Posts Under "Law":
July 29, 2008
The city allowed a proviso for possessing a handgun but still required that it be disassembled except in cases of "imminent danger" which while meeting the Court's requirements, in all practicality means that a handgun would be useless for self defense, which was the Court's primary goal.
Heller's case will likely take years to reach the Court, which may be what the city is hoping for - a Democratic President who appoints liberals to the Supreme Court who in turn overturn the Heller decision altogether. We'll see what happens, but in any event, guns are still outlawed in DC for another 15 years or so.
7:22 am | Comment (2) | Print | Categories: Law, Washington, DC
June 28, 2008
If you listed none, you're right.
What?
Our "Bill of Rights" is something everyone likes to cite as a document that grants them particular rights (e.g. right to free speech, free assembly, free press, right to privacy, etc.) but that's in fact NOT what the document says.
Take the First Amendment (emphasis mine):
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.That could be rewritten to say "Congress can't:
- stop free speech
- make you follow a particular religion
- stop the press from saying whatever it wants
- stop you from protesting the government
The very first Amendment to grant individual rights is the 6th Amendment, which grants the right to a fair, speedy trial with cross-examination of witnesses and a jury of one's peers. This is, in fact, the only Amemdment which explicitly grants rights. The 9th and 10th amendments simply reserve rights to the people.
When I hear someone say "I have the right" (and I've done it too, so I'm criticizing myself), they're dead wrong, unless they're talking about the Sixth Amendment. But in the same vein, when I hear someone rationalize that the government can impinge upon the restrictions laid out in the Constitution, it frustrates me. We've set limitations on our government, explicit ones. They're not significant, or particularly hard to follow. Some of them we don't even really need (see the Third Amendment). But they are there. And they must be followed.
Our government is unique in that we have denied it certain abilities. My friend from New Zealand told me that their "Bill of Rights" is just another law, and that it grants rights that can be taken away by other legislation. In comparison, our Bill of Rights is a document that supersedes all other legislation, not simply because it's in the Constitution but also because it specifies what rights are denied to the government.
The Antifederalists, the main proponents for the Bill of Rights, feared the government. They fought the Revolution to get away from the government of England, which they saw as obtuse and uninterested in the needs of the colonies. They wrote the document to ensure that the government, not the people, were restricted from certain actions. And that places the onus on the government to prove not that we have a right they can deny, but that they have an obstacle that public interest dictates be ignored. And that is the beauty in the Bill of Rights.
6:30 pm | Comment (2) | Print | Categories: Law, Washington, DC
June 26, 2008
The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. ~ Antonin ScaliaAnd with that holding, the Supreme Court made the first definitive determination as to the meaning of the Second Amendment since the framing of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights in the 1790's.
The decision, essentially a Scalia grammar lesson, articulates that the Second Amendment allows for the possession of a weapon by private citizens for private purposes. After swallowing an NRA brochure, Scalia argues that the two clauses of the Second Amendment do not rely on one another, and thus grant rights to private gun ownership.
The 5-4 decision reflected the conservative bent to which the Court has moved in the past few years, and serves to articulate the damage that the Bush presidency has done to the judiciary. Had O'Connor remained on the court, this decision would have fallen quite differently, if it had been decided at all (though there is no way to determine who voted in favor of hearing the case).
The full effect of the ruling has yet to be seen, as the ruling does not legalize gun posession in the District per se; the details must be determined by the lower court in a manner consistent with the opinion, and DC could still institute policies that would make handgun registration prohibitively difficult (a complex language test, for example, or a prohibitively high filing fee). Criminals who are arrested for gun violations will likely continue to avoid registration, and it is unlikely that conceal-carry permits will be issued in DC, meaning that law-abiding citizens will only be able to posses these firearms in their homes.
Still, the thought of criminals stealing legitimate handguns is frightening, and the Court erred today in it's decision. Here's hoping for an Obama victory, and a quick overturning of this decision.
1:04 pm | Comment (2) | Print | Categories: Crime, Law, Washington, DC
June 9, 2008
Gigaom.com has published an interesting article about how tiered internet service is likely due to the fact that cable companies recognize that unlimited broadband connections end up putting them out of business.
Here's how it works: unlimited internet lets people have access to high quality video through Netflix, iTunes, and other services. Companies like Comcast charge exorbitant rates for lower-quality programming, and as more consumers become tech-savvy, they're realizing they can buy episodes off iTunes and watch movies off Apple TV for much less than what Comcast and others want.
The solution? Cable companies need to limit how much you can download. Gigaom.com speculates that the tiers are designed to limit most people to about 75 minutes of Standard Definition video a day - not nearly enough to satisfy most television watchers. This means cable companies can remain secure in their video connection subscription rates, and help put P2P out of business to boot.
Congress needs to investigate and punish these innovation-crushing monopolies. The internet is the closest we've ever gotten to unlimited free speech, and to let cable and phone companies dictate what and how much of it people can download and utilize is unconscionable and contrary to our best ideals.
1:35 pm | Comment (5) | Print | Categories: Law, Politics, Washington, DC
April 15, 2008
Monster Cables, maker of high-def cables that are sold at outrageous markups, has a history of suing smaller cable makers and then getting a licensing deal out of them for "infringed patents." It's a typical picture of corporate greed and the abuse of our patent system. Unfortunately for them, they picked the wrong company when they wrote a Cease-and-Desist letter to Blue Jeans Cable. The owner is a former litigation attorney who sent back a terse, well-written response. Here's my favorite part...
Continue Reading...
5:18 pm | Comment (1) | Print | Categories: Funny, Law
April 12, 2008
The New York Times today wrote on a bill that would require textbook printers to notify professors of the actual cost to students to purchase the textbooks they're recommending. Additionally, it would require the unbundling of textbooks from their accompanying materials (CDs, notes, etc.) and finally, it would require schools to publish the list of required materials long before students need to purchase them, so that they can shop around rather than be forced to buy them at the campus bookstore for the sake of expediency.
Continue Reading...
4:02 pm | Comment (0) | Print | Categories: Education, Law
March 1, 2008
Reversing his order from February 15th, Judge White, who felt it was necessary to use draconian orders not seen since the British closed Boston Harbor and had closed a website, has finally come to his senses and apparently picked up a copy of the Constitution of the United States.
The website, wikileaks.org, has several web aliases around the globe, making the effect of the judge's prior order almost impotent. However, the judge admitted that his order had serious First Amendment implications. From the New York Times:
In reversing himself at a hearing here on Friday, Judge White acknowledged that the bank’s request posed serious First Amendment questions and might constitute unjustified prior restraint. He also appeared visibly frustrated that technology might have outrun the law and that, as a result, the court might not be able to rein in information once it had been disclosed online.Thank you, Judge White. 225 years of Constitutional theory agrees. An act, even a wrong one, does not necessarily have a legal resolution. See Marbury v. Madison.
"We live in an age," Judge White said, "when people can do some good things and people can do some terrible things without accountability necessarily in a court of law."
Judge Reverses His Order Disabling Web Site ~ New York Times, 3/1/2008
6:01 pm | Comment (0) | Print | Categories: Law, Politics
November 27, 2007
Much has been made in recent years with regards to caps on lawsuit amounts, particularly in the area of punitive damages. Punitive damages are different from actual damages in that they are intended to inflict financial pain for an action against a plaintiff. It's somewhat of an adult way of saying "don't do this again."
Continue Reading...
6:38 am | Comment (3) | Print | Categories: Entertainment, Law