 |
 |
« February 2007 | Main | April 2007 »
Tuesday, March 27, 2007 - 18:06:21
Next time, try the House Un-American Activities Committee
After a non-eventful state agencies committee hearing, I went to the House Judiciary to watch the hearing on Sen. Womack's bill to outlaw adoptions by gay people. For something that so easily passed the entire Senate, it had a lot different reception in the House. Of course Sen. Womack spoke in favor of his bill. The only supporters they chose ( or had) were a marriage counselor from Mt. Home and a confused staff person from the Family Council.
Sen. Womack went on and on how his bill was constitutional because a federal court said a similar bill in Florida was. ( the "Loftin Case") He tried to persuade the committee that last years Howard case would have no effect on his bill whatsoever. As far as I know, Sen Womack is a lawyer. I feel sorry for his clients if he truly believes the his bill is "clearly constitutional." Clear as mud. He wanted to completely ignore the Ark. Sup. Ct. ruling because it involved a state regulation, not an act of the General Assembly. Either he is ignorant of constitutional law or he is, more likely, insincere. The Howard case has everything to do with this issue, but I won't bore you with the details why. Similarly, he wanted the committee to believe that a federal opinion from Florida should overrule what our own Ark. Sup. Ct. found. Arkansas is in the 8th circuit, Florida is in the 11th. He should know that a decision from the 11th circuit is not binding on Arkansas. I just hope he doesn't somehow ever gets in a position where we need to rely on his legal knowledge to defend our state one day.
Womack's chief witness was the marital counselor. He prattled on about some unnamed study in which homosexuals were found to have more depression, anxiety, and suicide than heterosexual people. He thought this was a swell reason to exclude all homosexuals from being foster parents. But, when asked if a celibate non-drinking, successful gay person might be a good adoptive parent, he crumbled. He had to admit, it would be better to look at on a case-by-case basis. Of course that is all most gay people want as to this issue - to be looked at as individuals and if in their individual situation they could provide a good home for a child.
A 9th grader from Central High testified about being raised by a lesbian grandmother. She noted the irony that we are about to celebrate the 50th year since the Central High crisis yet some people in this state still want to oppress certain minority groups.
Sen. Womack tried to get in a few last points but could gain no ground. He floundered when asked about how the State and DHHS would inquire if someone is gay. When asked if one homosexual act makes someone gay - are they gay forever? According to Womack, we would have to rely on people to be honest and confess they consider themselves homosexual Womack admitted that probably the ban would not be applied unless someone challenged a foster parent or adoptive parent's application.
I can see Sen Womack playing the role of McCarthy, asking foster parents to sign anti-homosexual loyalty oaths. I can see him recommending that we ask potential foster parents something like "Are you now, or have you ever been, a member of the homosexual lifestyle?"
As I was saying earlier, I feel sorry for anyone who has Womack for an attorney. At the morning session, he could not even get one person on the entire committee to ask for a vote on his bill. If he had not found at least one person who even was willing to consider voting on his bill --- I don't see why he wanted to waste the committee's time when he surely didn't have enough votes to pass (11 I think). He tried again this afternoon and got poor Rep. Woods to at least ask for a vote --- but even then, it didn't get a 2nd and therefore no vote. This was a stinging defeat for the zealots and homophobes. On the other hand it was a good day for potentially hundreds of children who in the years to come will be more likely to have an adoptive family.
hoglawyer
hoglawyer@gmail dot com
Monday, March 26, 2007 - 12:21:40
I Guess This Makes Me Pro-Idiot
On the back of Monday's Arkansas page, there is a reference to a proposed amendment to the Arkansas Constitution. Among other things the porposed amendment ( being sponsored by a very thoughtful Sen. Faris ) would rid our constitution of the poll tax, which I'm surprised we still have on the books. In addition to doing away with the poll tax, it would repeal Section 5 of Article 3 , which declares:
5. Idiots and insane persons
No idiot or insane person shall be entitled to the privileges of an elector
Grabbing my handy copy of the Arkansas Constitution of 1874 ( everyone keeps one of these nearby right? ) as far as I can tell, this portion was included from the beginning and has not been changed.
I think we need to consider what this section means and what a repeal the affect of a repeal might be. Presumably, this section means that it has always been unlawful for idiots or insane people to vote in Arkansas. I have a feeling that a few idiots may have been allowed to vote anyway, but I have no proof of this. I also see no rule preventing idiots people from being elected, they simply have not been allowed to vote for themselves.
While I suppose I am for Sen. Faris' proposed amendment - do we really want to allow idiots to vote? Now it would be typical of a blogger at this point to go and find some boring definition of what constitututes an idiot. I'd probably find something like "a stupid person, or "A person of profound mental retardation . . . bla bla bla." But, that is boring because it would leave me with an answer that begs the question: Should idiots be allowed to vote? Instead, we should find our meaning from how it is used --- so I turn to the authoritative source, www.Urbandictionary.com. The Urban Dictionary, oh so useful, tells us that an idiot is "An epithet that describes anyone but you" I like that one. It also states that an idiot is "Someone who has to look up the term 'idiot'. " Okay, maybe it isn't that useful. Instead of a user-created dictionary, I decided next to look to see if this particular section of the constitution has ever been applied. The results were interesting.
If you run a search for idiot and constitution -- your best result answer is: and I'm not making this up, Womack. Now, not our honorable Senator from NW Arkansas, but a Tim Womack who sued because he lost an election based on several voters being disqualified because they were found to be idiots or insane ( or incompetent under a different section). The Supreme Court held that it was proper to exclude several votes where the voters were incompetent due to a stroke, Alzheimers, and similar circumstances. (Womack v. Foster, 2000). This case is also interesting because it states that a felon who has discharged his sentence is able to vote -- thats a new one to me. This entire case is fascinating as it discussed shady election practices --( notice special Judge Bud Cummins concurred) so I included it in the extended entry. But, I am getting off track.
Presumably, if this bill passes --- idiots will be allowed to legally vote. Is this a good thing? In the context of elections, to me an idiot is simply an uninformed voter who had not made any effort to educate himself about the issues and candidates he is voting for. Although it might lead to undesirable results, to consider ourselves any form of democracy, I think even idiots should "get" the vote. In the future, if a majority of the electorate willingly votes on the candidate we are pretty sure will be more likely to violate our privacy, due process, and civil rights, at least we can honestly blame a bunch of idiots.
Sincerely,
The Hoglawyer
hoglawyer@ gmail dot com
Saturday, March 24, 2007 - 16:36:44
Not so hot seats
I had a first this week. I found a sponsor for a bill and testified before the Senate Judicial Committee. I speak professionally all the time but anytime I do something for the first time, like anyone else, I'm a bit nervous, stutter and stammer. Fortunately, it only lasted about 20 seconds, there were no questions, and passed without a roll call. Of course, when the main thing your bill does is correct the name of your agency in parts of the code, there isn't going to be much resistance. My twenty second on the not-so-hot-seat did make me much more sympathetic to those who don't have such an easy bill to get through. Sometimes legislators aren't so cordial, especially when they sense a bill's sponsor is not being forthcoming with in their answers. Fortunately, the session might end in a matter of days and most bills will be flying faster that a legislator runs to a free meal. Apparently they were irritated that they had some meetings Friday afternoon and couldn't go to the races that day. There is a proposal to have the legislature meet every year to discuss budget issues. Of course, there is many times a fine line between what constitutes a budget issue and what is a substance issue so if it passes it might mean yearly meetings. I'm not sure thats such a bad thing. There is not enough time spend looking at these bills and two years is a long time to wait if a good bill doesn't get passed or if a a bad bill needs to be reconsidered. Of course, many states have virtually perpetual full-time general assemblies. If this meant they would get paid a full-time salary I'm not sure that is such a bad thing. As it is now, a person of average means would find it very difficult to afford to be in the Arkansas House of Representatives. We would surely get more diversity if more people were able to run for these seats. On the other hand, I often here the less time the legislature is in session, that means the less time they have to do damage. There is certainly some truth to this as well.Friday, March 23, 2007 - 16:55:51
Random Thoughts
Random Thoughts Of The Week Tim Griffen's days as a US prosecutor are numbered because he is a political coward. If the last three months are any indicaiton of the next three years, Beebee is going to make us proud of our governor once again. Huckabee is going to prove how long a 3rd rate presidential bid can run on hot air alone. I think he is really running for VP or a cabinet position. The race for the presidential democratic nominee has barely starated and no one will remember any of this 3 months from now. The Arkansas legislature is the most moderate we have had in ......forever. The legislators' hairstyles have not improved any. I'm tired about reading how people are against "nailing kittens to trees." Nobody is for that, except maybe dogs. Apostrophe's do matter. Valerie Plame is hot. If you lie to a US senator, you might not be attorney general too much longer. When the leading republican presidential contender is pro-gun control, pro=gay rights, and openly had an affair --- you know something has fundamentally changed.Thursday, March 08, 2007 - 19:21:31
Don't Be A Hater
There are so many bills flying through the legislature right now - its impossible to even be aware of all of them. In the extended entry I have the whole text of a bill I think is just a bad idea. Senate Bill 264 is a criminal sentence enhancement bill. It enhances penalties if a crime is found to be a "hate crime." A hate crime is allegedly one in which the purpose of the act is to prevent someone from exercising their constitutional rights, such as speech or religion. Also, it is a crime in which the victim was selected because of their race, religion or sexual orientation.I get annoyed in general by the legislature's pre-occupation every session with being "tough on crime" by making enhanced sentences. This bill is far worse because it makes a crime versus one person more important than a crime against another person simply because of their status. We have always had enhanced penalties when a victim is very old, very young, or very vulnerable such as inmates or developmentally delayed people. I don't have a problem with that. But when we enhance a crime because allegedly the victim was selected because of their minority status -- the trial would take on an entirely different set of rules. Instead of just proving alleged criminal attacked victim with the intent to do harm -- the trial would allow evidence such as the what types of books the person read, what groups they are in, and maybe even what religion they are.
Of course I think racism is wrong - but I don't think it should be illegal to be a racist person, sexist person, or in general a bigoted person. Its a cliche but freedom of speech also means freedom to hold and espouse unpopular ideas. Once we make a crime a hate crime --- what was once merely unpopular speech becomes evidence to support an enhanced criminal penalty. The purpose of the bill is to protect people from being made a victim because of their beliefs or minority status --- but ironically it also punishes the alleged criminal for his unpopular beliefs as well.
This bill has the potential to backfire as well. It could also be used to enhance penalties when a minority race or minority religion attacks someone from the majority. I can easily envision a situation where, for example, a protester at a civil rights rally is accused of attacking a police officer The protester claims self defense. But the prosecutor sees this as a hate crime and all he has to do is prove the police officer was "selected" because of his race.
This is a bad idea and a bad bill. Of course, that means it will probalby sail out of the legislature.
New Republican Slogan: "Pardon me, please"
This is old news but during the Scooter Libby trial it became pretty obvious that Richard Armitage was the "original leaker" as to telling the press that Joe Wilson's wife, Valerie, was a CIA covert operative. Of course, after that, Libby repeated the statement to 9 or so other reporters.
After receiving an immunity agreement, Fleischer testified that he had revealed Plame's identity to reporters after learning it from Libby.
Of course, it was fairly obvious from the trial that it was all a grand plan by Karl Rove to undermine Wilson, in retaliation for writing a op-ed piece concerning lack of evidence of Iraq's efforts at obtaining weapons.
Now, many "tough on crime" republicans are going soft. They are screaming that convicted felon Libby should be pardoned. He hasn't even been sentenced yet.
Another irony of all of this is this -- we still mean whining about Clinton giving a pardon to Marc Rich, a fugitive who stole millions. Guess who his lawyer was --- some liberal? No, Rich's lawyer, who I assume had something to do with getting the pardon for his client was---Scooter Libby.
Bush and his cronies like to talk tough - but then wilt when it becomes obvious the real corruption is coming from inside the White House. Do you think Armitage, Cheney, or Rove will be held accountable for their sleazy spin job they did on Wilson and his wife? Not by Bush - but I hope the Wilso's win millions in their civil suit. Of course many Republicans view this is "not big deal" and of course will bring up sins from the Clinton years, and probably Carter and Johnson as well. Apparently, if a Democrat ever does something wrong - ( which they have and will again I'm sure) then that makes it ok for any Republican to do worse. These are the same types that didn't think Watergate was a big deal either. Its all about arrogance, hubris and power - but sometimes, as Scooter Libby has found out, it doesn't mean you can always get away with it.
In the extended entry is an article about what tough-talkin Bush was going to do about anyone he found out was leaking secrets.
New Rules Concerning Access To Court Records
For anyone that from time to time needs to get copies of court records, the Ark. Supreme Court recently changed and clarified the rules as to who may have access. Its extremely long and detailed, but if you are interested, here is the new rule: Ark. Administrative Rule 19
 |
  |
| © 2004 - 07 Arkansas Times. All Rights Reserved. |  |
