judges voting for a pause, and the 4 liberal judges against.
This article is worth reading for several reasons. First of all (and most relevantly to this blog) it demonstrates how politics is intertwined with the future of our environment, and briefly details some of the arguments for and against environmental legislation. Essentially, there is a human cost on both sides of the equation. If we continue to pollute the environment by burning coal for energy, as an example, increasingly more of the world will become uninhabitable - a human cost. However, the economic cost - which is also a human cost - of switching immediately to clean power would be huge, especially for coal producing states. And the economic repercussions would be felt by the mostly poor and poorly educated coal miners and their families. We need environmental regulations, and we need "Clean Power". However, we need to be extremely prudent in their application, and we need to make sure the States and the Government are working together as - mostly - equals.
That last point is another reason to read this article, considering our recent discussions of Federalism in class. This case is an example of how the power of the States is balanced with the power of the Government, through the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court's decision - albeit partisan - tempers the power of the Government and allows for both sides to save face. The States are tacitly and reluctantly accepting the legislation, however, they are asking for - and getting - more time to implement it. The Government is in turn going to get it's way - eventually - but not as quickly as it had hoped. There is general agreement between the States and the Government that we need the Clean Power Plan; it just needs some adjusting before we implement it. Necessary, not (yet) Proper.
This article is worth reading for several reasons. First of all (and most relevantly to this blog) it demonstrates how politics is intertwined with the future of our environment, and briefly details some of the arguments for and against environmental legislation. Essentially, there is a human cost on both sides of the equation. If we continue to pollute the environment by burning coal for energy, as an example, increasingly more of the world will become uninhabitable - a human cost. However, the economic cost - which is also a human cost - of switching immediately to clean power would be huge, especially for coal producing states. And the economic repercussions would be felt by the mostly poor and poorly educated coal miners and their families. We need environmental regulations, and we need "Clean Power". However, we need to be extremely prudent in their application, and we need to make sure the States and the Government are working together as - mostly - equals.
That last point is another reason to read this article, considering our recent discussions of Federalism in class. This case is an example of how the power of the States is balanced with the power of the Government, through the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court's decision - albeit partisan - tempers the power of the Government and allows for both sides to save face. The States are tacitly and reluctantly accepting the legislation, however, they are asking for - and getting - more time to implement it. The Government is in turn going to get it's way - eventually - but not as quickly as it had hoped. There is general agreement between the States and the Government that we need the Clean Power Plan; it just needs some adjusting before we implement it. Necessary, not (yet) Proper.
Wednesday, January 27, 2016
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)