Justice Scalia and Privacy rights.

I felt one more issue on Scalia was warranted due to his opinion on privacy rights.  In this case he said the fourth Amendment did not protect one's right to privacy.  Interestingly though, he ruled in favor of people's rights to privacy on many occasions including the cases of police using thermal imagers to see into people's homes, DNA swabs and placing tracking devices on people's cars.  He also ruled against the police with respect to them searching a car after a traffic infraction in the search for evidence of another crime and against the use of drug sniffing dogs without a warrant.  In all these cases Scalia noted that while it is noble for police to want to try to solve crimes, exceeding the limits of a warrant or an infraction violates the people's right to be secure in their "persons, houses, papers and effects."  However, he was not opposed to wiretapping.  The reason being that conversations are not protected by the Constitution as they are considered public.  As such, he deemed that phone calls were public conversations in the same way a conversation may be carried out in public at a restaurant or park.  However, emails in my opinion, including text messages count as papers for they are not spoken allowed and act like letters in the mail thus legally protected if we apply his textualist views.  Likewise, espionage and eavesdropping laws would not be protected if you apply Scalia's view of the United States Constitution and shared his disagreement with the 1965 Griswold case which decided that we have a right to privacy. 

Final Thought:  I find myself agreeing with Scalia here with respect to anything verbally spoken not being protected. As a matter of fact it brings to question if anything transmitted through the internet to another is considered private as the internet can be considered part of the public square.  As such, Facebook, Twitter, and anything publically posted is absolutely without protections. But our bodies and the things on us, our homes and what goes on in it, and our other property like our cars and the items in them are protected due to the 4th amendment and its specifically listing these as protected from search and seizure without a warrant.  So if Scalia and his legacy is used as a springboard for a more textualist view of the Constitution, it may bring forth an entirely new approach to rulings in the Supreme Court and the rule of law.  In fact it may create a link between liberal and conservative judges like it did between Scalia and Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg.  If used as such, the liberal conservative divide can be shrunk!  I look forward to seeing the results of Scalia's legacy in politics and law.

Justice Scalia and Guns.

After Scalia passed away I looked into some of his more interesting ideas on what the Constitution says.  In the case of Guns, he said that they had to be hand carried.  Scalia based this in the second amendment saying that we have the right to keep and bear arms.  In other words they must be man portable and able to fit in one's home.  As such he rejected the idea that Americans can own something like a cannon due to it not being able to be hand carried (though this is changing with future technology).   However, he said things like rocket propelled grenades and other recoilless weapons that could potentially take out an airplane or even a tank where not known to be protected or not under the second amendment.  He said he looked forward to such a discussion.  However, the fact that our weapons rights are limited to hand carried weapons in Scalia's opinion shows something of Scalia's conservatism and jurisprudence.  It was that he was a textualist.  Therefore if the Constitution did not specify something more substantial than a rifle or that cannot be hand carried, then it was not a part of the people's right to keep and bear arms.  I personally believe that he potentially would have ruled that RPG's and similar weapons were legal, but with restrictions.  With respect to guns as a whole, I personally think there are no true restrictions on what weapons can be owned so long as you use them to defend your family and your country, but that's just my two cents.   

Final Thought:  Scalia was an interesting man, and for people who love political science and enjoy politics, whether you agree with him or not, he was someone to be listened to and even admired.  Thank you justice Scalia for your service, I hope your successor is as excellent as you.

Antonin Scalia

Justice Antonin Scalia was a conservative force in the Supreme Court.  He upheld conservative principles and was known for fiery dissents when his side on the court lost. This lion of the court even sponsored a school of thought amongst constitutional lawyers that seeks to uphold the original intent of the United States Constitution by ruling based on the powers and abilities given.  That school of thought having been lost back in the late 1800's into the modern era by the progressive movement.  Scalia said that there was no right to privacy in the United States Constitution, that Abortion is not protected and more and he did it all in his dissents.  However, his death in an election year brings about turmoil.  While his work on the Supreme Court is legendary, his passing means that the battle for the Presidency has even greater stakes than before.  While alive he was one of four conservatives on the court that balanced the four liberals, with Chief Justice Roberts being the moderate.  Now the court is off balance.  Republicans and Conservatives are calling for the appointment to be delayed by President Obama who said he will in time nominate a successor, but Obama's appointment is sure to be liberal and thus not respect conservative values derived from the Constitution.  Republicans have thus sworn in the Senate that they will block any appointment by the President (As they have the final say on the choice of Supreme Court Justice) so that the next President, whom they hope will be Republican, will be the one to choose Justice Scalia's replacement.  Not to mention that other Supreme Court Justices are likely to leave next year as well leaving more vacancies which the Republicans hope to fill with more Conservative members of the legal community.  So now the Republican Candidates will be questioned more on their constitutional standings to see if they have the "right stuff" and the political will to nominate a Supreme Court Justice who can properly replace Justice Scalia and thus once more balance the court.

Final thought:  We as citizens can look forward to a proverbial shooting gallery over the next few months till the election is over.  The Senate will block Obama's court nomination (mind you the supreme court was never given a size limit so appointing one is not crucial) which will be a big fight and thus party politics will surely rear its ugly head.  The court will still see cases as well, with the big ones being issues on abortion, and affirmative action.  Presidential candidates will have their work cut out for them as appointing a judge in our system of governance takes a lot of political capital and thus may make whatever promises they made during the election unattainable, assuming that the Senate succeeds in blocking Obama's Supreme Court appointment.  

My reaction to the Debate reaction.

So I did not actually watch the debate this time.  Instead I went to see "Dead pool" because, well even I needed a break from the debates and Dead pool is one of my favorite superheroes.  As such, once I got home I read and watched the post-debate reactions by critics and analysts (mostly from Fox News and some from the Huffington Post).  To my horror, all I heard about was the candidates attacking each other.  That was all the analysis was about.  It was the Republican Candidates lashing out.  Trump against Jeb Bush over President Bush Jr. and the Iraq war. Cruz and Rubio arguing about speaking Spanish?!  Kasich tried to keep the peace, but obviously failed.  Carson was completely ignored in the post-debate analysis save for Huff Po saying he tried to keep the peace once.  Basically though, according to Huffington Post Trump and Jeb Bush were the winners of the debate, with Cruz and Rubio having mixed results and Carson the loser.  They seemed to have ignored Kasich in their article besides the mention of him trying to call for peace.  Kasich though according to Fox benefited from the debate and his New Hampshire successes because some polls put him in second. Now I will say there is nothing wrong with Kasich and he would make a fine President due to his experience as Congressmen and then Governor.  However, Kasich, Rubio and Jeb are all establishment Republicans while Cruz is a rebel, and Trump and Carson being complete outsiders.  And that was the entire breakdown of the debate that I got the night of when I got home.

Final Thought:  The only actual substantive thing I heard about the debate was on the death of Justice Antonin Scalia.  It was the Republicans asking for the vacancy in the court to be kept till the New President is elected.  The purpose being that Scalia was a Conservative and balanced the court with respect to liberal and conservative views.  After that there was nothing of use to show how worthy any of these potential presidents are of the office.  I am glad I skipped this one.

Women and the Draft

During the Republican debate in New Hampshire the draft and having women register for it came up.  Many people on the Republican side thought they should register.  However I have a different opinion.  My opinion is that the draft is a relic of the past that forces young men into battle.  It is basically a form of slavery if men and women would be forced to fight against their will.  Yes, I know the argument well that they protect our nation, but placing people in a military who do not want to be there increases desertions, decreases moral, and jeopardizes every single member of the military with respect to safety and their mental state which is already strained due to the stresses of battle.  A soldier does not need to be think that his buddy is going to abandon him in the middle of a fire fight.  So I say end the draft completely.  Our military is much stronger with those who join because they want to and not because they have to.

Final thought:  I believe in freedom and if the draft is kept, then let women register, but not with the force of law demanding they do so against their will and threatening fines and jail if they do not (yes jail and monetary penalties are there as a threat for those men who do not sign up).  However, like I said, I believe in freedom and I respect our soldiers.  As such the draft should be removed as nations as advanced as ours have to look, act and be above such a ridiculous and outmoded tool for making a military.  In fact, our military is living proof that an all volunteer force can and is superior to any conscript army.  So I say end the draft, it is not needed anymore.

Post New Hampshire Primary reaction.

So Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders won.  I personally am not a fan of either one as they are both not fit in my mind to be president.  Trump due to attitude and personality and Bernie because Socialism always leads to economic decline, the sinking of quality of life and ultimately the death of a nation.  But this is just me and I base this opinion on what I learned and studied as a political scientist both in college and my continuing education via news, books and research up to this point. 

Now, as to why these guys won.   Trump is easy to explain because New Hampshire is not a religious oriented State like Iowa.  As such the Evangelical vote that went to Cruz there in Iowa was because Cruz appealed to people with religion.  New Hampshire is a coastal State as such it is more built around people just living life.  People there tend to be more liberal or even libertarian.  Basically they value freedom and promises of freedom.  Sanders won partially because of this as well.  However he was helped by the fact that Hilary is seen as a liar, a member of the establishment, and power hungry.  Democrats I have talked to say they would vote for Trump before they would vote for Hillary.  Basically this is the reasons they won.  People believe Trump is good for the economy, which means jobs, and thus vote for him.  Sanders is believed in for the free stuff he promises and his honesty (he still says he is going to raise everyone's taxes FYI).

Trump was not a surprise and Sanders winning was just cool to see as I don't care for Hillary or her politics either.  Kasich was the major surprise coming in second.  He normally just rattles off on Ohio this and that.  However, Kasich is a very experienced governor and decently conservative and leans libertarian enough freedom wise to get a nice chunk of the vote to take second place.

Additionally Governor Christie and Carly Fiorina took sixth and seventh place respectively which unfortunately disqualifies them for the Saturday debate for the upcoming South Carolina Primary for Republicans.  Also Rubio is fighting it out with Cruz and Bush for third.

Final thought:  We live in interesting times and this selection process is far from over.  As such, this may only be the beginning of the surprises we may see in this election.

On illegal non-citizens being penalized

It is in my opinion that non-citizens who came illegally here to the United States should not be kicked out.  Truth be told it would take 40 years according to the pundits to process each and every person who came to this country illegally.  This is assuming no more come in and because they are entitled, based on Supreme Court rulings, that they get a trial/hearing.  So what can be done to fix the problem?  How do we punish them without being a bad guy?  Here is my answer assuming a few conditions being met first.   

The first condition is as follows.  One is that the immigration system changes to a family based system.  In other words the entire family enters together.   So this means the immediate family, the grandparents, grandchildren, aunts and uncles, cousins, etc.  It is the family unit coming in, not just individuals who may be leaving all those they care about behind being made citizens in a real first come first serve system.  A real line of sorts to just bring in people who care about each other and can support each other in times of need.  Basically the idea of bringing in families is because they will be able to support each other as they adapt to their new country.  

Condition two is the elimination of the Federal income tax.  For one, the current tax code punishes success.  As such it makes it harder for people, especially immigrants and our poor, to rise up economically.  We need a sales tax which eliminates the need for complicated tax codes and makes collection of money easier.  This revenue, combined with money from taxes on imports should allow the Federal government to get the magic 17% revenue stream from the gross domestic product (GDP).  (Note: 17% of GDP is the max number of revenue a government is capable of collecting in taxes per year as no matter how high taxes are raised that percentage remains the same).

If those conditions are met a penalty can be placed only on the illegal immigrant without harming the whole family.  What I mean by this is that the penalty will be like the income tax, but only for the individuals who came illegally.  It will not be applied to any other family member of the person who came in illegally and will not impact the rest of the family of that illegal migrant coming into the country as they apply and get in line with everyone else (so no inhibitions on other people coming in if related to an illegal migrant).  Also, if the person who came illegally is a child, and it can be proven that they came as children, then they are exempt from the penalty also.   Now, the penalty will be simply 10% of the person's income for a max of 25 years.   That is it.  No other penalties or other fines will be required.  This ensures that it is payable and does not impact the rest of the family unit.  Detail wise, that individual does not become a full citizen until the penalty is paid and that if they are without income for a year, then that year will not count toward the 25 years’ worth of income taxes. So, either they never work to avoid paying the tax like fine and thus not become full citizens, or they work to be able to vote and have access to other privileges of citizenship.  

Final thought:  So what do you think?  Yea, you are probably saying that without an income tax the government would collapse (which as far as I know is not true).  But you all (hopefully) like everything else.  The idea is to punish without complicated trials and hearings, and no costs to deport non-violent illegal immigrants who came simply for opportunity and jobs.  We are a compassionate nation and thus here is my idea to bring compassion to dealing with the illegal immigrant issue.