Brian Altenhofel

Supreme Court to Hear Westboro Case

Brian Altenhofel — Wed, 10 Mar 2010 13:00:00 +0000

It looks like the Supreme Court will hear the Snyder v. Phelps funeral picketing case. In case you don't know, the Phelps family is who runs Westboro Baptist Church. You might know them better for their "God Hates Fags" pickets or "Santa Claus Will Send You To Hell" video.

In September of 2009, the Fourth Circuit reversed a previous $5 million intentional infliction of emotional distress verdict against the Phelpsians. While I don't believe that what the Phelps family and Westboro Baptist Church does at soldiers' funerals (among other places) is right, I do believe that the Fourth Circuit was correct in their ruling.

By reversing the previous decision, the Fourth Circuit prevented the tort system from heading down a slippery slope. Under the laws that the original verdict was entered, the intentinal infliction of emotional distress tort had the unconstitutionally vague definition of an activity in which the defendant engages in (1) outrageous speech or conduct that (2) causes severe emotional distress to the plaintiff, and (3) the defendant intends to cause such distress, or is aware of a high probability that the speech or conduct will cause such distress.

Previously, in Hustler v. Falwell the Supreme Court held that tort to be unconstitutional in the case of public figures. Snyder v. Phelps aims to find the same interpretation applied to private figures. The defense of Phelps in this particular case would be a good outcome in that it would delay (and possibly prevent) similar torts applied in such cases as the infamous Muhammad cartoons, flag burning, or any speech or action that could remotely be considered offensive to someone.

Trackback URL for this post:

http://www.altenhofel.com/trackback/631

Surely Brogdon Didn't Mean What He Said

Brian Altenhofel — Wed, 10 Mar 2010 06:00:00 +0000

The McCarville Report posted that Senator Randy Brogdon received an endorsement from the Gun Owners of America Political Victory Fund for his gubernatorial campaign in Oklahoma. Here's a quote from him (my emphasis):

"I am one of the few elected officials,” says Brogdon, “who truly understands what the Second Amendment is all about. It’s not about a turkey shoot, or a quail hunt, it’s really not even about me being able to protect myself from you, or vice versa. The Second Amendment states that you and I have the right to bear arms in the event that the federal government gets out of control."

I'll give Mr. Brogdon the benefit of the doubt that he meant exactly what he said. From his record, I am inclined to believe that it was an honest slip of the tongue, but you never know in politics. For all we know it could have just been a Freudian slip.

Trackback URL for this post:

http://www.altenhofel.com/trackback/630

Oklahoma Senate Approves Bible Teaching in Public Schools

Brian Altenhofel — Wed, 10 Mar 2010 03:15:00 +0000

Recently, the Oklahoma Senate overwhelmingly approved a bill to allow elective courses on the Bible in public schools. Now before you jump to conclusions, I don't think this is a bad thing. A lot of American (and world) law is based off of principles taught in the Bible, and students may not fully grasp the principles without an opportunity to learn about them from their source. However, students should also be afforded the same opportunity to take courses on other religious texts, including the Quran, on their roles in history and the development of the laws we have today.

While the Constitution does not mention the phrase "separation of church and state," it is clear that that was the intent of the Framers with the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment which reads "Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." Thomas Jefferson affirms this in his letter to the Danbury Baptists. (It can be reasonably argued that the current educational environment violates the second part of that clause in that a student must dismiss his belief of Creation, Reincarnation, etc. in order to pass a science class.)

If this measure passes and students are allowed to study the Bible in public school, then they must be allowed to study other texts. No but's.

Now, here's where the irony lies: the same people who rally against elective courses on the Bible claiming that they are unconstitutional are the same who rally for government run healthcare. These people continually bring up Roe v. Wade in regards to abortion and religious freedom.

Contrary to popular belief, Roe v. Wade was not decided on where the Supreme Court thought life began, but rather on issues of privacy. These Right to Privacy cases began with Griswold v. Conneticutt in 1965 and have continued through today. The courts have continually taken the position that the Constitution mandated a zone of personal privacy to remain free from government regulation with the exception of only the most exceptional of circumstances.

According to the Court in Planned Parenthood v. Casey in 1992, "these matters, involving the most intimate and personal choices a person may make in a lifetime, choices central to personal dignity and autonomy, are central to the liberty protected by the Fourteenth Amendment. At the heart of liberty is the right to define one's own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and the mystery of human life." I'm very certain that the latter sentence there can be directly applied to one's religion.

Therefore, I can confidently conclude that if you are against this law, then you must be against the recent abortion law, and also against government run healthcare. If not, then you are either ignorant or a hypocrite... or both.

Trackback URL for this post:

http://www.altenhofel.com/trackback/625

How It Became Acceptable to Bastardize the Constitution

Brian Altenhofel — Sun, 07 Mar 2010 07:05:19 +0000

During the Great Depression, the FDR administration imposed limits on crop production to artificially increase the price of food. Yeah, that makes PERFECT sense when people are starving and is another reason why I believe the policies of the FDR administration led to the Great Depression being much worse than it could've been.

A man by the name of Roscoe Filburn was told to plant a little over 10 acres of wheat. He planted that 10 acres and sold it on the market. However, he also planted an additional ten for consumption by his own family to save money due to lack of revenue because of the limits on how much he could plant. His reasoning was that since the wheat was never entering the market, it was not subject to federal regulation under the Interstate Commerce Clause of the Constitution.

When Uncle Sam found out about this, Filburn was ordered to destroy his excess crops and pay a fine. Seriously. He was ordered to destroy the extra 10 acres of wheat while many Americans at the time were starving due to a lack of food production due to the Dust Bowl. What kind of sense does that make? About as much sense as its modern parallel (i.e. corporate bailouts).

Filburn sued and the case went all the way to the Supreme Court. In Wickard v. Filburn, the Supreme Court ruled against Filburn and set the precedent that seems to grant the federal government power to regulate anything under the sun provided it could affect interstate commerce, even if they had to stretch to apply that principle. In this particular case, the Court reasoned that because this was 10 acres worth of wheat that Filburn would not be purchasing through the markets, Filburn's actions had impacted interstate commerce and where therefore subject to any and all regulations pertaining to wheat production. This is clearly not what the founding fathers had in mind.

Fast forward to the 1990's. California voted to legalize marijuana for medicinal purposes. Angel Raich was informed by her doctor and California state law that her use of marijuana to relieve the pain associated with her brain tumor was acceptable. However, the Feds thought differently.

You see, Uncle Sam doesn't take too kindly to states enacting laws that contradict federal law. At the federal level, marijuana is wrongfully classified as a Schedule I drug (as in considered worse than heroin and crystal meth). Of course, federal agencies refuse to recognize state laws, even though the Tenth Amendment suggests that they should. They proceeded to destroy her homegrown marijuana (legal under California law) that had never entered into interstate commerce.

Raich sued and, like Filburn before, took it all the way to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court stretched a little further and determined that since she wasn't purchasing her illegal drug off the black market, her actions were having an impact on the black market which is a form of interstate commerce. So in other words, the Supreme Court basically said that the federal government has the power to regulate an illegal market.

Clarence Thomas famously wrote in the dissent, “If the majority is to be taken seriously, the Federal Government may now regulate quilting bees, clothes drives, and potluck suppers throughout the 50 States. This makes a mockery of Madison’s assurance to the people of New York that the 'powers delegated' to the Federal Government are 'few and defined', while those of the States are 'numerous and indefinite.'" You will not see much truer words from a Supreme Court justice about how far America has strayed from the founding fathers' visions.

Trackback URL for this post:

http://www.altenhofel.com/trackback/620

What Would Jefferson (or Madison) Do?

Brian Altenhofel — Fri, 05 Mar 2010 13:00:00 +0000

There are many parallels between the Alien and Sedition Acts of 1798 and the Patriot Act of 2001. You would’ve thought that Americans would’ve learned in history class about the lessons to be learned from 1798.... oh wait, we don’t really teach the parts of history we don’t like anymore.

“It is a universal truth that the loss of liberty at home is to be charged to the provisions against danger, real or pretended, from abroad.” - James Madison

“[The people are] made for a moment to be willing instruments in forging chains for themselves.” - Thomas Jefferson

The above statements were made in 1798 regarding the Alien and Sedition Acts. You can also apply those statements today to the Patriot Act (or just about any Act of Congress that threatens our liberties).

An environment of fear and distrust of the French in the 1790’s led to the Acts. These Acts gave President John Adams the power to deport any alien he considered suspicious. These Acts also prohibited criticism of the Federal government.

An environment of fear and distrust in the wake of the September 11, 2001 attacks led to the Patriot Act. Using this Act, the Federal government routinely violates the First and Fourth amendment rights of American citizens.

In response to the Alien and Sedition Acts, Thomas Jefferson and James Madison anonymously drafted the Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions which declared the Acts void because Congress exceeded their powers. We need the same thing to happen today.

Trackback URL for this post:

http://www.altenhofel.com/trackback/608

Oklahoma Lawmakers Want to Restrict Access to Information

Brian Altenhofel — Fri, 05 Mar 2010 04:00:00 +0000

There is a report from News9 that there are numerous bills (as usual) in the State Legislature which have the purpose of limiting the public’s access to information. Included are limits to autopsy reports, employee birth dates, municipal court information, and records of the Oklahoma Film and Music Office.

Personally, I believe that citizens have a right to know everything about their government. I guess some of our reps disagree.

Trackback URL for this post:

http://www.altenhofel.com/trackback/607

Oklahoma Senate Approves SB 1685

Brian Altenhofel — Fri, 05 Mar 2010 03:31:59 +0000

The Oklahoma Senate overwhelmingly passed Senator Brogdon's "Oklahoma Firearms Freedom Act" by a 39-3 vote. Now, it is on its way to the House, where it will be considered alongside HB 2994. Both bills have virtually identical text.

I wouldn't hold my breath for Gov. Henry to sign it. He has historically been against any legislation which asserts states' rights.

Trackback URL for this post:

http://www.altenhofel.com/trackback/611

It's For Your Safety

Brian Altenhofel — Fri, 05 Mar 2010 02:04:48 +0000

Last weekend, Congress quietly renewed the PATRIOT Act for one year while we were fixated on Obamacare. The Senate was unanimous, while the House was 315-97 in favor.

I find it quite ironic that the same Democrats who decried the PATRIOT Act as the worst ever Act of Congress voted in favor of renewing it. This just goes to show that it doesn’t matter what our representatives say or where they appear to stand on an issue, but it only matters how it helps them.

Trackback URL for this post:

http://www.altenhofel.com/trackback/606

...But It's For The Children!

Brian Altenhofel — Fri, 26 Feb 2010 05:58:22 +0000

Have you checked out the latest unfunded mandate that will appear on the Oklahoma ballot in November? It is State Question 744.

According to Hope4OurKids.org, Oklahoma's per-pupil spending on education is the lowest in the region. Is that a problem? Yes, considering all the wasteful spending that goes on in the education system. SQ744 would require Oklahoma to raise per-pupil spending by $1627 to get on par with the regional average, but it doesn't specify a source of funding. This is where we run into problems.

According to the FAQ on their website:

"HOPE does not call for a tax increase. Revenue growth in the state budget has increased an average of 5.2% a year over the past 25 years. Those revenue growth increases will generate more than $1.5 billion by the time HOPE is fully implemented by the Oklahoma legislature. This means that more than $600 million will be available to provide additional funding for other state agencies."

Hmm... I think if you've paid attention to the Oklahoma state government's current financial issues, you would be privy to the fact that you cannot rely on past averages to fund things in the future. For example, a large portion of Oklahoma tax revenues is from the oil and gas industries. However, after increasing spending when oil was around $140 a barrel and natural gas around $13 per mmbtu, Oklahoma started experiencing huge shortfalls when drilling slowed and nearly halted due to oil dropping to around $40 a barrel and natural gas around $4 per mmbtu.

To make SQ744 even worse, Oklahoma is (rightfully) a balanced budget state, meaning that it is actually illegal for the state (or any state entity, including public schools) to operate in the red. So what are we supposed to do about this unfunded mandate when we have another down year, or possible a series of down years? You guessed it... raise taxes by about 35%! And if they don't raise taxes from the get-go, then not only will they have to raise them by a (likely) higher amount, but they will be having to raise taxes when Oklahomans are already having to tighten their belts just to stay afloat.

So... if they have to raise taxes... where will they raise them? Income taxes? Oklahoma's current income tax rate is 5.5%. In order to raise the claimed $850 million (if you do the math, it's really just over $1 billion, but we'll use their fuzzy math to keep them happy) that rate would increase to 7.35%. Oklahoma would then have the highest income tax rate in the region, and 15th highest in the country. Sales taxes are currently 4.5% and would have to be raised to 6.175% - just below the 6.25% in Texas (and you'd have to kiss the possibility of taxless groceries goodbye).

So how is it determined how much is spent and how? Simple. The legislation uses a formula based off of other states' spending figures in the region to determine how much should be spent per pupil. That means the spending of nearly half of your tax dollars will be dictated not by Oklahoma, but by surrounding states. There is nothing to mandate how the funds are spent, just that they have to be spent. This means the school board can spend it wherever they want. There is even a clause that mandates that the funding can NEVER go down, even if the regional average or tax receipts drastically drop.

State Question 744 is bad news for Oklahoma.

Trackback URL for this post:

http://www.altenhofel.com/trackback/600

A Tradition of Nullification

Brian Altenhofel — Thu, 25 Feb 2010 22:43:11 +0000

Around the country, many states have introduced nullification legislation. These measures have usually been titled “Firearms Freedom Act” because they usually deal with the issue of federal firearm registration. Typically, these measures include provisions that guns, accessories, and ammunition manufactured within a state, sold within that state, and never leaves that state is not subject to the Interstate Commerce Clause.

Recently in Oklahoma, four bills were introduced with nearly identical text – House Bill 2884, House Bill 2994, House Bill 3239, and Senate Bill 1685. (Currently, HB3239 is dead apparently due to an open carry amendment being added to it without permission from House leaders.) Last year, Montana and Tennessee passed their Firearms Freedom Act into law. Pennsylvania is considering an amendment to their State Constitution rather than a law.

Nullification, which is what these bills are doing, has a steeped tradition in American history. (However, they may gloss or skip over it in the history books now since they don’t want our children educated on Constitutional rights that they may not agree with.) Thomas Jefferson and James Madison started it with the Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions in response to the Alien and Sedition Acts. South Carolina in 1832 nullified the federal Tariffs of 1828 and 1832. During the 1920’s there was quite a push for nullification of federal liquor laws. And recently, the Real ID Act passed by the Bush Administration in 2005 has been effectively nullified by the efforts of 24 states; this is in addition to the 14 states that have nullified federal marijuana laws.

So what exactly is nullification? Nullification is based on the Tenth Amendment and is the state assuming a position that a federal law is unconstitutional and inherently null and void within the boundaries of that state.

Thomas Jefferson probably said it best in the Kentucky Resolutions of 1798:

“The several states composing the United States of America are not united on the principle of unlimited submission to their general government”

If you look around today, you will find that those words still ring true 212 years later. The United States was founded on the principles of Natural Law which includes the principle of separation of powers. The Constitution clearly spells out the powers of each branch of the federal government and clearly reserves to the States and the People any powers not explicitly granted to the federal government. Through complete and total bastardization of the Interstate Commerce Clause, the federal government has acted repeatedly outside of the bounds of the Constitution.

Hopefully, this is an indicator of the several states becoming united in asserting their Tenth Amendment rights and placing the federal government back in check. Just in 2010, there have been bills introduced which nullify socialized medicine, cap and trade, legal tender laws, abuse of national guard troops, and federal income taxes. (While we’re on that, someone should really add the federal fuel tax to the list... but that’s another post in itself.)

However, don’t expect the federal government to relinquish its stranglehold on the States and the People easily. Remember the speed limit laws? Or the drinking age laws? Uncle Sam offered to refuse to return any federal taxes collected in a state to that state unless they adhered to the federal regulations. When the first Firearms Freedom Act goes through the Supreme Court, don’t expect even the “conservative” Justices to side with the Constitution. But if it does make it through and the Court determines that the states can nullify firearms laws, then you’ll see another wave of federal strong arming in an attempt to force the states to comply with the federal government’s demands.

Trackback URL for this post:

http://www.altenhofel.com/trackback/597