As many know by now, Jo Ann Emerson will vacate the Missouri 8th Congressional District seat for a cush lobbying position, which is not surprising from the lowest rated Republican in Missouri's congressional delegation, according to Heritage Action.
The SEMO Times lays out the contenders for that seat, though I would argue Sarah Steelman, Jason Crowell & Peter Kinder are the main contenders. However, I want to focus in on Peter Kinder, and the vacancy of the Lt. Governor position should he be the appointed nominee.
I have heard arguments that the Governor cannot appoint a replacement, but my reading of the Missouri Constitution & Statutes suggests otherwise. First, Missouri Constitution Article IV Section 4:
The governor shall fill all vacancies in public offices unless otherwise provided by law, and his appointees shall serve until their successors are duly elected or appointed and qualified.
The relevant phrase in that provision reads, "unless otherwise provided by law." If a provision of the Missouri Statutes provides another method of replacement in the case of a vacancy, then the statute should hold. Those that have tried to quell fears the Governor would appoint a Democrat to one of two statewide positions held by a Republican in Missouri have pointed to Missouri Revised Statute 105.030:
Whenever any vacancy, caused in any manner or by any means whatsoever, occurs or exists in any state or county office originally filled by election of the people, other than in the offices of lieutenant governor, state senator or representative, sheriff, or recorder of deeds in the city of St. Louis, the vacancy shall be filled by appointment by the governor....
While this provision indicates, in the case of a vacancy, the Governor shall not appoint the Lt. Governor, it does not provide a method by which the Lt. Governor vacancy SHOULD be filled. And this is the crux of my concern. I have not found a provision that provides for the replacement. This leads me to believe that the appointment mechanism would revert to the Missouri Constitution, that being the Governor fills the vacancy. If someone knows of such a provision in the statutes that states otherwise, please let it be known. If someone knows of a relevant court decision please pass it along.
The reason a gubernatorial appointment concerns me is the fact that Governor Nixon could end up making two new appointments, broadening the Democrat field for higher office in the future. Suppose Governor Nixon were to appoint State Treasurer Clint Zweifel or State Attorney General Chris Koster to the Lt. Governor position. He would then be able to appoint a replacement for either one of those vacancies.
While this is not a post slamming Peter Kinder as a choice for MO-8, it is a clarion call for sound legal reasoning as we wade through this appointment & vacancy process. The language of the Missouri Constitution & Statutes are not as clear as some would have us think, so it is of utmost importance that the Republican 8th Congressional District Committee make a sound choice.
Jo Ann Emerson's retirement from Congress provides a unique opportunity for great conservative leadership in the Missouri congressional delegation...let us not screw this up.
The old adage of “its not what you say, but what you do that counts” has never been more poignant than in the last four years of Governor Nixon’s administration. There have been many examples of Nixon selling out Missouri families and Missouri businesses in favor of powerful special interest groups, or trying to curry favor with President Obama. Let’s not forget Governor Nixon trying last year to sneak in the Obamacare exchanges under the nose of Missourians. However, none of the Governor’s actions have been more vicious and transparent as pretending to broker a compromise between radical animal rights groups and Missouri Dog Breeders and animal agriculture groups and then selling law abiding Missourians down the river.
After a bitter battle over the slimly won 2010 Puppy Mill Cruelty Prevention Act Ballot Initiative where the Humane Society of the United States spent $4.8 million dollars on propaganda in Missouri to create a “crisis” where one didn’t exist, the Missouri Legislature courageously stepped in to protect law abiding Missouri businesses from an un-constitutional effort to destroy a viable industry. Missouri already had extensive animal welfare laws in place, and this new Measure did nothing to deal with the small percentage breaking the law, nor the State’s failure to enforce the law. However this battle was really about wiping out the already heavily regulated, successful, Missouri dog breeding industry. An industry which has produced quality purebred dogs for families all over the United States and beyond. Ironically, the Humane Society of Missouri will sell you a mutt with behavioral problems for $300 if you are interested. The conflict of interest is obvious.
As the Missouri legislature crafted a fix for this job killing Measure, Governor Nixon, stepped in to broker what is now known as the Missouri Solution. He caps that by meeting with both sides and declaring victory. The Governor’s failure to actually determine with empirical data that there is a problem is swept under the rug. Instead the Governor falls in line with the massive propaganda campaign put forth by out of state special interests, specifically HSUS. Nobody questions or takes into account the fact that HSUS has gone state by state claiming them as the ‘puppy mill capital of the US” and subsequently destroying their dog breeding industries.
According to Missouri Law what was supposed to happen next is that a 12 person committee made up of diverse agricultural interests works with the Department of Agriculture to write the rules and regulations so as to accurately and fairly implement the law. Unfortunately, Governor Nixon had disbanded this committee in 2009. So who wrote the rules and regulations? We have information that Director of Agriculture, Dr. Jon Hagler was involved, as was a gentleman named Bob Baker who is the director of the Missouri Alliance for Animal Legislation (MAAL), animal rights advocates masquerading as animal welfare proponents and a direct conduit to the radicals at HSUS. Otherwise we are not sure who else was involved. In that smoky back room, most of the unconstitutional aspects removed from the Measure made it back into the rules coupled with numerous onerous and business crushing new rules that had no foundation in the law itself. These rules went into affect on July 11, 2011.
According to Matt Rold, Animal Care Facilities Act (ACFA) Coordinator for the Missouri Department of Agriculture, the result was that in the period from July 2011 to July 2012 approximately 50% of the 1,500 licensed Missouri dog breeders went out of business as they were financially incapable of complying with the new onerous rules requiring thousands of dollars of unneeded kennel modifications. The impact to Missouri is tens of thousands of lost jobs and over $500 million plus in lost positive economic impact to Missouri. So while the economy is struggling all over Missouri, Governor Nixon decides to crush thousands of Missouri families and their jobs to appease out of state radical animal rights activists. Missouri Attorney General Chris Koster even decided that it would make a good campaign ad.
Taking a cue from President Obama, Nixon then doubled down on this strategy moving $1.1 million dollars from other important Missouri programs to the Department of Agriculture’s 2011-2012 budgets to enforce these new rules and implement an aggressive new enforcement campaign rather than to go after the unlicensed law breakers that were the target of this Measure. This effort ramped up this summer and the immediate results were hundreds of questionable violations against even Missouri’s top Blue Ribbon breeders. New interpretations of the old rules and vigorous enforcement of new rules that were unsupported by the actual law put everyone in a state of confusion including the Department of Agriculture’s Inspectors who were told to call Dr. Hagler for interpretation of the new rules with Dr. Hagler acting as the Department of Agriculture’s judge, jury and executioner. Worried that the Missouri Department of Agriculture could wipe out the Missouri dog breeding industry by the end of 2012, The Cavalry Group filed suit in early September 2012 challenging the constitutionality of many of the provisions in the Canine Cruelty Prevention Act including the “new” rules and regulations, and making a claim for a regulatory taking of private property. The Cavalry Group is in the midst of this legal action and will pursue all remedies to protect Missouri jobs and ultimately Missouri families. Hopefully we can help save a Missouri industry made up of real Missouri families with a great history and heritage.
Missouri voters have a clear choice on November 6th. Governor Nixon and Attorney General Koster have made that choice easier by attacking and destroying the livelihoods of those who they are supposed to protect: the law abiding citizens of Missouri. When you vote on November 6th, I hope that you will remember those law abiding, hard working Missouri families that Governor Nixon and Attorney General Koster forgot. Vote for Dave Spence for Missouri Governor, and Ed Martin for Missouri Attorney General.
The Cavalry Group is America’s Advocate for animal owners, outdoor sportsmen, and animal related businesses defending them on the legal, legislative, and cultural fronts. www.TheCavalryGroup.com
The Supreme Court Abdicated to the 1%. Congress, can mandate anything called a tax.
Damn their warnings, damn their lies
They will see the people rise!
Listen my friends
I have done as I said
I have been to their lines
I have counted each man
I will tell what I can
Better be warned
They have armies to spare
And the danger is real
We will need all our cunning
To bring them to heel.
Have faith If you know what their movements are DETAILS We'll spoil their game There are ways that a people can fight We shall overcome their power
While the hard left socialists were hoping for "change" in the form of true single payer healthcare, Obama's incredibly corrupt "Affordable Care Act" was twisted into the most flagrant special interest giveaway in the history of America. On a party line vote, Obama lead the Democrats as they gave "evil" insurance pharmaceutical and medical companies 20 million new paying customers.
As tragic as this is, the only thing worse is that Justice Roberts "a strict constructionist" evidently likes Congressional power so well, that he rewarded the agents of oppressive federal government with the unlimited authority. Pass any mandate you like as long as you make it a tax. One can see Pelosi now:
Buying tuna from someone other than my husband? Let's tax that.
Buying 32 oz soft drinks? Let's tax that.
Too fat? Fat tax.
Wrong car? Pruis Tax.
Non union company? Collective bargaining tax.
Honesty, if anyone can find a limit in Robert's order, please reply here. This is what he finds:
"The federal government does not have the power to order people to buy health insurance. The federal government does have the power to impose a tax on those without health insurance"
Meanwhile, there is something you can do. Join the leadership of the St. Louis Tea Party Coalition or your favorite local Tea Party and take to the streets. Sing this song as you go.
Good lawyers know the law; great lawyers know the judge.~Author Unknown
Last week representatives once again voted on an issue that at first seems complex, but ultimately breaks down to a question of the fundamental principles of governance. SJR 51 puts changes on the ballot in the way our state selects judges.
In 1940 Missouri was the first state to adopt a new way of selecting judges with a “non-partisan” 7 member commission. As a result, this idea has been named the “Missouri Plan.” In MO, this commission is comprised of three non-lawyers appointed by the Governor, 3 lawyers selected by the MO Bar and 1 Supreme Court Justice selected by the Supreme Court (i.e. another lawyer). The Commission gives 3 options to the Governor for whom to select as Judge for any open seat on the court. The Commission can continue to resubmit passed over selections to the Governor giving him very little choice in who he selects to the judiciary. The commission members are selected for 6 year terms, as opposed to the 4 yr terms of Missouri’s Governor and Senators.
SJR 51 makes several significant changes. First, SJR 51 requires the commission to give the Governor 4 options instead of 3 to fill a vacancy. Second, and more significantly, it takes the seventh position currently chosen by the Supreme Court and gives the selection to the Governor, thus giving him the option to select 4 of the 7 commissioners. Third, it shortens the commission’s term from 6 to 4 years.
What do these changes have to do with the fundamental principles of governance? SJR 51 swings the balance of power in the commission from unelected lawyers to an elected, accountable Governor. The Declaration of Independence states that “Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.” Furthermore, Article 1 section 1 of the Missouri Constitution states “That all political power is vested in and derived from the people; that all government of right originates from the people.” Thus, all officers of the government should be selected in such a way that they are accountable, first to the Rule of Law or the Constitution, and secondly to the will of the people. As the third branch of our state’s government, it is absolutely imperative that members of the judiciary be accountable to those from whom they derive their just powers. In the current plan, a majority of the commission selecting MOs judges is chosen not by the people or their representative(s), but by the Missouri Bar Association, an unelected and unaccountable society of lawyers. This plan, combined with the fact that the judiciary in MO is self-policed (judicial discipline is handled by another unelected commission and any impeachment is tried by the Supreme Court) gives ample opportunity for legal cronyism. SJR51’s small changes take the swing vote away from unaccountable lawyers and give it to the Governor who can be held accountable by the electorate for bad judicial appointments.
SJR 51 is a constitutional change and will be on the November ballot this year. There will be a lot of money spent attempting to convince voters that allowing lawyers to choose the judges in front of whom they present cases is less corrupt than allowing the people’s elected Governor the swing vote. This year our state has the chance to regain some accountability in our third branch of government.
I figured I would delve into this in an objective manner, and provide parallels in Missouri law.
The Jury Instruction:
There are three elements to prove 2nd Degree Murder in Florida: (1) the victim is dead; (2) the death was caused by the criminal act of the defendant; and (3) an unlawful killing occured in an immenently dangerous manner, demonstating a depraved mind without regard to human life.
(1) Trayvon Martin is dead.
(2) Trayvon Martin is dead because George Zimmerman shot him.
(3) The central factor in this trial comes down to the 3rd element of 2nd Degree Murder. There are three elements to demonstrate this: (a) an ordinary person would be reasonably certain to know the act would cause death or serious bodily injury; (b) the act was done with ill will, hatred, spite, or evil intent; and (c) the act itself indicates an indifference to human life.
(a) An ordinary person should be reasonably certain that firing a gun in the direction of another, at close range, could cause death or serious bodily injury.
(b) & (c) The trial will revolve around these two factors.
I do not have the facts of the case, and cannot make an objective assessment of whether (b) applies. Presumably, and in light of the prosecution's failure to include the lesser offenses in the Casey Anthony case, the prosecution would include the lesser offenses in this case. 'Culpable negligence,' as opposed to ill will et al., must be proved for a charge of manslaughter, but Florida's 'stand your ground' defense would probably negate this factor of the unlawful killing element.
As to (c), I am reasonably sure that a successful 'stand your ground' defense would also abrogate this factor and the element of unlawful killing, as the indifference to human life would be countered by the preservation of one's own life.
The 'stand your ground defense' requires that one "reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm." Again, I do not have the relevant facts (and we can be assured the press does not have them either), but this defense would certainly be available to George Zimmerman. From what I understand, a judge could throw out the case immediately should that judge believe the defense is justified, but this will most likely be avoided as judges are elected in Florida (this is not an argument against abolishing the Missouri Plan) and a jury will likely determine whether the defense is justified.
In my personal opinion, if reasonable doubt exists as to whether George Zimmerman initiated contact with Trayvon Martin, I do not believe the prosecution will be able to prove 2nd Degree Murder. If the jury believes George Zimmerman caused a confrontation with Trayvon Martin, regardless of initiation, I believe a jury could find him guilty of manslaughter. That being said, the 'stand your ground defense' could nullify either charge.
Of course, none of this may preclude civil proceedings (think OJ Simpson), so one should not assume that a 'stand your ground' defense is an absolute bar to any punishment for George Zimmerman's action. Do not take my word for it, as I have not located the relevant statutes, but I believe George Zimmerman's 'stand your ground' defense would only be a partial bar to damages.
If this had occured in Missouri, 2nd Degree Murder requires that the defendant "knowingly causes the death of another person, or with the purpose of causing serious physical injury to another person, causes the death of another person." Missouri's standard appears a little easier to prove. And the 'stand your ground' defense only applies if the person asserting the defense was on property he owned or leased.
In Missouri, George Zimmerman would probably be found guilty under the known circumstances of the event. Now assume the facts show George Zimmerman acted lawfully in Florida, and ask yourself whether it would be just for a similar individual to be convicted of 2nd Degree Murder in Missouri, as a thought experiment.
The Gladney Assault trial prosecutor was had never run a jury trial before. The defense lawyer was one of the best in St Louis. The trial was delayed for two years, and then rushed through to allow the judge to go on vacation. What did we think was going to happen?
Here are some basic mistakes the rookie prosecutor made:
A) Never ask open-ended questions with no good answer.
The prosecutor asked McCowan why he didn't turn the other cheek when Gladney struck his hand.
This question suggests that Gladney did strike McCowan's hand, and it was McCowan's Christian duty not to respond. McCowan's response was that his cheek had not yet been struck, and he got a laugh. He humanized him testimony, while the prosecutor merely looked foolish.
Here's what he should have asked.
1) Two witnesses stated you struck Gladney. Did you hit him?
2) Did you kick him?
3) Did you throw him to the ground?
4) Did Perry Molens strike him?
5) How many times did Perry Molens strike him?
These questions give the story a visual component. They do not allow for clever responses. They force the witness to answer a question, and from that answer, the jury can tell how honest the witness is. Do they answer directly? Do they make excuses?
Once a direct question is asked and answered, the prosecutor has the leeway to respond with public statements, like the radio interviews McCowan gave stating he was bumrushed and driven to the ground. The jury never got to hear McCowan on KMOX stating he was attacked. Instead, they heard that Gladney started a physical altercation that was escalated. Self-defense was the theory D'Agrosa was pushing. In failing to get direct answers in the midst of a narrative, the prosecutor let the story play out as self-defense, rather than assault by two huge men.
B) Medical records
D'Agrosa entered the only medical records into the case, which means the only evidence of injury was on the side of the defense. In addition, D'Agrosa made the claim that Gladney was simply trying to cash in on a fight.
The prosecutor really dropped the ball here, as the medical records, both from the hospital and from Gladney's doctor, would show a prescription written for powerful pain medication. Hospitals don't write pain medication prescriptions for fake injuries. They give out Tylenol, and may give a single pill, but they don't write pain meds for no reason. The jury never knew this.
The pain meds were brought up by Gladney, in his description of why he was in a wheelchair during the next rally. That wheelchair, a bad visual prop by David Brown, coincided with the neck brace Kenneth wore from his neck surgery a few days prior to the trial to make him look like a con artist. If the extent of his injuries were at least offered, McCowan wouldn't have been the only one at trial with proof of injury.
C) Prosecuting The Case As One Incident
Perry Molens is seen on video grabbing Kenneth Gladney and pulling him to the ground. There is no question this happened.
Once the video was released, and put into evidence, the prosecutor had what should have been an easy conviction.
Sandra Himes has stated that she was helping Kenneth Gladney to his feet, at which point, Perry Molens yanked him down to the ground again. This was a separate incident from the original attack, which occurred back by the button board.
Molen's attack was bad enough that the Ponytail guy told Molens "That's not the way to do it," and Cheryl Johner told Molens to get off of Gladney, calling Molens a "bitch." Neither Ponytail or Johner testified at the trial. Johner, moments later would punch Kelly Owens in front of a police officer and was immediately arrested for assault (she pled guilty). Johner, who punched Kelly Owens, was incensed enough to tell Molens not to attack Gladney.
That never made it to trial either, but was instead lumped into the entire event. In short, clear video evidence of Perry Molens assaulting Kenneth Gladney, with four of five witnesses around, was brushed away as being part of the overall incident.
Was It A Set-Up?
Some people are claiming the case was thrown, or that it was a set-up, or that the prosecutor was in collusion with the defense. That simply isn't true. Despite a poor trial, this case was tried, and evidence was presented. Criminial trials are hard for a reason - as well they should be. Prosecutors lack the resources to investigate on their own, and count on the police to do the heavy lifting. For all of our complaints about the conduct of the trial, this was only an ordinance violation in a county where murders are still regular occurrences.
It was not a conspiracy to prevent justice. It was an issue relegated to a minor status so that no matter the outcome, it wouldn't cause too many problems for Pat Redington, Bob McCulloch, or Charlie Dooley. None of those three would endanger their power base with blatant criminal actions. Attorney Paul D'Agrosa would also not be a party to such a thing.
But they didn't have to. They could act well within their power to make this political attack a non-issue, one starved of resources and attention. McCulloch, who prosecutes people for stepping on grass and selling automobiles out of a garage, wouldn't go near this. Redington's office put the minimal effort into investigation, held onto charges, and then applied no pressure to expedite the case. And yet, even with that, SEIU was forced to spend more than $10,000 on a case where two former union members (Local 2000 has been closed down) were charged with an ordinance violation.
Even that small concession only happened with the publishing of the video, the publishing of the police report by Big Government, and the airing of stories from KMOX asking why charges had not been filed. The day before the charges were filed, Kenneth Gladney was stood up the Patricia Redington's office. The week before, Patricia Redington's office claimed to Kelly Owens that investigations would not start until after charges were filed. The day the KMOX story broke, Patricia Redington made the statement that investigations and witness questioning were underway. She filed two days later, in the late afternoon of the Wednesday before Thanksgiving, exactly as was predicted in September by local political operatives.
It is worth nothing again how extraordinary a $10,000 fee is for this case. SEIU was so committed to this case, they purchased the best defense attorney they could find. What chance did Kenneth have?
We are forced to recognize that no person without substantial resources and pull has a chance in a justice system controlled by a Democratic party machine. As Kenneth said so poignantly, he's just an average citizen.
This trail was not a mistake in justice system. It is how it works. If McCowan and Molens had attacked Gladney outside a nightclub, they would have been found guilty. That they did so while under contract with a powerful government union made all the difference.
The outline of the Ponytailed Jean Man, standing next to the SEIU Defense Witness, is still the most puzzling part of the night.
Ponytail is in the moogrogue video, stepping over Elston McCowan on the ground. He clearly was involved in breaking up the altercation. You can hear him tell Perry Molens "THAT'S NOT THE WAY TO DO IT," as Perry grabs Kenneth from behind and throws him to the ground.
Cheryl Johner, the OFA member who pled guilty to assaulting Kelly Owens, also yells at Perry Molens, telling him to get off Kenneth.
These two did not speak at the Gladney trial, nor were they interviewed by police or prosecutors. They were the most likely witnesses for the defense, as they were close enough to be there and in fact were involved in breaking it up.
And yet, no one heard from Ponytail, who stood silently by and said nothing to the police.
He really is an interesting character, because SEIU claims Ponytail was protecting McCowan. Once the video was published, SEIU broke up screen captures of the event and tried to paint Gladney as the aggressor in the video.
His testimony would have been valuable, as he was a central figure in stopping the assault. While the defense did not call him (and that was their right), it would have gone a long way to have him cross-examined under oath, as it was clear he saw Molens and McCowan attacking Kenneth. His statement, "not the way to do it," suggests that he would not have been a sympathetic witness.
As we look at the trial, we can see D'Agrosa doing his job, earning his $10,000 paid by SEIU trial fee for an ordinance violation. We can't pretend the trial tells the truth. Molens and McCowan were not found innocent. The jury said the prosecutor didn't convince them based on his case.
There's a world of difference in those two statements.
The SEIU shirted defense witness, a heavy set woman in a cane, walks into the frame after David Brown and Kelly Owens arrive, neither of whom saw the initial assault. To be an eyewitness, she would have had to be walking with Elston and Perry when the two decide to confront Kenneth Gladney.
The videographer, moogrogue, was also closer to the action than the defense witness. He had time to flip on his camera, point it at the attack, and zoom in, prior to the defense witness arriving at the scene.
Compare that testimony with that of two prosecution witnesses at the scene, who were close enough to break it up, and who gave immediate testimony.
We don't have trial transcripts yet, but we do know that the SEIU defense witness did not speak to police or the prosecutor's office to provide evidence. Her testimony was two years old, and was not researched in advance by the prosecutor. Had he done so - had he utilized the video, pictures and articles provided to the first prosecutor, he would have known what to say to her. His strongest cross examination was to ask her why she didn't speak up that night. A verbal report from the trial states the Defense Witness was scared to speak to police because they were macing people. There was one person maced, Javonne Spitz, who resisted arrest after barging into the scene and confronting officers.
So did the defense witness have a right to be scared? Rather than trust her memory two years later, let's take a look at video from that night.
As you can see, the defense witness is standing next to Elston McCowan, being assisted in making a phone call by a St Louis County police officer. She had the presence of mind to ask him to shine a flash light on her phone, but not to tell him that she was a witness. From start to finish of the police arriving and arresting McCowan and Molens, the witness was there. At no time did she speak up, even when she had the opportunity to. Three videos form that night show multiple angles of her standing, mute, while her friends are arrested to assault.
This same lady is the one who Elston says, "you'll protect me." She never tells him that she saw Gladney attack him. She stands around, offering comfort, like someone who walks up to a scene after it happens. Which from the moogrogue video, suggests that is exactly what happened.
Yesterday's trial resulting in a not guilty verdict for Elston McCowan and Perry Molens hinged on the testimony of witnesses. Setting aside all of the peripheral evidence, the case came down to two witnesses for the prosecution stating they saw McCowan and Molens attack Gladney, versus a witness for the defense who made the claim that Kenneth started the "fight" by slapping the hand of Elston McCowan.
It was up to the jury to determine which witness testimony was most reliable. The $10,000 defense strategy was not to claim Elston was assaulted and did nothing. It was to claim Elston and Perry acted in self-defense. Note this is in direct conflict with the statements Elston has made for two years of being attacked and not fighting back.
It was their legal right to change the story for the trial, but bringing in a new witness is a different matter. As we pointed out years ago, there were no other witnesses to the beginning of the assault. The two people closest were Cheryl Johner (who pled guilty to assault of Kelly Owens), and the ponytailed man in jeans seen standing over McCowan in the opening sequence of the video. Neither testified.
Instead, there was a defense witness, still unnamed, who claims to have seen the beginning of the altercation. She was decribed as heavyset, with a cane.
Do you mean this woman? The one seen walking into the scene after the assault had taken place? The woman who slowly moves forward and who gets to the scene after David Brown (blue shirt), who did not see the initial assault? This is the witness?
The full video: You can see her just a few seconds in, clearly getting to the scene after it occurred.
As we verify the identity of this witness that stepped forward two years after the fact, it seems fair to question if she perjured herself, seeing as she arrived after the assault occurred. And if so, what can be done about it?
Many progressives pretend to be pro-individual rights and pro-civil liberties, which could not be further from the truth. Powers (state or federal) run contrary to rights, and the imposition of governmental power to ensure a "right" (as in Obamacare) highlights the lack of political logic among progressives. For some reason, classical liberals and "libertarians" that vote Democrat allow the wool to be pulled over their eyes when it comes to progressive logic, or the lack therof, simply because they disagree with social conservatives.
Oregon provides an interesting case for us. Last week, in Willis v. Winters, the Oregon Supreme Court denied law enforcement the ability to refuse Conceal & Carry Licenses (CCLs) based on the applicant's privilege to medical marijuana under state law. And while federal law, under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(3), prohibits possession of firearms by users of controlled substances (including marijuana), having a CCL does not necessarily imply possession of a firearm, nor is Oregon obligated to enforce federal drug law under the anti-commandeering principle. Anti-commandeering provides one of the principles behind Prop C in Missouri. The federal government cannot force Missouri to enforce the individual mandate, just like the federal government cannot force Oregon to enforce drug laws.
Now, none of this is to say that Oregon could not deny CCLs for medical marijuana users. States have general powers, as opposed to the limited powers of the national government, and have far greater latitude in the areas of safety, health and education, not to mention contract and tort law. If Massachusetts wants Romneycare, then Massachusetts can have Romneycare, but the rest of the nation is under no obligation to bail Massachusetts out when Romneycare fails miserably. If Minnesota wants to ban gay marriage, then Minnesota can ban gay marriage, but Massachusetts is under no obligation to follow suit. If Oregon thinks medical marijuana users are capable of using a CCL responsibly, then so be it.
The point I am trying to emphasize here relates to the inconsistency in progressive logic. Under tea party logic there is no inconsistency in the Oregon decision. In this instance, Oregon is foregoing its broader powers to provide greater protections of individual rights. Social conservatives may disagree on policy grounds, but cannot on constitutional principles. Progressives decry the 2nd & 10th Amendments, and will probably ignore the Oregon decision altogether. This does not fit their narrative because it broadens a right they disagree with (2nd), and diminishes a federal power (regulation of interstate commerce) under a correct interpretation of constitutional federalism (10th).
Progressive belief in individual rights is a farce, and Obamacare provides the perfect vehicle for an example. There is no principle in individual rights underlying Obamacare, rather progressives support the general policy of federal control in interstate commerce at the expense of the 10th Amendment. The classical liberals and "libertarians" that support Obamacare for altruistic reasons do so at their own peril because powers run contrary to rights.
It may not be a good idea for states to strike down all regulations, as much its a bad idea to impose ridiculous amounts of regulation (like with sudafed). In that sense, the social conservative can be as wrong-headed as the progressive. Social conservatives can be just as bad when it comes to the imposition of social conservatism at a national level. But where progressivism will always be wrong with its focus on national politics, social conservatism will always have a leg to stand on in state politics...just not in Oregon.
24th State is named for Missouri, the nation's political bellwether which has the honor of being the 24th state admitted to the union.
From Springfield to Kirksville, from Kansas City to St Louis, we cover the state's news, views, politics, rumors, and elections.
The site is a group blog, run by average citizens from across Missouri with a desire to get involved in the political process. The Editorial Board is a mix of Tea Party members writing collectively.
