Showing posts with label Supreme Court. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Supreme Court. Show all posts

The Treatment Of Money


As long as we have had recorded speech, we have been aware of the affect that words can have on people.  There are countless examples of leaders, popular people, and even ordinary citizens crafting arguments that sway people to their way of thinking.  Where would we, as a society, be without the words of such figures as Martin Luther King, Jr., William Shakespeare, and the many religious figures that have come and gone throughout history?  In our digital age, where the words that people say are often carried more in text form than in auditory form, the things that people say can have an impact, both to a wide ranging audience and to a small personal audience.


The recent ruling by the US Supreme Court in the Citizens United decision has had a wide ranging affect on out political process.  In this decision, the Supreme Court ruled that money was a form of speech, and, because of our First Amendment protected freedoms on speech and the legal precedent that corporations are people, no limits can be put on that amount of money that can be spent in the political arena, nor can there be a limit on what that money is spent on.  People have criticized the Supreme Court on this decision, specifically noting the kind of undue influence that the wealthy among us can now have on the political process.  This criticism has not stopped many of America's most wealthy persons from using their wealth to increase their participation in the American political process.


The recent released critically acclaimed movie American Hustle focuses on the ABSCAM scandal.  This scandal involved Middle Eastern sheiks bribing several politicians in exchange for political favors.  The ABSCAM scandal is not the only time politicians have been caught up in a bribery scandal.  Recently the high rising political careers of Republican politicians Bob McDonnell and John Swallow were each cut short after both politicians were accused of taking money from wealthy and influential political donors.  It is not just politicians that can be influenced by money.  If we look deeply into the way the we approach our lives, the influence of money, and the way that we and others spend money, is evident and, in some cases, shocking.


Bribery has long been seen as a corrupting influence on politics, most acutely American politics.  However, the recent Citizens United decision forces us to look at bribery in a new light.  If money is speech, and people can be influenced by great speeches as well as by how and what amounts of money is spent on certain things, as has been well established in history and by personal experience, how can bribery be seen as illegal? If money is speech, and we have freedom of speech, how can we place limits on how money is spent in any context?  Yes, the treatment of money in this manner can lead to the wealthy having more of an influence over all governmental decisions, but, in the context I have presented, this treatment of money would be the same as the difference in the influence that well read, articulate people have over people that do not have such gifts.  In light of the Citizens United decision, what is the difference, in a legal context, between a well crafted speech and a pile of money?

Questioning The Legality Of Police Using GPS Tracker Cannons

Police firing GPS tracking 'bullets' at cars during chases


At first glance this seems like a really cool story: Cops using GPS trackers to track a car they are pursuing instead of engaging in a high speed pursuit.  This technology could save lives, prevent property loss, and even prevent that bastard who stole my high end sports car from wrecking it in a place that I would never, and will never, go to.  But, once again, the skeptic in me rears his ugly head.  Sure the police can fire GPS trackers at a fleeing vehicle, but is it legal for them to do so?


In Unites States v. Jones, the Supreme Court dealt with whether police can put a GPS tracker on a suspect's car, deciding that the placement of such a device constituted a search of private property, and that keeping the GPS tracker on the car for an extended amount of time constituted a unreasonable search of a person's private property.  While that decision deals with a person that is suspected a crime, how does this decision affect whether the police can shoot a GPS tracker on the car of a person they know has committed a crime?  Does public safety affect the legality of such a decision?  What about length of time?  If the GPS tracker is placed and the car is not found for a couple of days, does the length of time it took to find the car affect whether or not the police can use this technology in this manner?


When contacted by this reporter for this story, Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia said, "What the fuck are you doing on my property?  Get the fuck out of here, you fucking liberal."


When queried, the public relations department for the West Valley City Police Department said, in a statement, "Why can't you journalistic types just leave us alone?!?  We were just fine before you people started poking around in our business, and now- and now- Look at us!  We're a police force in shambles.  Just get out.  Get out!"


I have yet to receive a clear answer about the legality of GPS trackers being shot from police vehicles at suspect vehicles.  One thing is clear though, I know who I don't trust with this technology.