Politics

South Dakota is about to vote on a constitutional amendment permitting jury nullification. This means that juries could vote not guilty on the grounds that the relevant law was unfair or otherwise misguided. The supporters have a site (original), and the South Dakota State Bar has this (original) to say. The actual amendment would rewrite Article VI, Section 7 of the South Dakota Constitution as follows. The changes are marked in italics. In all criminal prosecutions the accused shall have the right to defend in person and by counsel; to demand the nature and the cause of the accusation against him; to have a copy thereof; to meet the witnesses against him face to face; to have compulsory process served for obtaining witnesses in his behalf; and to a speedy and public trial by an impartial jury of the county and district in which the offense is alleged to have been committed; and to argue the merits, validity, and applicability of the law, including the sentencing laws. ...

I haven’t picked on Andrew Sullivan for a while, have I? (And why do I do it? Because he keeps getting held up as an example of modern conservative thought, that’s why.) Let’s start with this condemnation of Dianne Feinstein (scroll down a bit). I can swing to that rhythm. Feinstein is one of my least favorite Senators. So, she said something dumb… which Andrew inflates into a commentary on all Democrats everywhere. Sure, OK. Dianne’s a prominent Democrat. ...

Hm. You know, I guess it is illegal to visit the moon without permission. From the 1979 Agreement Governing the Activities of States on the Moon and Other Celestial Bodies (original): Article 14 1. States Parties to this Agreement shall bear international responsibility for national activities on the moon, whether such activities are carried on by governmental agencies or by non- governmental entities, and for assuring that national activities are carried out in conformity with the provisions set forth in this Agreement. States Parties shall ensure that non-governmental entities under their jurisdiction shall engage in activities on the moon only under the authority and continuing supervision of the appropriate State Party. ...

49% of Americans think the First Amendment goes too far. (original) No, there’s not really anything I can add to that.

Jeff Cooper is an actual law professor, and so much more qualified than I to discuss the legalities (original) of declaring war on Iraq sans Congressional approval. He read the Security Council resolutions I referenced earlier and reports that their goals have been achieved. So there you go. Parenthetically, and I mention this because it’s been brought up from time to time, Clinton also used (original) the 1991 Security Council resolutions as justification for military action against Iraq. So it’s not as if Bush doesn’t have some precedent. Clinton’s stance was that enforcing the no-fly zones was a means of preventing further Iraqi aggression against neighboring states, which was in fact mandated by the UN. Although the UN didn’t approve the no-fly zones. Muddy waters.

Target demonstrated a remarkably clueless attitude recently by selling various white-supremacy branded clothing (original). Fortunately, they’ve since pulled the clothing from shelves (original). Good for them. I’d like to know who designed the stuff; apparently it was Target’s house brand.

I don’t really have any objection to Bush announcing that his lawyers believe he has the authority to attack Iraq without a Congressional vote. I don’t know about the de jure, but I’d bet he has authority de facto. The legal argument rests primarily on this Congressional resolution, passed last year, which authorizes the use of armed forces against those responsible for 9/11. They’re also citing H.J. Res. 77, a Congressional resolution passed in January 1991 which authorized the invasion of Iraq. ...

Someone’s doing a limited run of activist gas pump stickers (original). Good design, good wording, and high quality stickers. Not quite as subtle as my favorite anti-SUV sticker campaign. More political than the baby smashing bunch (original). It’s nice that the guy made sure he included real safety notices on the sticker. Hey, remember what I said a while back about identity and the ability to mold the reality outside the monitor? Yeah.

Unbillable Hours is another one of those lawyer-written weblogs, which I find eternally interesting. They set up some kind of cognitive dissonance within my head (“how come busy lawyers have time to weblog?”) and I always like that. The author, whose name I can’t find on the page, wrote a nice bite about RICO and the Catholic Church, which prompted this posting. I also really liked his discussion of sex and law.

Ashcroft’s getting itchy again. This time he argues (original) that the US Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (original) misruled recently when rejecting Ashcroft’s wiretap guidelines (original). Spiffy! I can’t actually object to Ashcroft’s objection; he has the right to appeal, after all. I’m just surprised that the USFISC (which hasn’t rejected a wiretap request in years) held up their hands and said “No.”