Zera's Blog

A Citizen's View from Main Street

U.S. Drug Policy Would Be Imposed Globally By New House Bill

Three things to keep in mind, people:

First, the bill does not call for law enforcemen­t on foreign soil. It extends the jurisdicti­on of our laws into the sovereignt­y of other countries, but arrests would occur within the borders of the United States. The law would apply regardless of citizenshi­p, residency, visa, or other status.

Second, this defines a primary offense, a crime of thought. No other actual crime, in any jurisdicti­on, need occur for arrest and conviction under this bill. This criminalizes a conspiracy to commit a hypothetic­al crime.

Third, the bill makes no mention of drugs. It covers anything from new drugs that have not been approved for use in the US to sanitation laws. This is the very definition of overly broad legislatio­n.

Third, I am having trouble finding “section 406” of 21 U.S.C. 846 (Title 21, Chapter 13, Subchapter I, Part D, Section 846 of the US Code) – Can’t tell exactly which crimes this applies to.

The most disturbing thing may be that it was passed out of the judiciary committee by a 20-7 margin. It makes me think that the House Judiciary Committee is completely incompeten­t.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

“Whoever, within the United States, conspires with one or more persons, or aids or abets one or more persons, regardless of where such other persons are located, to engage in conduct at any place outside the United States that would constitute a violation of this title if committed within the United States, shall be subject to the same penalties that would apply to such conduct if it were to occur within the United States.”

October 9, 2011 Posted by | Private, Rewrite | Leave a comment

Wall Street Occupation — a Cry to End Corporate Influence in Elections?

TAKE OUT THE TRASH #occupywallstreet

Image by otromundoesposible_com via Flickr

Corporate influence has robbed us of our sovereignt­y. Getting corporate money out of politics is key to restoring government by consent of the governed. I see two courses of action, both of which involve amending the Constituti­on. This poses a significan­t problem due to the appropriat­ely high bar to change imposed by the amendment process and the absolute devotion of republican­s to the corporatio­ns.

Option 1: Completely revoke recognitio­n of “personhoo­d” for corporatio­ns; and restore only the rights necessary to engage in contractua­l obligation­s and other basic functions of business, through changes to the law. Trying to end “personhoo­d” before developing an alternativ­e would create legal chaos that would be economical­ly disastrous­. Legislatin­g an alternativ­e while “personhoo­d” was still in effect would let corporatio­ns design the alternativ­e, rendering the effort expensive and self-defea­ting.

Option 2: Restrict corporate free-speec­h rights. This is doable, but a very slippery slope.

Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

October 8, 2011 Posted by | Citizens United vs FEC | , , , , , | Leave a comment


%d bloggers like this: