Category Archives: Constitution
NOTE: Yes, there is an audio issue in the introduction. It goes away at the end of the intro. Sorry, Dave refused to wear headphones tonight… – Producer Henri.
In a world where people still believe that the Protocols of the Elders of Zion is a real thing, where SNOPES “fact checks” the Babylon Bee, where Saints fans still believe that it was all a plot against them, the whole Jussie Smollett story has been labeled as “weird” by the local news personality.
It is a huge conversational buffalo, so big in fact that I am not even sure where to start chewing. The weeping and gnashing of teeth by the celebrities left who will admit that the supported Smollet in the beginning might be a good place. But even I don’t have the appetite it would take to consume all of that.
No, for me there is an unexpected concern here.
Back in 1773, some Lobster Backs were put on trial for murder in Boston. They were accused of shooting Colonials, but it was their defense that really caused a commotion. Their attorney decided to stand up for the rights of the accused, not to join the baying crowd calling for their blood.
Up stepped John Adams. Yes… THAT John Adams…
He defended the soldiers and while it was surprising at the time, calmer heads understood what the mob did not – that vengeance is not justice and that the accused have rights. Adams won the trial and the Soldiers went free. As they should have.
What I watched this morning, along with millions of my fellow countrymen, appalled me.
Because a very sick person tried to manipulate half of America by playing on perceived hatred and stereotypes because he was mad about his salary?
I was appalled that what I watched was nothing more than a return to the values and practices of a tyrannical government. Whether you or I think that Jussie Smollet did it or not, how is it okay with us that the government – in the form of a Police Chief – stood in front of the camera broadcasting to the world and indicted, arraigned, tried, judged and all but sentenced a man for crime before his booking photo was dry?
It may make me unpopular, but as my Dad always said, that puts me in good company. The accused have rights, and I was appalled at how the government just rolled right over them this morning.
Of course, there are bigger problems in this country. But they aren’t what we keep being told that they are. And when you break it down, it’s not any different from the day that some Lobster Backs were sent into a volatile powder keg with a crowd yelling “Fire! Fire!” and in an attempt to quell one problem, created two…
The City of Los Angeles passed an ordinance that requires all contractors to “disclose” all of their contacts and sponsorships (whatever that means) with the National Rifle Association. In Delaware, a man wants to apply to be a Judge on the State Bench. But, Delaware has a law that says that he is not qualified to be a Judge. Why not? Because he chooses to not associate with certain “approved” groups.
At the end of the day, the real question is why do governments continue to pass laws that they KNOW are not Constitutional. These Governments pay (with tax dollars) for legal advice, so it’s not at all possible that they don’t know this.
But even were we to be charitable and assume (yes, I know what it means) that they don’t know, why do they keep proposing and passing laws that restrict liberty?
In Baltimore last week, Marilyn Mosby, the Prosecutor for the City of Baltimore, MD, announced that she will no longer pursue cases for marijuana offenses. Now… the BPD disagrees with the new policy and have made it clear that the arrests will continue. This disagreement seems to call the entire purpose of the policy into question, but it also raises bigger questions. One of which hearkens back to one of the most sensational trials of the mid-1800s.
Back in 1865, something happened in Springfield, Missouri that had not really happened before. And frankly, really didn’t happen as much as Hollywood and Zane Gray make it seem that it did. William Hickok and Little Dave Tutt found themselves face-to-face in the street. Somebody drew first and when the dust settled, Little Dave Tutt was dead.
Mr. Hickok, “Wild Bill,” as you know him, was charged with murder based on the twenty-two witnesses to the fight. A few days later, as stories changed, the charges were reduced to Manslaughter and the trial began. The witnesses seemed all over the place. Was there one shot, or two? Did you see who drew first? You were behind one of the men so you really couldn’t see what happened? Wait… you say he never fired but you admit that there is an empty chamber in his pistol?
At the time, the State of Missouri had no “self-defense” law on its books. Which meant that either Hickok shot Little Dave Tutt or… well… he did shoot Tutt. The law won’t recognize his self-defense claim, so there’s no way to instruct the jury to accept it. Or… is there?
Which has me wondering if there isn’t a better way for We the People to let our wishes be known than to have DA’s with more political aspirations than an understanding of their oaths telling us what they will and won’t do?