Tag: 6th amendment

Why is it that government must constantly move the line in the sand in a way that chips away at our liberties?  Why do we continue to elect those who are so readily available and capitulating to the Lansing and National parasites which outnumber them 8 to 1?

Schmidt didn't write this legislation any more than he built Cobo Hall with his bare hands.  This is likely template legislation provided by ATS to Schmidt, and the reward for being such a bold legislator remains a mystery.

Any dummy that follows him into this rabbit hole just adds another reason to distrust our legislators' ability to learn from history.

Some of them glaringly obvious, some perhaps not-so-much.  Michigan Campaign For Liberty did a pretty good job of banging out 17 reasons why to hate the red light snitch devices, and perhaps adding to why folks like Wayne Schmidt ought not EVER seek political office EVER again.

From constitutionality to poor allocation of resources, to outright graft, you have seen our other commentary on this issue.  

Originally mentioned here on RightMichigan, this issue has other aspectsd that need to be discussed.  Demonstrating the jackboot mentality that infests the cranium of big government types, State Rep Wayne Schmidt R-104 along with Fred Durhal Jr., Thomas F. Stallworth III, Brian Banks, Michael D. McCready, Woodrow Stanley, Henry Yanez, Scott Dianda have decided they want to automate oppression with HB4763. Adding to the other ways in which those who implicitly trust that government will NEVER abuse its power of force, these legislators and the man who never met a government expansion he didn't like, explain it as empowering to local communities.

"local governments should be given control over whether they want to use this kind of technology in their communities."

The constitution has something to say already with regards to this legislation.

What about this amendment to the motor vehicle code that is proposed in this poorly thought out power grab?:

(5) A complaint signed by a police officer shall be treated as made under oath if the violation alleged in the complaint is A civil offense described in section 752 and if the complaint contains the following statement immediately above the date and signature of the police officer:

"I declare under the penalties of perjury that the statements Above are true to the best of my information, knowledge, and belief.".

Its saying "to the best of my knowledge you are indeed guilty, unless you can prove otherwise", and allowing the same latitude that is currently only available with crimes that have occurred or were committed in the signing officer's presence.

Is that such a good idea?

What a great way to shut us up.

On the right side of this article is a picture that has a copyrighted character used in a manner that is consistent with "fair use" as it neither conflicts with the original intent or marketing aspect of the creator, and that it is being used to characterize a particular political expression; my own.  It also does not represent any significant value to myself or the owner of this website.  It is generally recognized as an acceptable use in the eyes of the law under the framework of commentary, satire, or criticism.

But if the author asked us to remove it we would.

If the author had reason to believe our representation in this way harmed his ability to use his creation for self benefit, he might deem it necessary to ask us to either pay for the right to use it, render it unrecognizable, or remove it entirely.  We believe in the sanctity of copyright, and ownership, and private property. You know, the concept of "what one creates, he owns?"

Its one of those pesky rights that government often tries to usurp.

In fact, while holding up a banner as protectors of such material rights, there are agents of censorship at work attempting to limit our ability to express ourselves.  Blogs such as RightMichigan.com which have broken news stories, offered conservative (or liberal) opinions, and challenged preconceptions, are in danger of becoming the victims of a horribly applied copyright law.  Further, the extent to which we can be punished comes not as a simple command to remove violations by court order, but through another somewhat executive process that violates constitutional principles and directly with the 1st and the 6th amendments as well.

The use of copyright infringement is now threatening to be used as virtual duct tape tying our fingers, and wrapping our skulls to silence our voices in our opinions and political affairs.