Uppity Wisconsin
Making Wisconsin Progressive Again
Kathleen Falk, Democrats and Louis Brandeis
Sun, 02/15/2009 - 6:02pm | mal contends
Update: Related piece by Adam Cohen warns that the Supreme Court May Be About to Kill Off the Exclusionary Rule (NYT)
"They conferred, as against the Government, the right to be let alone - the most comprehensive of rights, and the right most valued by civilized men. To protect that right, every unjustifiable intrusion by the Government upon the privacy of the individual, whatever the means employed, must be deemed a violation of the Fourth Amendment."
- Justice Louis Dembitz Brandeis, (the "People's Attorney") dissenting opinion in Olmstead v. United States (1928)
The American electorate is regularly treated to examples of Democrats and liberals going along to get along with the powers that be.
Too often this going along involves complicity in appalling violations of our liberties at home, and inhumanity abroad as we loose our killing machine upon innocents.
"They conferred, as against the Government, the right to be let alone - the most comprehensive of rights, and the right most valued by civilized men. To protect that right, every unjustifiable intrusion by the Government upon the privacy of the individual, whatever the means employed, must be deemed a violation of the Fourth Amendment."
- Justice Louis Dembitz Brandeis, (the "People's Attorney") dissenting opinion in Olmstead v. United States (1928)
The American electorate is regularly treated to examples of Democrats and liberals going along to get along with the powers that be.
Too often this going along involves complicity in appalling violations of our liberties at home, and inhumanity abroad as we loose our killing machine upon innocents.
Tags: Civil Liberties, Yes
Thu, 02/05/2009 - 7:15am | mal contends
It's about time someone spoke up against Kathleen Falk's bone-headed approach to addressing the issue of operating a vehicle while intoxicated (OWI) and the non-issue of Wisconsin's alleged drinking "culture" problem.
Falk's criminalization and anti-civil liberties OWI agenda drew reproach from her opponent, Nancy Mistele, at the first debate (January) between the two likely candidates for Dane County Executive in the general election in April.
Mistele hit the statist, heavy-handed Falk program by pointing out that personal responsibility and private action were critical vis a vis government's involvement of changing the "culture," to a round of groans from Falk supporters.
Yesterday's Captial Times hits Falk's approach, though not naming Falk as a leading advocate; [wish they had].
Falk's criminalization and anti-civil liberties OWI agenda drew reproach from her opponent, Nancy Mistele, at the first debate (January) between the two likely candidates for Dane County Executive in the general election in April.
Mistele hit the statist, heavy-handed Falk program by pointing out that personal responsibility and private action were critical vis a vis government's involvement of changing the "culture," to a round of groans from Falk supporters.
Yesterday's Captial Times hits Falk's approach, though not naming Falk as a leading advocate; [wish they had].
Does Wisconsin Still Like the Fourth Amendment?
Thu, 01/22/2009 - 10:46am | mal contends
Update: On the federal level, US SC dilutes the 4th
One repulsive feature in the liberal arguments for routine police roadblocks [advocates call them “sobriety checkpoints”] is one of omission: The absolute refusal to address why roadblocks are offensive to liberty and specifically Fourth Amendment concerns.
One repulsive feature in the liberal arguments for routine police roadblocks [advocates call them “sobriety checkpoints”] is one of omission: The absolute refusal to address why roadblocks are offensive to liberty and specifically Fourth Amendment concerns.
Instead, we are treated to 38 other states do it; the Supreme Court’s doctrine of the Roberts Court says it’s okay, and so on.
Whatever happened to the libertarian ethos that we must be suspicious of claims demanding that we hand over our liberty for safety and security?
And when did we start taking our cues on liberty from Chief Justice John Roberts?
From Kathleen Falk, Jim Rowan, and other liberals, there is not so much as lip service paid to Fourth Amendment concerns.
Dane County Exec Kathleen Falk’s Tenure Should End
Fri, 01/16/2009 - 9:30am | mal contends
Dane County Executive Kathleen Falk has joined the let’s-set-up-police-roadblocks-(sobriety checkpoints) bandwagon.
See, Falk—she of the let’s-cover-our-asses-fast reaction to the Dane County 911 Center’s widely reported screw-ups leading to the murder of Brittany Zimmermann—says she wants to change the attitudes towards and culture of Wisconsin drinking.
Gee, changing the culture, that's an interesting if unenlightened, proposed role for politicians and elected officeholders.
Anyway, let’s set up “checkpoints,” she advises our governor.
After thinking you see, Falk “… quickly realized that steps must be taken on the level of state policy to help curb the tide of alcohol abuse," Falk writes to Gov. Doyle, it is reported in the State Journal (Matthew DeFour) this morning.
A “tide” in the culture that we must address by draconian measures like "checkpoints" and criminalization?
On Traffic Checkpoints, Part Two, Or, When Does Safety Become Siege?
Wed, 12/03/2008 - 4:23am | fake consultant
We gathered yesterday, Gentle Reader, for a discussion of the constitutionality of highway sobriety checkpoints.
In yesterday’s episode we learned that the Fourth Amendment, according to the Supreme Court, can be ignored if the challenges of enforcing the law seem too burdensome for the Government...and we learned that despite a history stretching all the way back to the 1700s and the British case Entick v. Carrington, the Court was, for the first time, willing to allow general search warrants on American soil.
Today we take the history a bit further...and then we talk about what happens when freedom is given away...and sadly, we need look no further than a few miles from the Capitol Building, in Washington DC itself, to see exactly what happens when freedom is suddenly gone and a community is placed under siege by the police—all, we suppose, for the community’s own good.
We have a lot of ground to cover, so we best get out on the proverbial road—and let’s see if we can avoid our own roadblocks along the way.
In yesterday’s conversation we described how the Supreme Court, in United States v. Martinez-Fuerte, 428 U.S.
On Traffic Checkpoints, Part One, Or, Freedom? That's So...Inefficient
Mon, 12/01/2008 - 9:46am | fake consultant
The holidays are in full swing…or at least they are in the US…which means your days—and nights—are full of running around like crazy. There’s a million things to do, a thousand errands to run, and…are you kidding me?!
A police sobriety roadblock?
Now?
That’s right: there’s a crowd of officers all around you, there’s no way to avoid it…and even though you’ve committed no crime whatsoever, you get to talk to the police…and if they decide it’s acceptable, you may continue on your way.
How can this be legal in America?
Does it actually serve any purpose?
And what happens when the police decide to blockade your neighborhood--for your own good?
Believe it or not, it’s my job today and tomorrow to answer those questions…and beyond that, to defend the simple right of Americans to go somewhere if we feel like it, without having to explain it to the police…and in today’s discussion, I intend to set the stage through an examination of history.
Sobriety checkpoints are an effective law enforcement tool involving the stopping of vehicles or a specific sequence of vehicles, at a predetermined fixed location, to accomplish two goals: raise the public’s perception of being arrested for driving while impaired (DWI ), and detection of drivers impaired by alcohol and/or other drugs. --National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, “Low-Staffing Sobriety Checkpoints”
Salon: Surveillance State Huge, Investigation May Be Finally Coming
Wed, 07/23/2008 - 6:50am | mal contends
Those longing for an accounting of Bush's historic abuse of power may get their wish.
In Salon, Tim Shorrock has uncovered new modes of state surveillance of Americans, and revealed documents contemplating "a potential investigation of the White House that could rival Watergate."
Breaking new ground on the government's programs monitoring Americans to be used in a declared national emergency, Shorrock reports on programs "designed for use by the military in the event of a national catastrophe, a suspension of the Constitution or the imposition of martial law."
Some excerpts:
Feingold Fights for Fourth Amendment This Week
Tue, 07/08/2008 - 10:33am | mal contends
Update: Contact Barack Obama.Not nearly as compelling a visual as the Christie Brinkley divorce proceedings (at left), the votes in the U.S. Senate tomorrow on using the Nixon crimes-inspired FISA law to immunize unlawful presidential abuses that FISA was crafted to prevent ought draw the attention of every news organization and blog in the country.
But do not bet on saturation coverage of the FISA votes this week, no matter the advocacy of Russ Feingold, Chris Dodd and others. The Fourth Amendment is just not as sexy as Christie Brinkley, nor as powerful as the fear gripping too many supine Democratic U.S. Senators.
“... I hope that over the July 4th holiday, Senators will take a closer look at this deeply flawed legislation and understand how it threatens the civil liberties of the American people. It is possible to defend this country from terrorists while also protecting the rights and freedoms that define our nation,” said Feingold in late June, as he and others pursue a quest that we hope is not quixotic.
Supreme Court of 1972 Protected the 4th Amendment
Wed, 08/08/2007 - 9:07am | mal contends
The Richard Nixon years (1969-1974) saw an acceleration of warrantless surveillance and presidential claims of executive power to wiretap and spy on American citizens under the umbrella of national security and the acclaimed inherent power of the presidency to engage in action deemed necessary to protect national security just as President Nixon perceived this obligation.
George W. Bush and Dick Cheney make the same claims for themselves.
Such Nixonian claims led Congress to pass the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) of 1978, mandating the government to demonstrate probable cause and obtain a warrant before placing Americans under surveillance for national security rationales within the United States.
FISA negated claims of inherent executive power to engage in extra-Constitutional programs and action.
Wisconsin Dems Vote No on Warrantless Wiretapping
Tue, 08/07/2007 - 7:35am | mal contends
While 16 Democrats in the Senate and 41 in the House caved in to George W. Bush and voted for the expansion of presidential powers through warrantless wiretapping, Wisconsin's entire delegation of congressional democrats held firm in rejecting this unconstitutional evisceration of the Fourth Amendment.
As described in this morning's New York Times, the law gives the "director of national intelligence and the attorney general authority to intercept — without warrant, court supervision or accountability — any telephone call or e-mail message that moves in, out of or through the United States as long as there is a 'reasonable belief' that one party is not in the United States."
Wisconsin's three Republicans in Congress all voted in lock step with the White House.
The law is set to expire in six months; maybe Republicans will grow a spine in a half year and stick up for the Constitution.
As described in this morning's New York Times, the law gives the "director of national intelligence and the attorney general authority to intercept — without warrant, court supervision or accountability — any telephone call or e-mail message that moves in, out of or through the United States as long as there is a 'reasonable belief' that one party is not in the United States."
Wisconsin's three Republicans in Congress all voted in lock step with the White House.
The law is set to expire in six months; maybe Republicans will grow a spine in a half year and stick up for the Constitution.