Tag Archive: Constitutional Law


THE DEA THINKS MEDICAL RECORDS DON’T COUNT AS “PRIVATE”

 

 

 

 

” If last month’s revelation that the the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) has been keeping a database of phone logs since 1986 wasn’t bad enough, here’s further proof of the intrusiveness of the agency’s tactics: a lawsuit being fought between the DEA, Oregon, and the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) hinges on the fact that the drug warriors believe they should have easy access to the Oregon Prescription Drug Monitoring Program (PDMP) database and have been acting on that belief, even though it contradicts state law. In plain English, the DEA says that if your medical records are shared with a pharmacy—something that happens routinely thanks to the PDMP—you lose the right to assume that that information is private, even if lawmakers in your state disagree with law enforcement.

The basis for the DEA’s legal argument is the third-party doctrine, the precedent the government leans on if it wants to look into your credit card charges, your utilities bills, your emails, or anything else that you have shared with someone else. The Fourth Amendment protects you against “unreasonable search and seizure,” but increasingly, in an era where the vast majority of our private communications go through a third party, law enforcement is expanding the definition of what a “reasonable” search is.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

UCLA Constitutional Law Professor: Gun Control Can’t Stop A ‘Madman’

 

 

 

 

” Not everyone in Los Angeles, California, is brain dead when it comes to the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding citizens. Trust me. Not only do I live in sunny LA, but UCLA Constitutional Law Professor Adam Winkler also resides in the area.

Winkler, as some of you may know, is the author of the highly touted, “Gunfight: The Battle over the Right to Bear Arms in America,” a book that examines the debate over gun control in a reasonable and unbiased manner.

Well, on the heels of a mass shooting near Santa Monica College this past Friday that left five people dead, including the gunman, and at least five people injured, local pundits, lawmakers and pro-gun control activists were trumpeting for tighter restrictions on gun ownership in a place that already has some of the toughest gun laws in the nation.

By their logic, the deranged shooter with a history of mental illness and an interest in bomb making, 23-year-old John Zawahiri, who carried an AR-15 and .44 revolver along with 1,300 rounds of ammo, most of which was loaded in 30-round magazines, might have been stopped if their were stricter gun laws in place.”

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Obama’s War On The Constitution

 

 

 

” A physician’s expertise makes him capable of inflicting great harm, noted Plato a couple thousand years ago, and no one is better positioned to steal than a guard. So perhaps we should not be surprised that the most conspicuous foe of liberty and the Bill of Rights turns out to be a former professor of constitutional law.

As a general rule, politicians tend to whipsaw between two poles. Conservatives try to increase economic liberty but show less regard for civil liberties. Liberals care deeply about civil liberties while trying to restrict the economic kind.

But the Obama administration is remarkable for its degree of disdain for both. 

From a civil-liberties perspective, Obama has carried forward nearly every one of the war-on-terror powers that led liberals to denounce George W. Bush as a goose-stepping fascist, and in fact has made many of them worse. When he retires from public life, perhaps he will return to teaching the Constitution. That should be much easier work – given how little of it there will be left.”

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

U.S. Military ‘Power Grab’ Goes Into Effect

 

 

 

 

” The manhunt for the Boston Marathon bombing suspects offered the nation a window into the stunning military-style capabilities of our local law enforcement agencies. For the past 30 years, police departments throughout the United States have benefitted from the government’s largesse in the form of military weaponry and training, incentives offered in the ongoing “War on Drugs.” For the average citizen watching events such as the intense pursuit of the Tsarnaev brothers on television, it would be difficult to discern between fully outfitted police SWAT teams and the military.

The lines blurred even further Monday as a new dynamic was introduced to the militarization of domestic law enforcement. By making a few subtle changes to a regulation in the U.S. Code titled“Defense Support of Civilian Law Enforcement Agencies” the military has quietly granted itself the ability to police the streets without obtaining prior local or state consent, upending a precedent that has been in place for more than two centuries.

The most objectionable aspect of the regulatory change is the inclusion of vague language that permits military intervention in the event of “civil disturbances.” According to the rule:

Federal military commanders have the authority, in extraordinary emergency circumstances where prior authorization by the President is impossible and duly constituted local authorities are unable to control the situation, to engage temporarily in activities that are necessary to quell large-scale, unexpected civil disturbances.

Bruce Afran, a civil liberties attorney and constitutional law professor at Rutgers University, calls the rule, “a wanton power grab by the military,” and says, “It’s quite shocking actually because it violates the long-standing presumption that the military is under civilian control.”

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Up or Down Vote on Rights Threatens Every American

” Published on Apr 10, 2013

The Senate is set to take an up or down vote on the 2nd Amendment. Regardless of your views on gun rights, this should scare everyone. No one should be comfortable with a few people in Washington taking an up or down vote on your rights.”

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

John Hinderaker @Powerline:

 “Of course, what is going on here is that Obama administration doesn’t want to enforce the immigration laws that Congress has enacted. The essence of its position in the Arizona case is that the federal government has the right to decide not to enforce the law, and if it so decides, then no state has the power, under the Constitution, to do anything that would tend to enforce those federal laws. So if the Obama administration decides that it will gain political advantage by ignoring federal laws against illegal immigration, states like Arizona just have to take the consequences without complaining.”

This Administration has done nothing but work towards re-election since inauguration day . Literally everything it does  , is with an eye towards sustaining it’s grip on power and has nothing to do with the good of the nation and it’s people .