Do You Have a License to Think Those Thoughts?
What happened:
Part of the reason local governments are more efficient than their larger counterparts is that there is always that guy at the town meeting, calling attention to all the little problems in town.
He may not be the most fun guy at parties, but he keeps the town government on its toes.
One of these guys saw an issue with how the roadside ditches were draining. So he presented an articulate and detailed plan at a town meeting for how the situation could be improved.
And then he was slapped with a fine. The state licensing board said he was “engineering without a license.”
Turns out the district government complained to the board of licensing about this thorn in their side. And apparently the board agreed. Without the proper license, he was not authorized to have thoughts on how drainage ditches should be constructed.
Of course, he sued for a violation of his free speech rights. And the courts did eventually find that this clearly violated his First Amendment rights.
But they also said, sorry, you’re too late to sue. The three year statute of limitations had run out.
So the district can’t actually be held accountable for violating his rights.
What this means:
Now you need a license just to talk about something…
This might sound like a silly isolated incident. It’s obvious that the town was just trying to silence this loud, annoying dissenter. And it’s even more concerning that the town successfully harassed him with no repercussions.
And it really isn’t an isolated incident. Licensing is often used to tell people they do not have government approval to speak certain words.
That’s what happened to a health coach in Florida who planned a menu for her client. A licensed dietician complained to the licensing board. The health coach was ordered to immediately stop giving diet advice, or face fines and possible prison time.
The government should never have the power to punish people for exercising their freedom of speech.
NYC Penalizes Property Owners for Crimes They Had Nothing to Do With
What happened:
Imagine owning a laundromat in New York City.
Imagine someone sells stolen electronics to your patrons inside your shop. And then the NYC police threaten to evict you from the building, even though you had no idea the crime had even taken place.
Now imagine no crime was committed… It was all a sting operation orchestrated by the NYC police.
You have two options. Either submit to an unconstitutional search of your property, or face “no-fault” eviction, because the fake crime took place on your premises.
Unfortunately, this is exactly what happened to a man who owns a laundry shop in New York City.
Police have been using this tactic to conduct searches of property, when no probable cause exists. And if the owners don’t cooperate, the cops can simply have them evicted.
Now he is suing with the help of the Institute for Justice, to try to stop the abusive practice.
What this means:
It’s bad enough that these business owners can be held accountable for random crimes that happen on their premises.
But the police are actually orchestrating the “crimes.” This goes beyond entrapment. It sets property owners up for illegal searches that they are powerless to prevent.
It is extortion of their rights. They are being forced to sign away their Fourth Amendment rights against unreasonable search and seizure.
Otherwise, these thugs in uniform will kick them to the curb and destroy their business.
And somehow cops still get away with these “loopholes” that basically let them search whoever and wherever they want.
Let’s hope this lawsuit puts them in their place.
Cops With Superhuman Smell Can Search Whoever They Want
What happened:
Officers were at the front door.
Could they really smell raw, unsmoked marijuana stored inside a tupperware container, inside a safe, inside a closet, inside a room, inside the apartment?
Sounds legit says the Kansas Supreme Court. Judges ruled that this basis for the search was totally reasonable.
The cops found less than one ounce of marijuana, and the conviction will stand.
What this means:
And now the precedent is set. All cops have to do is allege superhuman abilities of smell, and they have probable cause to search anywhere.
So the Kansas Supreme Court has allowed fishing expeditions where cops can follow their nose to justify any search.
New York Can’t Ban Nunchucks, says Federal Court
What happened:
Good news for New York ninjas.
Go get your long lost nunchucks. It was unconstitutional for New York City to ban the martial arts weapons back in 1974.
The latest federal court ruling in the city said that the ban violated the Second Amendment right guaranteeing the freedom to bear arms.
The case stems from the 2000 conviction of a man for possessing nunchucks in his own home. It went all the way to the Supreme Court and was remanded back to the district court to make the final decision.
What this means:
The man who sued thought it was ridiculous that the city could ban a weapon with such a deep history in martial arts. The man developed his own training style with nunchucks, and he planned to teach his son the art in his own home.
And that is what spurred him to action. It’s not like he was patrolling the streets with his nunchucks flailing. He was using them in his own home.
Bruce Lee would be proud. He was cited as the original reason for the ban, as well as other Kung Fu movies which were coming out at the time.
Obamacare: with tax penalty gone, the mandate is unconstitutional
What happened:
Obamacare is unconstitutional, according to the latest federal court ruling.
It was constitutional when the individual mandate to buy health insurance fined those who did not comply.
The Supreme Court ruled that the fine could be interpreted as a tax, since it brings in revenue for the US government.
But the fine was stripped away in the tax bill passed by Congress in 2017.
The mandate remained, but without a tax. It was just a declaration that people have to buy health insurance…
So now that the mandate is not a tax, it is unconstitutional.
What this means:
The whole constitutionality of Obamacare has always rested on pretty shaky ground.
The fact is that they were forcing Americans to buy a product and fining them if they refused. But somehow the fine–punishment for not buying health insurance–was interpreted as a tax by the Supreme Court.
Seems like that should have raised some other constitutional issues…
At this point, are justices even truly reading and interpreting the constitution, as they are supposed to? Or are they simply coming up with a conclusion, and then applying any kind of legal reasoning they can think of to make it work?
Either way, this is far from over. Surely it will be a long drawn out politicized process. And surely none of it will have a thing to do with affordable healthcare.
