Connecticut considering blatantly unconstitutional law attempting to govern how Catholic churches are organized.
Poker pro, poker activist, and libertarian Greg Raymer gives an interview to National Review Online about the UIGEA and the future of online poker.
Citing the Ryan Frederick case and local libertarian blogger Don Tabor’s call for a review of it, the Virginian-Pilot says that Chesapeake PD needs a citizen review board. That would at least be a start.
Sleeping giraffe.
CIA confirms destroying videotapes depicting torture of detainees.
Hot coffee at -48 degrees.
This entry was posted
on Sunday, March 8th, 2009 at 9:54 am by Radley Balko
and is filed under Gambling and Poker.
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
TheAgitator.com
The Connecticut bill is clearly unconstitutional. However, when I consider how many times the Roman Catholic church has tried to push laws based on its doctrines, I find it hard to be sympathetic.
This story by Gene Weingarten should be linked as well. Not just because it is brilliant, which it is, but because of what it has to say about selective prosecution.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/02/27/AR2009022701549.html?hpid%3Dtopnews&sub=AR
The youtube of hot water at -48 deg. was pretty neat. In Yellowstone Park, wintertime geyser- spray comes down as tinkling ice crystals. Nice to talk about something undepressing occasionally.
I don’t understand why the Connecticut law is unconstitutional. I would imagine that this is in reference to the First Amendment, which states “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion…”
First of all, this isn’t Congress (I know that states cannot make laws that violate federal rights, but I’m getting to that one).
Secondly, the “law respecting an establishment of religion,” as it was always taught to me, refers to Congress passing a law for an Official US Religion (like the Anglican Church in England), not that there shall be no laws concerning any religion as a whole. At least that’s what I was always taught in history and civics classes.
Thirdly, the law will not interfere with religious doctrine at all. It will simply be an oversight and managerial board.
Now, if you’re claiming it’s unconstitutional because it violates Equal Protection, then I can agree. If the state is going to do this to one religion, it should apply to ALL religions as a matter of fairness and constitutionality. Kind of like the Virginia law that was stricken as unconstitutional because it levied higher fines for Virginia residents than anyone else.
“According to today’s documents, 90 tapes relate to one detainee ” Ninety Torture Sessions Done – By – Americans – On – One – Guy…Think about that.