Category Archives: Constitution

04.20.13
by

Bloomberg: Obama Decision on Interrogating Suspect Draws Criticism from Civil Liberties Groups; Republicans argue still not tough enough

The Obama administration’s decision to interrogate the suspect in the Boston Marathon bombing without first warning him of his rights has sparked criticism from both sides of the political spectrum about the best way to prosecute terrorism cases.

Justice Department officials have said their move to question bombing suspect Dzhokar Tsarnaev, 19, without reading him the Miranda warning of his right to remain silent is a necessary legal tool in cases of domestic terrorism.

Civil liberties groups said yesterday the tactic raises concerns about infringement of Tsarnaev’s constitutional rights, especially since he’s a naturalized American citizen. At the same time, four Republican lawmakers criticized the administration for not being tough enough, saying Tsarnaev should be designated an enemy combatant with no right to counsel……..

……….

Holder’s push has been criticized by civil liberties groups that say delaying Miranda warnings poses risks to the constitutional rights of suspects.

“Obama’s Justice Department unilaterally expanded the ‘public safety exception’ to Miranda in 2010 beyond anything the Supreme Court ever authorized,” Vincent Warren, the executive director of the Center for Constitutional Rights, a legal advocacy group that focuses on civil-liberties litigation, said in a statement yesterday. “Each time the administration uses this exception, it stretches wider and longer.”

—

As we stated before, Republicans and Democrats (at least some of the key players in both parties) seem to think that the constitution only applies some of the time and to a subset of the citizenship.  What do you think?

Click below for the full article.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-04-21/obama-decision-on-interrogating-suspect-draws-criticism.html?cmpid=yhoo

04.20.13
by

Yahoo News: Boston bombing suspect’s arrest presents intelligence opportunity, legal challenges

BOSTON – Keeping bombing suspect Dzhokhar Tsarnaev alive and able to answer questions would be a badly-needed intelligence coup for terror investigators, a former U.S. District Attorney told Yahoo News on Saturday.

“The fear of law enforcement has always been the small, insular cells that are kind of under the radar,” said Richard Roper, a federal prosecutor for 21 years. “Either the lone wolf or the small cells … they’re difficult to obtain intelligence on. I hope they get some good stuff out of him.”

On Saturday, Dzhokhar was reportedly clinging to life and under heavy guard at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center in Boston. He apparently suffered gunshot wounds to the neck and leg during separate gun battles with authorities on Friday.

Tsarnaev, 19, and his brother, 26-year-old Tamerlan Tsarnaev, are believed to have planted the two backpack bombs near the finish line of Monday’s Boston Marathon. The twin explosions killed three people and injured 180 others……..

……..

“There’s a need to immediately question the guy whether you Mirandize him or not to save lives,” Roper said. “The question is how far do you go before it turns into a custodial interrogation?”

Republican Senators John McCain of Arizona and Lindsey Graham of South Carolina went a step further, suggesting Dzhokhar be treated as an enemy combatant like a soldier captured in war. The move drew the ire of longtime McCain aide and speechwriter Mark Salter.

“My friend, Lindsey Graham, is wrong on this,” Salter posted on his Facebook page. “However unforgivable his crimes, he’s a US citizen, arrested on US soil, with, at this time, no known associations with foreign terrorist organizations at war with the U.S. To declare him an “enemy combatant,” and deny him his rights is un-American.”

——

What do you all think, does the constitution only apply to some citizens or all?

Click below for the full article.

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/lookout/boston-bombing-suspect-arrest-presents-intelligence-opportunity-legal-183858408.html

04.19.13
by

ABC NEWS: Talk Begins of April 22 Online ‘Blackout’ in CISPA Protest

ht cispa law nt 130419 wblog Talk Begins of April 22 Online Blackout in CISPA Protest

No sooner had the House of Representatives passed the Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act  (CISPA), on Thursday, than word began spreading of an online protest. Some are suggesting the protest take the form of a “blackout” – going offline for 24 hours, displaying censorship bars over content or  posting statements of opposition to Internet censorship — similar to last year’s opposition to the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) and the Protect IP Act (PIPA).

Supporters on Twitter have begun tweeting the hashtag #CISPABlackout to promote the proposed April 22 “blackout.”

Though proponents see the bill as a strong measure to fight cyber threats and better protect citizens, organizations like the American Civil Liberties Union, The Internet Defense League and the Electronic Frontier Foundation oppose CISPA because of the jurisdiction it would provide for the federal government to procure personal information shared with private-sector entities such as Google or Facebook.

The original draft of CISPA first passed the House in 2012, but died in the Senate and was publicly opposed by the White House. “The administration strongly opposes [CISPA], in its current form,” Obama’s Office of Management and Budget said in a statement last year.

The office of the president hasn’t changed its tune for CISPA 2013 either, recently issuing a statement: “The administration still seeks additional improvements, and if the bill, as currently crafted, were presented to the president, his senior advisers would recommend that he veto the bill.”

—

Click below for the full article.

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/technology/2013/04/talk-begins-of-april-22-online-blackout-in-cispa-protest/

04.19.13
by

The Motley Fool: Obamacare and Sequestration Crush UnitedHealth

In this video, health-care analyst David Williamson discusses how Obamacare and sequestration are weighing on shares of insurer UnitedHealth (NYSE: UNH) . David breaks the managed care company’s quarter into Clint Eastwood-inspired good, bad, and ugly segments, helping investors in UnitedHealth, and related stocks, to find out everything they need to know from this bellwether’s earnings, and what to expect going forward.

When President Obama was re-elected, shares of UnitedHealth and other health insurers fell immediately. Is Obamacare a death knell for health insurers, or is the market missing out on some of the opportunities the law presents? In this brand new premium report on UnitedHealth, The Motley Fool takes a long term view, honing in on prospects for UnitedHealth in a post-Obamacare world. So don’t miss out — simply click here now to claim your copy today.


Click below for the full article.

http://www.fool.com/investing/general/2013/04/19/obamacare-and-sequestration-crush-unitedhealth.aspx

04.19.13
by

The Week: The insanity of blaming Islam

We are still speculating about virtually everything right now, but I feel as though I need to explain why I find the quick and easy conversation about Muslims being radicalized in America to be so illogical and laced with bigotry.

Of course, there is a global violent jihadist movement, loosely organized, that wants to recruit young men to influence policies at home and abroad and perhaps usher in the global caliphate. That ideology motivates some Muslims to kill innocent people.

But you’re allowed to be a radical Muslim in America. You’re allowed to believe that the Qu’ran proscribes the most elegant set of laws. You’re allowed to believe that one man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter. And you can say, in America, pretty much anything you want. Not everything, and after 9/11, a little less, but you can still make very unpopular arguments.

So just for the sake of argument, let’s assume that the only factor that motivated these two brothers from Chechnya to set off bombs and kill police officers is their decision to accept some form of radical Islamic teachings as their foundational belief system. (I highly doubt this is the case, but let’s just throw it out there.)

We ask: “We have to look at the whole issue of radicalization. What prompts someone raised as an American to cause such carnage?”

That’s what Peter King, the Republican chair of the Homeland Security committee, asked. So he goes right to the religion; somehow, he slides very quickly past the possibility that something about America is radicalizing people of all sorts.

He commits the sin of essentialism.

—

Click below for the full article.

http://theweek.com/article/index/243051/the-insanity-of-blaming-islam

 

04.18.13
by

Republican Mike Rogers led CISPA bill, the Fourth Amendment, and you

Overshadowed by congressional action on guns and immigration is an Internet privacy bill that could affect most Americans, without them knowing it, on a daily basis.

computer servers

The final vote in the House was 248-168, as 42 Democrats voted for the bill, while 28 Republicans voted against it.

And like gun control, it’s far from a done deal after the House passes CISPA. It would need Senate approval, and President Barack Obama has indicated he’ll possibly veto CISPA if it comes to his desk.

Both sides of Congress would need to muster a two-thirds majority vote to override the president’s veto, which would seem unlikely in the current political atmosphere of Washington.

At the heart of CISPA is a Fourth Amendment issue.

The amendment reads:

“The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”

CISPA is designed to let the federal government work with private companies to fight hackers and cybercriminals in and outside of the United States. As part of the effort to detect cyber threats, private companies could voluntarily share with the government data about Internet users.

The sharing could be done in “real time” as the cybercops try to defeat and track down the evildoers. Companies could also share data among themselves as part of the effort.

There are major drawbacks about the legislation, say CISPA’s critics. The privacy provisions for consumers, they claim, are vague or nonexistent. The government and companies can’t look at your personal data, such as medical records and tax returns, if they are part of the “data dump” that is shared in real time. But the law doesn’t require that companies excise, or edit out, that information in the transfer process.

Another criticism is that a warrant isn’t needed for the government to obtain that information. And companies that share your information won’t be held legally liable for sharing that information, a practice that seemingly conflicts with privacy policies on existing websites.

CISPA’s biggest critic in Congress is a representative from Colorado, Jared Polis. The Democrat told the House on Wednesday, “This is the biggest government takeover of personal information that I’ve seen during my time here in Congress.”

Mike Rogers, a Republican representative from Michigan and the House Intelligence Committee chairman, is leading the CISPA effort, along with Dutch Ruppersberger, a Democrat from Maryland.

Rogers believes the measure is long needed. “People were stealing their identities, their accounts, their intellectual property, and subsequent to that, their jobs,” he recently said. “[Web users] began to question the value of getting on Internet and using [it] for commercial purposes. Their trust in the free and open Internet … was at risk.”

He has also stressed that participation in CISPA is voluntary for companies.

——

What do you think about this clear violation of the fourth amendment?  Michigan residents living in the 8th US Congressional district can reach out to Mike Rogers to give their opinion of his bill:

Office Information
2112 Rayburn House Office Building Washington, D.C. 20515 Phone: (202) 225-4872 Fax: (202) 225-58201000 West St. Joseph Suite 300 Lansing, Michigan 48915 Phone: (517) 702-8000 Toll Free: 877-333-MIKE Fax: (517) 702-8642To Send an e-mail:http://mikerogers.house.gov/contact/

Click below for the full article.

http://news.yahoo.com/cispa-fourth-amendment-143420272.html

 

04.18.13
by

Associated Press: UnitedHealth warns of Medicare profit squeeze

UnitedHealth Group, the largest provider of Medicare Advantage plans, warned Thursday that funding cuts for the privately-run versions of the federal Medicare program will force it to reconsider its expectations for earnings growth next year.

CEO Stephen Hemsley told analysts that the government-subsidized coverage for elderly and disabled people faces a reimbursement cut of about 4 percent next year. That’s on top of other possible federal funding reductions and an expected 3 percent rise in medical costs.

“We did not expect the fastest-growing, most popular and most effective of the Medicare benefit options serving America’s seniors would be underfunded to this extent in 2014,” Hemsley said.

More than 13 million people were enrolled in Medicare Advantage plans last year, or about 27 percent of the Medicare population, according to the nonprofit Kaiser Family Foundation.

Insurers offer hundreds of different Medicare Advantage plans around the country. The coverage typically provides extras such as dental and vision care, or rates that are lower than standard Medicare.

UnitedHealth, which is the nation’s largest health insurer, has nearly 2.9 million people enrolled, and the plans brought in about 20 percent of the insurer’s revenue last year.

Shares of UnitedHealth and other insurers that provide Medicare Advantage coverage slid in February after the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services released data that pointed to payment cuts as steep as 8 percent next year. The government then softened the blow to a reduction of about 4 percent.

But UnitedHealth said that cut, combined with the other reductions, will be tough to stomach. UnitedHealth said it may have to trim benefits, change provider networks or leave some markets to preserve Medicare Advantage profitability.

Hemsley, UnitedHealth’s CEO, called the reimbursement cut “a significantly greater rate setback than anyone could have expected.”

The company also said widespread government spending cuts that started earlier this year and hit Medicare will make it hard for the insurer to reach the top end of its forecast for 2013 earnings of $5.25 to $5.50 per share. Analysts expect earnings of $5.51 per share, according to FactSet, a research firm.

Analysts had labeled UnitedHealth’s 2013 earnings forecast conservative after it came out last fall, and the insurer normally raises it several times through the year. But so far, the company has just backed the initial projection.

Thursday’s outlook warning came as UnitedHealth reported that its first-quarter earnings sank 14 percent, largely due to a lower gain the company recorded due to leftover insurance claims.

—

Click below for the full article.

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/unitedhealth-warns-medicare-profit-squeeze-175814694–finance.html

 

04.18.13
by

The Week: Does the gun bill’s failure prove the Senate is broken?

Background checks have overwhelming support from the American public: A Washington Post-ABC News poll last week found that 86 percent of people support a law “requiring background checks on people buying guns at gun shows or online.”

The Senate, ostensibly, represents those same people. Yet the Toomey-Manchin bill regulating that exact issue failed in the Senate on Wednesday by a vote of 54-46. (It needed 60 votes to pass.) What’s wrong with this picture?

The main problem is that small states are vastly overrepresented in the Senate. If you judge the vote by population, the Toomey-Manchin bill actually got a majority of the votes. Alec MacGillis of The New Republic breaks down the numbers and finds that “senators voting for the bill represented about 194 million people, while the senators voting against the bill represented about 118 million people,” which is “getting close to a two-thirds majority in favor of the measure.”

While the Constitution has always protected the interests of small states, the disparity has never been this big. Ezra Klein of The Washington Post points out just how much things have changed:

During the first Congress, Virginia, the largest state, was roughly 12 times the size of Delaware, which was, at the time, the smallest state. Today, California is 66 times the size of Wyoming. That makes the Senate five times less proportionate today than it was at the founding. [Washington Post]

Of course, the effects of the Great Compromise wouldn’t be so, well, great, if it weren’t so easy to filibuster bills. “Everything needs 60 votes today. This is supposed to be a majority body,” Sen. Dianne Feinstein complained after the bill failed, according to The Huffington Post.

——

Click below for the full article.

http://theweek.com/article/index/242989/does-the-gun-bills-failure-mean-the-senate-is-broken

04.18.13
by

The Blaze: MSNBC Publicly Shames Senators Who ‘Voted Against Common Sense,’ Warns Of Retribution In 2014

The air in the small town of West, Texas was still filled with the smell of smoke and ammonia as medical crews worked to help the hundreds who were injured while rescue workers struggled to locate and identify the dozens killed in yesterday’s fertilizer plant explosion, MSNBC was looking for revenge. Revenge for the death of the gun control bill in the U.S. Senate.

Following the Senate’s rejection of the gun control bill, MSNBC’s “Morning Joe” launched a campaign of public shaming of those who voted “no.” (And in some cases, they chose a few unflattering photos to display.)

MSNBC Publicly Shames Senators Who Voted No On Gun Bill

On Thursday morning, the majority of the first hour of “Morning Joe” was dedicated to the not-so-surprising results from yesterday’s defeat of the Senate’s gun bill. Co-host Mika Brzezinski talked about the “stinging loss for the president…and might I add to the script, the country.” Brzezinski went on to talk about those who voted against the bill, announcing that the show was going to put their names and pictures on the screen so all could see the 54 “Faces of Cowardice.”

Democrats who voted against the bill were featured individually as well as given their own special page at the end of the segment.

MSNBC Publicly Shames Senators Who Voted No On Gun Bill

Joe Scarborough also piled on, warning of consequences coming to anyone who voted against the “90 percent.” (Scarborough declared himself and anyone who supported the background checks in the now-dead bill, “We are the 90 percent!”)

—-

Click below for the full article and some other related articles.

MSNBC Publicly Shames Senators Who ‘Voted Against Common Sense,’ Warns Of Retribution In 2014

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/04/18/msnbc-publicly-shames-senators-who-voted-against-common-sense-warns-of-retribution-in-2014/

Is the liberal anti-gun push backfiring?
http://www.theblaze.com/blog/2013/04/18/is-the-liberal-anti-gun-push-backfiring/

MSNBC Host Blames NRA for ‘Slow’ Boston Investigation: ‘In the Business of Helping Bombers Get Away With Their Crimes’
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/04/18/msnbc-host-blames-nra-for-slow-boston-investigation-in-the-business-of-helping-bombers-get-away-with-their-crimes/