Only those who dare to fail greatly can ever achieve greatly.
Robert F. Kennedy
The
and the People's Republic of California
We have this ruling from the 1930 Thompson v. Smith decision from the Supreme Court of Virginia:
"The right of a citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon in the ordinary course of life and business is a common right which he has under his right to enjoy life and liberty, to acquire and possess property, and to pursue happiness and safety. It includes the right in so doing to use the ordinary and usual conveyances of the day; and under the existing modes of travel includes the right to drive a horse-drawn carriage or wagon thereon, or to operate an automobile thereon, for the usual and ordinary purposes of life and business. It is not a mere privilege, like the privilege of moving a house in the street, operating a business stand in the street, or transporting persons or property for hire along the street, which a city may permit or prohibit at will." Thompson vs. Smith, 154 S.E. 579 at 583.A number of US federal courts have attested to the unenumerated right under the US Constitution:
- "The right to travel is a well-established common right that does not owe its existence to the federal government. It is recognized by the courts as a natural right." Schactman v. Dulles 225 F.2d 938; 96 U.S. App. D.C. 287 (1955) at 941.
- "The right to travel is a part of the liberty of which the citizen cannot be deprived without due process of law under the Fifth Amendment." Kent v. Dulles, 357 US 116, 125 (1958).
It is very clear that just like in the case of speed traps or TSA unconditional search, these sweeps are arbitrary, using a sobriety check as a pretext to identify alleged unauthorized drivers as a key municipal fundraising source. I'm speaking as someone whom has zero tolerance for DWI; one of my classmates in a philosophy class at OLL was killed in the middle of the semester by a drunk driver. I'm anal-retentive about driving by the rules. But checking a person's identification, not for probable cause, but simply because he is traveling through a neighborhood, constitutes an unreasonable search. It's a particularly egregious, regressive form of taxation targeted on unsuspecting captive travelers with Draconian penalties for technical (vs. substantive) violations; there are equal protection issues all over the place.
One word of advice for municipalities: hassling travelers is not a good way to attract them to visit the town and frequent businesses in the area. You can get bad word of mouth: for instance, Selma, a San Antonio suburb, has had a well-earned reputation as a speed trap around the local interstate. I don't get speeding tickets, but I've always made sure I was driving a few miles under the limit whenever I'm going past Selma.
Obama: Immigration Policy by Fiat?
Unconstitutional! Thumbs DOWN
As a classical (free market) liberal/libertarian, I have ALWAYS been pro-immigration. In terms of the President's decision today to stop deportation of unauthorized foreign-born children in good legal standing (no criminal history) and issue work permits, I am in agreement with the intent of the decision, but am in sharp disagreement with the order as an abuse of executive power and as a patently transparent politically-motivated action less than 5 months before a Presidential election.
To show my sympathy with the intent of DREAM Act policy, let me quote from my Dec 8, 2010 post on the DREAM Act passing the lame-duck Democratic-controlled House:
I don't like the act as it's currently configured, but a few modest changes could win my full support...I have mixed feelings on this issue, but if I had to vote on the measure as is, I would vote aye. When you speak of children whom were not responsible for the decision to immigrate, have attended much of their childhood attending American schools and have built a life here and do not have any ties beyond relatives to their birth country, being deported would be almost like being an orphan of the world, because they really aren't Mexican anymore. America should not abandon these children but do the right thing.The principal issue I had with the original DREAM Act had to do what I considered to be unequal protection for other immigrants whom were playing by the rules, as in my earlier Nov 24 post:
On balance, I oppose the act as it currently stands because it is unfair to international students whom follow the rules but are not provided the same path to citizenship and I believe that immigration reform should be decided in a concurrent, comprehensive, not piecemeal fashion.Let me also point out that I supported Sen. Rubio's DREAM Act compromise in my April 26 post. Quite clearly, Obama has decided not to work with the Rubio compromise.
I had anticipated that the Obama Administration would try to do an end run around Congress. I had earlier condemned ICE Assistant Director John Morton. From my May 21 2010 post:
John Morton, who heads ICE under the Department of Homeland Security, showed a bureaucrat's arrogance, implicitly suggests that the administration may elect to use executive discretion to release any or all illegal aliens apprehended under Arizona's new immigration law.I expanded my criticism of Morton in my June 11 2010 post calling for Morton's termination:
I criticized Morton in an earlier post. I don't wish to repeat myself, but the gist is that Morton strongly implied that the federal government would use its constitutional discretion to arbitrarily disregard any identified unauthorized immigrant, not based on the intrinsic merits of documentation, but based on a turf battle between the federal government and state/local law enforcement. Issues on policy differences between the federal government and state/local authorities can be addressed by the judicial branch of government; immigration policy, subject to constitutional constraints, is set by the legislative branch, not the executive. The fact is that state/local authorities do arrest and have arrested unauthorized visitors, regardless of immigrant status. The idea that a law officer could arrest an unauthorized immigrant, without any reference to new laws, but ICE is going to ignore the arrest because the trooper happens to live in Arizona, which passed a law Morton disagrees with, is unacceptable.I expressed concern about cronyism in immigration-related decisions in my October 16 2010 post:
The Houston Chronicle today posted an interesting piece about how dismissals of a large number of immigration cases have dramatically increased--in Houston, nearly 8 times the time in August as there were in July. Individuals who have not been charged with crimes (exogenous to their legal status) are eligible for dismissal. The official explanation is that the immigration backlog (almost a quarter million people) is exceeding the capacity of the system to deal with them and there is a zero-sum game of the nation's legal system at the expense of prosecuting undocumented visitors with pending misdemeanor or felony charges. I believe if there is a legitimate issue, the Obama Administration should have disclosed the evidence publicly in sufficient detail and have initiated relevant process reforms and/or requests for the additional resources to meet the demands of increased workloads. However, I believe that the escalated dismissals are sending a different message--a double-standard. This raises issues of political cronyism in ICE management, and we need additional disclosure by the Obama Administration, which could be abusing its discretionary authority as prosecutors.I finally review the Obama Administration policy, anticipating something like today's development and strongly condemn it in my Aug 19 post:
John Morton has been signaling exactly the kinds of policies being discussed since his appointment; Obama during the 2007 immigration debate was looking to complicate and extend appeal processes, not streamline them; there's been no crackdown on sanctuary cities. The very fact that they are publicizing these enforcement guidelines basically encourages foreigners to ignore US immigration policies: just keep your nose clean with local laws, have a baby, and we'll look the other way. They are not enforcing laws: they are de facto making law by refusing to enforce law. That's plainly unconstitutional. This is NOT exercising discretion, a pragmatic notion, on a case-by-case basis. This is a knowing perversion of discretion masking a policy coincidentally consistent with Obama's partisan objectives.
This is a transparent effort to rationalize an unauthorized workaround. just in time for the 2012 elections for Latinos. The Congress should investigate Obama's part in this conversation, and if the Obama Administration refuses to back out of its unauthorized breach of authority, I recommend looking at articles of impeachment.
Entertainment Potpourri
[Follow-up on my Entertainment Potpourri segment Wednesday regarding the premiere episodes of the new TNT Dallas series.]
According to a press release:
Last night's eagerly anticipated premiere of TNT's Dallas struck it rich with 6,863,000 viewers, to rank as the #1 scripted series premiere on all of cable for the year-to-date. This marks the third consecutive summer TNT has scored a chart-topping series launch, following Rizzoli & Isles in 2010 and Falling Skies in 2011.
Competitively, TNT was #1 for the night among basic cable networks, with a 3.7 metered-market household rating. Dallas also outperformed all broadcast network programs head-to-head from 9 p.m. to 11 p.m. On the demo front, Dallas drew 1,926,000 adults 18-49 and 2,482,000 adults 25-54.
Musical Interlude: My Favorite Groups
Tom Petty & the Heartbreakers, "Refugee"
