Former Law Enforcement Against Prohibition member Bradley Jardis has been removed from the organization due to his public stance that he would no longer arrest medical marijuana patients. Here is his announcement: (more…)
The Supreme Court of Minnesota on Thursday upheld the drunk driving conviction of a man caught asleep behind the wheel of a vehicle that would not start. At 11:30pm on June 11, 2007, police found Daryl Fleck sleeping in his own legally parked car in his apartment complex parking lot. The vehicle’s engine was cold to the touch, indicating it had not been driven recently. The keys were in the center console, not the ignition. Fleck admitted to having consumed around a dozen beers that night. Officers at the scene arrested him, and his blood alcohol level was found to be .18.
Laws covering driving under the influence of alcohol (DUI) have evolved over the years to cover the situations where police find a parked, but recently driven, vehicle with a drunk behind the wheel. In the 1992 case Minnesota v. Starfield, the court found a drunk passenger sitting in a vehicle stuck in a ditch guilty of DUI, but not because it could prove she really was the one who drove and caused the accident. Instead, the court ruled that “towing assistance [was] likely available” creating the theoretical possibility that the immobile vehicle could “easily” be made mobile. These defendants have been charged under an expanded definition that suggests having “dominion and control” with the mere potential to drive is a crime. Intending to sleep off a night of drinking treated as the same crime as attempting to drive home under this legal theory which does not take motive into account. [Think about this: You're drunk. You get into your car in order to sleep off your condition so that you can be sober enough to drive later on—yet that's still considered drunk driving!!!]
As Fleck was an unsympathetic figure with multiple DUI convictions in his past, prosecutors had no problem convincing a jury to convict. The court took up Fleck’s case to expand the precedent to cover the case of mere presence in an undriven—and perhaps undrivable—car into the definition of drunk driving. The court relied on Fleck’s drunken claim that his car was operable to set aside the physical evidence to the contrary. [This has to be the first time in modern jurisprudence where eyewitness testimony holds more weight than the actual physical evidence!! Talk about setting a landmark precedent.]
After months of being largely dismissed in a race dominated by the state’s two Republican heavyweights, Debra Medina is making her presence felt with an anti-establishment message that has evidently struck a chord among a segment of Republican voters.
Buoyed by her performance against Gov. Rick Perry and U.S. Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison in last week’s televised debate, the conservative activist has climbed to 12 percent in the latest Rasmussen Reports poll, up from 4 percent in November, a showing that prompted organizers to include her in a second debate Jan. 29. Continue the article at Star-Telegram
On Thursday, January the 14th, three candidates hoping to gain the Republican nomination for Texas governor took the stage to debate one another in front of a live audience, with it all being televised all around the state. These three candidates consisted of Texas governor Rick Perry, U.S. Senator Kay Bailey Hutchinson, and the outsider, Wharton County Republican Party chair Debra Medina.
It was a relatively “normal” debate for the establishment candidates, Perry and Hutchinson. They danced around the questions all night and fired back and forth at one another, wasting time and “bickering” as Medina rightly put it. Through all of their banter, they largely tried to marginalize Medina by ignoring her and talking through their allotted time. Perry couldn’t answer simple questions about jobs or the Texas economy, nor was he able to repent for his attempted landgrabs from Texas property owners. Hutchinson was also unable to answer simple questions about the Texas economy, floundered in her attempts to justify her support of the massive federal intervention and bailouts while trying to say that she was against them, and seemed like she might have a seizure if pressed any further about her stance on Roe v. Wade. At least Medina brought up the fact that by decreasing the size of our government, it will make the citizens more prosperous by not taking as much of their money, which will help stimulate the economy. (more…)
This article concerns the hijacking of Texas education standards, and in actuality, a large proportion of the nation’s standards. Admittedly, there is a “left slant” to this article, but the points made are relevant and worthwhile. It is alarming to me that the education standards are hijacked by either side of the bias’. There is definitely something fowl in Texas though.
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2010/1001.blake.html
The City Council voted Tuesday to legalize gay marriage, giving supporters a victory after a string of recent defeats elsewhere and sending the issue to Congress, which has final say over laws in the nation’s capital.
Mayor Adrian Fenty has promised to sign the bill, which passed 11-2, and gay couples could begin marrying as early as March if Congress allows it to become law. Democratic congressional leaders have suggested they are reluctant to get involved, though gay marriage opponents say they will try to get it overturned either in Congress or at the polls.
Federal lawmakers declined to weigh in the last time they had a chance, after the council voted in May to recognize gay marriages performed elsewhere. Congress let that bill become law without taking any action, avoiding what could have amounted to a referendum on gay marriage.
Read the article at Yahoo!
GARLAND, Texas — Tim Timmons is not your average pot smoker.
The former risk management consultant, college professor and stand-out athlete has never considered himself a hippy or a pothead.
Even so, Timmons has been smoking marijuana nearly every day for the past six years. He doesn’t smoke to get high. According to him, he’s just taking his medicine.
Timmons is slowly wasting away from Multiple Sclerosis, a painful disease that attacks the nervous system.
“I would be considered in one of the final stages of the disease right now,” Timmons said.
Diagnosed 22 years ago, the former football player and bull rider is now confined to a wheel chair. He is paralyzed from the waist down and no longer has control over his bladder or bowels. Timmons relies on his wife to help him go to the bathroom, take a bath and get in and out of bed.
In addition to losing control of his muscles, Timmons must also live with a great deal of pain and frequent muscle spasms. Read the story at KSAT
John Quincy Adams once said that the United States does not go “abroad, in search of monsters to destroy.” We all know that ceased to be true a long time ago. Over the last hundred years or so America has identified (created) a number of monsters and in most instances has been unsuccessful in destroying them (the communist threats in Korea, Vietnam, Central America, and the Soviet Union (which destroyed itself economically), and the terrorist threats of Osama bin Laden, Al Qaeda, etc.).
Our global search for monsters has resulted in a national debt which has increased from about $3 billion in 1914 to more than $12 trillion today. Our War on Monsters has cost the lives of more than 600,000 American military personnel since World War I. The world has also paid untold amounts of treasure and innocent lives in America’s offensive assault on the monsters.
Article at Campaign for Liberty
An opponent of same-sex marriage, Rhode Island Governor Carcieri has vetoed bill that would have added “domestic partners” to the list of people authorized by law to make funeral arrangements for each other.
In his veto message, Republican Carcieri said: “This bill represents a disturbing trend over the past few years of the incremental erosion of the principles surrounding traditional marriage, which is not the preferred way to approach this issue.
“If the General Assembly believes it would like to address the issue of domestic partnerships, it should place the issue on the ballot and let the people of the state of Rhode Island decide.”
The bill, also sponsored by state Sen. Rhoda Perry and state Rep. David Segal, would add “domestic partners” to the list, in current law, of people who can legally make arrangements for a deceased person’s funeral, cremation or burial to include domestic partners if the deceased person left no pre-arranged funeral contract.
Story at The Providence Journal
Don’t mess with anyone in Texas online. Effective September 1, 2009, a new Texas law makes it a crime to engage in various activities on commercial social networking sites or by e-mail, instant messaging etc. You can read the actual text of the bill below. Although self-explanatory (to lawyers at least), it seems pretty clear that Texas lawmakers don’t want people impersonating others on the Internet in order to harm, threaten, intimidate, or defraud anyone. The law also covers text messaging. Note that depending on the activities involved, the crime can be either a Class A Misdemeanor or a 3rd degree felony.
Expect there to be legal challenges to the constitutionality of this law. That being said, you don’t want to be the person arrested under it who has to pay the legal bills for that challenge.
H.B. No. 2003
AN ACT
relating to the creation of the offense of online harassment.
BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF TEXAS:
SECTION 1. Chapter 33, Penal Code, is amended by adding
Section 33.07 to read as follows:
Sec. 33.07. ONLINE HARASSMENT. (a) A person commits an
offense if the person uses the name or persona of another person to
create a web page on or to post one or more messages on a commercial
social networking site :
(1) without obtaining the other person’s consent; and
(2) with the intent to harm, defraud, intimidate, or
threaten any person.
(b) A person commits an offense if the person sends an
electronic mail, instant message, text message, or similar
communication that references a name, domain address, phone number,
or other item of identifying information belonging to any person:
(1) without obtaining the other person’s consent;
(2) with the intent to cause a recipient of the
communication to reasonably believe that the other person
authorized or transmitted the communication; and
(3) with the intent to harm or defraud any person.
(c) An offense under Subsection (a) is a felony of the third
degree. An offense under Subsection (b) is a Class A misdemeanor,
except that the offense is a felony of the third degree if the actor
commits the offense with the intent to solicit a response by
emergency personnel.
(d) If conduct that constitutes an offense under this
section also constitutes an offense under any other law, the actor
may be prosecuted under this section, the other law, or both.
(e) It is a defense to prosecution under this section that
the actor is any of the following entities or that the actor’s
conduct consisted solely of action taken as an employee of any of
the following entities:
(1) a commercial social networking site ;
(2) an Internet service provider;
(3) an interactive computer service, as defined by 47
U.S.C. Section 230;
(4) a telecommunications provider, as defined by
Section 51.002, Utilities Code; or
(5) a video service provider or cable service
provider, as defined by Section 66.002, Utilities Code.
(f) In this section:
(1) ” Commercial social networking site ” means any
business, organization, or other similar entity operating a website
that permits persons to become registered users for the purpose of
establishing personal relationships with other users through
direct or real-time communication with other users or the creation
of web pages or profiles available to the public or to other users.
The term does not include an electronic mail program or a message
board program.
(2) “Identifying information” has the meaning
assigned by Section 32.51.
SECTION 2. This Act takes effect September 1, 2009.
For those of us keeping a casual eye on the death penalty it seems that every few months you hear about a capital case where troubling questions have been raised, usually because new advances in forensic technology are allowing testing that wasn’t possible at the time of the crime… At this rate it’s not hard to imagine that some day the United States could execute an innocent person.
What is hard to imagine is that a state might actually admit that it had executed an innocent person. But up until recently, Texas was getting awfully close.
Thanks to David Grann’s piece in the New Yorker last month, the case of Cameron Todd Willingham is getting the exposure it deserves. Willingham was executed by the state of Texas for setting fire to his home in 1991. The blaze killed his three young children. His conviction was largely a result of the testimony of two local arson investigators, who said Mr Willingham had deliberately set the fire. But subsequent reviews found troubling problems with the arson finding. In 2004, as Willingham sat on death row protesting his innocence, an independent investigator reviewed the original report and concluded that the fire was accidental and that the initial investigation was based on “junk science”. That report was sent to the governor’s office and the Board of Pardons and Paroles, but Willingham’s appeals were turned down and he was executed on February 17th 2004.
Story continues at Economist.com
All amendments have been passed, with the smallest margin between for and against being on proposition 4, with 140,364 votes. The largest margin was the vote on proposition 11 by a margin of 646,731 votes, followed closely by proposition 9.
Prop 1
“The constitutional amendment authorizing the financing, including through tax increment financing, of the acquisition by municipalities and counties of buffer areas or open spaces adjacent to a military installation for the prevention of encroachment or for the construction of roadways, utilities, or other infrastructure to protect or promote the mission of the military installation.”
577,384 For, 468,390 Against – Amendment passes
Prop 2
“The constitutional amendment authorizing the legislature to provide for the ad valorem taxation of a residence homestead solely on the basis of the property’s value as a residence homestead.”
719,135 For, 334,706 Against – Amendment passes
Prop 3
“The constitutional amendment providing for uniform standards and procedures for the appraisal of property for ad valorem tax purposes.”
688,267 For, 361,442 Against – Amendment passes
Prop 4
“The constitutional amendment establishing the national research university fund to enable emerging research universities in this state to achieve national prominence as major research universities and transferring the balance of the higher education fund to the national research university fund.”
591,183 For, 450,819 Against – Amendment passes
Prop 5
“The constitutional amendment authorizing the legislature to authorize a single board of equalization for two or more adjoining appraisal entities that elect to provide for consolidated equalizations.”
628,623 For, 387,728 Against – Amendment passes
Prop 6
“The constitutional amendment authorizing the Veterans’ Land Board to issue general obligation bonds in amounts equal to or less than amounts previously authorized.”
668,944 For, 349,093 Against – Amendment passes
Prop 7
“The constitutional amendment to allow an officer or enlisted member of the Texas State Guard or other state militia or military force to hold other civil offices.”
761,280 For, 280,272 Against – Amendment passes
Prop 8
“The constitutional amendment authorizing the state to contribute money, property, and other resources for the establishment, maintenance, and operation of veterans hospitals in this state.”
785,775 For, 264,250 Against – Amendment passes
Prop 9
“The constitutional amendment to protect the right of the public, individually and collectively, to access and use the public beaches bordering the seaward shore of the Gulf of Mexico.”
801,408 For, 240,218 Against – Amendment passes
Prop 10
“The constitutional amendment to provide that elected members of the governing boards of emergency services districts may serve terms not to exceed four years.”
755,321 For, 278,062 Against – Amendment passes
Prop 11
“The constitutional amendment to prohibit the taking, damaging, or destroying of private property for public use unless the action is for the ownership, use, and enjoyment of the property by the State, a political subdivision of the State, the public at large, or entities granted the power of eminent domain under law or for the elimination of urban blight on a particular parcel of property, but not for certain economic development or enhancement of tax revenue purposes, and to limit the legislature’s authority to grant the power of eminent domain to an entity.”
844,444 For, 197,713 Against – Amendment passes
Out of 12,952,562 registered voters in Texas, roughly 1,053,000 voters turned out.
Don’t forget to get out and vote on November 3rd this year, with the ballot featuring 11 amendments to our state’s constitution, not to mention local elections and ballot initiatives. For a little more in depth view on the proposed constitutional changes, you can visit BallotPedia as well as Burnt Orange Report
You can find your county contact information on this page in order to find out where your vote will be held.
Prop 1
“The constitutional amendment authorizing the financing, including through tax increment financing, of the acquisition by municipalities and counties of buffer areas or open spaces adjacent to a military installation for the prevention of encroachment or for the construction of roadways, utilities, or other infrastructure to protect or promote the mission of the military installation.”
Prop 2
“The constitutional amendment authorizing the legislature to provide for the ad valorem taxation of a residence homestead solely on the basis of the property’s value as a residence homestead.”
Prop 3
“The constitutional amendment providing for uniform standards and procedures for the appraisal of property for ad valorem tax purposes.”
Prop 4
“The constitutional amendment establishing the national research university fund to enable emerging research universities in this state to achieve national prominence as major research universities and transferring the balance of the higher education fund to the national research university fund.”
Prop 5
“The constitutional amendment authorizing the legislature to authorize a single board of equalization for two or more adjoining appraisal entities that elect to provide for consolidated equalizations.”
Prop 6
“The constitutional amendment authorizing the Veterans’ Land Board to issue general obligation bonds in amounts equal to or less than amounts previously authorized.”
Prop 7
“The constitutional amendment to allow an officer or enlisted member of the Texas State Guard or other state militia or military force to hold other civil offices.”
Prop 8
“The constitutional amendment authorizing the state to contribute money, property, and other resources for the establishment, maintenance, and operation of veterans hospitals in this state.”
Prop 9
“The constitutional amendment to protect the right of the public, individually and collectively, to access and use the public beaches bordering the seaward shore of the Gulf of Mexico.”
Prop 10
“The constitutional amendment to provide that elected members of the governing boards of emergency services districts may serve terms not to exceed four years.”
Prop 11
“The constitutional amendment to prohibit the taking, damaging, or destroying of private property for public use unless the action is for the ownership, use, and enjoyment of the property by the State, a political subdivision of the State, the public at large, or entities granted the power of eminent domain under law or for the elimination of urban blight on a particular parcel of property, but not for certain economic development or enhancement of tax revenue purposes, and to limit the legislature’s authority to grant the power of eminent domain to an entity.”
Get out, get your friends, get involved, and ALWAYS go vote. Its the only way to achieve the change we seek in our government and its involvement in our lives.
A new Oklahoma law, the Statistical Reporting of Abortions Act, that forces women who have had abortions to post details of the procedure online is being sharply criticized by women’s rights groups, and is now being challenged in court by two Oklahoma women.
As of November 1, doctors in Oklahoma will be compelled — under penalty of criminal prosecution — to post the details of each abortion they perform online. Among the details to be posted for every abortion is the patient’s age, marital status and race; her financial condition; her education; and the total number of her previous pregnancies.
While the abortion patient’s name will not be published, “critics say the first eight questions alone could easily lead to the identification of a woman who lives in one of the state’s many small communities,” ABC reports.
In all, 37 personal questions will have to be asked and answered, and posted publicly for the world to see, under the new law. The Raw Story
It looks like even today we still have racial discrimination problems from government officials. A Louisiana justice of the peace has refused to issue a marriage license to an interracial couple out of concern for any children the couple might have. Keith Bardwell, justice of the peace in Tangipahoa Parish, says it is his experience that most interracial marriages do not last long. He also claims to not be a racist. “I do ceremonies for black couples right here in my house,” Bardwell said. “My main concern is for the children.”
Bardwell said he has discussed the topic with blacks and whites, along with witnessing some interracial marriages. He came to the conclusion that most of black society does not readily accept offspring of such relationships, and neither does white society, he said. “I don’t do interracial marriages because I don’t want to put children in a situation they didn’t bring on themselves,” Bardwell said. “In my heart, I feel the children will later suffer.”
Beth Humphrey and Terence McKay, the couple denied the marriage license says they will consult the U.S. Justice Department about filing a discrimination complaint. It is likely they would win their case in the court system as it is clear that government officials are not allowed to dictate to citizens who they can and cannot marry.
Just another government official that should be finding a new job soon, but will likely retire with a hefty retirement package paid for by the tax payers.