Constitutional Law: April 2008 Archives
The Supreme Court issued its anxiously awaited decision in Crawford v.
This opinion simply ignores the history in this country, including recent history in the last two presidential elections, of state authorized attempts to discourage minorities from voting. As the well reasoned dissent of Justice Souter makes clear, Indian’s law “poses nontrivial burdens on the voting rights of tens of thousands of the State’s citizens.” Republicans were quick to applaud the Court’s opinion and Democrats to condemn it. One day, hopefully, both parties will encourage attempts to make it easy for all Americans to vote and resist attempts to place burdens in the path of the democratic process.
A grizzly bear featured in the recent Will Ferrell film "Semi-Pro" and touted as one of the "best trained" in show business has killed its handler. Officials familiar with the incident said on Wednesday they were puzzled by what provoked the attack. Yes, what would provoke a 700 pound bear filming a television commercial to attack?
The bear, which stands 7 1/2 feet tall, bit the handler in the neck on Tuesday at a facility where wild animals are trained for film and TV productions. How about we don't do that anymore. We do not need live animals in movies or for any entertainment purpose. To fit into the law blog, let's call this Animal Rights.
In a remarkable opinion, the Second Circuit decided Christine Todd Whitman was immune from personal liability when, as Secretary of the Environmental Protection Agency, she gave false assurances about the air quality in and around Ground Zero following the attacks on September 11. The court in Benzman v. Whitman, 06-1166 (2nd Cir.,
The plaintiffs argued that Whitman’s statements were not just reflective of “deliberate indifference,” the constitutional standard addressed in prior cases, but were “intentional lies.” The court concluded: “We understand the Plaintiffs’ concern, supported in substantial part by the report of the EPA’s own Inspector General, that the agency’s performance in discharging its responsibilities in the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks, which involved an attack on
Not always for ever instance, but should be if the allegations in this case are accurate.
Alan Milstein
Yes, the Department of Justice announced the creation of a national "tax defier" or TAXDEF (it's the government, there has to be an acronym) inititative the purpose of which is "to reaffirm and reinvigorate the Tax Division's committment to investigate, pursue and prosecute those who take concrete action to defy and deny the fundamental validity of the tax laws". Apparently, the term "tax protestor" is now out of favor due to the potential it had for representing some "noble effort" says Assistant Attorney General Nathan J. Hochman. Hochman further stated:
"These folks link themselves to so-called patriotism, but at the end of the day, all it is about for them is their greedy self-interest." This TAXDEF initiative should send an unequivocal message to honest taxpayers that, to the extent any of their neighbors on their right or on their left engage in tax defier conduct, their neighbors will go to bed knowing that tomorrow may be the day when their crime will be prosecuted to the fullest".
I don't even know where to begin. Okay, first the TAXDEF or Defier Intitiative is obviously a response to Mr Snipes' acquitttal of the felony offenses for which he was charged. Second, I quoted Hochman because if I hadn't, some would have said something was lost in the translation. I actually checked the announcement date to see if it was April 1, but it was April 8.
Let's make this deal. How about next time you lose a case where a major motion picture actor admits his crimes in a 500 page written statement and there is a website that details how the crimes were committed, we don't thereafter spend tens of millions of dollars on nonsensical deterrence efforts. Next time, just spend the money to prosecute the case. Then, just then, my neighbors might sleep.
John M. Hanamirian
A district court in Texas ruled today that the State's $5 fee imposed on patrons entering a strip club is an impermissable impediment to the free speech guarantees of the United States Constitution.
The tax, referred to vernacularly as the "pole tax", went into effect in January of this year and, according to the report, most of the proceeds were used in a fund set up to assist rape victims. Ellen Cohen, a sponsor of the legislation, then said “This is an industry that largely employs women, and this gives them an opportunity to raise funds for a crime that affects women." Budget estimates reflected that the anticipated revenue effect of the legislation was $40 million dollars, based upon estimates that 8 million people go to Texas strip clubs annually.
The Texas court specifically determined that the State failed to meet its burden of demonstrating that the tax is necessary to serve a compelling state interest and is narrowly written to achieve that purpose. The court then concluded that no evidence was submitted to show that the amount of the tax was in any way related to the degree to which the taxed business activity contributes to the secondary effects or to the financial cost of that contribution to the secondary affects of the activity.
As much as I am opposed to "sin tax" legislation, this one was right on the mark. It is hard to believe that Texas, was pioneering a tax that actually potentially benefitted society. Now, of course, in the face of a Constitutional challenge, and probably a great deal of pressure from strip club owners, this Texas court determined that the tax was not legally imposed.
John M. Hanamirian
