To respond, e-mail johnsont@yosemite.edu
New Post 4-7: Jury Rejects Illegal Alien Claim: On Friday the jury rejected Mr. Saleh's claim and ruled for the defense. As pointed out by one student, Executive Order 41, in relevant part, reads as follows: " Law enforcement officers shall not inquire about a person's immigration status unless investigating illegal activity other than mere status as an undocumented alien.....[and]... shall continue to cooperate with federal authorities in investigating and apprehending aliens suspected of criminal activity." Because Mr. Saleh was involved in criminal activity, the officers were within their rights. The Jury also rejected Mr. Saleh's First Amendment claim "to petition the government for redress of grievances." Saleh argued that the police retaliated against him because he filed a grievance against the city after officers wrote him over 25 tickets. However, the city found his grievance without merit because he actually deserved the tickets.
Post 4-2: Illegal Alien Sues New York Cops For Trying To Deport Him. This week Palestinian illegal alien Waheed Saleh is in trial the Manhattan Federal District Court suing NYPD officers for reporting him to the U.S. Immigration & Naturalization Service. Saleh claims that the police are retaliating against him because he is an unlicensed cab driver in the city. The police allege that, in addition to being unlicensed and undocumented, he was guilty of disturbing the peace by getting into a fistfight in a city parking lot and also using his vehicle to try to run down a pedestrian. In 2003 New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg signed executive order 41 which provided sanctuary to illegal aliens in order to encourage them to report crimes committed upon them. What legal and constitutional issues arise in this case?
3-19 U.S. Supreme Court Hears Oral Arguments in Gun Control Case. Yesterday, the Court heard arguments in The District of Columbia v Heller, the first big Second Amendment case since the 1939 U.S. v Miller decision, wherein the Court permitted gun control, holding that a sawed off shotgun was not what the framers had in mind when they referred to "arms." The current case involves a ban on handguns and comes in the wake of one of the highest murder rates in the nation. The District of Columbia outlawed handguns because they can so easily be brought into buses, subways, and schools. Handgun crime has decreased in the District since the law was enacted. Mr. Heller argues that he is entitled to own a handgun for self-defense. The court is considering two constitutional issues. First, does the Second Amendment, which refers to a "well-regulated militia," only protect a collective right to bear arms, or does it also protect a private right? Justice Stephen Breyer appeared to believe it only protects a collective right. "We now have police departments, not militias, and so the 2d Amendment is irrelevant here," he stated. Other judges seemed willing to skirt that issue and argued that even if the Second Amendment protected a private right, it only bars "unreasonable" infringements on such a right. I predict the court will follow the Miller precedent that gun control is permissible. The judges repeatedly made it clear that trigger locks, waiting periods, and felony background checks were reasonable. They also kept referring to the notion that outlawing, say, machine guns, would be reasonable. Whether they will hold that outlawing all handguns is reasonable I cannot predict.
3-19 Home Schooling Follow Up
The 2d District Court's ruling is now on appeal to the California Supreme Court. Astute political science students would recognize this case as involving a classic analytical debate over how the constitution should be interpreted. Using a strict construction approach, there is nothing that expressly protects the right to home school. The original intent method might be the best argument for home schoolers. Public schools were rare in 1787; most kids were schooled in a church or home school, and teaching credentials had not yet come into vogue. Thus, one could argue that the right to home school without a credential is an implied 9th Amendment right. In 1925 in the case of Pierce v Society, the U.S. Supreme Court held that under the "pneumbra" parents have a liberty right in the education of their children. However, the Court also held that states can reasonable regulate that right. Whether the living document approach helps home schoolers is trickier. The long term historical trend has been toward mandatory public schooling, with home schooling being a more recent phenomena. Although I'm not sure we're there yet, at some point the court could rule that society has evolved to the point where home schooling is now a constitutionally cognizable liberty right.
Rather than wade into this analytical quagmire, many believe a more likely result is that the Supreme Court will simply "depublish" the 2d District's ruling, which means that while the ruling remains in effect with respect to the particular parties involved in that case, it does not carry any precedential authority in future cases. In any event, it seems unlikely that the ruling would be enforced against the vast majority of home schoolers. After a ruling like this there is a tendency for many to believe "the sky is falling." However, not only would enforcement be extremely tedious and expensive, there is a dearth of evidence that there has been any significant problem in California with home schooling--one bad situation does not a trend make. Responders to this blog cited numerous examples of the great educations that most home schooled kids get. They cited examples of students who were doing horrible in public schools until they began home schooling and are now doing terrific. Further, the availability of "charter schools" is perhaps a technical end-run around the ruling. Home schoolers without the requisite credential can have a weekly meeting with a credentialed teacher who "supervises" the home school, thereby meeting the credential requirement.
Of those who objected to home schooling, none cited a poor education or abuse as their reason. Rather, they felt that home schooled kids tend to be a bit "socially retarded." But the responders also noted that having a teaching credential would not solve this problem. Neither would it solve the occasional abuse problem since a credentialed teacher could abuse a kid just as easily as a non credentialed one. Others rejected the idea of social retardation, noting that home schoolers often go on field trips and engage in plenty of activities with other kids. They can still play sports and join clubs, and often do. In the end they become great citizens and pillars of the community.
3-17 Post: Home Schooling in Jeopardy?
Last week in the case of In Re Rachel L the California Second District Court of Appeal ruled that there is no California constitutional liberty right to home school your children. If you do it, you have to hold a "valid state teaching credential." If you have a teaching credential from out of state it doesn't qualify. If you hold a Ph.D., a law degree, a medical degree, or you're just an excellent teacher, that doesn't qualify either. The fact that your kids are light years ahead of their publicly schooled peers is also irrelevant. In fact, you can be criminally prosecuted for home schooling your kid. The court held that benefits of public education included training children "in good citizenship, patriotism, and loyalty to the state..." (ticking off not only conservatives, but anarchists as well!) The court also noted that some home schooled kids are getting a "bad" education, and they were ensnared in a "cloistered" environment where no one from the outside could see if "something was amiss" in the children's lives. The case arose out of a particularly egregious situation where child abuse was involved. Of course that can happen even if the kids are publicly schooled, so it almost seems unrelated to the education issue.
The California Teachers Association was ecstatic about the ruling. But is it because they truly fear that home schooled kids are not getting a good education, or is it all about the money? Public schools get their funding based on ADA (Average Daily Attendance), which means that the more students are home schooled, the less they attend public schools and the less money the public school gets. There are stories about schools who advise parents whose kids are sick to "send them to school anyway," otherwise the school does not get the ADA funding for that kid for that day. Also pleased by the ruling are the internet education schools which anticipate that parents will have now have to cough up millions to go through teacher credentialing programs. Of course before that, you have to earn a B.A. as well.
I must admit that I was a home school skeptic for years. But my experience has been that some of my best students are home schooled. I've talked to them about it and most of them say their parents are not credentialed. I still am concerned about their lack of socialization, however. But there again, they don't tend to be unwed mothers with drug and alcohol problems, text messaging their friends while listening to their ipods, playing their games boys, and watching video games. Boy am I gonna catch grief from that last statement!
More Responses on Gun Control
One student opposes guns, even for self protection. "Get a dog!" she writes. So maybe, instead of an armed guard, we should have a campus dog, trained not only to smell gunpowder and take down guys wearing trench coats (we could call her "claim jumper"), but also to sniff out meth, Ecstasy, and the other stuff I hear is making its way around this campus (were you at the dorms last Friday night with your glow sticks?). But, hey, keep that canine away from the hooch smokers! The Turkish water pipe imbibing adds a cultural "Across the Universe" dimension to the school ambience, no? Sure, it looks like they're all getting stoned on Sensimillian, but that's just an illusion. But what kind of a dog do we get? Probably the standard German Shepherd. Remember Dobermans, and especially Pit Bulls, come with their own special issues.
Ostriches Do Not Stick Their heads in the Sand!
Thanks for the research. One student provided me with excellent documentation that this is a certifiable myth!
Gun Politics
Gun control has been a hot topic lately. Some argue that no gun control ought to be allowed because once the government starts regulating guns, the next thing you know, they will take away the right to own guns altogether. "It's a slippery slope" they say. No more duck hunting for you!
Thus, even seemingly reasonable regulations like safety trigger locks, waiting periods and felony background checks are opposed by some. In an effort to cut down on illicit gun possession, some schools have even been outlawing baggy pants and loose fitting shirts that aren't tucked in! Check out the link below to see why the government is once again intruding into our cherished civil liberties.
Responses To Gun Politics
The interesting thing about the responses to this post is that both the right and left say they are adamant about protecting civil liberties. However, they disagree over which liberties should be protected. The right talks about protecting our right to unfettered gun ownership and from government regulation that infringes on property rights, but they don't seem to mind the government eves-dropping or detaining suspected terrorists without trial if necessary to protect lives and national security. The left doesn't mind government regulation over private land use if necessary to protect the environment or of guns if necessary to protect lives from wackos. However, they do want to prevent the government from eves-dropping and regulating what women choose to do regarding their unborn children. This debate reminds me of the argument over government spending. Both say they oppose wasteful government, but Republicans say we spend too much on social programs, while democrats say we spend too much on the military
Speaking of guns, what do you think about the idea of having at least one highly trained law enforcement official armed with a gun on our campus? Some argue that it would be unseemly. It would detract from the non-violent, environmentally sensitive culture here at the college and make it a dangerous place. "We ought not have any guns here on campus!" I agree, but the fact is, some of our students are already carrying concealed weapons and the recent school shooting pandemic means we are not immune from that here. In fact, the Sonora Police Department has described our county as fitting the exact profile where a Columbine style shooting is likely to occur. So are we being the proverbial ostrich with his head stuck in the sand? By the way, do ostriches really do that? In the event of a shooting, campus security will be running for cover like everyone else and it will take roughly 15 minutes before the sheriff responds. Meanwhile, many lives could be lost. What's more, our highly trained officer could conceal his weapon just like our students, and no one would even know. Now that's what I call environmentally sensitive!
The History of Political Scandal: An All American Affair (well, actually it happens in other nations too)
Indeed I did debate whether or not I would join in the feeding frenzy regarding this salacious news story, but I decided to give up the better part of valor and justify it by offering my perspective "as a professional historian." Unless you've lost all contact with the universe, you've undoubtedly been privy to the wall to wall 24 hour coverage regarding New York Democratic Governor Elliot Spitzer. The state's former Attorney General, known as "The Sheriff of Wall Street" and "Mr. Clean," up until yesterday was routinely compared to Elliot Ness, the Mafia crime fighting, incorruptible leader of the Untouchables during the early 20th century. Interestingly, Mr. Clean was exposed through the same wiretapping scheme that he had relentlessly used against others. The Sheriff joins an ever growing club of illustrious politicians. Last year, Republican Senators Larry Craig of Idaho, David Vitter of Louisiana, and congressman Mark Foley of Florida were the latest to fall from grace. Before that it was New Jersey's Democratic Governor James McGreevey and the Democratic Mayor of Detroit Kwame Kilpatrick. Brings back memories of the good ole days involving Colorado's Democratic Senator Gary Hart who dared the media to catch him, and indeed they did, among other places aboard a Yacht festooned with the name "Monkey Business."
But if we're going to go here, we should emphasize that this is an all American proclivity that has involved some of the biggest names in American politics, to wit, our highly esteemed presidents. Of course everyone knows about Democratic president Bill Clinton and Monica Lewinsky, Gennifer Flowers, and possibly Paula Jones. The latter's harassment lawsuit was thrown out, not because a factual determination was made, but because the judge made a legal interpretation that even if the president's behavior was boorish, it did not have a tight enough nexus to her employment. In any event, Clinton was merely following a long line of presidential tradition. Noteworthy is the relationship between Democratic president LBJ and Alice Glass (his wife was Lady Bird). But Democratic President JFK takes the cake as the most prolific; there were so many different women that historians have lost track of the count. Nonetheless, no one can forget Marilyn Monroe, who was also two timing the president's brother, Bobby, the late-great attorney general. Republican Dwight D. Eisenhower had an illicit dalliance with Kay Sommersby while he was off serving his county in Europe (and as his wife Maime pined away in the good ole US of A). Giving new meaning to the campaign slogan "I Like Ike," Sommersby enshrined the event by penning a tell all memoir entitled Past Forgetting: My Love Affair with Dwight D. Eisenhower. Democratic president FDR had a notoriously long lasting relation with his wife's secretary, Lucy Mercer, and he subsequently became paralyzed from the waist down in what some have described as poetic justice. In the early 1920's Republican president Warren Harding allegedly paid off Carrie Phillips to the tune of 20 grand to keep quiet. But another one of his paramours, Nan Britton, decided to out him in a book entitled The President's Daughter, in which she details her tryst with the Chief and the daughter it produced. Mrs. Harding wasn't too amused, however, and some historians speculate that she was responsible for the one term head of state's death (vis a vis arsenic poisoning)
In the 1880's Democratic president Grover Cleveland fessed up to producing an illegitimate child while in the oval office, after which his political opponents chanted "ma, ma, where's my pa?" In the 1870's Republican James Garfield had an affair as well. In the 1820's Democrat Andrew Jackson married his wife before her divorce from her first husband was final. And then there's the infamous Thomas Jefferson-Sally Hemings affair in which the late slave master allegedly produced children through his black slave mistress. Some have even suggested exhuming the president's remains for a DNA test to prove the lineage down to his present day descendants. Is there nothing sacred anymore? All of these examples makes one wonder--are these great Americans the exception or the rule? It also begs the question, is the only difference between them and others is that they got caught?
There are tons of angles from which to analyze the Spitzer case, but so far the one that has got me going is watching the psychiatrists weigh in on the matter. They're all over the board. Some argue that Spitzer did it because of self-loathing. He's a complex animal, full of internal contradictions and guilt. He acted so recklessly because deep down inside he wanted to get caught and punished. Other psychiatrists have said just the opposite: he was a victim of narcissism, thought he was above the law, and could do no wrong. The $80,000 he spent over a considerable time period involving a number of liaisons was tied to money laundering and demonstrates his level of sophistication and shamelessness. Talk about junk science! Fact is, there's really nothing complicated about this at all. As they say, it's not rocket science. Truth be told there's really nothing presidential or political about any of this. It's simply a foible of human nature to which anyone can fall prey.
Responses to Scandal
The thrust of these is whether it matters that politicians are unscrupulous regarding sex. Some say everybody does it and it has no impact on job performance and on the real issues of importance. Others say that they should lose their jobs for being terrible role models, and that it reflects adversely on their character, which makes them untrustworthy and ineffectual leaders. Most agree that it is primarily a media soap opera created for entertainment, ratings, and money.