Strip-searched teachers school the White House

Two Iowa teachers are about to teach the Bush administration a few things about the Constitution.

The teachers were arrested at a 2004 campaign rally for President Bush after the Secret Service tried to move them first off a sidewalk and then off a parking lot. One was holding a paper sign expressing opposition to the war in Iraq and the other was wearing a John Kerry button.

The Secret Service didn't arrest the women, but Iowa state troopers did. The two teachers, who are in their fifties, were taken to a county jail and strip-searched. They were charged with criminal trespass. The charges were dropped a few months later.

This is a good example of what is, and what is not, due process of law.

While the phrase "due process" has come to mean any judge's view of fundamental fairness on any subject, what it originally meant and still means is this: the typical, ordinary procedures of law enforcement and the courts. "Due process" is the opposite of arbitrary power.

Iowa's state troopers typically reserve strip-searches for people suspected of carrying drugs or weapons. Teachers expressing opposition to administration policies do not fall into this category and no amount of whining about presidential security in the midst of a war on terror ought to convince anybody otherwise.

It certainly appears that the federal agents and the state troopers worked together to arbitrarily remove these women from a public event in a city park in order to prevent unpleasant images from tarnishing the president's coverage on the local news. As if that didn't violate their constitutional rights plainly enough, the women were jailed and strip-searched, a crass display of government intimidation and a flagrant violation of due process of law.

The Bill of Rights was written to prevent this.

The teachers are suing the Secret Service, the Iowa State Patrol and Linn County. They will win. Look up the case of Brown v. Mississippi and see if you don't agree.


Copyright 2005

John McCain's shakedown operation, and Jesse Jackson's, too

Watch closely as McCain the Magnificent Maverick makes piles of cash appear in his Senate re-election campaign account.

Senator John McCain of Arizona, chairman of the Indian Affairs Committee, held a hearing Wednesday on Indian gaming, an $18.5 billion business last year, because, well, just because.

"I don't want this hearing to be viewed as some attack on Indian gaming," the senator said.

McCain said the federal Indian Gaming Regulatory Act has not been amended since it was passed in 1988. High time for a review of the law, he explained.

If you're a tribal leader in the casino business, you can't miss the message the senator is sending: I can cost you millions with one carefully worded clause, so what's a few hundred thousand dollars in campaign contributions to make sure that doesn't happen? Or, phrased more artfully, to make sure your voice is heard and your views are well represented.

And speaking of well represented, you might want to hire a lobbyist who's close to McCain. A man doesn't get to be a United States Senator without knowing how to take care of his friends.

This despicable shakedown, presented as a vigorous effort to protect consumers from slot machines disguised as bingo devices, ought to be called by its rightful name: an abuse of power.

And speaking of despicable shakedowns, the Rev. Jesse Jackson showed up at Bank of America's annual shareholders meeting in Charlotte, North Carolina, Wednesday and complained that the bank is highly prosperous while the middle class and the poor are sinking. He's trying to pressure B of A into making loans and investments that don't meet its usual standards in the name of helping "community redevelopment."

The implication here is that Bank of America became prosperous at the expense of the middle class and the poor and therefore owes them something, a concept sometimes called "giving back to the community."

But Bank of America doesn't coerce anybody into becoming a customer. The company offers services at a price to people who freely choose to buy them. Nobody's forcing anybody to take out a home loan or a car loan or a credit card. Bank of America is not guilty of causing poverty in the neighborhoods in which it does business. Nor is it the responsibility of Bank of America's shareholders to pay anybody else's bills for them.

It's a common misconception that businesses "take" from the community. If you believe that, watch what happens to a community after businesses pack up and move, and watch how hard local officials work to lure businesses inside their city limits. Providing goods and services to people who want to buy them isn't a crime and shouldn't be treated as one.


Copyright 2005

The tyranny of the children

Actor and director Rob Reiner wants the voters of California to approve an extra 1.7 percent income tax on individuals who earn over $400,000 and couples who earn over $800,000. The money would go to fund preschool education for all children in the state in a voluntary program that aims to raise the percentage of kids in preschool from 47 percent to 70 percent.

Reiner cites a Rand study that purports to demonstrate that more preschool education means fewer high school dropouts, fewer cases of child abuse and fewer criminals.

Reiner says these high-income Californians can afford to pay the tax, especially after their federal tax cut.

What's wrong with this argument?

Well, his facts may be wrong, because it's hard to see how the Rand study could separate the long-term effects of preschool from the long-term effects of having the kind of parents who care about education enough to send their kids to preschool. But that's not the problem with the argument.

The problem with the argument is that it makes your freedom vanish in a cloud of baby powder.

Think that's overstated? Follow along.

Children need preschool. Their parents can't or won't pay for it. The government finds people who can easily pay for it and uses the force of government to make them pay for it.

And then what about health care? And housing? And college?

And what's that tugging on your sleeve? It's one of the Clintons, reminding you that about a billion people around the world live on about a dollar a day.

People have needs. The question is, do they have a right to other people's money?

If you think the government only picks the padded pockets of the rich, think again. The U.S. tax code provides "child tax credits" for people with young children, which means people without young children pay higher taxes, even if they earn the same or less. Why? Because the government thinks people with children need the money they earn, and people who don't have children, well, don't.

Or maybe it's because people with young children fall into the category of uncommitted swing voters, and politicians find it expedient to pander to them with money that was earned by somebody else.

If need is a license to take money from other people, then everything you have is subject to confiscation by people who need it more. You are enslaved to the needs of people you don't know and have no control over. No matter what decisions they make in their lives, their needs have first claim on your efforts.

Of course, political pragmatism and biannual elections will prevent the government from taking much more than you will tolerate. But wherever you draw the line, you will be called selfish and uncaring and you will be blamed for the suffering of other people's children, or, as the government calls them, "our children."

The framers of the U.S. Constitution didn't talk about needs or children. They were greatly influenced by eighteenth century English legal scholar Sir William Blackstone, who wrote that the absolute rights of Englishmen were life, liberty and property. He said a man has the right to his life and limbs, the right to move freely from place to place, and the right to own and enjoy his property.

Freedom is not about schools, or hospitals, or day care centers. Totalitarian states have all those things, and people swim through shark-infested waters to get away from them.

Freedom means the right to live your life and enjoy the fruits of your own efforts. Think twice before you give it up, in the name of the children or anything else.


Copyright 2005

Sneak peek at the pope jokes from Argus' Thursday column

Shhhh!

Here's a preview of Argus Hamilton's Thursday column:

The College of Cardinals elected a seventy-eight-year-old German cardinal to be the new pope Tuesday. The Vatican admitted the new pope was a member of the Hitler Youth when he was a boy. In any other profession, Hitler Youth on your resume would end the job interview.

The Vatican launched into damage control about the pope's past Tuesday. They insisted he was coerced into the Hitler Youth and forced to fight for the Third Reich. On the bright side, it was the first peaceful day Tom DeLay has had in months.

Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger became Pope Benedict XVI Tuesday. Until this week he ran the doctrinal office that dated back to the Inquisition. Conservatives were so satified with the choice that the puff of white smoke may have been Mel Gibson having a cigarette afterwards.

Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger last year angered Protestants by calling all other Christian faiths deficient. It was so reckless. Statements like that could cost Notre Dame three touchdowns and a quarterback the next time they play Southern Methodist.

Read Argus Hamilton's daily column here.

Copyright 2005 Argus Hamilton
All rights reserved.

What the Supreme Court shouldn't have to do

You may never have heard of the Incorporation Doctrine, but here's another example of how it has increased the federal government's power at the expense of the states, contradicting the Tenth Amendment.

Today the Court decided to decide if police in Georgia had the power to search a house when one occupant gave them permission and the other refused permission.

The question isn't what the decision ought to be, but who should decide.

It was the intent of the framers of the Constitution -- and also the intent of the framers of the Fourteenth Amendment -- that decisions on matters such as these would be made by the people of each state, in accordance with the provisions of their state constitutions.

The Fourth Amendment and the rest of the Bill of Rights were plainly understood to apply to the federal government, not the state governments.

I know, I didn't believe it either. Read it for yourself in the appendix to The 37th Amendment.

"Evacuate the Capitol! It's...it's a SUITCASE!"

We've really got to calm down.

The Department of Homeland Security just deported a man for violating the terms of his visa, or more precisely, for violating the terms of the visa waiver program. And it didn't take long, either. It was exactly five days from suspicion to expulsion.

Who is this dangerous character? What did he do?

Wen Hao Zhao, a Chinese native and an Australian citizen, arrived in Washington D.C. and stood on the west side of the Capitol Monday with his two suitcases. He just stood there. When police approached him, he wouldn't answer any questions or show identification. He said he wanted to see the president. When police inquired about his suitcases, he said they'd have to open them themselves if they wanted to know what was inside.

Well, the offices on the west side of the Capitol were evacuated and the SWAT team was called in and the man was tackled and dragged away and his suitcases were X-rayed and then blown open with a water cannon and today the guy was deported as a threat to public safety.

The luggage contained clothing and a CD player.

I mean, really.

Are we going to go on red alert every time some loopy tourist asks to see the president? You know and I know that you have to donate quite a lot of money before you can show up in Washington and see the president, but some people think the president is a regular guy who occasionally drops in at coffee shops and factories to shake hands with regular folks.

After all, the White House staff goes to a lot of trouble to make the president look accessible and in touch with the American people. Somebody watching on television might think they could come to Washington and ask to see him.

People used to visit Minneapolis and ask cab drivers where Mary Tyler Moore lived.

The Capitol police were convinced that the guy was a suicide bomber. He was dressed in black. The suitcases were black. He was sullen and silent.

They've seen too many movies.

We should all think carefully about security in Washington D.C. It's a sad thing to see the Capitol police tackle and drag a tourist away from the U.S. Capitol, the most powerful symbol of freedom in the history of civilization.

Somebody watching on television might think we're not a free country.



Copyright 2005

Bill Clinton revealed

Bill Clinton looked seethingly angry Monday as he sweetly expressed how "sad" it was that GOP fundraiser Arthur Finkelstein had set up a PAC called "Stop Her Now" to oppose Hillary Clinton's re-election to the Senate.

The former president informed anyone who would listen that Mr. Finkelstein is gay and had just married his longtime partner.

"Either this guy believes his party is not serious and is totally Machiavellian in his position or there's some sort of self-loathing there," Clinton said. "I was more sad for him."

Perhaps it was some kind of mass hallucination, but didn't we listen to Bill Clinton tell us daily for two solid years that a man's private sex life was nobody's business?

It is fun to hear Bill Clinton do his own attack work, though. For years we heard this kind of bile spewing from James Carville and Paul Begala and Lanny Davis and Ann Lewis. It was a ventriloquist act the whole time.



Copyright 2005

John Kerry explains

Senator John Kerry told the League of Women Voters in Boston Sunday that many of his supporters were duped into not voting last November. He said they got leaflets telling them that Republicans were supposed to vote on Tuesday and Democrats were supposed to vote on Wednesday.

Just a couple of weeks ago, John Kerry told an audience that the non-mainstream media, presumably Fox News Channel, was misinforming and manipulating the American public into supporting policies that were a disaster for the country.

That's how tough it is to be a Democrat these days. John Kerry is reduced to arguing that the only people with the intellectual sophistication to appreciate higher taxes and international governance are too stupid to read a calendar.

He should stop talking before he really hurts himself. Did you notice he's already on crutches?



Copyright 2005 S. Shelley

Puzzle fans: the new tidbits® puzzle is up

Okay, tidbits® puzzle fans, the Sunday puzzle has just been posted.

If you've never seen tidbits® puzzles, check them out. tidbits® is a fast, original word game that will remind you of a partially-completed crossword puzzle that's just at the point where it starts to be fun.

tidbits® puzzles contain only common-usage words. No Latin, no Greek, no rivers in Germany.

Interior Department hides witnesses from Congress

Rep. Jon Porter of Nevada wants to know why three scientists working on the Yucca Mountain nuclear waste dump discussed fabricating data and hiding facts from officials. And the Interior Department won't tell him.

Rep. Porter's Government Reform federal work force and agency organization subcommittee has been investigating a series of e-mails, written between 1998 and 2000, in which three scientists with the Interior Department's U.S. Geological Survey appear to indicate that safety data were faked. The subcommittee would like the three scientists to testify before the panel. The Interior Department said Friday it will not permit that to happen.

Oh, really?

Whether the Bush administration likes it or not, the Congress has oversight over the executive branch, and if the Congress wants to talk to the scientists, the Congress has the constitutional authority to talk to the scientists.

The book to read on this subject is Raoul Berger's Executive Privilege: A Constitutional Myth.

Let me give you the short version while you wait for Amazon to ship it to you.

The Constitution gives Congress the power to impeach the president, it doesn't give the president the power to remove members of Congress. Inherent in the power to impeach is the power to investigate.

The Interior Department said Friday it is investigating the scientists itself, and that's why it won't let Congress talk to them.

But if an executive branch department can prevent Congress from investigating it simply by launching its own 'investigation,' then the executive branch has stripped away from Congress a power that the Constitution explicitly granted to Congress.

And if the executive branch can do that, what can't they do?

And if there's nothing the executive branch can't do, we're completely off the notes and living under a government with no restraints at all on its power, which means no guarantee at all of our freedom.



Copyright 2005 by Susan Shelley

Want to stop the Religious Right? Here's how. Really.

C-SPAN is televising a conference right now held by a group out of Texas called the Judeo-Christian Council for Constitutional Restoration. Rep. Tom DeLay addressed the participants by video, complaining about what they all see as the problem of activist judges who disregard the Constitution. Rep. DeLay explained the congressional option of limiting the jurisdiction of the federal courts by legislation.

If you've read The 37th Amendment, you already know that Congressman DeLay is technically correct. Under Article III, Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution, Congress has the power to tell the Supreme Court it has no authority to review certain kinds of cases. It's called the Exceptions Clause.

It's true that "activist judges" have gone far beyond the Constitution to guarantee privacy rights, civil rights, women's rights, free speech rights, and the rights of people accused of crimes under state jurisdiction.

So if you want to stop the Religious Right, don't try arguing the facts. They're right, take my word for it (after six years of research).

Strict construction of the Constitution would be the most popular idea in America if the Constitution was amended to reflect the well-accepted changes that the U.S. Supreme Court has made over the last eighty years. The problem with strict construction right now is that the Constitution simply doesn't say what most Americans think it means.

I'll bet you think the Fourteenth Amendment, which guarantees to every person the equal protection of the law and due process of law, prohibits racial and gender discrimination.

Guess again. The Fourteenth Amendment was ratified in 1868 after a long, ugly debate that established beyond any doubt that the Northern states would continue to have the right to operate racially segregated schools, ban interracial marriage, and prohibit blacks from serving on juries or holding public office. It didn't even confer the right to vote, which wasn't extended to blacks -- black men, that is -- until the Fifteenth Amendment was ratified a few years later.

Don't even ask what these guys thought about women's rights.

Maybe this is what Justice Antonin Scalia is hinting at when he says he supports "reasonable construction," not "strict construction."

The next time you hear someone say conservative judges will roll back all the progress of the last fifty years in civil rights, you'll know why. It's because the Constitution doesn't ban racial discrimination. The decisions of the U.S. Supreme Court ban racial discrimination. And decisions -- even in areas considered settled law -- have been overturned before.

What's needed to stop judicial activism is the same thing that's needed to stop the Religious Right: constitutional amendments.

Can't be done, you say? Yes, it can. If previous efforts have failed it is because people did not understand why the amendment was needed or because the idea behind the amendment did not have the support of a majority of the country.

To stop the Religious Right, propose an amendment to the Constitution to guarantee a woman's right to privacy in the first three months of her pregnancy and a fetus' right to life in the last three months.

The debate over this amendment would establish pretty quickly that the Religious Right is outnumbered by people of more moderate views. My guess is that the right-to-life guarantee in late pregnancy would split the pro-life vote and leave the Religious Right marginalized, without enough support to get a phone call returned from Capitol Hill.

For more about privacy rights, and how we can secure them, click over to Why There is No Constitutional Right to Privacy, and How to Get One.

For more about the real history of the Fourteenth Amendment (with footnotes -- we're not here to waste your time), read How the First Amendment Came to Protect Topless Dancing, the appendix to The 37th Amendment: A Novel.



Copyright 2005 by Susan Shelley

Self-censorship: Anatomy of an abuse of power

If you'd like to see a stark naked, fully exposed, flatly unconstitutional abuse of power, look no further than the National Cable & Telecommunications Association convention in San Francisco this week.

There you can witness the spectacle of House Judiciary Chairman James Sensenbrenner, Senate Commerce Committee Chairman Ted Stevens, and Federal Communications Commission Chairman Kevin J. Martin as they strip off their shirts and flex their biceps, for the sake of the children, of course.

The honorable gentlemen are doing their best to muscle the cable industry into censoring itself. Why? Because Congress has no authority under the Constitution to tell private companies what kind of shows they may produce and distribute over privately owned cable and satellite networks for private citizens to purchase with their own money.

FCC Chairman Martin was asked if wants the industry to regulate itself. "Absolutely," he said. Why face messy constitutional questions when you can frighten people into giving up their freedom voluntarily?

Chairman Sensenbrenner reassured the cable executives that he doesn't favor regulation to stop "indecency." He favors throwing people in jail. "The criminal process, rather than the regulatory process, is the way to go to stop this," he explained.

Chairman Stevens, meanwhile, was allowing cable executives to plead with him to stop his constitutionally questionable plan to extend broadcast decency regulations to cable and satellite networks. Watch for a generous flow of campaign contributions to accompany the pleadings. These people know their business. The politicians, that is.

You don't have to be an HBO subscriber to see the obscenity of this.

Either we have a Constitution, or we don't. If we do, it limits the power of the federal government to the enumerated powers in the document and the powers that are necessary and proper to carry out the enumerated powers in the document. If we don't, members of Congress and senators can read the papers and the polls every morning, yawn and stretch, and then threaten any individual or business that displeases them in any way.

The First Amendment says "Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press...." A reasonable person might think that means Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech or of the press. If it doesn't, it's time to write a new amendment that does.

Copyright 2005 by Susan Shelley

You know you want it

Shhhh! Sneak preview of pope jokes from Argus Hamilton's Wednesday column:

-------------------------

Prince Charles had to postpone his wedding and cancel a hunting trip because of the pope's funeral. He feels haunted. If Prince Charles can't find the Viagra on his honeymoon night, he may have to consult a medium to ask the pope where he hid it.

Vatican City will host two hundred world leaders plus their security details at the pope's funeral in St. Peter's Cathedral Friday. Tensions are high. Until the new pope is installed, President Bush is the only man on earth who is infallible.

The Vatican scheduled the papal funeral in Rome for Friday. News coverage has been around-the-clock for a week. If President Bush wants to gain twenty points in his approval ratings he will stand up at the funeral and say ten Enough Alreadys.

President Bush eulogized John Paul II Saturday after news of the pope's death reached Washington D.C. He praised him as a champion of peace and as a friend to the downtrodden. However, the pope did not support the war in Iraq, so he had to go.

Bill Clinton told CBS News on Sunday how much Pope John Paul II meant to him personally. You could see he was upset. Bill Clinton figures that if a truly great man like John Paul II can't escape death, then his chances are practically none.

Cardinal Hummes said cardinals don't care from which continent the next pope comes. He said what matters is that they choose the right man for this moment in the history of the church. It seems a shame they missed Johnnie Cochran by two weeks.

Pope John Paul II, it was reported Tuesday, changed the rules for the election of a new pope ten years ago. There can be no trading of votes and no exchanging of favors. The cardinals will be locked in that room until all but one of them dies.

Pope John Paul II's would-be assassin Mehmet Ali Agca apologized Monday for wounding the pope twenty years ago. He confessed he was hired by the Soviet Union's KGB to shoot the pope. The KGB always stuck to its story that the pope fired first.

-------------------------

Read Argus Hamilton's daily column here

A baseball prediction

Happy Opening Day, baseball fans!

Here's a prediction from the Amazing Archives of Argus Hamilton:

"Barry Bonds refused all comment Thursday about steroids. Mark McGwire admits bulking up on androstenedione. By the time the home run record is returned to Roger Maris's family it will have made more wrong turns than Jessica Lynch's convoy."

That joke is from Argus Hamilton's column of Sunday, March 7, 2004. Stay tuned.

Sneak peek at Argus Hamilton's Tuesday column

You didn't hear it from me, but here's a preview of Argus Hamilton's Tuesday column for everyone who's ready for the pope jokes (Sensitive and easily offended on this subject? Hit your back button now.)

------------------

The Vatican started preparations Monday for the secret conclave in Rome that will elect the next pope. The behind-the-scenes campaigning for the top job is unbelievable. Hoping against all hope, Mel Gibson isn't looking at a woman all week.

The Masters tournament begins on Thursday at the famed Augusta National Golf Club in Georgia. The organizers aren't changing anything to accommodate the papal funeral. Just because the club discriminates against women doesn't make them Catholic.

Pope John Paul II died Saturday asking that the world be happy that he could finally meet the Lord. It was close. The pope passed away just minutes before Tom DeLay could get to the floor of the House to introduce legislation preventing it.

Pope John Paul II opposed stem cell research to cure his Parkinson's Disease due to church doctrine. Protestants feel differently. If stem cells could cure the common slice, there would be stem cell vending machines next to the ball washers.

President Bush announced Saturday he will travel to Rome to attend the pope's funeral. The president will be attending two burials. One for His Holiness and one for the Report on Intelligence Failures in Iraq that he wiped off the news by lingering all week.

Prince Charles said Sunday he would not change his wedding date Friday if it conflicts with the pope's funeral. It's because of the reception. He had to book the banquet hall two years in advance and his mother won't give him the deposit back.

------------------

You can read Argus Hamilton's daily column here whenever you're in the mood for it.

School fires Nazi for poor attendance

Fairleigh Dickinson University just fired an admittedly pro-Nazi history professor for poor attendance. Let's guess: The school was afraid to fire him for advocating the Nazi point of view because the courts might say the First Amendment protects Nazis from the perfectly rational decisions of their employers.

If the courts would just stick to the Constitution and not go wandering off, the First Amendment protects Nazis from being arrested by the federal government, not from being fired.

America Wants to Know if a school can possibly be required to employ a Nazi as a teacher. Good thing he had a rotten attendance record and we don't have to find out.

The nuclear option

The Democrats hauled George Mitchell out of retirement yesterday to decry the horrifyingly ungentlemanly plan by Senate Republican leaders to block Democratic filibusters of judicial nominees. "Unprecedented, unfair, and unwise," the former senator complained.

The problem here is not that the Senate is politicizing judicial nominations. The problem is that the judiciary has been making policy. The Senate confirmation process for judges is now the last chance for the people of the United States, through their elected representatives, to have any voice in the making of law and policy on abortion, discrimination, gay rights, prayer in the schools, police searches, even local panhandling ordinances. Of course people are riled up about judicial nominations. Of course they're going to the barricades. No amount of clucking over the unseemly tactics of either side is going to change that.

To change it, we will have to amend the Constitution to secure the rights that judges have given us over the last eighty years. We have never amended the Constitution to ban racial or gender discrimination. We have never amended the Constitution to establish privacy rights. We have never amended the Constitution to require the states to abide by the First Amendment or the rest of the Bill of Rights. We have relied on judges to do that for us. If they've done a little more than some of us want, there's no use whining about it now. We asked for it.

Read more about it here: A Retirement Plan for Sandra Day O'Connor