« Benazir Bhutto | Main | Amanda Marcotte »
April 15, 2007
Corrupting the Law
There's all sorts of things one can blame the Bush Administration for (much of which I don't in fact blame them for) just as with Blair and his toadies.
But the one that I think has the greatest long term implications is the corruption of the legal system by both. It's not a left/right thing, it's a liberty versus the State thing.
Radley Balko has an example.
Tumbrils and gibbets would seem to be the only logical response.
April 15, 2007 in Politics | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8341c2d3e53ef00d8352c490a69e2
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Corrupting the Law:
Comments
I mentioned yesterday Tom Paine's reference to the 3000 new crimes and various other [e.g. Notsaussure]posts on the legal malaise. This government has to be particularly watched now. I think they know they're on the way out and they'll scuttle the ship before they go. The progressive corruption of the system still hasn't been completed.
Posted by: jameshigham | Apr 15, 2007 12:34:13 PM
It is indeed a Liberty vs State issue, but it's worse in Britain. If I were a US Citizen I would be in the Supreme Court challenging the US PATRIOT Act, for example. I have no Supreme Court in which I can challenge the Prevention of Terrorism Act 2005, because the British Constitution is simply that "Parliament is sovereign." If it happens, as at present, to be populated largely with careerists who would sell their mother's soul for ministerial Jag, that's just tough luck.
Liberty will win in the USA. I am not so sure about Britain.
Posted by: Tom Paine | Apr 15, 2007 4:08:16 PM
"I have no Supreme Court in which I can challenge the Prevention of Terrorism Act 2005"
Yes you can. You can ask the High Court (and thence to the House of Lords) to declare legislation (or its implementation) incompatible with the HRA. It's already been done, too. If the Government abolishes the HRA, you can go to the ECJ. If the Government withdraws from the ECJ, well, we potentially have a terrorist campaign and/or civil war on our hands.
And anyway, a constitution is no guarantee per se: President Andrew Jackson is famously quoted as saying (of the Chief Justice who ruled against the Government on Indian land rights) "John Marshall has made his decision. Now let him enforce it!" Something those living in Zimbabwe (which also has a constitution) might recognize.
Posted by: Kay Tie | Apr 15, 2007 4:52:50 PM
There is law, prosecutors prosecute, and judges decide. That's what's going on. It sounds to me like the problem is that you don't agree with the law. The doesn't make the system corrupt. Had they decided not to prosecute what is clearly illegal, *that* would have been corruption of the law.
There is definitely a problem area here, where the federal government and the state governments both desire jurisdiction, but it's clear that the feds have the right to designate and regulate controlled substances. The gray area is that the courts have given a soft penalty on a guilty decision on the test case, which is reasonable as there is an actual person involved who is caught in the middle. But how will this be interpreted as a precedent? This could either be taken as a winning affirmation for future prosecutions in the same situation, or could be taken as a dangerous precedent for effectively ignoring the law. Really, both views are viable, an advocate in a future case can (and I'm sure will) argue both. Clearly, from the federal advocate point of view, it is desired that the precedent be that the laws aren't ignored.
Having said that, I don't think that what he (the grower) did should be illegal. But that's a matter for Congress - the people elected to make the laws, and with constitutions authority in this matter. Not the courts, not the prosecutors, not the police, and, in this case, not the State. Unfortunately, the Dems show no desire to address this any more than the Reps.
That's what the rule of law looks like.
--z
Posted by: zgatt | Apr 15, 2007 5:06:05 PM
zgatt:
I don't know about the USA, but here in the UK the CPS must decide if it is in the public interest to prosecute.
It seems Attorneys General may drop charges.
Now, Rosenthal has a history of pulling on the tiger's tail.
But is it in the public interest to prosecute a man for breaking federal law even though his actions were permitted under state law and indeed explicitly authorised by the City of Oakland?
Apart from that, Rosenthal was convicted, had already served his sentence, his conviction was overturned on appeal, and now federal authorities want to re-try him - for something that is allowed under state but not federal law.
Is that what the rule of law should look like?
Or is the War on Drugs making it look a mess?
Posted by: ukliberty | Apr 16, 2007 8:05:31 PM
