Law Is Dead

U.S. District Judge Kathleen Williams in Miami has ruled that Florida’s law making it illegal to enter the state as an illegal immigrant violates the Supremacy clause and is prohibiting state enforcement of the law. The states, according to her, cannot have any immigration laws because the Feds already have them.

OK. I will accept that.

That also means that the states can’t enforce any gun laws. Or drug laws. Or laws on murder, kidnapping, or any other laws. In fact, let’s just get rid of the states. Make them political subdivisions of the Federal whole.

We know that isn’t what she and the rest of the activist judiciary want. If a case making the claim that California’s gun laws violated the supremacy clause were to come before one of these judges, it would be summarily dismissed. This isn’t about the Constitution or the law. It’s about twisting things to fit your side. Note that so called sanctuary states and cities haven’t had the same treatment.

We are living in a time when the law is nothing more than a tool to be used to get what you want.

Due Process

There are a lot of Democrats running around and bleating about the Constitutional right to due process and illegal immigrants. Where does the right to due process appear in the Constitution? The Fifth Amendment:

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Kilmar Abrego Garcia is an illegal immigrant who was deported to El Salvador and is being held there in prison. A federal judge has ordered the Trump administration to “facilitate” Abrego Garcia’s release, an order affirmed by the Supreme Court, and to provide evidence of the actions it has taken to get him back.

Here is the problem with that- the Supreme Court doesn’t have the authority or the jurisdiction to order that. He is a foreign citizen who is in prison in his home country. The US government in general, and the US Supreme Court in particular, doesn’t have the authority to order the Salvadoran government to do a thing.

It doesn’t matter whether or not he is a gang member, an illegal, or a criminal in the US. The Supreme court cannot order the executive to invade another country, it just isn’t within the SCOTUS’ enumerated powers. The rest of the argument is moot.

Still, I will list the reasons why he wasn’t entitled to due process during deportation. Refer to the Fifth Amendment.

  • He isn’t being held by the US to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime,
  • He isn’t subject in jeopardy of life or limb twice for the same offense,
  • nor is he being compelled to be a witness against himself,
  • nor did the US government deprive him of life, liberty, or property, all they did was return him to his home country.

According to court filingsKilmar Abrego Garcia was born in July 1995 in the neighborhood of Los Nogales in El Salvador, where he helped his family run a business making pupusas, a local cuisine.

He crossed the border illegally near McAllen, Texas, in March 2012 when he was 16 years old. From the border, Abrego Garcia made his way to Maryland to live with his brother. The Trump administration sent him back to his home country. No due process was required, because the Fifth Amendment doesn’t say he is entitled to it.

Law Goes Too Far

A bill in the Florida legislature is going too far, and I think that I know why. The proposed law says that a property owner that is being photographed by a drone in an area of his property where he has an expectation of privacy may use reasonable force to prevent that spying. The law is being sold as a boon for the privacy of a homeowner being photographed in their backyard pool:

If I’m at a park and I’m playing baseball with my kids, and somebody takes up a drone just to show what’s going on in the park, do I really have an expectation of privacy? But if my daughters are sunbathing in the pool behind my house, I have an expectation of privacy.

Picture that a drone has been flying over your house. You believe that it is taking pictures of your family as they sunbathe in your backyard. You know that this looks just like the drone owned by your neighbor, so you go to his house. Sure enough, he is standing on the porch, flying his drone. You happen to know that the law also says this:

2. A person who has a reasonable expectation of privacy on his or her privately owned real property may use reasonable force to prohibit a drone from conducting surveillance in violation of this paragraph, if such drone is operating under 500 feet over such property.

To stop him, you wind up and punch him square in his stupid face. That was reasonable force, right? The problem here is that there is no way for you to know if he is conducting what the law says is surveillance or if he was simply flying by your house on the way to another location.

In your case, it turns out that he wasn’t taking pictures of your house, he was taking pictures of your other neighbor’s house because that neighbor wanted to sell his house and was looking for some drone shots for the listing’s Zillow page.

This is going to create a mess. The law is vague and isn’t really intended to protect homeowners. The law requires that the person using force know the intent of the person operating the drone. Let me explain:

A person, a state agency, or a political subdivision as defined in s. 11.45 may not use a drone equipped with an imaging device to record an image of privately owned real property or of the owner, tenant, occupant, invitee, or licensee of such property with the intent to conduct surveillance on the individual or property captured in the image in violation of such person’s reasonable expectation of privacy without his or her written consent. -emphasis added

So why is this law being proposed? The real reason for this law has absolutely nothing to do with homeowners or their families at the pool. No, it has to do with the state’s powerful developers, like the developers of The Villages. That developer is engaged in a legal battle with local journalists who have been filming and selling video of the construction projects in the area. It seems that there is quite a market for this sort of thing, and people have been making money by selling drone footage. That particular developer owns their own newspaper and has been trying to make money by selling their own footage of the area, and is upset that others are trying to horn in on the action. This is purely a big company trying to use the law to create their own monopoly.

Developers in Florida have been trying to do this for over a decade. Back in 2011, there was a failed attempt to make it a felony to take pictures of a farm. It wasn’t about farms- developers will often claim that their property is a farm because property tax rates on farms are low. The developer will place a cow or two, or perhaps a couple of orange trees, on a property that they have bought in order to develop the land, and they claim it to be a farm so that they can avoid paying taxes on the land until the last minute.

They don’t want people photographing their land because the construction crews are frequently breaking all sorts of laws- most of the construction crews are illegal immigrants, there are frequent environmental and OSHA violations, along with other illegalities, and this is how they get the official protection from the government.

When my own house was under construction, I took pictures of the entire house. I have hundreds of photos of the house as it was being built. I did it to have a record of where each wire, pipe, and stud was located, just in case I needed to do repairs or renovations. The developer found out and had a fit. He told me that I couldn’t take any pictures unless there were no construction workers on site, or he would prosecute. It is a felony in Florida to be on a construction site without permission.

Officials know that they are breaking the law, but can’t ignore it unless there is no evidence staring them in the face.

A few decades ago, children of the large farmers in Florida decided that they didn’t want to be farmers, and realized that you could make a lot more money per acre by growing houses on the land and selling them to gullible retirees than you could by growing oranges or raising cattle on that land. They became developers. The Villages is one of those developers, but there is no shortage of them in this state.

Illegal immigration is the modern day equivalent of slavery. Too many people, Democrat or Republican, are making money from this. That is why so many entrenched politicians hate DJT. They are all, D and R, making millions in the graft and corruption, and can’t have him upsetting their golden goose.

A note on developers:

You can take an 80 acre farm, develop it into a housing neighborhood with about 250 houses. If you get cheap enough labor to build the houses, those homes will sell for more than $25 million in profit. Do you have any idea how long you have to operate an 80 acre farm to sell $25 million in oranges?

Do the math- an orange orchard grosses about $2500 per acre each year. It would take an 80 acre orchard more than a century to bring in that kind of cash.

Tickets are Racist

California has decided that “traditional enforcement methods have had a well-documented disparate impact on communities of color, and implicit or explicit racial bias in police traffic stops puts drivers of color at risk” therefore, traffic tickets are racist.

To correct this, tickets will come with fines that are adjusted based upon the driver’s income level. How this passes through the equal protection clause, I don’t know.

Hypocrisy

All of the pearl clutching about how Trump is evil for ignoring the judges orders opposing his executive actions is complete partisan bull hockey. Here is what AOC said two years ago when a Federal Judge in Texas suspended the approval of abortion pills:

When it comes to executive actions, I don’t believe that any low level judge has the power to overrule the President. Any order to stay or overrule a President’s executive actions can, in my opinion, only come from SCOTUS.

Why? SCOTUS is the only court that is explicitly created by the Constitution. Lower courts are established by Congress. A judge in a court created by Congress shouldn’t be able to overrule the chief executive.

Suppressors

The US Attorney’s office has just filed a brief stating that suppressors aren’t arms and are therefore not protected by the Second Amendment.

This is twisting the definitions, since 26 USC 5845 defines a firearm thusly:

The term “firearm” means (1) a shotgun having a barrel or barrels of less than 18 inches in length; (2) a weapon made from a shotgun if such weapon as modified has an overall length of less than 26 inches or a barrel or barrels of less than 18 inches in length; (3) a rifle having a barrel or barrels of less than 16 inches in length; (4) a weapon made from a rifle if such weapon as modified has an overall length of less than 26 inches or a barrel or barrels of less than 16 inches in length; (5) any other weapon, as defined in subsection (e); (6) a machinegun; (7) any silencer (as defined in section 921 of title 18, United States Code); and (8) a destructive device. 

Court Says 21 Year Olds Are Minors

The 11th Circuit ruled that Florida’s law banning those under 21 from purchasing a firearm is Constitutional because:

The Florida law that prohibits minors from purchasing firearms does not violate the Second and Fourteenth Amendments because it is consistent with our historical tradition of firearm regulation. From the founding to the late-nineteenth century, our law limited the purchase of firearms by minors in different ways. The Florida law also limits the purchase of firearms by minors. And it does so for the same reason: to stop immature and impulsive individuals, like Nikolas Cruz, from harming themselves and others with deadly weapons.

The 11th Circuit on Friday ruled that the laws at the time of the nation’s founding restricted the purchase of firearms by minors and defined a minor as someone under the age of 21. The court stated that minors needed parental consent to access guns, even if they were performing militia service.

“First, minors generally could not purchase firearms because they lacked the judgment and discretion to enter contracts and to receive the wages of their labor. Second, minors were subject to the power of their parents and depended on their parents’ consent to exercise rights and deal with others in society,” Chief U.S. Circuit Judge William Pryor wrote on behalf of the majority. 

Except Nikolas Cruz wasn’t a minor. He was over the age of 18 when he bought that rifle. This means that those citizens who are 18, 19, and 20 years old are not adults, if one is to accept this reading of the US Constitution. If one were to accept this definition, then those in that age group cannot enter contracts, receive wages, and must be dependent upon their parents consent to exercise rights or deal with others in society. To say otherwise means that those in this age group are second class citizens.

This is a court that is clearly twisting the law to mean whatever they decide it will mean in order to achieve their desired results. Anyone who depends upon the courts to save them is sadly delusional.

Again, there is only one sure result- this nation will fall. Whatever replaces it is likely to not look like it did in George Washington’s day, or even in Teddy Roosevelt’s day. Those days are gone forever and will not return.

Court Jurisdiction

Judges in random districts all over the United States keep issuing orders telling the President of the United States what he can and cannot do. I just don’t see how a district court judge can issue an order that binds the entire nation. If the 9th DCA issues an opinion, it is effective only in the 9th district.

The basis of judicial power is laid out in Article III of the US Constitution. The case of Marbury v. Madison also did a good job of laying this out.

I just can’t see how the lowest court in the land can issue an order that outweighs the head of the executive branch. That makes the entire executive subordinate to even the most junior member of the judiciary. That is certainly not a coequal branch.

Double Standards

I have been told ad nauseum how the Second Amendment only applies to muskets, because that is what existed when the Amendment was written.

Now I want one of those faggot pedophiles to explain to me how a judge can order a government webpage promoting faggotry be put back up. What part of the constitution says anything about queers or webpages?

If it weren’t for double standards, the left would have no standards at all.

The Battle of the Courts

We are in a situation where the courts are divided along ideological lines. In a continuation of yesterday’s post, we see that a judge in Nort Dakota has declared that, since the state constitution was established to ensure life, liberty, and happiness, women have a constitutional right to kill their unborn children, if that is what makes them happy.

So again, why can’t that same logic be used as an excuse to own artillery pieces, kill people that you don’t like, or use LSD while driving down the highway, if that is what makes you happy?

It is my opinion that judges walk into the court room with a preconceived idea as to how they want to decide the case, and then twist the law and the constitution to fit that view.