Category: Law

When I was a kid, a childhood fad was those scratch-‘n-sniff stickers; you know, you scratch a picture of a chocolate bar and lean close and smell chocolate. There was a whole range of flavors — everything from orange and lemon to gasoline and motor oil.

It was those last two fragrances that caused an uproar among activist groups, eventually culminating in the end of scratch-‘n-sniff gasoline and motor oil stickers for fear that a slight sniff of manufactured "fumes" would lead gullible children to huff the real thing. (As a personal note, I collected a few of those stickers in my youth and was never tempted to huff gas or oil fumes.)

Well, now another novelty item is apparently going the way of the scratch-‘n-sniff stickers of gas and motor oil: Suck-‘n-taste marijuana-flavored candy is being targeted for prohibitive legislation around the country:

"The [Chicago] City Council passed a law Wednesday banning the sale of marijuana-flavored lollipops, gumdrops and other treats, becoming the first major city to prohibit the confections that have appeared in convenience stores nationwide.

"The candies are legal because they are made with hemp oil, an ingredient used in health foods and some household products. The oil imparts marijuana’s grassy taste but not the high.

"’I can’t imagine the degree and the extent to which people will go to make a buck — and to make a buck on kids, trying to get them to experiment with something that is going to be a lead-in to the use of marijuana,’ said Alderman Edward Burke, who sponsored the measure.

"Chicago is not the only city weighing the issue. A New York City councilwoman plans to hold hearings on the candies this summer, and an Atlanta suburb passed a resolution opposing them, which caused merchants there to remove the treats from their shelves."

GET THE STORY.

While such legislation may indeed be proper, I long for the day when such novelties will die by the Law of Supply and Demand: Enough parents will refuse to purchase — and refuse to allow their children to purchase — such items that the supply of the product will dry up because there is no demand for it.

GEORGE WILL HAS A BRAIN-DEAD PIECE ON WHO SHOULD BE NOMINATED TO THE SUPREME COURT.

I don’t get it. Will is a smart guy. How can he fall for such a ridiculous position, which amounts to a rejection of a principled judicial philosophy and that has a demonstrably poor track record when past presidents have tried to follow it.

Meanwhile, back at the ranch . . .

ROBERT BORK HAS A STELLAR PIECE ON THE NEED TO APPOINT ORIGINALISTS TO THE COURT.

It also has a judicious judicial takedown of Justice O’Connor as a way of making his point.

EXCERPT:

Consider just a few of the court’s accomplishments: The justices have weakened the authority of other institutions, public and private, such as schools, businesses and churches; assisted in sapping the vitality of religion through a transparently false interpretation of the establishment clause; denigrated marriage and family; destroyed taboos about vile language in public; protected as free speech the basest pornography, including computer-simulated child pornography; weakened political parties and permitted prior restraints on political speech, violating the core of the First Amendment’s guarantee of freedom of speech; created a right to abortion virtually on demand, invalidating the laws of all 50 states; whittled down capital punishment, on the path, apparently, to abolishing it entirely; mounted a campaign to normalize homosexuality, culminating soon, it seems obvious, in a right to homosexual marriage; permitted discrimination on the basis of race and sex at the expense of white males; and made the criminal justice system needlessly slow and complex, tipping the balance in favor of criminals.

Justice O’Connor, a warm, down-to-earth, and very likeable person, joined many, though not all, of these bold attempts to remake America. Whatever one may think of these outcomes as matters of policy, not one is authorized by the Constitution, and some are directly contrary to it. All of them, however, are consistent with the left-liberal liberationist impulse that advances moral anarchy.

GET THE STORY.

VACANCY ON THE SUPREME COURT: O’CONNOR RETIRES.

Here we go, folks! The balloon’s going up!

Today is the anniversary of the 1966 Supreme Court case Miranda vs. Arizona, in which the Warren Court once again created a Constitutional right nowhere mentioned or implied in the Constitution.

The "right" in question is the right to be read one’s "Miranda rights"–a term based on this decision. They are the standard things you hear on TV shows: "You have a right to remain silent, etc., etc."

The case involved Ernesto Miranda (left), a hoodlum (despite his dress in the picture) who was constantly being arrested for various offenses. In the instance leading to the Miranda Case, he was arrested for kidnapping, robbery, and rape. He confessed during police questioning but his lawyer argued to the Supreme Court that he didn’t have adequate awareness of his right not to confess.

Though folks today tend to accept the Miranda Decision without question, at the time it was hotly controversial. In fact, the Court was divided 5-4, with notables such as Justices John Marshall Harlan II, Byron White, and Potter Stewart dissenting.

People at the time–both police officers and ordinary folks–thought it was absurd to compel police to go out of their way to, in essence, encourage criminals not to confess their crimes.

The counter argument, of course, involved claiming that this was a way of ensuring that the police did not coerce confessions out of innocent individuals in their custody.

Whatever one may think of the merits of the matter, there is not one bit of the Constitution that states or implies that police have an obligation to do this. The Warren Court’s mandate that they do so, therefore, constituted legislating from the bench and one more of its usurpations of the democratic process–for where the issue should have been settled was in the legislatures.

Following the Miranda decision Miranda himself was re-convicted of kidnapping and
rape and put in prison. After he got out, he went back to his life of
hoodlumry and was eventually killed in a knife fight. The man who killed him was then dutifully read his Miranda rights, following which he refused to confessed, was released, and escaped. He was never reapprehended.

LEARN MORE ABOUT MIRANDA THE MAN.

LEARN MORE ABOUT MIRANDA THE DECSION.

Do you ever wonder what happens to the widely-publicized incarcerated criminals, the ones you figure would make a tempting target to fellow inmates? California has a special prison housing unit especially for them.

"If Michael Jackson is acquitted of child molestation and related charges, he’ll probably return home to his whimsical Neverland ranch in Santa Barbara County.

"But if he is convicted of any of the 10 felony counts against him, he will probably land in the most secure prison unit in California, designed to protect famous convicts from attack by other inmates, prison officials say.

"Corcoran State Prison is set in the middle of America’s richest cotton fields, about 50 miles south of Fresno.

"Its Protective Housing Unit is considered the safest place for an inmate in the California prison system, and therefore the home for mass murderers such as Charles Manson and Juan Corona — and any inmate whose notoriety would make him a trophy for other inmates, Corrections Department spokeswoman Terry Thornton said."

GET THE STORY.

For a true-crime buff like me, the article is an intriguing look at what happens to celebrity inmates after the cameras and public interest are gone.

Once again Our Robed Masters are seeking to save you from the laws of your state, which cannot be trusted to pass laws that differ from the will of The All-Powerful Few:

"Federal authorities may prosecute sick people whose doctors prescribe marijuana to ease pain, the Supreme Court ruled Monday, concluding that state laws don’t protect users from a federal ban on the drug.

"The decision is a stinging defeat for marijuana advocates who had successfully pushed 10 states to allow the drug’s use to treat various illnesses.

"Justice John Paul Stevens, writing the 6-3 decision, said that Congress could change the law to allow medical use of marijuana.

"The closely watched case was an appeal by the Bush administration in a case involving two seriously ill California women who use marijuana. The court said the prosecution of pot users under the federal Controlled Substances Act was constitutional.

"’I’m going to have to be prepared to be arrested,’ said Diane Monson, one of the women involved in the case."

GET THE STORY.

Now, I am not a doctor, and so cannot comment on the possible legitimate medicinal usages for marijuana. What outrages me is that the United States Supreme Court can overturn any and all state laws with which it disagrees with virtual impunity, and has been able to do so for generations now. Ms. Monson, for example, should have been able, under our system of government, to be protected by her state. Now she stands alone and vulnerable, at a time when she is also seriously ill, before the unchecked might of the Men (and Women) In Black.

Our Founding Fathers would have been appalled.

A reader writes:

I am currently involved in a group studying ECCLESIA DE EUCHARISTIA.  Two questions came up last night.

            1) Can you go to two masses on the same day and receive communion at both?

            I realize that you can receive two times as long as the second one is a mass, (the first could be a communion service..etc).  But one of the participants really insisted that it couldn’t be two masses for the same day (like a 9:00 and an 11:00) service on Sunday.

Your friend is incorrect on this point. First, here is what the Code says as a general matter about receiving Communion:

Can.  912 Any baptized person not prohibited by law
can and must be admitted to holy communion.

This means that unless there is a specific prohibition in the law that would prevent a person from receiving at two Masses then the person is allowed to receive at two Masses.

Now, there are only two canons that deal with how often a layperson can receive Communion in a single day. One of them deals with Viaticum in case of death. Here’s the other:

Can.  917 A person who has already received the
Most Holy Eucharist can receive it a second time on the same day only within
the eucharistic celebration in which the person participates, without prejudice
to the prescript of can. 921, §2.

Canon 921, §2 deals with Viaticum, so it doesn’t apply to the situation you are asking about.

As you can see, this canon says that a person can receive Communion "a second time on the same day only within
the eucharistic celebration in which the person participates." This specifies the circumstances that must apply to the second time a person receives Communion but says nothing about the circumstances of the first time. Since there are no requirements in the law dealing with the first time one receives Communion, canon 912 applies, and so one can receive Communion at Mass both the first time one receives it in a day and the second time. In fact, it is required that one receive it at Mass the second time (per canon 917). Whether it is at a Mass or a Communion service the first time is a matter the law allows liberty on.

One thus could go to a 9 a.m. Mass and receive Communion and then go to an 11 a.m. Mass and receive again. What the law prohibits is going to more Masses than this per day and receiving Communion at each of them.

The reader continues:

            2) How many masses can a priest say a day?  I believe that He is encouraged to say at least one mass a day but what is the upper limit.

Here’s the regs on that:

Can.  905 §1. A priest is not permitted to
celebrate the Eucharist more than once a day except in cases where the law
permits him to celebrate or concelebrate more than once on the same day.

§2. If there is a shortage of priests, the local
ordinary can allow priests to celebrate twice a day for a just cause, or if
pastoral necessity requires it, even three times on Sundays and holy days of
obligation.

The typical cap is thus once per day unless the bishop allows him to say two or three Masses for pastoral reasons (three being allowed on Sundays and holy days). These latter practices are known as "binating" and "trinating," respectively.

(NOTE: The green CLSA commentary on the Code notes that there are particular circumstances in which additional Masses could be said, but that’s the general rule. There are also certain liturgical days in which multiple Masses are allowed by the law itself and so per §1 the permission of the bishop would not be needed to cover those days.)

In stark contrast to Michelle’s recent post (regarding a guy who was sent up the river for 30+ years for the crime of nicking a television set) FOX News tells the story of a New Jersey guy who beat his girlfriend to death with a hammer and dumped her in the river, only to walk away a free man. He was tried for the murder, but it seems that nobody told the jury that a conviction on a lesser charge of manslaughter would result in no punishment at all, due to a screwed-up statute of limitations law. You would think that the judge or the prosecutor might have said something (!?).

Of course, this kind of thing can damage a person’s reputation. It could make it hard to get work, or find a wife. It could dog a person to his or her grave. Such a thing might even happen to the murderer in this case, Marc Ferarra. That’s MARC FERRARA. Are you listening, New Jersey? M-A-R-C  F-E-R-A-R-R-A. This is not a nice person. You might not want to, say, loan him a book. He is likely a spine-cracker.

GET THE STORY.

Don’t tell Junior Allen of Georgia that the American courts are soft on criminals. He was recently released from prison after serving nearly three decades. The crime he atoned for? Stealing a $140 television.

"In 1970, Junior Allen went to prison for stealing a $140 TV set from 87-year-old Lessie Johnson in Johnston County [North Carolina].

"Johnson’s family said he roughed her up on his way out. However, nothing about an assault came up at trial nor was Allen ever charged with one.

"Allen is on his way to his home state of Georgia, where he plans to work for his sister. Authorities in that state will monitor his parole."

GET THE STORY.

Riddle me this: What has this man been doing in prison all these years when his cell could have been occupied by some of the dangerous convicts we are told walk free every year because there is not enough prison space to house them?

According to THIS CNN.COM ARTICLE, a prediction I made years ago has begun to come true. I felt fairly certain that eventually some well-meaning idiot (or group of idiots) would call for the banning of kitchen knives and other edged implements, and now three doctors in London have started the ball rolling.

See, guns are hard to find in Britain, so when you find yourself in a muderous rage you have to work with whatever is at hand. Stabbings are common.

These doctors (all emergency room docs at a London hospital) didn’t just call a press conference and whine, but actually published an article in the British Medical Journal, so they apparently have wider support in the medical community there.

Think this is too far-fetched to be of any consequence? The doctors called for "goverment action", and Tony Blair and company have obliged by proposing a new MINIMUM AGE for knife ownership (18). The anti-knife lobby are also calling for knife design to be regulated so that long, pointy models are kept out of the marketplace. Their article pointed out that such knives are totally unnecessary, and cited an exhaustive survey of 10 chefs to bolster their argument.

In the true spirit of this new movement, I have begun compiling a list of other items that should be under consideration for future government regulation:

• 1) Pillows
• 2) Baseball bats
• 3) Rope
• 4) Lamp cord
• 5) "Blunt" objects
• 6) Fireplace pokers

This is just a beginning, of course. You can add your own items to the list in the com box. It will make us all just that much safer.