debtors prisons

the united states has the largest prison population in the world. the despite the fact the the united states supreme court has ruled that jailing people for not having the means to pay fines is unconstitutional, thousands of folks in these states are still sent to jail for it:

• alabama
• arizona
• arkansas
• california
• colorado
• florida
• georgia
• indiana
• maryland
• michigan
• minnesota
• missouri
• oklahoma
• pennsylvania
• south carolina
• tennessee
• texas
• washington
• wisconsin
• wyoming

state supreme courts

in light of the fascism and bribery that is now rampant in the scotus, what is happening in our state supreme courts becomes even more important. here's where to find out what's going on.

scotus moms: anne gorsuch buford

neil gorsuch's mom was smart. she graduated with a bachelors degree at just 19, and was the youngest woman admitted to the colorado bar. when she got into politics, she was voted outstanding freshman legislator in the colorado house of representatives.

she also did everything she could to dismantle the epa, an agency she headed as its first female director, and hid superfund cleanup money so that it wouldn't help democratic candidates. she also relaxed pollution standards, cut the number of court cases against polluters, hired industry lobbyists to work in the epa, and allowed the use of restricted-use pesticides.

she also refused to enforce regulations that barred the use of lead in gasoline, which had been proven to cause aggression and brain damage. congress demanded records regarding her handling of the superfund. she refused to supply them, and was cited for contempt of congress - the first agency director to ever be cited for contempt.

she died of cancer at the age of 62. her son is neil gorsuch, who currently sits on the supreme court.

why we should regulate the supreme court today

well, everyone, obviously. at least, everyone is standing in line to, and that applies to the justices from both parties. which may or may not be why they made it harder to convict public officials of taking bribes that are orders of magnitude higher than those taken by justices in other countries that we whine about.

should we regulate the court? hell, yes. but they're going to fight it every step of the way, including making sure that congress doesn't fund the enforcement of any oversight that may someday be enacted.

or they can just wait until we get bored hearing about it and move on to the next shiny piece of tinfoil.

what the constitution says about the supreme court

according to the united states constitution, a supreme court justice has remarkable leeway when it comes to recusing themselves from cases or being removed from the bench.

here are the parts of the constitution that specifically mention the court:

The judicial Power of the United States shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services a Compensation, which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.

The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;--to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;--to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;--to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;--to Controversies between two or more States;-- between a State and Citizens of another State,--between Citizens of different States,--between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.

In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.

The Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment, shall be by Jury; and such Trial shall be held in the State where the said Crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any State, the Trial shall be at such Place or Places as the Congress may by Law have directed.

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.

The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.

koch brothers exposed

there is a documentary premiering tonight that exposes the political machine built and run by charles and david koch of koch industries. of particular note is their involvement in 'citizens united', the supreme court case that set the precedent that companies can pour as much money into elections as they like, and under cover of darkness.

more interesting, still, that justice clarence thomas - a toady if ever there was one - and chief justice john roberts attended a closed-door retreat with the koch's prior to their ruling. funny how supreme court justices seem to be exempt from recusing themselves from cases where they may have some direct interest... or where they take orders from billionaires.

supreme court says money = votes

http://www.addictinginfo.org/2014/04/02/supreme-court-just-put-america-sale/

85 people own half the world

conservatives in the u.s. constantly point to the 99% movement and say that they are trying to start a class war. but when the 85 wealthiest people literally own as much as the 3.5 billion poorest people (yes, that's billion with a 'b'), it's clear that the war is already well under way. the real question is, how do you turn it around so that the deck isn't stacked against those who don't have access to drafting their own legislation, health care, lawyers, members of the supreme court, members of congress, the media, and on and on?

especially when you have 1 percenters like this fellow who think it's just great?

some suggestions:
1. update the tax code for individuals and corporations to better reflect their ability to pay.
2. don't let companies sell products in the u.s. if they don't pay taxes here for those sales.
3. don't let companies bid for government contracts if they don't pay taxes for income earned as a result of that work.
4. bar all lobbyists from making contributions to members of congress, judges on the supreme court, or any regulatory agency members, including meals, trips, fund-raisers, etc., directly or through pacs or tax-exempt fronts.
5. do not allow any member of congress to take a job with any company that they regulated while in congress for a period of at least 15 years.
6. evenly distribute public education funds across the country, including locally collected taxes.
7. institute a national curriculum and national testing for all public schools.
8. fire any teachers whose students do not meet minimum standards.
9. increase individual teacher pay based on student outcomes.
10. set national standards for executive pay based on a company's size and earnings.
11. make every media outlet and journalist cite their sources for every story. especially television personalities.
12. raise the minimum wage. the wealthiest people on the planet complaining about making sure that their employees can eat is monstrous.

it's not everything, but it's a start. what would you change?

thomas jefferson: constitutions should expire

in a letter to james madison, thomas jefferson expressed the belief that succeeding generations should not necessarily be bound by the covenants of their ancestors - including the constitution that he wrote. (the text of the letter is below.)

justice scalia, tea party folks, and friends: this one's for you!

"Dear Sir,

 I sit down to write to you without knowing by what occasion I shall send my letter. I do it because a subject comes into my head which I would wish to develope a little more than is practicable in the hurry of the moment of making up general despatches.

The question Whether one generation of men has a right to bind another, seems never to have been started either on this or our side of the water. Yet it is a question of such consequences as not only to merit decision, but place also, among the fundamental principles of every government. The course of reflection in which we are immersed here on the elementary principles of society has presented this question to my mind; and that no such obligation can be transmitted I think very capable of proof. I set out on this ground which I suppose to be self evident, "that the earth belongs in usufruct to the living;" that the dead have neither powers nor rights over it. The portion occupied by an individual ceases to be his when himself ceases to be, and reverts to the society. If the society has formed no rules for the appropriation of its lands in severalty, it will be taken by the first occupants. These will generally be the wife and children of the decedent. If they have formed rules of appropriation, those rules may give it to the wife and children, or to some one of them, or to the legatee of the deceased. So they may give it to his creditor. But the child, the legatee or creditor takes it, not by any natural right, but by a law of the society of which they are members, and to which they are subject. Then no man can by natural right oblige the lands he occupied, or the persons who succeed him in that occupation, to the paiment of debts contracted by him. For if he could, he might during his own life, eat up the usufruct of the lands for several generations to come, and then the lands would belong to the dead, and not to the living, which would be reverse of our principle. What is true of every member of the society individually, is true of them all collectively, since the rights of the whole can be no more than the sum of the rights of individuals. To keep our ideas clear when applying them to a multitude, let us suppose a whole generation of men to be born on the same day, to attain mature age on the same day, and to die on the same day, leaving a succeeding generation in the moment of attaining their mature age all together. Let the ripe age be supposed of 21. years, and their period of life 34. years more, that being the average term given by the bills of mortality to persons who have already attained 21. years of age. Each successive generation would, in this way, come on and go off the stage at a fixed moment, as individuals do now. Then I say the earth belongs to each of these generations during it’s course, fully, and in their own right. The 2d. generation receives it clear of the debts and incumbrances of the 1st., the 3d. of the 2d. and so on. For if the 1st. could charge it with a debt, then the earth would belong to the dead and not the living generation. Then no generation can contract debts greater than may be paid during the course of it’s own existence. At 21. years of age they may bind themselves and their lands for 34. years to come: at 22. for 33: at 23 for 32. and at 54 for one year only; because these are the terms of life which remain to them at those respective epochs. But a material difference must be noted between the succession of an individual and that of a whole generation. Individuals are parts only of a society, subject to the laws of a whole. These laws may appropriate the portion of land occupied by a decedent to his creditor rather than to any other, or to his child, on condition he satisfies his creditor. But when a whole generation, that is, the whole society dies, as in the case we have supposed, and another generation or society succeeds, this forms a whole, and there is no superior who can give their territory to a third society, who may have lent money to their predecessors beyond their faculty of paying.

What is true of a generation all arriving to self-government on the same day, and dying all on the same day, is true of those on a constant course of decay and renewal, with this only difference. A generation coming in and going out entire, as in the first case, would have a right in the 1st year of their self dominion to contract a debt for 33. years, in the 10th. for 24. in the 20th. for 14. in the 30th. for 4. whereas generations changing daily, by daily deaths and births, have one constant term beginning at the date of their contract, and ending when a majority of those of full age at that date shall be dead. The length of that term may be estimated from the tables of mortality, corrected by the circumstances of climate, occupation &c. peculiar to the country of the contractors. Take, for instance, the table of M. de Buffon wherein he states that 23,994 deaths, and the ages at which they happened. Suppose a society in which 23,994 persons are born every year and live to the ages stated in this table. The conditions of that society will be as follows. 1st. it will consist constantly of 617,703 persons of all ages. 2dly. of those living at any one instant of time, one half will be dead in 24. years 8. months. 3dly. 10,675 will arrive every year at the age of 21. years complete. 4thly. it will constantly have 348,417 persons of all ages above 21. years. 5ly. and the half of those of 21. years and upwards living at any one instant of time will be dead in 18. years 8. months, or say 19. years as the nearest integral number. Then 19. years is the term beyond which neither the representatives of a nation, nor even the whole nation itself assembled, can validly extend a debt.

To render this conclusion palpable by example, suppose that Louis XIV. and XV. had contracted debts in the name of the French nation to the amount of 10.000 milliards of livres and that the whole had been contracted in Genoa. The interest of this sum would be 500 milliards, which is said to be the whole rent-roll, or net proceeds of the territory of France. Must the present generation of men have retired from the territory in which nature produced them, and ceded it to the Genoese creditors? No. They have the same rights over the soil on which they were produced, as the preceding generations had. They derive these rights not from their predecessors, but from nature. They then and their soil are by nature clear of the debts of their predecessors. Again suppose Louis XV. and his contemporary generation had said to the money lenders of Genoa, give us money that we may eat, drink, and be merry in our day; and on condition you will demand no interest till the end of 19. years, you shall then forever after receive an annual interest of 12.’5 per cent. The money is lent on these conditions, is divided among the living, eaten, drank, and squandered. Would the present generation be obliged to apply the produce of the earth and of their labour to replace their dissipations? Not at all.

I suppose that the received opinion, that the public debts of one generation devolve on the next, has been suggested by our seeing habitually in private life that he who succeeds to lands is required to pay the debts of his ancestor or testator, without considering that this requisition is municipal only, not moral, flowing from the will of the society which has found it convenient to appropriate the lands become vacant by the death of their occupant on the condition of a paiment of his debts; but that between society and society, or generation and generation there is no municipal obligation, no umpire but the law of nature. We seem not to have perceived that, by the law of nature, one generation is to another as one independant nation to another.

The interest of the national debt of France being in fact but a two thousandth part of it’s rent-roll, the paiment of it is practicable enough; and so becomes a question merely of honor or expediency. But with respect to future debts; would it not be wise and just for that nation to declare in the constitution they are forming that neither the legislature, nor the nation itself can validly contract more debt, than they may pay within their own age, or within the term of 19. years? And that all future contracts shall be deemed void as to what shall remain unpaid at the end of 19. years from their date? This would put the lenders, and the borrowers also, on their guard. By reducing too the faculty of borrowing within its natural limits, it would bridle the spirit of war, to which too free a course has been procured by the inattention of money lenders to this law of nature, that succeeding generations are not responsible for the preceding.

On similar ground it may be proved that no society can make a perpetual constitution, or even a perpetual law. The earth belongs always to the living generation. They may manage it then, and what proceeds from it, as they please, during their usufruct. They are masters too of their own persons, and consequently may govern them as they please. But persons and property make the sum of the objects of government. The constitution and the laws of their predecessors extinguished them, in their natural course, with those whose will gave them being. This could preserve that being till it ceased to be itself, and no longer. Every constitution, then, and every law, naturally expires at the end of 19. years. If it be enforced longer, it is an act of force and not of right.

It may be said that the succeeding generation exercising in fact the power of repeal, this leaves them as free as if the constitution or law had been expressly limited to 19. years only. In the first place, this objection admits the right, in proposing an equivalent. But the power of repeal is not an equivalent. It might be indeed if every form of government were so perfectly contrived that the will of the majority could always be obtained fairly and without impediment. But this is true of no form. The people cannot assemble themselves; their representation is unequal and vicious. Various checks are opposed to every legislative proposition. Factions get possession of the public councils. Bribery corrupts them. Personal interests lead them astray from the general interests of their constituents; and other impediments arise so as to prove to every practical man that a law of limited duration is much more manageable than one which needs a repeal.

This principle that the earth belongs to the living and not to the dead is of very extensive application and consequences in every country, and most especially in France. It enters into the resolution of the questions Whether the nation may change the descent of lands holden in tail? Whether they may change the appropriation of lands given antiently to the church, to hospitals, colleges, orders of chivalry, and otherwise in perpetuity? whether they may abolish the charges and privileges attached on lands, including the whole catalogue ecclesiastical and feudal? it goes to hereditary offices, authorities and jurisdictions; to hereditary orders, distinctions and appellations; to perpetual monopolies in commerce, the arts or sciences; with a long train of et ceteras: and it renders the question of reimbursement a question of generosity and not of right. In all these cases the legislature of the day could authorize such appropriations and establishments for their own time, but no longer; and the present holders, even where they or their ancestors have purchased, are in the case of bona fide purchasers of what the seller had no right to convey.

Turn this subject in your mind, my Dear Sir, and particularly as to the power of contracting debts, and develope it with that perspicuity and cogent logic which is so peculiarly yours. Your station in the councils of our country gives you an opportunity of producing it to public consideration, of forcing it into discussion. At first blush it may be rallied as a theoretical speculation; but examination will prove it to be solid and salutary. It would furnish matter for a fine preamble to our first law for appropriating the public revenue; and it will exclude, at the threshold of our new government the contagious and ruinous errors of this quarter of the globe, which have armed despots with means not sanctioned by nature for binding in chains their fellow-men. We have already given, in example one effectual check to the Dog of war, by transferring the power of letting him loose from the executive to the Legislative body, from those who are to spend to those who are to pay. I should be pleased to see this second obstacle held out by us also in the first instance. No nation can make a declaration against the validity of long-contracted debts so disinterestedly as we, since we do not owe a shilling which may not be paid with ease principal and interest, within the time of our own lives. Establish the principle also in the new law to be passed for protecting copy rights and new inventions, by securing the exclusive right for 19. instead of 14. years. Besides familiarising us to this term, it will be an instance the more of our taking reason for our guide instead of English precedents, the habit of which fetters us, with all the political herecies of a nation, equally remarkable for it’s encitement from some errors, as long slumbering under others. I write you no news, because when an occasion occurs I shall write a separate letter for that. I am always, with great and sincere esteem, dear Sir, your affectionate friend and servant."

supreme court affirms support for well-heeled candidates

here's another coffin nail for campaign finance reform.

the current supreme court bench clearly favors candidates that are either extremely wealthy or well-supported by special interests. given that scalia frequently appears to live in the pocket of those interests - and that thomas is proud to be their dogsbody, and to have his wife ride the same cart with impunity - this should come as no surprise.

don't let anyone fool you: this issue has nothing to do with free speech and everything to do with the wealthiest people and corporations taking over the election process by sheer weight of money.

no get out of jail cards for gitmo inmates

you know, government hacks and military quacks are often accused of having no imagination, but not by elsewhen - oh no. under tricky dickless and crew, our government has come up with more creative ways to gut the constitution than any administration since the japanese interment. here's our latest example, straight from gitmo, and straight out of the pentagon's mouth:

get sent to prison immediately upon capture

never get to see any of the evidence against you

never get to see friends or family ever again

never get to face your accusers or witnesses to any of your supposed crimes

never get a trial

if you do get a trial, there will be no jury, and current judicial protections will not apply to you

and here's the capper: even if you are acquitted, you will remain in prison for the rest of your life.

does this sound like the way the good guys act to you?

supreme court learning to dance

despite a divisive session last year, this year's session seems to indicate that the justices are learning to dance together. you'll find a list of their decisions after the jump.

do we agree with all of those decisions? hell no - we would like to have seen them rule in favor of capital punishment for child rape (by either skinning alive or burning, for preference), and letting bankers and lawyers off the hook from being legally responsible for defrauding their clients is unconscionable. but there have been an almostequal number of decisions we wholeheartedly agree with, including allowing guantanamo prisoners to legally challenge their confinement.