Lawless Contempt

I left this comment on a Sultan Knish column on Obama’s lawlessness (24 June 2012):

“Lawlessness” is also the Attorney General, an officer of the law, ignoring a Congressional subpoena to hand over all documents that contain evidence of his and the government’s lawlessness, i.e., of having forced gun shop owners to sell guns to agents of lawless drug cartels, with the aim of arming killers with American made guns, so that an excuse can be made to outlaw American ownership of guns and nullify the Second Amendment. This “lawlessness” is compounded by the Attorney General lying to Congress about the date of inception and purpose of the program. The “lawlessness” is further compounded by the President invoking executive privilege in support of the Attorney General’s lawless behavior, with full knowledge of the lawless means and ends of Fast and Furious and the damning evidence contained in the hidden documents, by telling Congress and the electorate to go suck an egg. After all, the public hasn’t a right to know. It’s there somewhere in the Constitution, claims a President who once taught Constitutional law. Never mind that contempt of Congress is also contempt for the people. The contempt has been old news since 2008.

In the meantime, the mainstream media is crowing that the President is handling his lawlessness with admirable aplomb, that the Attorney General is being persecuted by the non-mainstream media exercising its freedom of speech, and that the whole issue is merely a Republican conspiracy to make the President and Attorney General look bad and lawless. The mainstream media, as Daniel notes, has for a long, long time idolized Robin Hood – a.k.a., the compulsory welfare state – and with equal aplomb disregards the guilt of the actors, and wishes to acquit the guilty because they “meant well.”
Rush Limbaugh has the best explanation of Fast and Furious. Limbaugh will be ignored, however, because he has told the truth about the lawlessness of Obama and his whole cabinet and gaggle of appointees and czars. Obama, the Attorney General, and their courtiers, together with the mainstream media, hope someday to silence people like Limbaugh because his brand of truth-telling is obviously (their emotions tell them so) hurtful, bigoted, and callous. There ought to be a law against such defamatory speech.

Gilbert and Sullivan, Mozart, and Puccini couldn’t have contrived a more convoluted plot if they had put their heads together and composed an opera with a generous grants from the National Endowments of the Arts and the Humanities, which are also lawless entities spending taxpayer money for the “public good.”

Amy Peikoff Q & A On Privacy and Social Media

Professor Amy Peikoff did a short Q & A on privacy and social media for the Summer 2011 issue of Chapman Magazine. You can find it here, just click on the issue with “A Roaring 20″ on the cover, and use the online reader to flip to page 10.

Also don’t forget to check out her 2 hour special podcast, where topics include: Hurricane Irene, including our government’s reaction to it and global warming hype about it; David Letterman’s reaction to the jihadist threat; Steve Jobs’s retirement, Obamanomics vs. Reaganomics; Federal Raid on Gibson Guitars; Bloomberg’s decision to have no clergy present at 9/11 commemoration.

If you were unable to attend live and would like to hear this week’s webcast/podcast, click here for hour one, and click here for hour two, or you can access the files via iTunes

The Influence of Legal Pragmatism on the 4th Amendment Privacy Doctrine

From Amy Peikoff:

My paper, “Pragmatism and Privacy,” is now available online at the NYU Journal of Law & Liberty’s website. In the paper, I demonstrate the influence of legal pragmatism on the development of Fourth Amendment privacy doctrine and, towards the end of the paper, I have the opportunity to apply some of Tara Smith’s criticisms of Justice Scalia’s Originalist methodology. (You may also be interested to read an article appearing in the same issue: Prof. Randy Barnett’s article on why the Obamacare individual health insurance mandate is unconstitutional.)

Pin It on Pinterest