LiveLeak com The Recap Libertarian News for the Week of Nov 16th
By: killsvideoss
Excerpt from:
LiveLeak com The Recap Libertarian News for the Week of Nov 16th - Video
Tue, Dec 16, 2014
Dell "Super Dell" Schanze was making his first appearance in court for allegedly chasing an endangered owl with his powered paraglider recently, and it did not go particularly well for the former TV pitchman and Libertarian candidate for Governor in Utah.
Schanze overheard the judge order a defendant in a previous case to give up all his private guns as a condition of his release from jail. "That's totally unconstitutional," Schanze said in the courtroom.
The judge, U.S. Magistrate Brook Wells, ordered him to be quiet, but when he continued to object, he was removed from the court and brought back in handcuffs and with a chain around his waist, according to a report in the Deseret News.
He reportedly became more cooperative after that.
It also cost Schanze all of his guns. After learning that Schanze has "strong feelings" about the second amendment from Prosecutor Jared Bennett, the judge ordered him to remove all the guns from his house or go to jail. Wells also suggested Schanze look for a job after he asserted that he was broke, and to have his mental health evaluated.
Schanze blamed the media for costing him his business. He said the case should be dismissed because "it's all based on a fake YouTube video." That video allegedly shows Scanze chasing an endangered owl in his powered paraglider two years ago. The powered paraglider community sharply criticized the actions saying it reflected poorly on them all, and asked for the investigation.
If convicted of using an aircraft to harass wildlife, Schanze faces a $100,000 fine and up to a year in jail.
(Image from YouTube Video)
Continued here:
'Super Dell' Disrupts Hearing On Charges Of Chasing An Endangered Owl
Damon Roots new book Overruled: The Long War for Control of the U.S. Supreme Court is an impressive account of the conflict over judicial review between conservatives and libertarians. Most books about the recent history of judicial review and constitutional theory focus on the opposition between conservatives and liberals, Democrats and Republicans. By contrast, Root focuses primarily on the increasingly important faultline between libertarians and conservatives.
Libertarians and conservatives have cooperated on issues related to federalism, gun rights, and property rights. But they have also sharply disagreed on the role of judicial review in protecting the rights of gays and lesbians, limiting wartime executive power, and constraining police and prosecutors. As the leading writer on legal issues for Reason, the prominent libertarian publication, Root has covered many of these issues for years.
Root effectively traces libertarian-conservative disagreements over judicial review to their origins in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, when Progressives attacked nineteenth century natural rights-based jurisprudence for what they regarded as unjustified judicial activism in protecting both economic liberties and noneconomic ones. As he notes, many early Progressives opposed not only the Courts enforcement of economic freedoms in cases like Lochner v. New York, but also judicial efforts to protect free speech and enforce other noneconomic freedoms. For example, leading Progressive Justice Louis Brandeis praised the Courts notorious decision to uphold mandatory sterilization of the mentally ill in Buck v. Bell as an example of cases where judges should give state governments free reign to meet..modern conditions by regulations (though he gradually came to support judicial protection of some other civil liberties).
Beginning in the 1920s and 1930s, political liberals gradually shifted towards supporting strong judicial intervention to protect noneconomic rights, even as they repudiated similar protection for economic freedoms and property rights. But, ironically, the original Progressive defense of judicial nonintervention was taken up by post-New Deal conservatives, including such notable legal theorists as Judge Robert H. Bork.
Root explains how the persistence of this tradition of judicial restraint on the conservative right has led to clashes between conservatives and libertarians in recent years. Even in some cases where the two groups agree on the outcome, there are important divergences over preferred rationales. For example, libertarians and conservatives worked together to expand judicial protection for Second Amendment rights in District of Columbia v> Heller (2008) and McDonald v. City of Chicago (2010). But, in the latter case, many conservatives opposed the libertarians efforts to revive judicial enforcement of the Privileges or Immunities Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, fearing that this step would open the door to a new wave of judicial activism.
Roots book is probably the most thorough account of the libertarian-conservative debate over judicial review so far. The clash between the two may rise in importance, as libertarianism becomes a more important part of the political landscape. Younger Republicans are, on average, significantly more libertarian than their elders. The same is likely true of younger right of center elite lawyers and legal scholars. At the same time, it is unlikely that social conservatives will give up without a fight. Even as they fight over their differences, the two groups will also have to find some way to continue cooperating on the issues that unite them, especially since the legal left remains powerful and influential.
I do have two reservations about his otherwise excellent analysis. First, for some reason Root largely ignores the issue of same-sex marriage, which is one of the most important constitutional questions where libertarians and conservatives have differed in recent years. Though there are some exceptions in both camps, libertarian lawyers and legal scholars (including many here at the Volokh Conspiracy) have generally supported striking down laws banning same-sex marriage, while conservatives have forcefully opposed it. The issue is both important in and of itself, and an important indicator of the differences between the two camps.
Second, I think Root is too quick to characterize modern judicial conservatism as focused on judicial restraint. It is true that, since the 1960s and 70s, conservatives have devoted a great deal of time and effort to denouncing liberal judicial activism. But conservative judges such as William Rehnquist and Sandra Day OConnor have also long advocated stronger judicial enforcement of property rights and constitutional limits on federal power.
Root describes famed conservative legal theorist Robert Bork as a principled advocate of judicial minimalism. This was indeed an important element of Borks philosophy. But Bork was also a strong advocate of constitutional originalism, which sometimes requires aggressive judicial invalidation of legislation that goes against the original meaning of the Constitution. In his 1989 book The Tempting of America, Bork advocated judicial restraint, but also described New Deal-era decisions expanding congressional authority over the economy as judicial activism because they gave the federal government more power than it was entitled to under the original meaning.
Bork never seriously confronted the tension between his advocacy of originalism on the one hand, and his support for judicial deference to the democratic process on the other. For a long time, the same was true of many other judicial conservatives. Like Bork, they simultaneously advocated both originalism and judicial deference without giving much thought to possible contradictions between these commitments. The rise of libertarianism is one of several factors that have forced conservatives to devote greater thought to the issue in recent years.
Continued here:
Volokh Conspiracy: Review of Damon Roots Overruled: The Long War for Control of the Supreme Court
This Bitcoin correction failed to trigger the libertarian teeth-gnashing of previous drops - usa
Where US Politics Came
By: Crash Course US History #9 Noam Chomsky (2014) "US Politics Are Now Pure Savagery!" Gift Wrapping Hack Bahamas Atlantis All Inclusive Hotel - A Video happy ...
By: pizzaro
In an exclusive interview clip aired Sunday morning on ABCs "This Week," reclusive billionaire and campaign mega-donor David Koch said he cares much more about fiscal issues and the economy than about social issues on which he described himself as a social liberal.
Koch, who along with his brother Charles donates millions of dollars each year to the political campaigns of conservatives and political action committees, rarely grants interviews and spoke with ABCs Barbara Walters as part of a year-long special that will air Sunday night.
Im basically a libertarian, and Im a conservative on economic matters, and Im a social liberal, Koch said, who acknowledged that his beliefs about same-sex marriage and abortion conflict with the conservative beliefs held by many of the candidates propped up by the checks cut by him and his brother. Thats their problem. I do have those views. What I want these candidates to do is to support a balanced budget. Im very worried that if the budget is not balanced that inflation could occur and the economy of our country could suffer terribly.
Wesley Lowery covers Capitol Hill for The Fix and Post Politics.
Go here to read the rest:
David Koch: Im basically a libertarian