InThe New York Times on March 22, 2012 there was an article titled "Court Appears to Be Wary Hearing Free-Speech Case".  Steven Howards, was arrested by Secret Service agents after approaching Vice-President Cheney and making critical remarks about the Bush administration's war policies.  Mr. Howard also touched the vice-president.  The Supreme court agreed that the secret service agents need to have some lattitude when protecting their charge, especially when placing their own lives in danger.  The issue before the court was whether or not secret service agents who are prepared to take a bullet for the vice president must also be prepared to a retaliatory arrest lawsuit, even when they have probable cause to make an arrest.  Mr. Howard sued the agents saying they violated his First Amendment right to Freedom of Speech!  It's an article worth reading.  Pesonally, if they feel threatened and justified in arresting someone....I would go with their instincts any day!

The New York Times had an article on March 22, 1012 with the following title, "JUSTICES EXPAND RIGHT OF ACCUSED IN PLEA BARGAINS".  The article centers around the Supreme Courts decision to expand the judges' supervision of the criminal justice system.....specifically, in this case, plea bargains which have been routinely negotiated within the system and the new ruling recognizes the rights of adequate representation during the plea bargain process.  There are concerns that ineffective counsel will be the cry from defendants who are convicted but say after their conviction they would have taken the plea agreement.   Justice Kennedy has suggested methods to help reduce the risk of that happening.  Personally, I believe that the rights of the accused are given more consideration than those of the victims...however, this seems to make sense.  Once an agreement is offered it should be the defendant who decides if they want to take it AND it should be done with proper representation.  That way there is little room for them to try to cry "Unfair" or "Unconstitutional".  We cover our own butts at the same time!!

Deseret News on April 19, 2012 had an article titled "Ex-officer accused of using database to commit burglary".  Ben M. Murray, former police officer with the Vernal Police department is accused of using a drug database, the Utah Controlled Substance Database, to track prescriptions that were filled by two Vernal residents.  His intent was to steal the medications when they were filled and he actually entered the victims homes while they were home on the pretense of counting the pills to be sure they were not being over prescribed.  His actions have caused the victims to file a suit seeking $2 million dollars for violating their 4th Amendment rights!  The 4th Amendment says, "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."  Officer Murray certainly abused his position to obtain drugs for whatever purpose.  Certainly he should pay the price for his actions.  The only issue I have is that I find it difficult to believe it will take $2 million dollars for these victims to feel they have been put back to the state they were in before Officer Murray stole their medications.  They do appear to have had their 4th Amendment rights violated, but $2 million.....that's a stretch!

In the Deseret News on March 22, 2012 there was an article titled "Options considered on new abortion law."  The American Civil Liberties Union of Utah and Planned Parenthood Association of Utah wanted Governor Gary Herbert to veto House Bill 461.  The bill, which was signed into law, is the creates the nation's longest waiting period for an abortion.  The organizations are concerned about the constitutionality of the law.  I realize that the right of a woman to have an abortion should be hers to decide, and whether or not I agree with that, is immaterial.  Waiting 72 hours before being able to have an abortion doesn't seem too much to ask!

In the USA TODAY on April 13, 2012 there was an article titled "1st Amendment bars retaliation."  This is an opposing view of the same subject as the article "Marine's Facebook rants earn ticket out of the military."   The article was written by Sgt. Gary Stein's attorney David Loy, legal director for the ACLU Foundation of San Diego & Imperial counties.  He argues that Stein's comments were less offensive than other military individuals previous comments.  He also argues that he really didn't mean it the way it sounded...hmmm!  It's there in black and white and if he hadn't wanted it to be mis-interpreted then he shouldn't have written it without first clarifying EXACTLY what he meant!  This is the President we are talking about...let's be clear if we want to insult the President so that there is no misunderstanding.  He was fully aware of the rules and he broke them!  Take your punishment and learn from it!

There was an article in the USA TODAY on April 13, 2012 titled "Marine's Facebook rants earn ticket out of the Military".

The article is really the opinion of the paper.  It has to do with Freedom of speech and the rights of a military man to express his political views freely.  Sgt. Gary Stein has come under fire for having a Facebook group called “The Armed Forces tea party”.  Actually it’s what he posts that has him in hot water.  He’s not a fan of President Obama and essentially said he would not follow any orders from him, nor would he salute him.  He, in fact, says that Obama is the enemy.  There is a Defense Department directive that explicitly bars active-duty members from doing that very thing. Now if I’m not mistaken the President is his Commander-in-Chief, so why would you publicly bad mouth your boss?  Certainly he cannot be surprised that someone noticed his comments and disciplinary action may be taken.  Sgt. Stein’s lawyer argues that he was within his free speech rights and that the military rules are vague enough to be considered unconstitutional. Hmmm!  I think there are some lines that shouldn’t be crossed and bad mouthing your boss could be career suicide!

In the Deseret News on April 13, 2012 there was an article titled "Steven Powell evidence in dispute".  Steven Powell is the father of Josh Powell, who is suspected of killing his wife Susan.  Mr. Powell claims that his Fourth Amendment were violated when the police searched his home and seized evidence unrelated to the warrant's purpose of searching for evidence that related to the disappearance of Susan Powell.  Personally, I say "Boo Hoo" to Mr. Powell.  The fact that he had child pornography seems to be lost on him! I know everything is set into place for a very reason but I think he's reaching a little too far on this one!  Evidence is evidence and there's no claims that he wasn't the owner of the pornography, just that it shouldn't count.  Whatever!

Interstate commerace

In the Deseret News on March 29 2012 an article titled "Interstate commerce' is a magic term that can justify anything".  The article addresses the issue of  the use of the Interstate Commerce and more importantly what it sees as the misuse of Interstate Commerce.  It cited the case of Wickard v. Filburn in which the U.S. Department of Agriculture fined Filburn for growing too much wheat even though the extra was purely for the farmer's use and never intended it to be sent into public circulation.  The article suggests that since virtually everthing can affects everything, even slightly, that Interstate Commerce can "justify virtually any expansion of government power".  This is an over simplification of the article but the basic idea is that, if it wanted to, the government can justify the use of the Interstate Commerce when it suits them and such "power to regulate indirect effects is  not a slippery slope.  It is the disastrous loss of freedom that lies at the bottom of a slippery slope."  I'm no expert on this subject but it does seem that the use of Interstate Commerce can appear to be used as it suits the government's needs.