Brian Altenhofel

Why the Oklahoma Personhood Act is Unnecessary Political Pandering

Brian Altenhofel — Sat, 18 Feb 2012 17:16:06 +0000

Pretty simple: it already exists.

The Oklahoma Personhood Act attempts to add a new section to Oklahoma law to define "unborn child" as "[including] all unborn children or the offspring of human beings from the moment of conception until birth at every stage of biological development."

The puppets at the State Capitol and in the news media have the people convinced that such a provision does not exist and that this Act is a necessary means to fight abortion. Yet this definition of life beginning at conception already exists in Oklahoma law (and is what is currently used to charge someone who allegedly kills a pregnant woman with a second murder charge for the unborn child). It's pretty easy to find - you just have to search for "abortion" in the statutes.

63 O.S. § 1-730(A)(4)

"Unborn child" means the unborn offspring of human beings from the moment of conception, through pregnancy, and until live birth including the human conceptus, zygote, morula, blastocyst, embryo and fetus;

Since 1978, it has been the law of Oklahoma that life begins at conception. Sadly, many Oklahoma politicians are trying to lie to you and convince you otherwise for the sole purpose of gaining and securing votes.

The Oklahoma Personhood Act is a simple waste of time and resources and is solely a means of political pandering by the Oklahoma Republican Party, much like the "Save Our State" Amendment of 2010.

Trackback URL for this post:

http://www.altenhofel.com/trackback/1458

Oklahoma House Public Health Committee Votes to Raise Tobacco Age to 21

Brian Altenhofel — Wed, 15 Feb 2012 01:11:09 +0000

The Oklahoma Nanny Association Public Health Committee voted 7-5 in favor of raising the minimum age for tobacco products to 21. (HB 2314)

So (if this actually passes) not only will you not be able to drink after going to war, but you also won't be able to have a smoke in Oklahoma.

"While tobacco was once seen as a harmless vice, that is clearly not the case," Coody said. "If we can discourage young people from smoking, it will benefit that young person's health and ultimately benefit our state economy through greater productivity and lower health expenses."

In other words... Don't worry. It's all because you can't make decisions for yourself.

Trackback URL for this post:

http://www.altenhofel.com/trackback/1457

Firearms Bills Introduced for 2012 in Oklahoma

Brian Altenhofel — Wed, 18 Jan 2012 05:00:20 +0000

So far, three bills related to firearms (that I could find, at least), have been slated to be introduced when the session starts up again in February. As the session approaches and wears on, I will try to keep this updated.

HB 2193

HB 2193 by Rep. Jason Murphey doesn't really need a whole lot of discussion. It simply proposes to amend firearm storage laws to include ammunition. This is presumably to prevent employers and other entities from being able to enforce policies that prohibit the storage of ammunition rather than just the storage of a firearm in locked vehicles in parking lots. What good is that gun that you carry without ammunition, after all?

SB 1076

SB 1076 by Sen. Steve Russell adds a preclusion to the issuing of a concealed handgun license. This preclusion prohibits the issuing of a concealed handgun license to an individual who has previously been determined incompetent by a lawful authority. However, while it does not allow an exemption for most individuals who have successfully had their alleged mental illness treated, it does allow an exemption for veterans who have successfully undergone treatment for post traumatic stress disorder.

SB 1092

SB 1092 by Sen. Steve Russell allows NRA instructors or Oklahoma Self Defense Act instructors to issue a document to students that they deem qualified to carry a firearm openly. There are no fees attached, however, a prerequisite is that they have been instructed on the open carry laws of Oklahoma.

The bill does not state whether or not this instruction can be in conjunction with or must be in addition to the current course offered for a concealed handgun license. It does not require the document to be issued. It does not set nor does it prohibit a fee for the document.

Trackback URL for this post:

http://www.altenhofel.com/trackback/1456

More About Yesterday's Decision on Sharia Law in Oklahoma

Brian Altenhofel — Wed, 11 Jan 2012 15:37:45 +0000

I had the chance to read the opinion last night, so I should be able to offer some takeaways today.

First of all, I wholly agree with the 10th Circuit's opinion that the "Save Our State" Amendment is likely unconstitutional under the Establishment Clause because it only prohibits the use of one form of religious law regardless of whether it is being called upon in civil or criminal court. It enshrines this notion into the Oklahoma Constitution that Islam is somehow an inferior religion which should not be allowed to exist in Oklahoma.

The Oklahoma Attorney General's office argued that the word "cultures" in the amendment should be interpreted as "religions". But as the 10th Circuit noted, making this substitution implies that religious law deemed to be part of Oklahoma's local culture would be acceptable in Oklahoma courts, while the laws of other religions would not.

Now, I'm not saying that religious law should be an allowed criminal defense. Religious laws should not be singled out (especially by religion) as to whether or not they are a valid criminal defense. What the legislature should have done was offer an amendment to prohibit cultural defenses in general (which would prohibit such defenses as used in People v. Chen, People v. Moua, and People v. Kimura).

But the problem with SQ 755 is that it also prohibits the use of Sharia Law in interpreting civil disputes that arise from an agreement which is based on Sharia Law (such as a Will or a private contract), as well as prohibiting Oklahoma courts from enforcing a foreign judgment (such as Panama Process, S.A. v. Cities Service Co., 1990 OK 66, 796 P.2d) arising from an international contract calling for the use of the laws of another country for interpretation of the contract.

The only reason that "Sharia Law" was specificially cited in the text of the amendment was to play political games for the upcoming elections. Vote against it, and you're accused of supporting criminal immunity for "honor killings".

The Oklahoma Attorney General's office argued that the compelling state interest furthered by the amendment is simply an "interest in determining what law is applied in Oklahoma courts." But the State could not identify a single problem for the amendment to solve. As was pointed out by many of us who were opposed to SQ 755, this amendment was a "solution" looking for a problem.

Furthermore, the Oklahoma Attorney General's office makes the claim that the "will of the people" outweighs any harms done to those affected by legislation. This is an argument that we see come up time and time again by the 70% of the voters of the state of Oklahoma that supported SQ 755. But I think that shallow, arrogant, and ignorant argument was addressed quite well in the opinion.

I believe that the 10th Circuit is right to uphold the injunction against SQ 755. What is important is that rights protected by the Constitution remain protected, whether you agree with those particular rights or not. Apparently, 70% of Oklahomans do not agree that the same Constitutional protections should apply to those whose religion they do not agree with.

But to say that the will of the people trumps liberty (especially when that liberty is already protected by "the will of the people") simply because a majority of voters supported a measure is like having two wolves and a sheep take a vote on what's for dinner.

By the way, as Jay Norton pointed out on yesterday's post, there is a good analysis of the severability of the part about Sharia Law and if the Attorney General failed to adequately defend the amendment over on The Volokh Conspiracy.

Trackback URL for this post:

http://www.altenhofel.com/trackback/1455

10th Circuit Upholds Injunction Against Oklahoma's "Save Our State" Amendment

Brian Altenhofel — Tue, 10 Jan 2012 18:19:20 +0000

The 10th Circuit has upheld the injunction against State Question 755. That is the amendment to the Oklahoma Constitution that resulted from politicians pandering to popular xenophobia.

I haven't had the chance to completely read the 37 page opinion from the 10th Circuit yet. But I believe they are right to uphold the injunction, as it is a fundamental violation of liberty to prohibit people from entering into their own agreements solely because of their religious beliefs.

Trackback URL for this post:

http://www.altenhofel.com/trackback/1454

Iowa Republicans Choose Obama-equivalent Candidates in Caucus

Brian Altenhofel — Wed, 04 Jan 2012 13:51:17 +0000

As you probably know by now, Mitt Romney and Rick Santorum came out of Iowa in what basically amounts as a tie with Romney taking 30,015 votes and Santorum taking 30,007 votes. Ron Paul came in third with 26,219 votes (although the Fox News article expectedly paints him as an also-ran comparable with Rick Perry's dismal performance of 12,604 votes).

So what does this tell me about Iowa? Iowa Republicans have a thing for big government and against liberty. And considering that the slogan of the GOP for the past 3 years has been "Beat Obama, no matter what the consequences", it looks like the GOP has no problem electing an Obama-equivalent as long as there is an "R" after the name.

Trackback URL for this post:

http://www.altenhofel.com/trackback/1453

House Passes HR 1540 - Authorizing Indefinite Military Detention of Citizens Without Due Process

Brian Altenhofel — Thu, 15 Dec 2011 06:03:36 +0000

The United States House of Representatives passed HR 1540, a bill that authorizes indefinite military detention of American citizens for simply being suspected of supporting "terrorism". No due process or evidence required - just a unilateral accusation that you may be involved in or supporting terrorism.

I don't have much time to blog right now, so I won't be spending a lot of time on this. But I do want to point out that part of the DOJ/FBI criteria for being a terrorist is having at least one of the following traits: large amounts of ammunition, more than a week's worth of food, a finger that is damaged or missing, etc.

If you'd like to directly support Fascism, remember to vote for (and especially contribute to) everyone who voted for Sections 1031 and 1032 in this bill, including those in the Senate.

Trackback URL for this post:

http://www.altenhofel.com/trackback/1452

Senate Republicans Confirm Support of Indefinite Detainment of US Citizens

Brian Altenhofel — Fri, 02 Dec 2011 02:49:51 +0000

The Senate has again voted on an amendment that would attempt to fix the language in S 1867 that allows for indefinite detention of US citizens without trial if they are deemed hostile by the government.

And many Senate Republicans, including Oklahoma Senators Tom Coburn and Jim Inhofe, voted against an amendment today where that vote can only be interpreted one way: the vote shows that they undeniably support the notion that government has the power to declare when and where a citizen has the Right to Due Process, and that Due Process can be denied at the government's will.

Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) proposed Amendment No. 1126 with very simple and very clear language.

On page 360, between lines 21 and 22, insert the following:

(e) Applicability to Citizens.--The authority described in this section for the Armed Forces of the United States to detain a person does not include the authority to detain a citizen of the United States without trial until the end of the hostilities.

Each and every Senator that voted against this amendment to S 1867 confirmed that they do not believe that Americans have a Right to Due Process if the government does not want them to have that right in a given situation.

Each and every Senator that voted against this amendment to S 1867 confirmed that they should never be re-elected.

Trackback URL for this post:

http://www.altenhofel.com/trackback/1451

Republicans Overwhelmingly Support Unconstitutional Detainment of Citizens

Brian Altenhofel — Wed, 30 Nov 2011 17:12:24 +0000

Senator Tom Udall (D-NM) offered an amendment to S 1867 to strike the provision that would allow for the unconstitutional detainment of American citizens alleged to be involved in terrorism. According to Senator Rand Paul (R-KY), the criteria used by the Department of Justice includes such asinine traits like missing a finger or being in possession of more than 7 days' worth of food at a time.

The amendment failed.

The breakdown by party?

Democrats: 37-16-1

Republicans: 2-44-1

The 61 Senators who voted against the amendment, including Senators Tom Coburn and James Inhofe from Oklahoma, should be held accountable for their votes in the 2012 election.

Keep in mind that this is an appropriations bill that has originated in the Senate. But remember that the companion bill from the House (HR 1540) with similar language overwhelmingly passed the House back in May.

S 1867 is likely to get blue-slipped by the House when it passes the Senate. But HR 1540 is still available for consideration in the Senate.

Trackback URL for this post:

http://www.altenhofel.com/trackback/1450

Federal Judge Orders Alleged Counterfeit Domains Seized Without Due Process

Brian Altenhofel — Wed, 30 Nov 2011 03:27:37 +0000

Here's a scary read, especially with Congress currently considering SOPA and the PROTECT-IP Act which would give this kind of power to rights-holders by law.

Chanel has filed suit in Nevada against hundreds of alleged importers of counterfeit Chanel-branded goods. And Judge Kent Dawson deemed an investigation by Chanel finding that the sites were selling counterfeit goods good enough to enter an injunction against those sites.

That's right. Chanel, the rights-holder, conducted the investigation and drew the conclusions, rather than an independent third party. And the judge says that is enough to take down the websites which may or may not be located in the United States.

If this stands (and my bet right now is that it will unless someone takes this case pro bono for the defendants), then why do we even need SOPA or PROTECT-IP to give rights-holders this kind of legal power? I mean, according to the injunction, notice is considered served when an email has been sent to the email address on file with the domain registrar and when the URL of the site has been posted in the documents at http://servingnotice.com/sdv/index.html.

At that point, the court order says that the domain is to be under the control of GoDaddy, and GoDaddy is ordered to point the domain to MediaTemple's nameservers. In doing that, the domains that were pointing to websites that were allegedly trafficking will now be pointing to the above document list. Furthermore, the court order also requires that the sites be de-indexed by search engines, as well as Facebook and Twitter.

So based on this case, all that a rights-holder has to do is tell the court that they believe that you may have infringed on their rights, and then it is up to you to pay the bones to prove your innocence or just "settle".

Trackback URL for this post:

http://www.altenhofel.com/trackback/1449