The American Conservative Union asked FedEx for a check for $2 million to $3 million in return for the group’s support in a bitter legislative dispute, then the group’s chairman flipped and sided with UPS after FedEx refused to pay.

For the $2 million plus, ACU offered a range of services that included: “Producing op-eds and articles written by ACU’s Chairman David Keene and/or other members of the ACU’s board of directors. (Note that Mr. Keene writes a weekly column that appears in The Hill.)”

One plus side may be that DAs and municipalities can be freed up from prosecuting some cases which should not really be prosecuted (ie, possession for personal use, ect).

It will be interesting to see how judges will respond. In California, there used to be an unwritten (or, in some case written) rule that if you brought a case to trial rather than plea it out, when it seems clear the person is guilty, that Judges will penalize the client by im posing stiffer sentences than if it had been plead out.

I sense similar events occurring here, especially if the ‘Defendants must give notice of their demand to confront the lab people’ scheme is upheld.

My reading of the interview is not that Ginsburg is sharing her thoughts on the actual policies underlying the Roe decision, or that she is somehow embracing Eugenics, but rather Ginsburg is discussing the fear at the time over the impact Roe would have. In other words, that at the time Roe was being decided, that there was concern that the Government would embrace abortion and start using it as population control, especially to control the ‘less desirable’ populations.

Ginsburg then goes on to say that when McRae was decided, she realized that her perceptions that Government would embrace abortion was wrong.

Reports are that all remain friends, however.

My friend Brett penned an article on the recent GLAAD lawsuit against the Federal Definition of Marriage aspect of the DOMA.

As for the Tenth Amendment argument, courts have, again, generally deferred to Congress except in cases where Congress either (a) tries to command state governments to pass certain laws, or (b) tries to press state officials into service to enforce federal laws. Otherwise, federal law will prevail over inconsistent state law under the Supremacy Clause.

Brett admits that this is ‘first blush’ response. However, I think in trying to condense Constitutional Law 1 into a paragraph or two, the simplification obscures the actual issues involved here. While Brett is correct that the ‘power of the purse’ regarding Congress’ power is generally broad, it is certainly not plenary. And it is important to understand that DOMA has no specific ‘purse strings’ attached.

It is also important to Marriage has, historically, been considered one of the ‘police powers’ left to the states. The Federal Government grants certain benefits for being married, but has always accepted the definition of ‘marriage’ given by the many states.

Now, certainly, there are arguments for the other side. One of the targets of the case is taxation, where congress has broad powers. Same goes with social security cards, pass ports, ect. So, I am not blind that there are arguments which support Congress’ ability to regulate these things – but the legal question I think is a narrower one than Brett implies, and ultimately more interesting. If the court holds congress can simply define marriage for its own purposes, there is nothing to prevent congress from deciding, say, to establish Federal age of consent laws for marriage, or for dictating grounds of divorce. Now, it is certainly unlikely Congress would attempt either, but I would imagine these arguments being raised.

A final note on this point: The Tenth Amendment has long been a Supreme Court wildcard. It has gone from being relatively ignored, to being a very powerful tool used by the Supreme Court, then eventually back to being ignored. However, many of the ‘anti-gay’ Supremes (your Scalias, Thomases, and Roberts) are thought to be Federalists who believe in a strong 10th amendment, and many court watchers have been anticipating a resurgence of the importance of the tenth amendment by the Supreme Court. The question is whether the above mentioned justices will vote their judicial philosophy, or their political one.

The danger of these sorts of challenges lies in what’s termed stare decisis, which is a kind of “let sleeping dogs lie” principle in American jurisprudence. Our legal system values the predictable application of the law.

I think this stare decisis argument is weaker than the Congressional Power argument. My thinking is this: If there is no challenge to the DOMA clause, then the Congressional scheme continues in force until Congress deems to change it. If there is a failed challenge to this DOMA clause, then the Congressional scheme continues in force until Congress deems to change it. There is no real change or loss.

Understand, the purpose of the lawsuit is not to have gay marriage recognized federally (though, on some level that is the obvious effect), it is to argue that Congress has no power to tell some states we will not accept your definition of marriage which, as discussed above, has long been the purview of the states. So, there is no real fall out that I see in regards to setting precedent that would effect other gay rights efforts, as this case is extremely narrow in its focus.

The only real danger I see is that if this section of DOMA is struck down, there will be a new (and better thought-out) attempt to refuse recognition of marriages for Federal purposes.

Sometimes, though, they hit it spot on.

He also gets some very basic facts wrong: Specifically that the Hate Crimes Bill would violate the first and fifth amendment. The claim regarding the first amendment is easy: Hate Crimes only kicks in when you combine thought with acts. IE, if you stand on the corner and think ‘I wish that gay guy was dead’, you will not be arrested. If you try to kill the gay guy, merely because he is gay, then hate crimes would kick in.

Combining thought and action to ‘up’ a crime, if you will, has long been a part of criminal law (The latin term is Mens rea). At common law, in order to be charged with a burglary, you needed to have ‘felonious intent’, even if you don’t actually commit a felony while inside. What you were thinking when you committed the act determined what you were charged with.

The Fifth amendment claim is just as foolish. It had long been accepted that there is often a distinction between federal crimes and state crimes with regards to the fifth amendment.

Sullivan goes on, though, to say suggest that the real issue with the Hate Crimes bill is that it is not needed. He thoughtfully provides a map which shows how many states already have state-level protection.

“Gays in Oklahoma, if you get beat up for being gay, you don’t need protection because there’s a law in California”, seems to be the thoughtless and senseless argument. So, to the gays in the 18 states that don’t have that protection, be angry at the HRC for using you as a fund raising gimmick!

A principal in (surprise) Kentucky is under fire because he sent a memo out which directed teachers not to allow gay students out to use the bathroom during class.

Apparently, two women were found kissing in a bathroom during class, and someone thought this was the correct response.

It’s an interesting view of the difference between liberals and conservatives. When Bush was in office, some liberals talked about leaving for, say, Canada. Now that a ‘liberal’ is in office, Republicans want to break up the country .