A friend of mine sent me a message yesterday asking me about my stance on the whole Roman Polanski debacle. He suggests that Constitutional rights are my forte'. I am flattered by the inference and hope to someday live up to his expectation. I have given this some thought and have come to the following conclusions:
1) Polanski's rights as a defendant are protected by the Constitution even though he is not a U.S. citizen. Amendments V and VI give Polanski the right to trial by jury, the protection from double jeopardy, defense counsel, and the right to a speedy trial. The verbiage used is "no person" and "the accused". I interpret that to include foreign nationals.
2) The judicial branch had the power to prosecute Polanski. Article III section 2 defines the role of judicial power. It states "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."
3) By pleading out, Polanski waived his right to a trial by jury and therefore accepted that his fate would be decided by a judge. Here is the plea agreement. The plea was: guilty to unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor. Also by pleading out, he agreed to be classified as a potential MDSO (mentally disturbed sex offender) and had to submit to psychiatric evaluation.
4) Judge Rittenbrand for whatever reason decided to reneg on the plea agreement (which was within his legal right from the bench) and a jury trial should have been scheduled. However, the attorney for the girl's family sent a letter to the judge and the D.A. asking that the judge reconsider to "spare the girl the ordeal of a jury trial". Of course, it didn't matter because Polanski high-tailed it out of the country.
5) This is a good example of how plea agreements screw up the judicial process. If the D.A. had enough evidence to prove "prima facie", why accept a plea in the first place? If the girl's family wanted to spare her the ordeal of a public trial, why not make that known at the beginning? Why wait until after the judge ruled on the plea agreement?
All in all, I am hoping that the U.S. drags it feet big time on the extradition orders and he gets to sit in a Swiss prison for a while. He is obviously a weak and disturbed individual. In full disclosure, I do have some sympathy for his ordeals (losing his mother to the Holocaust, losing his wife and unborn to another weak and disturbed individual). However, this cannot be used as an excuse for violating the rights of another individual (regardless of age).
The bottom line is that Polanski should serve time for his crime (and significantly more than 42 days). He should do so voluntarily. To date, he has displayed nothing but weakness by refusing to face the consequences of his actions.
AA
Showing posts with label Individual rights. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Individual rights. Show all posts
Thursday, October 1, 2009
Thursday, September 3, 2009
A Lesson With a Plan?
Thursday, September 3, 2009
0
Next Tuesday at 12:00 Eastern, the White House is going to webcast a Presidential address aimed directly at our schoolchildren. The address will also be broadcast on C-Span. This historical event has been prefaced by a letter sent from Arne Duncan (SecEd) to school principals across the country. Included with the letter were suggested activities for before and after the speech. The activities are divided into two age groupings: Grades PreK-6th, Grades 7th-12th. Setting aside the creepy implications set out in the alarmist media about "indoctrination", I still have some concerns about the appropriateness of this event.
In the essence of full disclosure, I am not an Obama supporter (I doubt that any of you are shocked by this revelation). His Keynesian thought process and socialistic tendencies scare the hell out of me. That being said, can someone tell me the purpose of this address? I tend to believe that this is a strategic move designed to help a President whose approval ratings have fallen. It is classic politics: design a speech that touts education as a high priority (as if your opponents do not place the same value on it) and get in front of as many people as possible.
The vehicle that has been chosen by the administration also calls into question their motives. By not using the traditional method of requesting airtime on major networks, the President is isolating himself from critique. Will the minority have a chance to address students as well? Will we end up with a popularity contest among schoolchildren? Of course, the Department of Education and the White House both contend that this is not a political speech. I have news for them, everything that a U.S. President does is political! If President Obama wanted to remove doubt about his motives, why not invite members of the opposing party to join him in the address? For that matter, why not just have the First Lady deliver the speech?
I called my daughter's school yesterday to see if the principal had received the information about the President's address. She had absolutely no idea what I was talking about. Apparently, the letters were sent only to principals of public schools. I ask you, is this not discriminatory? Do children whose parents send them to private/parochial school not get to hear their "beloved leader" speak? Will they not have a chance to "help the President"? I read this morning that the White House has altered this language due to criticism. If this is not supposed to be political, then why the change?
Finally, I do think we should begin teaching our children about the workings of government at an earlier age. However, the education should be of a basic nature: Why is the Declaration of Independence important?, What rights do you have?, How are laws made?, What is the difference between a democracy and a republic?, etc.
AA
In the essence of full disclosure, I am not an Obama supporter (I doubt that any of you are shocked by this revelation). His Keynesian thought process and socialistic tendencies scare the hell out of me. That being said, can someone tell me the purpose of this address? I tend to believe that this is a strategic move designed to help a President whose approval ratings have fallen. It is classic politics: design a speech that touts education as a high priority (as if your opponents do not place the same value on it) and get in front of as many people as possible.
The vehicle that has been chosen by the administration also calls into question their motives. By not using the traditional method of requesting airtime on major networks, the President is isolating himself from critique. Will the minority have a chance to address students as well? Will we end up with a popularity contest among schoolchildren? Of course, the Department of Education and the White House both contend that this is not a political speech. I have news for them, everything that a U.S. President does is political! If President Obama wanted to remove doubt about his motives, why not invite members of the opposing party to join him in the address? For that matter, why not just have the First Lady deliver the speech?
I called my daughter's school yesterday to see if the principal had received the information about the President's address. She had absolutely no idea what I was talking about. Apparently, the letters were sent only to principals of public schools. I ask you, is this not discriminatory? Do children whose parents send them to private/parochial school not get to hear their "beloved leader" speak? Will they not have a chance to "help the President"? I read this morning that the White House has altered this language due to criticism. If this is not supposed to be political, then why the change?
Finally, I do think we should begin teaching our children about the workings of government at an earlier age. However, the education should be of a basic nature: Why is the Declaration of Independence important?, What rights do you have?, How are laws made?, What is the difference between a democracy and a republic?, etc.
AA
Sunday, August 16, 2009
Finally - "It does not take a village"
Sunday, August 16, 2009
0
Well it's finally happened. I have moved into the blogosphere. As Press Secretary Robert Gibbs would say, I have been "hatching this nefarious plot" for a few weeks. I am not sure I have the qualifications or the intellect to stand up to some of the great minds spread across the web. However, that has never stopped me from voicing my opinion before. Besides, I cannot and will not remain silent any longer as the noble experiment that is my USA is poisoned by the collectivist mindset.
This country, my country is and always should be based on the ideas of Individual rights and Self-government. It remains the only place in the world where man is free to succeed and fail in direct proportion to his own ambition. The Declaration of Independence spells these right out for us. However, even without this charter of freedom, these rights exist! "We hold these truths to be self-evident." The founding fathers realized that only by protecting the rights of the Individual could their grand experiment succeed. This is further evidenced in the 10th Amendment.
The gentlemen who conceived these charters knew well the power that could be vested in a central government. They had lived it first hand under King George III. Assurances had to be granted that the states would remain "free and independent". The idea that states (and thereby the people) must be, for the most part, self-governing and self-supporting is key to allowing men to live and prosper in peace.
Over the last 90+ years this idea has been under a full frontal assault. Collectivists have labored to centralize power through taxes, their weapon of choice. The federal income tax was introduced in 1913 as "a minor tax on the wealthy". At that time we thought someone was wealthy if they had a taxable income of $20,000 per year and took 1 percent of their income over and above that amount. Now we apparently think someone is wealthy if they have a taxable income of $21,175 per year, because we take 15 percent of their income in taxes. This of course, does not include FICA which tacks on another 15.30% if you are self-employed (7.65% for those of us who rely on others for our livelihood).
Of course, other weapons are utilized in this war on the Individual: Social Security, Medicare/Medicaid, Welfare, The Federal Reserve Board, the IRS, and the Interstate Commerce Commission. Through these agencies/programs individuals are beholden to the central government for things like retirement planning, healthcare, and free trade. Unfortunately, our elected official have absolutely no interest in changing this. In fact, their very existence seems to depend on increasing our reliance on the federal government rather than on ourselves.
We must dig in against this slippery slope towards complete despotism. As Thomas Jefferson said, "A government big enough to give you everything you want, is big enough to take everything you have." Kip Williams speaks about "the big reset" in his blog The Desolation Angel. Accountability must be returned to DC. The idea that public service is not a lifelong occupation should be paramount. This can only be accomplished by setting Congressional term limits, the elimination of political contributions (and lobbying money), and the institution of a Fair Tax. Although this may seem like an insurmountable task, it can be done if we have the will. It's time to get informed, speak up, demand explanations, and kick a little tail.
So where am I going with all of this? What are my reasons for cluttering up this humble little corner of the web? Simple really. I would like to:
1) Promote the ideas of Individualism
2) Invite others to join in the discussion of "what's next?"
3) Encourage younger citizens to get involved in their own future
4) Continually exercise my own mind rather than letting the media overinfluence my thoughts
5) Rely on logic and facts rather than emotion and scare tactics
I welcome and encourage all comments and debate. If you feel the need to use insults (an indicator of a close-minded philosophy), vulgarity (the sure sign of a limited vocabulary), and personal attacks (evidence of a weak mind), go right ahead. After all, they're your rights too.
--Matthew Phillips
This country, my country is and always should be based on the ideas of Individual rights and Self-government. It remains the only place in the world where man is free to succeed and fail in direct proportion to his own ambition. The Declaration of Independence spells these right out for us. However, even without this charter of freedom, these rights exist! "We hold these truths to be self-evident." The founding fathers realized that only by protecting the rights of the Individual could their grand experiment succeed. This is further evidenced in the 10th Amendment.
The gentlemen who conceived these charters knew well the power that could be vested in a central government. They had lived it first hand under King George III. Assurances had to be granted that the states would remain "free and independent". The idea that states (and thereby the people) must be, for the most part, self-governing and self-supporting is key to allowing men to live and prosper in peace.
Over the last 90+ years this idea has been under a full frontal assault. Collectivists have labored to centralize power through taxes, their weapon of choice. The federal income tax was introduced in 1913 as "a minor tax on the wealthy". At that time we thought someone was wealthy if they had a taxable income of $20,000 per year and took 1 percent of their income over and above that amount. Now we apparently think someone is wealthy if they have a taxable income of $21,175 per year, because we take 15 percent of their income in taxes. This of course, does not include FICA which tacks on another 15.30% if you are self-employed (7.65% for those of us who rely on others for our livelihood).
Of course, other weapons are utilized in this war on the Individual: Social Security, Medicare/Medicaid, Welfare, The Federal Reserve Board, the IRS, and the Interstate Commerce Commission. Through these agencies/programs individuals are beholden to the central government for things like retirement planning, healthcare, and free trade. Unfortunately, our elected official have absolutely no interest in changing this. In fact, their very existence seems to depend on increasing our reliance on the federal government rather than on ourselves.
We must dig in against this slippery slope towards complete despotism. As Thomas Jefferson said, "A government big enough to give you everything you want, is big enough to take everything you have." Kip Williams speaks about "the big reset" in his blog The Desolation Angel. Accountability must be returned to DC. The idea that public service is not a lifelong occupation should be paramount. This can only be accomplished by setting Congressional term limits, the elimination of political contributions (and lobbying money), and the institution of a Fair Tax. Although this may seem like an insurmountable task, it can be done if we have the will. It's time to get informed, speak up, demand explanations, and kick a little tail.
So where am I going with all of this? What are my reasons for cluttering up this humble little corner of the web? Simple really. I would like to:
1) Promote the ideas of Individualism
2) Invite others to join in the discussion of "what's next?"
3) Encourage younger citizens to get involved in their own future
4) Continually exercise my own mind rather than letting the media overinfluence my thoughts
5) Rely on logic and facts rather than emotion and scare tactics
I welcome and encourage all comments and debate. If you feel the need to use insults (an indicator of a close-minded philosophy), vulgarity (the sure sign of a limited vocabulary), and personal attacks (evidence of a weak mind), go right ahead. After all, they're your rights too.
--Matthew Phillips
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
