Andrew Hagen

In San Francisco, a doctor’s note and cash get a customer marihuana in numerous clubs that dot the city. Residents attempt to block the clubs, yet the clubs keep springing up. (*), Marijuana is an addictive, illegal drug.

“Marijuana use is a major public health problem in the United States.” according to the Surgeon General’s report issued in 1982. (†) The report goes on:

Among the known or suspected chronic effects of marijuana are:

1. short-term memory impairment and slowness of learning.
2. impaired lung function similar to that found in cigarette smokers. Indications are that more serious effects, such as cancer and other lung disease, follow extended use.
3. decreased sperm count and sperm motility.
4. interference with ovulation and pre-natal development.
5. impaired immune response.
6. possible adverse effects on heart function.
7. by-products of marijuana remaining in body fat for several weeks, with unknown consequences. The storage of these by-products increases the possiblilties for chronic, as well as residual, effects on performance, even after the acute reaction to the drug has worn off.

Of special concern are the long-term developmental effects in children and adolescents, who are particularly vulnerable to the drug’s behavioral and psychological effects. The “amotivational syndrome,” characterized by a pattern of energy loss, diminished school performance, harmed parental relationships, and other behavorial disruptions, has been associated with prolonged marijuana use by young persons. Although more research is required, recent national surveys report that 40% of heavy users experience some or all of those symptoms.

In the midst of a general historical crisis, with both pitfalls and opportunities becoming visible on the horizon, America must confront the widely apparent increased level of corruption, evidenced additionally by San Francisco’s marihuana clubs, where wanton lawbreaking by junkies and pushers goes undeterred, and the guilty go unpunished.

The FDA has not approved any marihuana product that is smoked for medicinal use. (‡) A pill form of marihuana has FDA approval, called Marinol. (§)

The governing bodies of San Francisco and California are failing the people. Instead of protecting marihuana addicts and guiding them toward treatment, recovery, and sobriety, the governments are enabling addiction to an incredibly dangerous product, and encouraging hypochondria and dishonest exaggeration of medical conditions to obtain the drug in the name of medicine. Instead of punishing the pushers and the drug mafia, the government looks the other way. It is a relevant question how many politicians’ pockets are lined with drug cash.

Marihuana is the trojan horse of illegal drugs. Its use has been accepted in many social circles for the past few decades as part of the general package of disapproval of morality and a worshipful attitude toward indecency, callousness, and hedonism. Marihuana not only causes public health problems itself, but also acts as a gateway into the array of other illegal drugs–even more dangerous and addictive.

It is dismaying to see that the leadership of our society has failed the people so greatly that now marihuana is openly bought, sold, and smoked in a major American city without fear of legal retribution.

It is a disgrace for the rule of law in San Francisco, California, and the entire country. It is a scandal for modern medicine.

R. Lindley DeVecchio, a former senior FBI agent, has been charged with helping the Mafia commit several murders. (*)

The government of Ontario, Canada has come to the wise decision that Islamic sharia law should not be allowed in the province. (*) Under sharia, women are overmastered and subdued by men and officialdom. It is too bad that women were not given the right to vote on whether they would be overmastered by sharia, but at least the government came to the right decision.

For the purpose of making the law more uniform, Christian, Jewish, and Muslim family law arbitration will all be invalidated, at least for future decisions. Ontario has chosen multiculturalism and secular law, which together are better than multiculturalism and parochial law.

Influential Republican and Congressional Representative James Sensenbrenner has introduced the “Defending America’s Most Vulnerable: Safe Access to Drug Treatment and Child Protection Act of 2005,” also known as HR 1528. Incredibly, this law would send people to jail if they do not report certain drug crimes to the authorities within 24 hours. It is the kind of repressive tyranny that a free country shouldn’t have to put up with. (*) The legislation would allow the government to force innocent citizens to wear a wire to generate evidence against their own family members, or be sent to jail themselves. (†)

I support drug laws, but this goes way too far.

The controversy will soon come to a head over a few of President Bush’s judicial nominations, and the Senate Democrats’ filibuster of them. (*)

The essence of the controversy concerns the political views of the judges.

Conservatives define the issue as whether judges can be filibustered, or whether they deserve “an up or down vote.” In society, “up” is usually positive, “down” is negative. Bush wants an “up” vote.

Liberals might define the issue as whether “Bush’s radical judges should get a free pass,” but they are taking a lower-key approach.

The real problem is that these days judges in effect make numerous public policy choices for the country. Marriage, military policy, homeland security, the environment, civil rights, abortion rights, and many other of the most controversial issues of public affairs now rest on judicial determination. We are a free people who are too cowardly to make our own decisions on these troubling questions through the normal political process.

That is wrongful. It is too much to ask of judges, especially ones not accountable to the public at the ballot box. The law is not a battleground. The judicial branch should be an equal branch of government and not more and not less. We have judges to interpret the law and thereby to do justice. Judges cannot work miracles. They cannot make everyone happy.

American society remains deeply split between three groups: those deeply enmeshed in politics who identify with the red states, those deeply enmeshed in politics who identify with the blue, and those who are caught in the middle. The third group is the largest in number.

Why does this debilitating split cotinue to haunt the republic? It is because we citizens are lazy. Instead of engaging, discussing, debating, and contemplating, we resort to slogans and catch phrases.

If we reverse course and take on our challenges, we can eventually again reach a stage of basic political consensus. We can address those hot political issues in the course of elections and with our democratically-elected legislators. Judges can go back to their job of interpreting the law. Judges will still have brighter tints or darker shades in their personal political views, but once on the bench they will have less discretion and less policy-making power. It won’t matter as much who is judge.

Far from a great turning point in history, the filibuster controversy is but a symptom of the sickness that rots our country from within.

US Senator Lamar Alexander and conservative libertarian blogger Spoons endorse a national ID card. (*) Spoons writes:

The only people who stand to lose privacy with a National ID card are illegal aliens, terrorists, and criminals who operate with aliases.

In his column, Senator Alexander states his belief that the bulking up of state-issued driver’s licenses will not work for lack of uniformity.

Of course we will lose some legitimate privacy with these cards, despite what Spoons bravely says. And of course, we need national ID cards. Our country is now at the brink of 300 million people. Streams of immigrants, legal and illegal, from every culture and corner of the Earth, continue entering the USA with no end in sight. There are many anedotal signs of heightening social chaos. We must maintain order. The day when we could have avoided this reduction of our privacy passed long ago when diversity became a recognized political virtue, and equality was redfined to mean “diversity.”

The best we can hope for are federal laws that limit the use of national ID cards.

One federal law should state that the national ID card cannot be required to buy or sell anything, with such exceptions as the law may allow. These exceptions would include the buying of such items as high explosives and the boarding of airplanes, where it even may be mandatory. Producing the ID to buy firearms will be an issue.

Citizens should be required to produce their national ID card as rarely as is possible.

Coral Eugene Watts has admitted to murdering thirteen women. Now, due to various problems in his prosecution in 1982, he may be freed. The only chance to keep him behind bars is the possibility of a conviction in a pending murder trial in Michigan. (*)

If the justice system allows a confessed serial killer to walk, it has failed in its purpose.

Update: 12 June 2005: He was tried on another charge of murder and sentenced to a term of life imprisonment. It is unlikely that he will be freed. (†)

The National African American Drug Policy Coalition is a new organization that seeks to reform drug enforcement laws to take a more public health oriented approach to fighting drugs. (*)

In general, I agree with the new group’s stance. Nevertheless, it is critical for the well-being and sanity of society that these reform efforts don’t go too far. We should continue to stigmatize illegal drug users with imprisonment. Decriminalization is not the right goal.

Despite the presence of drug legalizer Kurt Schmoke in the new Coalition’s leadership, the Coalition is not apparently desirous of decriminalization.

Another issue is the disparity in sentencing for crack cocaine and cocaine in powder form. The original justifcation for the disparity was that crack users are more dangerous to society than powder cocaine users. Powder cocaine users are much less likely than crack users to knife random passersby to rob them of a few dollars, for example.

Yet, it is right to look at the disparity with skepticism. Powder cocaine can be manufactured into crack cocaine. Furthermore, the greater prices of powder cocaine and hence greater illegal profits may in effect subsidize the cocaine cartels that also push crack.

Instead of reducing criminal sentences for crack cocaine possession, we should increase the criminal sentences for powder cocaine possession up to the level of crack-related sentences.

In certain, well-defined cases, however, drug treatment would benefit society more than imprisonment.

Drugs continue to plague large segments of our society, including numerous African-American families. Addititionally, the terrorist Enemy is in league with some drug pusher networks.

The National African American Drug Policy Coalition should be commended for championing the public health approach, an approach that will prove critical if the evil reign of illegal drugs is ever to be decisively turned back.

The General Accounting Office (GAO) is maintained by Congress to produce bipartisan reports. It is a valuable source of information. It has long ranged outside the area of accounting.

Recently, it renamed itself the Government Accountability Office (GAO). (*)

The new name is a mistake. Today our government is not as accountable as it should be. There is room for improvement. Yet, here is this office that boldly proclaims how government is accountable.

I suppose we will next see the renaming of the FCC to the Department of Truth and the Department of Defense to the Department of Love.

Congress should reverse this Orwellian name change.

The drive continues to amend the Constitution to allow persons not born in the USA to become President. John Dean is a backer. (*) Orrin Hatch has sponsored a constitutional amendment to open up the presidency to foreign-born citizens.

Proponents like to talk about Arnold Schwarzenegger and Jennifer Granholm.

Let’s not forget who else could or could have become President under this reckless proposal.

• George Soros
• Rupert Murdoch
• Conrad Black
• Christopher Hitchens
• Theresa Heinz Kerry
• Madeline Albright
• Henry Kissinger
• Arianna Huffington
• John Lennon
• Andrew Sullivan
• Ayn Rand
• Peter Jennings

If you see anyone on that list you would not want to be President, you should at least think twice before supporting the amendment.

The natural-born clause is key in ensuring absolutely the loyalty of every American President.

The natural-born clause is not unjust or discriminatory. Any son or daughter of immigrants can become President. That was the rule for most current American families, and that should remain the rule forever.

John Dean addresses this delicate subject. (*)

Although former National Security Advisor Sandy Berger is under criminal investigation for allegedly removing top secret documents from the National Archives (*), a serious matter, the proper course of action, where, as here, the accused was a major political figure and is accused of crimes with such heavy political overtones, is to hold a Congressional investigation before any criminal charges are filed.

The House Government Reform Committee has announced it will investigate Berger. (†)

Until we learn the complete factual picture, political posturing should be avoided.

Update: 12 June 2005. Berger pleaded guilty. (‡) Berger says it was an honest mistake, but putting documents in one’s socks doesn’t seem to be the typical result of a mistake. We seem to have learned as much as we ever will know about this bizarre and disturbing incident.

Henry Lamb repeats the canard that treaties can amend the Constitution without the requisite approval of the states. (*)

Treaties cannot amend the Constitution. In US law, treaties are equivalent to congressional legislation. Every treaty must conform to the same constitutional limitations that regular congressional legislation must. A treaty may regulate interstate commerce, for example, but only because the Constitution allows Congress to regulate interstate commerce.

The First Amendment denies Congress the power to abridge the freedom of speech. If there were a congressionally-approved treaty that purported to abridge the freedom of speech, that treaty would be unconstitutional.

The Constitution requires treaties to pass the Senate with a two-thirds majority. Some treaties, however, pass into law with only a simple majority by the House and the Senate. How can both be “treaties?”

Article II, Section II, Clause 2 of the Constitution provides that the President “shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur.” (†) Since ordinary Congressional legislation passed by a simple majority of both houses has the same force of law as treaties, and such legislation can be reciprocated by passing into law the same text as a “treaty” in a foreign country, both treaties adopted by two-thirds of the US Senate and treaties adopted by both houses of US Congress are equal in their force of law as applied to the USA, and neither sort of treaty—regardless of under which one of the two methods it was adopted—amend the US Constitution, the supreme law of the land.

On the other hand, there does remain a question of whether the Supreme Court of the US would find a treaty to be unconstitutional if it purported to regulate domestic matters that are outside the domain of the federal interstate commerce regulatory power as under the Lopez decision of 1995. Lamb would be concerned that the power of the federal government can extend through the treaty power, nullifying the notion that the federal government is a government of limited powers. While I would agree that federal power should not be extended through the Necessary and Proper clause to entirely new areas of federal power, I do not share his concern that the barrier will be breached. We will see.

(The argument that natural law trumps the Constitution and all other laws is beyond the scope of this discussion.)

Ethics codes and codes of conduct can be compared from organizations around the world. (*)

It’s curious how ethics codes do not directly relate to the philosophical study of ethics.

The Supreme Court shocked just about everyone with its decision in the campaign finance case, McConnell v. FEC. That is, except Spoons. He says the Supreme Court just repealed the First Amendment. (*)

It worries me, too. The decision is huge at 298 pages. It will take a while before anyone really gets a handle on it.

The conservative group American Legislative Exchange Council is lobbying state legislatures to pass the Jury Patriotism Act. (*) It would allow jurors to take time off from work for jury service without dipping into vacation or sick days at their jobs. That’s good. It would make it a criminal offense to not show up for jury duty. I don’t think that is necessary. We shouldn’t throw people in jail for skipping jury duty, though we should be disappointed in them. Finally, it would assess some type of a fee on those filing lawsuits in order to pay for various costs. That is a bad idea. As the fee becomes larger, more and more Americans will find the courthouse doors barred. That isn’t right. Furthermore, the fee could set the stage for a “lawsuit tax” that would hinder and deprive Americans who are seeking justice from getting their day in court.

The jury system is very important to our free society. The basic principle is that no one should lose at trial or go to prison unless regular folks, drawn from the community at large, are persuaded that the other side has a good enough argument. If it can’t be explained to regular people, it probably can’t be explained at all. The American people have the ultimate say in what our courts do. The smooth and fair functioning of our courts depends on the people doing their part.

Legislation that protects and maintains the jury system should have our support.

Update: 4 December 2003. Bill at Walloworld considers the issue. (†)

The nation is moving to electronic voting without many citizens realizing that electronic voting is susceptible to fraud.

(more…)

Retired general Tommy Franks tells Cigar Aficionado that in the event of a mass-casualty WMD attack on the US, the practical result may be that the Constitution would be suspended with a military government taking its place. (*)

Liberals are going nuts over this one. Oh, that Bush. Oh, that Ashcroft.

Well, what do they think would happen if a city of one million people were to be wiped out in a terrorist attack?

Do you think the surviving portion of the American people would restrain themselves from taking whatever action was necessary to prevent the same thing from happening to themselves? Of course, they could not be restrained. People will demand security from nuclear oblivion, no matter what the cost.

Why do you think I’ve been arguing that we need to fight the War on Terrorism? In part because I love the Constitution. Why do you think we went after Iraq? It was to prevent Iraq from building or otherwise obtaining a nuclear weapon. Compared to states, terrorist groups would have much more trouble mustering the resources necessary to get a nuke. The same analysis applies to other WMD attacks. Thus, the war must be taken to the state sponsors of terrorism. First on the list was Iraq.

It’s time for liberals to understand that this is a war that we must fight. We can choose some of our battles, like in Iraq. We cannot afford, however, to quit or let down our guard.

For the liberals who think Franks’ words are dangerous, could you please explain how your strategy will better defend the security of the United States from nuclear attack? And could you present your plan for saving the Constitution in the event a city or two is vaporized?

The Chief Justice of the Alabama Supreme Court is no longer that. Roy Moore is removed for unethical conduct. (*) War Liberal has been tracking the situation. (†) Moore refused to obey a federal court order. (‡) No one, not even a judge, is above the law.

Roy Moore gained notoriety by positioning a large altar in the middle of his courthouse and then claiming that it was constitutional. (§)

Dahlia Lithwick tries to condescend to Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia. She writes:

He [Scalia] is convinced that civilization is in decline and that this banishment of religion is directly responsible. He truly believes that the coarseness and callousness of modern mores and practices have imperiled us all. And if those beliefs make him sound more Jeremiah than Judge [sic], well, Scalia would probably welcome the comparison.

(*) That is incredibly presumptuous. Apparently no reasonable person could believe that Jeremiah knew what he was talking about, or that the coarseness and callousness of modern mores and practices are in any way deplorable. Apparently no one could be correct to believe that our civilization is in decline, or that it has anything to do with “banishment of religion.” Apparently such banishing would be constitutional. Ridiculous.

Lithwick also offers this laugher:

And he joins many of the nation’s religious groups in feeling besieged and marginalized by the constitutional wall that’s been erected between church and state—a wall that keeps the devout from practicing and proselytizing in the public square.

Of course, the Constitution does not prohibit people from practicing religion or proselytizing in the public squre. Lithwick seems to have mixed up this country with the Soviet Union.

The kind of erroneous, misleading nonsense we have here from Lithwick tends, over time, to erode public trust in the law, and that is indeed deplorable.