Bull Moose Strikes Back

Ah, politics. This week one side will be complaining about the other side distorting facts about a new law; the next week the side that was complaining will be promulgating distortions of their own about the other side’s bill.

I took a few minutes to actually read through the bill (PDF).  There are some things I like about it, and some things I have questions about.

First, the thing I really like about it is that it punishes people who employ illegal immigrates.  One of my main concerns in this debate is that these migrant Mexican workers are being horribly exploited. They are paid low wages, are not provided worker’s comp insurance, and often work in unsafe conditions.  Second to that is that the employers are not paying into the SSI and Medicare system in a time when those programs could use the cash.

I think the preemption question is going to be interesting.  That bill was written specifically to face that challenge. Arizona’s defense is going to be simple: How can a state law be preempted by a Federal law when they say the same thing?  Just when we thought all the Federalism issues had been addressed after 221 years.  Can the Feds order a state government not to enforce federal law when it involves the status of citizens within the state border? That will be a SCOTUS opinion I’m looking forward to.

Most of the distortions and hysteria involving this law are completely off the mark, though.  Most of that arises from the misunderstanding (or, for all of the politicians who have been through law school, pretending to misunderstand) the term “reasonable suspicion.”  “Reasonable suspicion” is a term of art in law and law enforcement.  There is a huge body of case law about what constitutes “reasonable suspicion.”

I’ve heard a lot of talking heads going on about how this law will give Mexicans the same status as Jews in Nazi-occupied Poland.  That simply isn’t the case.  Law enforcement is well trained in what reasonable suspicion is.  They have to be. Reasonable suspicion applies when making an arrest to every thing from misdemeanor drug possession to first degree murder.

Not only is the reasonable suspicion protection in place, but the law enforcement agent has to be in “lawful contact” with the suspect before they can act on a reasonable suspicion.  “Lawful contact” is another term of art that is well hashed out in case law. It is well established that a person must identify themselves to a law enforcement officer during the course of lawful contact.  And while citizens are not required to carry ID, legal immigrants are required to carry their green cards under federal law.  (That is my other major question – are citizens going to be arrested because they don’t have a driver’s license if they are engaging in behavior that triggers reasonable suspicion but does not rise to the level of suspicion required for arrest otherwise? That might be a problem. )

So I will grant that there are going to be nuances for developing reasonable suspicion under this law that are going to have to be worked out in the Arizona state courts or the Federal courts.  But that’s what happens in the common law system whenever a new area of law comes along.

UPDATE:

George Will:

The fact that the meaning of “reasonable” will not be obvious in many contexts does not make the law obviously too vague to stand. The Bill of Rights — the Fourth Amendment — proscribes “unreasonable searches and seizures.” What “reasonable” means in practice is still being refined by case law — as is that amendment’s stipulation that no warrants shall be issued “but upon probable cause.” There has also been careful case-by-case refinement of the familiar and indispensable concept of “reasonable suspicion.”

5 Comments »

“White heterosexual men, especially those of you that own property, we must stand together this November so that we may move our vision of government forward.”

Would you be disturbed by a politician making that statement? I’d probably look for the burning cross if I heard it. So why is what President Obama says at about 2:00 in this video any less disturbing?

I can’t see a reason it shouldn’t be.

UPDATE: Republicans should take that snippet about “undoing all we have done” out and use it in their campaign commercials. If only. If clones of Newt Gingrich won every seat available next year they Congress couldn’t undo all Obama and the 111th Congress has done.

3 Comments »

Ah, Earth Day. The day when we celebrate the successful wholesale sale of anti-human nihilism in a box mislabeled “environmentalism.”

My kids observed Earth Day by watching a few episodes of the Captain Planet marathon on Boomerang this morning as they got ready for school. (Not without some grumbling from my daughter that her regular “Pink Panther” reruns were preempted.) I wonder what the carbon footprint on Captain Planet was, especially when you factor in the plastic action figures of the Captain, his gang, and their enemies and the associated packaging:

But maybe we should give the Captain and his alter ego Ted Turner a break – I don’t think the term “carbon footprint” had been coined in 1993.

But if you feel like being depressed while you laugh, Mark Steyn reposted a couple of previous year’s Earth Day columns today.

Or celebrate by becoming a member or making a donation to a real conservation organization like the Boone and Crockett Club.

No Comments »

“The secondary motive is to make sure that we’ve canceled everything George Bush wanted to do, whether it’s the right thing to do or not,” says Schmitt, who served as chair in 2005-08 of the NASA Advisory Council, which oversees plans for America’s future in space. “The other thing is the Obama administration, including the president, is made up of people who do not really like what America has been. And our prowess in space is part of what America has been. And I think they would just as soon see us take a second- or third-rate status in that.”

Wow, them’s fightin’ words. How is it that this person has ties – honorary or other – to UW-Madison? I guess I’ll attribute that to some kind of mistake made by the higher ups.

I do find the “cancel every thing Bush did” theory interesting.  Obama ran on the fact that he was not Bush, who he painted as an awful president, even though he was running against a guy who was not Bush.  When Apollo 11 landed on the moon during Nixon’s presidency, there was an awful lot of talk about Kennedy’s dream being fulfilled.  Was one of Obama’s motivations to be sure we wouldn’t hear about Bush’s mission being fulfilled in 2020, seven years after Obama has exited the White House and is about as remembered as George H.W. Bush is now?

Normally, I’d dismiss that out of hand. If it were Bush, Clinton, Bush, or Reagan, I’d never think a president to be that shallow. However, we’re in the era of the kiddie pool presidency…

I’m not saying I buy it, but I do say it gives me pause now, where I don’t think it ever would have before.

In any case, I’m sure Scmitt’s comments will earn him a protest or face-pieing tonight at Engineering Hall in Madison.

2 Comments »

Happy tax day everybody! Well, happy tax day to the half of you who pay income taxes.  To the rest of you, Happy Thursday.

But don’t worry non-income tax payers: You still pay plenty in SSI and medicare taxes, sales taxes, property taxes, and the cost of taxes that the businesses you patronize pass on to you, such as the B&O tax.  You just don’t get a particular day to celebrate paying those taxes. And cheer up: The VAT tax is coming! You won’t have to feel left out at all anymore.  (And I’m sure they’ll keep the rates reasonable, just like Europe did.)

At least we know what we’re paying for: A second-to-none space program… er… meticulously maintained National Parks… umm… booze for the State Department. There we go.

No Comments »

Award one point to the president.  I believe that brings him up to… three!

No Comments »

For the first time, the United States is explicitly committing not to use nuclear weapons against nonnuclear states that are in compliance with the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, even if they attacked the United States with biological or chemical weapons or launched a crippling cyberattack.

Have we slipped into some kind of dimension where Dr. Strangelove is a good reflection of reality? The whole point of a nuclear weapons arsenal is to make enemies think there is some kind of realistic chance we’d use them  under the right circumstances.

Hear that enemies? We’re leveling the playing field in your favor!

White House officials said the new strategy would include the option of reconsidering the use of nuclear retaliation against a biological attack, if the development of such weapons reached a level that made the United States vulnerable to a devastating strike.

Oh, well, the person chiefly responsible for the safety of Americans from foreign threats might reconsider if there are enough bodies. Take some polls, have some meetings, and see how to go forward.

I’m not a fan of the health care bill, the ever-ballooning deficit spending, cap and trade, and whatever other foolish political-economic game Obama’s running today, but this is what I was really afraid of when he took the oath of office.

In the year since Mr. Obama gave a speech in Prague declaring that he would shift the policy of the United States toward the elimination of nuclear weapons, his staff has been meeting — and arguing — over how to turn that commitment into a workable policy, without undermining the credibility of the country’s nuclear deterrent.

This is supposed to be a workable policy that doesn’t undermine the credibility of the nuclear deterrent? I think that the authors of the policy didn’t know what at least three of the words in that sentence mean.

Before you jump in to defend this, ask yourself: Am I being incredibly and willfully naive? (Hint: If you answered “no,” keep thinking about it.)

UPDATE:

Althouse asks: Did he really change anything? I understand her point – that really, if we would use nukes before we’d probably use them now. I’m not sure I totally agree with that. Having some level of ambiguity in our policy is useful. First, announcing outcomes to attacks ahead of attacks allows the attackers to use the predictability.  Second, I want the president – whether it is Obama or John Bolton (hey, I can dream) to have the freedom to assess and act with all the country’s resources at his or her disposal.  Obama has cut off his own options, or at least put self-imposed pressure on himself not to use certain options, and it’s silly.

Here’s an analogy – and tell me if you think it isn’t accurate. I have a 12 gauge shotgun in my bedroom closet and shells with an appropriate home defense load nearby.  Whould I put up a sign that says: “I have a shotgun. If you invade my home with a knife or baseball bat, I won’t use it, but I reserve my right to change my mind following the invasion. If you invade my house with a gun I will consider using it without reevaluation. “? No I wouldn’t. Why are we doing that as a country?

No Comments »