#there's more integrity in a municipal court than there is in the supreme one

[leohttbriar]

that slate article about rehnquist "secretly" making the country worse with his "behind the scenes" "editing" of other justice's opinions and his loud memos? yeah none of that is surprising and it is beyond frustrating that supposedly "liberal" media is only recently figuring out that the courts have been the arena for misogynist racist fascist policy-making since the beginning of goddamn time.

oh, rehnquist liked the plessy v fergusen ruling? but didn't say so loud and proud all the time? why are we all so behind on treating justices like politicians. rehnquist presented his disdain of the reconstruction amendments in an "acceptable" way. gorsuch is just lying about taking all "text" at face value. legal discourse IS rhetoric, y'all. this shouldn't be groundbreaking.

[allthebrazilianpolitics]

Diversity in Brazil is still just an illusion

An unprecedented number of Black candidates registered to take part in Brazil’s local elections in November. But this does not necessarily mean the upcoming poll is going to lead to more diversity, let alone racial justice.

These days, the myth of Brazil being a “racial democracy”, where everyone is colour blind and no one is discriminated against because of the colour of their skin, finally seems to be crumbling.

Following the abolition of slavery in 1888, Brazilian authorities refused to implement any kind of public policy to integrate Black people into society. Instead, over the course of the 20th century, they carefully constructed a narrative in which Brazil is cast as a rare haven where people of all races are able to live in harmony. As a result, despite Black and mixed-race Brazilians suffering the worst of police violence, having limited access to education, making up some 64 percent of the unemployed, having limited representation in prominent decision-making bodies, and being almost three times as likely to be victims of homicide, most of the Brazilian population remained convinced there is effectively no racism in their country.

The recent Black Lives Matter protests in the US and beyond, however, led to a rapid increase in racial awareness across the country – a process that had started some years ago, and already resulted in promising developments such as the Supreme Court’s 2012 decision to recognise the legality of racial quotas for Blacks in Brazilian public universities. Not only did many Black Brazilians publicly embrace their racial identity and take to the streets to say “Black lives matter in Brazil too”, but activists increased the pressure they have long been putting on authorities to abandon the flawed discourse of “racial democracy” and implement measures and policies to eliminate race-based discrimination in the country.

In response to these growing calls for social and racial justice, an unprecedented number of Black candidates registered to take part in the local elections in November. In the white-majority state of Parana, for example, the number of Black candidates increased by a whopping 40 percent. The increase in the number of Black candidates has also been striking on the national level. Actually, according to numbers published by the Brazilian Institute of Geography and Statistics (IBGE), the total number of Black candidates running for local office (for mayor, vice mayor and city councillor) in the 2020 municipal elections is now higher than the total number of white candidates.

The increase in the number of Black candidates has been hailed by many as an important step towards achieving diversity in Brazil’s public bodies and eliminating institutional racism in the country, but the reality is, as always, a bit more complicated than that.

the Brazilian electoral system, not only the votes received by an individual candidate but also the total number of votes received by all of a political party’s registered candidates influence the outcome of an election. So it is possible for a popular candidate to fail to be elected solely due to the overall poor performance of his or her party. Knowing this, Brazilian parties often register a high number of candidates for each contested seat, just to gain a few more votes that can prove decisive in a tight election.

Because of this, many fear that Black candidates running for a position in the municipal elections will only help their party’s strongest candidates (many of whom are white) to get elected, but fail to gain a seat themselves.

Furthermore, while the Supreme Court’s decision in August obliges political parties to spend a proportional percentage of the public money they receive on the campaigns of their Black candidates, it does not instruct them to divide that money equally between these candidates. This means a party with 30 percent Black candidates can lawfully spend 30 percent of the public funds it receives on a single Black candidate’s campaign, and completely ignore the rest.

Continue reading.

[47burlm]

On December 1, 1955, in Montgomery, Alabama

In Montgomery, Alabama, Rosa Parks is jailed for refusing to give up her seat on a public bus to a white man, a violation of the city’s racial segregation laws. The successful Montgomery Bus Boycott, organized by a young Baptist minister named Martin Luther King, Jr., followed Park’s historic act of civil disobedience.

“The mother of the civil rights movement,” as Rosa Parks is known, was born in Tuskegee, Alabama, in 1913. She worked as a seamstress and in 1943 joined the Montgomery chapter of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP).

According to a Montgomery city ordinance in 1955, African Americans were required to sit at the back of public buses and were also obligated to give up those seats to white riders if the front of the bus filled up. Parks was in the first row of the black section when the white driver demanded that she give up her seat to a white man. Parks’ refusal was spontaneous but was not merely brought on by her tired feet, as is the popular legend. In fact, local civil rights leaders had been planning a challenge to Montgomery’s racist bus laws for several months, and Parks had been privy to this discussion.-

Learning of Parks’ arrest, the NAACP and other African American activists immediately called for a bus boycott to be held by black citizens on Monday, December 5. Word was spread by fliers, and activists formed the Montgomery Improvement Association to organize the protest. The first day of the bus boycott was a great success, and that night the 26-year-old Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr., told a large crowd gathered at a church, “The great glory of American democracy is the right to protest for right.” King emerged as the leader of the bus boycott and received numerous death threats from opponents of integration. At one point, his home was bombed, but he and his family escaped bodily harm.

The boycott stretched on for more than a year, and participants carpooled or walked miles to work and school when no other means were possible. As African Americans previously constituted 70 percent of the Montgomery bus ridership, the municipal transit system suffered gravely during the boycott. On November 13, 1956, the U.S. Supreme Court struck down Alabama state and Montgomery city bus segregation laws as being in violation of the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. On December 20, King issued the following statement: “The year old protest against city buses is officially called off, and the Negro citizens of Montgomery are urged to return to the buses tomorrow morning on a non-segregated basis.” The boycott ended the next day. Rosa Parks was among the first to ride the newly desegregated buses.

Martin Luther King, Jr., and his nonviolent civil rights movement had won its first great victory. There would be many more to come.

Rosa Parks died on October 24, 2005. Three days later the U.S. Senate passed a resolution to honor Parks by allowing her body to lie in honor in the U.S. Capitol Rotunda.

[berniesrevolution]

JACOBIN MAGAZINE

A new report from the Urban Displacement Project confirms what anyone who’s lived here already knows: rising housing costs are resegregating the Bay Area.

Researchers found that between 2000 and 2015, soaring rents pushed thousands of low-income black households out of what were once racially and economically diverse neighborhoods in Oakland, Berkeley, San Francisco, and Richmond. Nearly half of those who relocated left the Bay Area altogether, and many of the rest have moved to more racially segregated and economically homogeneous — that is, poorer — suburbs like Antioch and Pittsburg to the east, and the Eden area to the south.

Like every American metropolitan area, the Bay Area boasted a great deal of racial and social inequality before 2000. But by some measures it had come a long way from the mid-twentieth century, when many of the region’s subdivisions were redlined and legally segregated. By the 1990s, for instance, Oakland was the most ethnically diverse city in the country and was helmed by black political and corporate leadership.

The problem was that even as explicitly racist ideology gave way to a new official multiculturalism, the economic power of the region’s business elite was never sufficiently challenged. On the contrary, it was catered to in the early aughts by corporate-friendly city administrations eager to take advantage of new revenue streams promised by the booming tech and real-estate industries. They justified permissive policy and tax incentives to these industries by selling it as a win-win for the capitalist and working classes. The deluge of private investment, the thinking went, would eventually lift all boats.

Today those industries continue to run the show. Despite lip service to racial equality, they are focused on one objective: maximizing profit. And in their pursuit of profit, they’ve driven housing prices up so dramatically that whatever gains in integration that were won in the late twentieth century have begun to erode. The Bay Area is now on track to achieve redlining-era segregation levels, only this time de facto instead of de jure.

Segregation presents a fundamental obstacle to racial equality. As Martin Luther King Jr put it in 1956:

There was a time that we attempted to live with segregation. There were those who felt that we could live by a doctrine of separate but equal, and so back in 1896 the Supreme Court of this nation, through the Plessy v. Ferguson decision, established the doctrine of separate but equal as the law of the land. But we all know what happened as a result of that doctrine: there was always a strict enforcement of the separate without the slightest intention to abide by the equal. And so as a result of the old Plessy doctrine, we ended up being plunged across the abyss of exploitation, where we experienced the bleakness of nagging injustice.

King was speaking after the 1954 Supreme Court decision that ruled school segregation unconstitutional. But as he explained, “Segregation is already legally dead, but it is still factually alive.” And he went on to explain how the fundamental problems with segregation are no less pronounced when it’s simply a matter of fact rather than of law:

[Segregation] ends up depersonalizing the segregated. That’s the end results of segregation. The segregated becomes merely a thing to be used, not a person to be respected. He is merely a depersonalized cog in a vast economic machine.

This phenomenon is familiar to poor workers in the Bay Area — black workers especially, but also Latino, Asian, and displaced white workers. While rising rents have forced low-wage workers to move further afield into new suburban ghettos south of San Leandro or east of Concord, the jobs are mostly still in the economic centers from which they came: driving Uber in Oakland, cleaning tech offices in San Francisco, serving food in the cafeterias at UC Berkeley.

As King observed, segregation encourages depersonalization, which provides cover for exploitation. The residents of the Bay Area’s wealthier waterfront cities are increasingly high-wage earners and mostly white. Their lack of contact with, or even awareness of, commuting workers of color establishes conditions for cultural rationalizations of economic exploitation, racist and otherwise, to flourish.

That makes it easier for Uber to suppress drivers’ pay, or for the University of California to try to break custodians’ unions, with the tacit approval and sometimes explicit support of municipal officials who need not fear public pushback. Political leaders regularly court, incentivize, and reward corporations that abuse low-wage workers, and their constituents hardly bat an eyelash. Segregation makes it all seem so abstract.

(Continue Reading)

[allakinwande]

Milwaukee Journal Sentinel/Pat A. Robinson

CHASING DEMOCRACY:

The attack on the American voter.

BY: JB Hanna

_______________________________________________

"Now many of our Christians have what I call the 'goo-goo syndrome.' Good government. They want everybody to vote. I don't want everybody to vote. Elections are not won by a majority of people. They never have been from the beginning of our country, and they are not now. As a matter of fact our leverage in the elections quite candidly goes up as the voting populace goes down."

-Paul Weyrich 1968

TARRANT COUNTY TX.

In 1827, Edward E. Tarrant had established himself as a wealthy man, probably the wealthiest in all of Red River County. A veteran of the war of 1812, now a sheriff, he left his mark in Tarrant County Texas, the namesake of the former officer of the “fourth brigade.”

On September 29, 1843, Tarrant along with Texas state attorney general George Whitfield would draft The “Bird’s Fort Treaty.” Which surreptitiously states in Article XXIV, that; “The government of Texas has the right of working all mines that have been discovered or will be discovered on the territory of the Indians.”

Just as surreptitiously as the terms of Crystal Mason’s signed affidavit that stated she was not eligible to vote as a convicted felon, some hundred and seventy five years later in that same Tarrant County. Mason was on community service on November 8, 2016 for a her 2012 conviction on tax fraud. Only voting after the urging of her mother, Ms. Mason was sentenced to five years in prison on voter fraud charges, for a provisional ballet vote that was never counted.

Crystal Mason’s unfortunate miscarriage of justice is the oddity, not the model. The model being the strategy adopted by many incumbents on the right, while the left has historically supported voter registration initiatives, conservatives (since the voting rights act of 2013) have practiced down presser tactics with almost surgical precision. From good ol fashioned jerrymandring to voter caging and voter roll purges.

Stories like that of Crystal Mason, no matter how rare, are aggressively publicized and spun in efforts to paint a fanciful portrait of voter fraud gone wild. These trumped up horrors however, have never been substantiated.

Max Faulkner/Fort Worth Star-Telegram via Getty Images.

During the presidential campaign of 2016,

Vice President nominee, Mike Pence came under scrutiny from voter rights advocates when Indiana State police raided the voter registration office of Patriot Majority USA, in October of 2016. Indiana progressives called conspiracy on the would be VIce president.

The nonprofit Patriot Majority, had registered over 45,000 voters, mostly African American. Just one week from the voter registration deadline and 5,000 voters short of their 50,000 target at the time of the raid. Founded in 2005, PM was accused of registering voters twice, in addition to applications that had missing or unverified zip codes and addresses. This is often a problem with grassroots voter registration initiatives staffed by everyday citizens, the lack of experience, training, and in many cases, after work hours by constituents looking to supplement their income, have always bore such inconsistencies. Though well meaning, these efforts give way to questionable voter registration applications, that ones opponent will rightfully pounce.

When you open Patriot Majority’s web sight, the home page is striking. Waves of red and white stripes, the famous Washington crossing the Delaware painting emblazoned on the header. With the current political climate, rife with its suede patriotism and the far lefts deepening dive into a socialist creed, one might expect Patriot Majorities home page to spawn links to diatribes of pro gun advocacy and states rights. But PM claims to be a bipartisan movement. While it seems that the issue is the shotty work of some canvassers, Common Cause Indiana and the NAACP have filed a federal lawsuit against Marion County of Indian after the raid on charges of voter suppression by closing early voting in a sector with over 700,000 registered voters. Former Indiana governor mike Pence, now ironically, head of the Elections Integrity Commission, boasts “What is historic here is that our president-elect won 30 to 50 states. He won more counties than any candidate on our side.

The Georgia State showdown

Georgia’s Democratic candidate for governor Stacey Abrams finds herself in a historical yet tight race in Georgia’s gubernatorial midterms. The Gulfport native faces off against opponent Brian kemp, the self proclaimed “politically incorrect conservative.” The cautionary view in mid August was that Kemp could have a strong surge in the last two months leading to the peach state showdown, much like Nathan Deal in 2014. But as of reporting, the race is still in a dead heat. Kemp has been mocked for his ads that some on the left liken to a Dave Chapelle or SNL skit. But while democrats laugh, Brian Kemp is practicing more “politics as usual” than his campaign readaric may assert. Kemp’s influence on voter registration as Secretary of State should be no laughing matter to democrats.

The heat was on as the summer closed out in Randolph County Georgia, a sort of patient zero for the National attention to suspected voter suppression. The Georgia county quickly beat back a move to close seven of nine polling places in the historically black canton. But the victory, while sweet, is little to stop the suppression of voters in the rest of the state. Like Tarrant in Texas, Randolph county is named after another slave owning statesman, Ol’ John Randolph of Roanoke. A career politician who also served as prosecutor of the associate justice of the Supreme Court of the United States, Samuel Chase on charges of impeachment. Chase would later be acquitted by the senate. Roanoke famously stated,

“The most delicious of all privileges, spending other people’s money.” Might be proud of his states insidious politico operandi.

Several groups, including the Georgia Democratic Party, Common Cause and the NAACP, have called on Kemp to step down from his position as secretary of state while he runs for Governor.

Greg Palast, the New York based investigative journalist and author of the compelling

The best democracy money can buy, has been hunting down Kemp and also, Kansas Secretary of State Kris Kobach for the past several months. Armed with a Federal subpoena accusing Kobach of purging hundreds of thousands of Kansans from the voting rolls. Like his counterpart in Georgia, as Secretary of State, Kobach has oversight of the states voter rolls and similar to Brian Kemp of Georgia, Kobach has also successfully closed polling stations in low income counties as well.

As Carol Anderson of the New York Times put it, “Brian Kemp is a master of voter suppression.” For example, Kemp made a statement in 2014 regarding another lawsuit his office faced regarding over 40 thousand names of voters disappearing from the Georgia voting rolls. The Secretary of State emphasized that “The lawsuit filed by 3rd sector development, is frivolous and totally without merit. The claim that there are over forty thousand unprocessed voter registration applications, are false.” Kemp went on to contravene with the 6,525 voter applications his office found had issues of no longer being with us, had no valid date of birth, where convicted felons or provided no county or address. ( some states report day of birth instead of DOB, which substantially increases the chance of two records being reported for the same person.)

Kemp also provided a Potboiler about an application filled out by, Johnny B Cool, who’s city was listed as, Yo’ Town. While this smacks of incompetence of the registrating body or the voting applicant themselves, it seems a stretch to think that a political scenic, who would name themselves Johnny B Cool who Haile’s from Yo town would be a tactical move that any well minded voter fraud conspirator would employ. But the great voter fraud conspiracy rolls on. Kemp, by the way,

Was found to be guilty of voter suppression in 2014.

GETTY IMAGES

LOCKED AND LOADED

Prior to Shelby v Holder, (2013) Texas, along with the several other Jim Crow states had coordinated a preemptive lockout of minority, elderly and millennial prospective votes in anticipation of provisions 4 & 5 of the voting rights act being overturned. The first domino to fall was that unsuspecting, overlooked little Diddy called Northwest Austin Municipal Utility District No. 1 v. Holder, or the MUD case. The stories of out of town voters using the address of a local motel to vote illegally, harassment of MUD’s minority community and a strange cloud of mystery preceding the Shelby v. Holder decision, stains the “Municipal Utility District,” just north of Austin.

That was 2009, and four years later, Shelby county found it unconstitutional for the federal government to suppress their ability to molest the Hispanics, black, elderly and young voting populous. The Supreme Court would concede that, “voting discrimination still exists; no one doubts that.” But the 5-4 decision of the highest court in the land would contradict their own logic by wiping away the voting rights act protection of historically disenfranchised constituents, specifically articles 4 and 5.

But back in Tarrant Texas, and many other counties in the Lone star state, there’s been a battle raging to oppress voter turnout since voting became public freewill. Ted Cruz and Beto O’Rourke are in the mezzo of a 12 round barn burner as the country tumbles towards it’s midterms like a radioactive meteor with no direction. Could it be, the land of steers could finally be done with Ted Cruz? Or is Beto’s hype just that? Progressive turnout or conservative suffragist subterfuge may answer these questions.

And yet, one of the few cases of actual voter fraud, ironically in that same state of Texas, is more doleful than relevant. Crystal Mason began her five year sentence for voter fraud in September. After being walked through the provisional ballet process by a state appointed election official, she still stands condemned by adjudication. Alison Grinter, of Mason’s legal team explained, “the federal government has stepped over the state and found Crystal guilty of violating the law.”

In august an 11 year old child hacked a Florida electronic ballet in this years DEFCON 26,

The annual hacking convention held this year in sandy Las Vegas. Emmett Brewer and 30 other kids ranging in age from 8 - 16 years old where all able to hack Florida’s faulty system. The national association of Secretaries of State responded to DEFCON with one of many proclamations in their

(Long comment regarding a proposed Exemption under 17 U.S. code 1201)

The senate stated to ES&S, the countries largest supplier of voting machines;

“Currently there are significant barriers that prevent states from working with independent, qualified, good faith researchers to conduct cyber security on election systems.”

Now it seams, after the midterms, ES&S May have to deal with not just the Senate but the people.

But the talk is done. Bluster deflated. Red and Blue candidates enter November 6th like combatants on the world stage. Like heavyweight champions with the future of democracy on the line. I’ll be watching the fight on November 6th just like Crystal Mason.

Hoping the country does right by its future.

[ledxlaw]

How do I get a law degree and license in India

India's legal system, which has successfully grown to become one of the oldest legal systems in the world, has held a special place in India's global history? The Indian legal system was inherited from the British and their law after more than 200 years of rule and derives its existence and similarities from the English legal system. The Indian Constitution adapts to changes, frames, and structures the legal system. The Indian Constitution came into force on January 26 1950 and strengthened the supreme law and legal basis. India's legal system today, which has been modified over time, consists of statutory law and common law. For a student to get a law degree the basic requirement is that the CLAT exam should be cleared to get admission to a good law university. For getting a license to practice as a lawyer, the All India Bar Examination should be cleared. Online legal certification courses are available which help the law aspirants to prepare well for these exams so that these exams are cleared on the first attempt. 

Evolution of Law in India - 

In 1726, municipal courts were established in Madras and Calcutta, there was no legal training at the time and it is reported that many practitioners were discharged into East India Company service. Although the first Supreme Court was established in Calcutta in 1774 and the Regulatory Act 1773 empowered the Supreme Court to license, admit and register lawyers and lawyers.

How to become a lawyer? 

Lawyers must meet minimum education requirements and pass certain industry exams to practice law. Here are the basic steps to becoming a lawyer:

Complete your higher secondary education: 

For a Bachelor of Laws, you must have completed at least upper secondary education (10+2) from a recognized school authority. Students from all disciplines, including science, arts, and business, can enroll in an undergraduate program. If you choose to study law after your 10+2, you will need to enroll in an integrated five-year Bachelor of Laws (LL.B.) such as BA LL.B, B.Com LL.B, or BBA LL. B. Some universities even offer an integrated five-year honors program, such as the BA LL.B. (Hons.) These programs allow you to choose a specialization in law. If a law student is confused about which course is more beneficial so he should think according to his plans like what is the aim for his future and what specialization he wants to do then accordingly he can choose the course. And if still, he is unsure about it the online legal courses which are available on various educational platforms organize sessions so that the students can choose the right career option for themselves. 

Complete your graduation in any stream: 

Another way to earn a law degree is through an LL.B. course after graduation. If you choose to go that route, you must first earn a degree in a stream. Whether you have a Bachelor of Arts (BA), a Bachelor of Science (BSc), a Bachelor of Commerce (BCom), or a Bachelor of Business Administration (BBA) degree, you can apply for the three-year LL.B.

Take a law entrance examination: 

Most law schools select applicants based on their scores on a law school entrance exam. One of the most popular national entrance exams is the Common Law Admissions Test (CLAT).

Candidates must obtain at least 50% in the CLAT to be admitted. CLAT results are accepted by most law schools.

Apply to Law School: 

Once you get your law school entrance test results, you can apply to law schools. Most students apply to more than one law school, so they have several options to choose from. For each application you send, you must submit official transcripts, legal entrance exam results, letters of recommendation, and additional information. Many schools seek applicants with high CLAT scores, excellent letters of recommendation, and extracurricular activities.

Complete your bachelor’s degree in Law: 

During your law degree, you study subjects such as political science, sociology, and economics. These topics will help you understand more about the company in which you will practice law. In addition to these courses, you also take legal courses such as constitutional law, criminal law, and family law. You must pass all subjects in your final year to graduate in law.

Pass the All India Bar Examination: 

According to government guidelines, law graduates must pass the All India Bar Examination (AIBE) to practice law in India. The Bar Association of India conducts this exam once a year and prior registration is required for all applicants. To be eligible to take the All India Bar exam, you must register as an attorney with a State Bar Council.

Gain experience: 

Once you have cleared the exam, the law student gets the license to practice law as a profession. The next step would be to either get a legal job with a legal firm as an associate advocate or start practicing law independently. 

Job Opportunities as a Lawyer - 

After becoming a lawyer, you can open your law firm and practice on your own. However, most law graduates first practice under another experienced attorney to gain practical experience and learn the tricks of the trade before practicing on their own. Depending on the field you choose, you can become a civil law attorney, criminal lawyer, corporate lawyer, tax lawyer, etc.

As a representative, you can also work in the government sector. You can present yourself for the tests conducted for the selection of public prosecutors. You can also take your state's legal department exam and become a judge or civil judge. You can appear for the State or Union Public Service Commission exam to become a civil servant. Law graduates also have many opportunities in the private sector. 

Conclusion - 

In a nutshell, there is a proper procedure followed to get a law degree and license in India. A student who wants to pursue law as a profession should give the examination of CLAT and take admitted to a good law university. For the preparation for the CLAT exam, various online law certification courses are there which provide sessions and classes which are beneficial for the students who are appearing for the CLAT exam. Studying and completing a law degree from a good law university is a very vital step and for that, the CLAT exam should be cleared with a good score. After getting a law degree, the All India Bar Examination should be cleared to get a license to practice as a lawyer. After completing a law degree and getting a license, law graduates have further many career options in which they can specialize. Overall, career prospects for a lawyer are quite diverse and with the right attitude and skills, you can have a successful career. 

[thequietuptown]

Hey how do I cope with the existential dread of things I truly can't control? Like, say, Supreme Court cases...

Hi there friend,

I know it can be tough. It's unreasonable to think a single person could topple a system of oppression, especially when they are being forced to work from within that system to do so. It's easy to feel overwhelmed in those situations, and therefore powerless. If you feel any sense of social responsibility, if you are at all altruistic, it becomes that much harder. 

I certainly understand the pull to take on the weight of other people’s problems and the process of deriving one’s worth from being of service to others. For whatever reason, though, I seem to have no issue letting go of things that are legitimately beyond my control once I get over that hump of understanding that not everything is my responsibility and that my own boundaries being respected and my own needs being met makes me way more effective at helping others. 

I think part of that ability to let go in a meaningful way comes from my religious background.  I have a complicated relationship with organized religion, particularly Catholicism, but I did certainly find value in a couple of things in particular that apply to this directly: the serenity prayer and St. Therese's Little Way. This is not meant to be evangelical in any way, but there are certain tenets of every faith that I think are valuable to people in general. The serenity prayer is as follows:

"Grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change, the courage to change the things I can, and the wisdom to know the difference."

There is a calm in letting go of the things you cannot control. More than likely, it is beyond your power to sway the Supreme Court, especially with its current make-up, and even more so when they have already ruled. But you can continue contributing to political campaigns, non-profits, and finding other ways to make activism work for you (starting in municipal settings to abolish something like qualified immunity at the city-level may be more feasible). Another part of this is learning how to combat social and self-gaslighting. Don't let the Supreme Court's decision sway you from your beliefs just because they found something was technically legal. Don't tell yourself that "everything happens for a reason." Many times that reason is just because people suck and are only interested in promoting their own interests.

The Little Way, in my opinion, is an extension of this. St Therese of Lisieux came up with this idea that the humility, loving openness, and wonder of a child is ideal for spiritual matters, but what this really translates to in practice is doing even the smallest things in a way that embodies your ideals, and your love for whatever you believe in. If you ever doubt your own power or your ability to try and make a difference, try to incorporate your beliefs even into your most insignificant interactions. Part of this is practicing gratitude. Part of this is understanding what is driving your beliefs. Do you believe that all people have inherent dignity? Then treat even the most impoverished and disadvantaged people with love. Do you have a problem with systems that inherently place authority outside of the laws they are supposed to uphold? Then, speak up when you see even minor acts of injustice like microaggressions. People will recognize your integrity and beliefs, and the right people will be drawn to you. And with a little luck, together you can achieve more.

True hopelessness is one of the most devastating feelings, but if you are able to separate yourself from the world’s woes, there is always going to be some cause for hope. Letting go is not the same thing as giving up. It is not the same thing as abandoning social responsibility. It's more about redirecting your energy in ways that are protective of you and meaningful for the world you want to live in. As always, take care of yourself and understand that the existential dread is probably a sign you need to dedicate some time to self-care. You have to take care of yourself before you can take care of others.

With love, friend.

[xtruss]

‘Where You Live Determines Everything’: Why Segregation Is growing In The US

As the US has become more diverse, it has also become more racially segregated, a new study finds. Its lead author, Stephen Menendian, speaks about America’s failure to integrate

— Lois Beckett | Monday, 28 June 2021 | The Guardian USA

The most segregated metropolitan area in the US according to the study is New York City, followed by Chicago, Milwaukee and Detroit. Photograph: Erik Pendzich/REX/Shutterstock

As the United States has become more diverse, it has also become more racially segregated, according to a new nationwide analysis from researchers at the University of California, Berkeley.

More than 80% of America’s large metropolitan areas were more racially segregated in 2019 than they were in 1990, the researchers found, even though explicit racial discrimination in housing has been outlawed for half a century. The levels of residential segregation appeared highest not in the American south, but in parts of the north-east and midwest: the most segregated metropolitan area in the US according to the study is New York City, followed by Chicago, Milwaukee and Detroit.

Stephen Menendian, the lead author of the new report, spoke to the Guardian about America’s decades-long failure to integrate, and the evidence of segregation’s damage to individual people – and to democracy.

Your report argues that racial residential segregation is the “the deep root cause” of systemic racial inequality in the US. Why is that?

It’s not a mystery: where you live determines everything. Your proximity to jobs. The quality of your environment. Where you go to school, whether you’re surveilled and harassed by the police.

The racial wealth gap is primarily based on differences in home appreciation values: Black families historically had homes that did not appreciate and often went down in value. Segregated housing creates segregated schools: 75% of students in primary and secondary schools are assigned based on where they live. The racial impacts of the criminal justice system are rooted in racial segregation. With Covid, the neighborhoods that were hardest hit in the first wave of the pandemic were typically Black segregated neighborhoods. In California, the neighborhoods that were hardest hit last summer were Hispanic communities with had a lot of multigenerational households and frontline workers.

How harmful is racial segregation for non-white residents?

Home values are twice as high in highly segregated white neighborhoods as in segregated neighborhoods of color. Poverty rates are three times greater in highly segregated neighborhoods of color. Life expectancy is starkly different. Every outcome that matters in life is shaped by environment. That’s what we mean by structural racism. It’s not about racial prejudice. It’s about the system and environment in which we live.

You measured segregation across the US looking not just at Black-white segregation, but also at the segregation of Latinos, Asian American and Native residents. How much does the picture of America’s segregation change if you take it out of a Black-white binary?

If you just use the Black-white dissimiliarity index, the US looks like it made significant progress in integration from 1970 to 1980, and relatively modest progress ever since. You have to look at it from a broader perspective. Let’s say you have a city that has a Black neighborhood and a white neighborhood. If a bunch of Latinos move into the Black neighborhood, the Black-white dissimilarity will go down. Our neighborhoods have diversified, but white people and the average Black person are still highly segregated. We’re incredibly diverse, but we’re incredibly balkanized. You can find racially identifiable neighborhoods everywhere. In Oakland, Fruitvale has lots of Latino families. Deeper East Oakland is Black. The while hills of Oakland are extremely white.

How did American neighborhoods become racially segregated in the first place?

There’s basically three phases. In the first few decades of the 20th century, in northern and western cities, real estate agents began developing an ideology of segregation as African Americans, as part of the great migration, moved out of the south. They had this notion that keeping racially homogeneous neighborhoods was important for the maintenance of property values. You had the widespread adoption of racially restrictive covenants. In the 1930s, the federal government got involved with the housing market for the first time, during the New Deal, and essentially extended and deepened the previous 20 to 30 years of local segregation. In the third phase, racially restrictive covenants were made illegal in 1948, and explicit housing discrimination as of 1970, when the Fair Housing Act goes into effect. But municipalities maintained segregation through superficially race-neutral mechanisms: through blocking development, environmental regulations, zoning authorities and discretionary review.

Have there ever been any national attempt to desegregate residential neighborhoods?

There really hasn’t been. The Fair Housing Act of 1968 gave plaintiffs the right to sue if they felt they were discriminated against, and there’s also mechanisms for the attorney general and the Department of Justice to bring pattern or practice suits against big landlords, big developers, even cities. But there’s almost nothing in there that proactively integrates. There was an assumption that if we just prohibit discrimination that people will integrate, and that assumption was flawed.

We know that from the education context. After Brown v the Board of Education, the supreme court required school districts to proactively integrate. From 1968 to the early 1990s, we had massive progress desegregating schools, but schools have been resegregating ever since. We never had the kind of progress in the housing context that we had in the school context.

You argue that it’s unlikely that the US will ever be able to fix racial disparities or significantly improve life for racially marginalized people as long as it remains racially segregated and that attempts to redistribute social resources while people still live separately by race is not going to work. Why not?

Segregation is not about separating people on the basis of their skin color: what it’s about is separating people from resources based on their skin color. It’s about putting people of color in neighborhoods that have less resources, fewer public goods – and predatory finance, harmful environmental exposure, and so on. Segregation is the most efficient way to do that. It’s about efficiency. You can spend all the money you want to try to compensate it: you will never fully overcome the disparity.

Anyone arguing just for redistribution to equalize equality of opportunity – you’re essentially saying, let’s make things separate but equal. When have things ever been separate but equal? It’s a fundamental fallacy. White people are not going to tolerate spending eight times as much in a black school as in a white school to create equality of opportunity. It’s unsustainable.

What would it take, today, to integrate American cities?

We did a series on segregation in the Bay Area, which has a section on solutions. There are a lot of things we can do. We need to have state level and even federal reform of municipal land use policy. We need to wrest control of these exclusionary mechanisms from localities. Part of that is zoning reform. We also need to target affordable housing developments in exclusionary white communities and proactively market them to people of color and families of color. It doesn’t mean we want to compel people of color to move into these neighborhoods, but we want to give them this option.

Of the 113 largest cities you examined, only two, Colorado Springs, Colorado, and Port St Lucie, Florida, were fully “integrated” by your definition. What’s special about these two cities?

One theory we have is that those two places in particular, and a lot of the places that have low levels of segregation, are places that have military bases or military installations. The military is one of our most integrated institutions. It’s not just diverse: it’s actually integrated, all the way up and down the chain of command. It’s a federal intervention: a military base draws people from elsewhere, and actually integrates those communities.

You argue that the deep harms of residential segregation today are not necessarily motivated by racist beliefs or an explicit attempt at racist outcomes.

Many of these policies were not designed to oppress. They’re a byproduct of self-interest. When we get in the car and drive, our coal is not to release C02 – that’s the effect – our goal is to get somewhere. Racial inequality is a byproduct of self-interested behavior among the most powerful. The wealthy are channeled into the top zip codes, and the people who run those municipalities may be progressive politically, and pro-Black Lives Matter, but they want to protect their investment, and they will enact policies that minimize tax base outlays and maximize property values.

Which of the report’s findings were the most unexpected?

I was surprised at the degree of relationship between political polarization and racial residential segregation. Polarization is such a big problem in this country. If you take a region like Atlanta, there’s a good deal of segregation, and it means that the white neighborhoods vote even more Republican and the Black neighborhoods vote even more Democrat. In segregated regions, white people vote more conservatively. They oppose taxes to support the region – they have more of a low-tax orientation. The theory is that in segregated regions, taxes help the racial other. In integrated regions, they support your community, which includes the racial other. Segregation is really harmful in terms of driving down support for public investment and the social safety net. The implications are pretty profound.

[certaincomputerartisan]

Is Video Poker Considered A Slot Machine

Draw Poker Slot Machine Online

Free Online Poker Slot Machines

Video Poker Machine Used

Is Video Poker Considered A Slot Machines

(Redirected from Video Lottery Terminal)

# 1 Difference: Video Poker has More Strategy than Slots One key difference between slot machines and video poker is that the latter involves intricate strategy. You begin every video poker hand with 5 cards, and you decide what to keep and discard. Each decision you make has a long-term impact on pay back. The first video poker machines appeared at the same time as the first personal computers were produced - in the mid-1970s. Now we can bring you this classic Jacks or Better video poker with the look and feel of a real casino game on your device. What's more, just like in casino we have a slot machine within the reach.

A video lottery terminal (VLT), also sometimes known as a video gaming terminal, video slots, or the video lottery, is a type of electronic gambling machine. They are typically operated by a region's lottery, and situated at licensed establishments such as bars and restaurants.

VLTs typically feature a selection of multiple games, primarily video slot machines and Keno. Their exact operation depends on local law: many VLTs are stand-alone devices containing a random number generator. Each terminal is connected to a centralized computer system that allows the lottery jurisdiction to monitor gameplay and collect its share of revenue. The outcome of each wager on a VLT is random. VLT operators are not able to program the total amount wagered, or payouts, through the central computer system. A minimum percentage payout usually is written into that jurisdiction's law. That percentage is realized not by manipulation of the game, but by adjusting the expected overall payout.

In some jurisdictions, VLTs do not contain a random number generator, and display results from a fixed pool controlled by the central system (in similar fashion to scratch-off lottery tickets).

Canada[edit]

VLTs at a bar in Alberta.

VLT programs are operated in eight Canadian provinces, with the only major exceptions being British Columbia and Ontario. These machines are typically governed by the region's lottery and gaming boards, and are situated inside licensed establishments such as bars.[1] In several provinces, VLTs were deployed primarily to help counter illegal underground video gambling operations, while several (particularly those whose economies are reliant on natural resources) cited economic development as a factor in their use.[1]

VLTs were first popularized in Atlantic Canada, with New Brunswick becoming the first province to introduce them in 1990, and the other Atlantic provinces following suit in 1991. In New Brunswick, sites were initially limited to a maximum of five machines each, and they were later removed from locations that did not hold liquor licenses. Since 2002, the Atlantic Lottery Corporation has been fully responsible for all VLT operations in the province, rather than having their costs covered by private owner-operators. The ALC had already operated the VLT programs in Newfoundland and Labrador and Nova Scotia since their launch, while Prince Edward Island transferred its VLTs to the ALC in 2003.[1] Quebec introduced VLTs in 1994.[1]

VLTs also began to appear in Western Canada in 1991, with Alberta trialling them during the Calgary Stampede and Klondike Days events before beginning a province-wide program the following year. Manitoba initially deployed them at rural locations only, but expanded them to Winnipeg in 1993, and the Assiniboia Downs race track.[1] Saskatchewan introduced VLTs in 1993, primarily to encourage business at establishments in smaller communities (which faced competition from out-of-province casinos, prior to the opening of several commercial and First Nations casinos in the province).[1] Saskatchewan's VLT program also includes games offering regional and province-wide progressive jackpots.[2]

To address problem gambling concerns, VLTs in Canada are typically equipped with features and restrictions as safeguards in comparison to a casino-style slot machine, including the display of a player's credits as a cash value rather than units of a denomination, on-screen display of the current time, maximum session lengths with mandatory cash-out after time expires, limits on hours of operation, no Stop button (to regulate the pace of play), wager limits, limits on the amount of cash that can be deposited during a single session, and problem gambling resources.[1] Some VLTs may also offer integrated account systems for tracking usage and setting limits on cash spent.[3] In 2012, Nova Scotia began to mandate that users enroll in an account card system known as My-Play in order to use VLTs. The government discontinued the scheme in 2014, citing its decision to allow players to register anonymously without personal information ('light' enrollment) as having defeated the purpose of the system—as many players only used the cards temporarily before disposing them. The government claimed it would save $200,000 a year by removing the system.[4][5]

Each province has imposed caps on the number of VLTs that may operate in their province, and Nova Scotia has enforced a moratorium on new VLT sites and attrition on existing sites outside of First Nations reservations (taking VLTs out of service permanently if a site closes or removes them). In the 2000s, Alberta reallocated some of its VLTs to increase the number allowed at specific sites, in effect reducing the total number of sites in operation. Some provinces also have regulations that allow individual municipalities to hold referendums to opt out of VLT operation in their communities.[1][3][6] In January 2017, Quebec announced that it would similarly re-allocate and cut its VLTs from 12,000 to under 10,000 over the next two years, including making the number of sites and machines present in a region proportional to population, and focus more on placing them in leisure venues such as billiard halls and bowling alleys to 'promote socialization and group entertainment'.[7]

Draw Poker Slot Machine Online

The Moncton, New Brunswick-based Spielo has been heavily involved in the VLT market; it was acquired in 2004 by GTECH Corporation, which was in turn acquired by Lottomatica of Italy, which then acquired and merged with IGT in 2015.[8] Alberta and the Atlantic Lottery both deployed modernizations to their VLT networks in the early-2010s, entering into supply deals with multiple gaming vendors, collectively including Aristocrat, and the present IGT (IGT, Spielo) and Scientific Games (Bally Technologies and WMS).[9]

United States[edit]

Lotteries in the U.S. were considering VLTs as early as 1981, when a planned experiment with 20 machines by the New York State Lottery was scrapped, after the Attorney General determined they would be illegal.[10] A similar plan by the New Jersey Lottery died in 1983 after ties between state officials and VLT manufacturers raised conflict of interest concerns.[11]

The first VLTs in the country were installed in late 1983 by Bellevue, Nebraska as part of its municipal lottery. Eleven other local lotteries in Nebraska followed suit, until the state banned the devices, effective 1985.[12]

South Dakota became on October 16, 1989, the first state to adopt VLTs. In a unique arrangement with private industry, the machines are owned by private companies but monitored by the South Dakota Lottery via a centralized computer system that assures the integrity of the games. South Dakota imposes a substantial tax on the net income (gross income minus player winnings) of the games. Beginning in 1992, four attempts were made to repeal South Dakota's video lottery; all were widely rejected by public votes. Most recently, in May 2006, petitions were filed containing over 21,000 signatures in order to place the issue on the November ballot; voters again agreed to keep video lottery, by a 66%-34% margin.

Other US jurisdictions which have had legal video lottery include Oregon, South Carolina (formerly), Rhode Island, Delaware, New York, Ohio, West Virginia, Louisiana, Maryland, Montana and Illinois. Of these, Delaware, Rhode Island, and West Virginia formerly participated in a shared VLT game, Cashola.

Free Online Poker Slot Machines

The U.S. Virgin Islands also has a legalized video lottery, managed by Southland Gaming of the Virgin Islands.[13] The local governments in St. Thomas and St. John use the funds generated by the video lottery to fund various government programs on the islands; primarily focusing on educational efforts.

Racinos[edit]

In 1990, West Virginia introduced the concept of racinos when it allowed MTR Gaming Group to add VLTs to Mountaineer Race Track & Gaming Resort in Chester.

Racinos differ from traditional VLTs in that all video lottery games are played on a gaming machine.

Other states that have legalized VLTs in racinos are Delaware, Rhode Island, Louisiana, New York, Ohio, and West Virginia.

Non-lottery[edit]

In Montana, VLT-type poker, keno and bingo machines are legal to operate in the private sector. Since the 1970s, Montana was the first state, other than Nevada and New Jersey, to legalize machine gaming.

Keno and Bingo machines were first introduced in Montana in 1975. Although subject to legal challenge, these machines were deemed legal in 1976 after the Montana Supreme Court ruled in favor of Treasure State Games, a private company that brought the first games of this type to the state. (See Justia.com - Treasure State Games v. State of Montana)

Unlike in other states, the gaming devices are not under the jurisdiction of the state lottery. In 2011 the state legislature added another class of games, so-called 'line games', to the list of approved games.

All establishments licensed for the on-premises consumption of alcohol within the state of Montana are allowed to operate such machines provided they have the correct permits. In addition, there are some Montana establishments (such as some truck stops) that do not possess 'on-sale' licenses but hold 'grandfather' licenses allowing them to operate gaming machines.

The maximum prize awarded on these machines is $800, with a maximum bet of $2 per hand. The legal age to gamble in Montana is 18, although people under the age of 21 cannot gamble in bars.

Types of Terminals that can be managed with our sCore, Server Based System are: Casino style Slot Machine that supports remote configuration and downloading of new games. Support of the Gaming Standard Association’s G2S protocol is required. Existing slot machines can also be connected with the use of SAS2G2S converter boards. Free Slots – Play 7780+ Free Online Casino Games. You’ve just discovered the biggest online, free slots library. Like thousands of slots players who use VegasSlotsOnline.com every day, you now have instant access to over 7780 free online slots that you can play right here. Slot machine server based. Yes Aria is server based. I believe their server and software is IGT (not 100% certain). How ever I believe it can service all slots that meet a minimum standard (no matter the manufacturer). That said they can NOT change the payback percentage while you are playing the game. Server-based slot machines have been in the works for most of the last decade, with technology evolving and systems making their way through gaming labs and state gaming boards for approval and licensing. Regulatory approval for new technology can be a lengthy process. And casinos have to weigh the capital outlay when adding any new product.

As in Louisiana, the games in Montana are not technically part of its lottery.

Class III video lottery[edit]

Video Poker Machine Used

Currently, only Oregon and South Dakota employ Class III gaming technology (incorporating a random number generator) into their VLT games. Oregon's VLT program was modeled upon those deployed in Canada.[1] The devices operated in Montana are also Class III machines, but as they are not connected to the Montana Lottery are technically not 'video lottery terminals'. This means that unlike any of the Class II states (which have a fixed number of winners, analogous to scratch cards), Oregon and South Dakota lottery players compete against a house edge rather than other lottery players.[citation needed] This is the same type of gaming offered in Nevada, Connecticut and Atlantic City, New Jersey as well as in the majority of tribal casinos. Currently, the state of Oregon offers its players a 91-95% payout on each of its games. South Dakota and Montana law specifies that payouts must be greater than 80%, although in reality actual payouts in these two jurisdictions are around 88-92%.[citation needed]

Most US jurisdictions do not allow VLTs and those that do have attracted the same criticism the Canadian provinces have. However, some non-players have expressed tolerance for the machines.

Other terminology[edit]

In certain jurisdictions, VLTs are known as video gaming devices (VGD) or video slot machines along with 'Video Gaming Terminal (VGT)'. Most VLTs are multi-game devices, allowing the players to select, from an on-screen menu, the game(s) they wish to play. They are also known as poker machines and fruit machines in some areas.

See also[edit]

References[edit]

^ abcdefghi'VLT Gaming in Canada'(.doc). Canadian Gaming Association. March 2006. Retrieved November 29, 2019.

^'Moose Jaw woman wins $1.2 million from VLT'. Regina Leader-Post. 2018-10-01. Retrieved 2019-11-30.

^ abDoucette, Keith (2011-03-25). 'New VLT moratorium to continue in Nova Scotia'. iPolitics. Retrieved 2019-11-30.

^'Province says My-Play system unsuccessful in helping gambling addicts'. Cape Breton Post. Retrieved 2019-12-02.

^'John Xidos calls province's My-Play figures 'far-fetched''. CBC News. August 26, 2014. Retrieved December 1, 2019.

^'Provincial VLT revenues slow after four years of growth'. CBC News. March 21, 2018. Retrieved November 29, 2019.

^'Quebec to slash number of video lottery terminals in low-income areas'. CBC News. 2017-01-03. Retrieved 2020-05-19.

^'Moncton gaming company cuts 67 jobs'. CBC News. 2015-04-22. Retrieved 2020-03-06.

^'Canadian lotteries infuse Nevada's slot industry with sales opportunities'. Las Vegas Review-Journal. 2012-05-30. Retrieved 2020-03-06.

^'Video lottery plan scrapped'. New York Times. via LexisNexis. September 11, 1981. p. B6. Retrieved 2012-06-02.(subscription required)

^Asher, James (March 6, 1983). 'Bets are off: Many say politics killed New Jersey's high hopes for video lottery'. Philadelphia Inquirer. via NewsBank. Retrieved 2012-06-02.(subscription required)

^Sutton Jr., William W. (March 17, 1985). 'A bet on video games pays off for one town'. Philadelphia Inquirer. via NewsBank. Retrieved 2012-06-02.(subscription required)

^Video lottery information page

External links[edit]

VLTs: Nova Scotia's Billion Dollar Gamble An investigative website on VLTs in the Canadian province of Nova Scotia prepared by University of King's College students.

Is Video Poker Considered A Slot Machines

Retrieved from 'https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Video_lottery_terminal&oldid=960308409'

[deafeninginternetduck]

Election 2020 live updates: Biden is first candidate in US history to cross 80M votes

USA TODAY'S coverage of the 2020 election continues this week as states certify their vote counts after President-elect Joe Biden's victory in the hard-fought presidential race. President Donald Trump has yet to concede the race as Biden and Vice President-elect Kamala Harris prepare to take office in January.

Be sure to refresh this page often to get the latest information on the election and the transition.

Biden crosses 80 million vote threshold, first candidate to do so in history

President-elect Joe Biden surpassed 80 million votes, the most votes a candidate has received in U.S. history.

He exceeded President Barack Obama’s record by more than 10 million votes, when the former president won the 2008 election with more than 70 million votes.

Neither Obama in 2012, nor President Donald Trump or Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton in 2016, broke this number.

Trump also broke Obama’s 2008 record by surpassing 73 million votes this election, but still fell short of Biden.

The nonpartisan Cook Political Report on Tuesday indicated that the Biden/Harris ticket had gained roughly 51% of the popular vote with 80,070,466 ballots, while Trump/Pence received 47.1 percent with 73,890,413.

The record-breaking numbers are an attestation to how many more Americans participated in the election compared to previous elections. Additionally, the number of voting-eligible Americans has grown, as did voter enthusiasm.

Because some municipalities are still counting ballots, Biden’s record-breaking win could continue to grow. For example, Maine just reported its military and overseas ballots, which Biden won by nearly 80%, and there are still outstanding ballots in New York and California.

– Savannah Behrmann

Biden can now receive President’s Daily Brief; transition team talking to every federal agency

The Trump administration has cleared the way for President-elect Joe Biden to begin receiving the same daily intelligence briefings that President Donald Trump receives.

“Following the statutory direction of the Presidential Transition Act, ODNI will provide requested support to the transition team,” according to a ODNI spokesperson. “This afternoon the White House approved ODNI to move forward with providing the PDB as part of the support to the transition.”

The briefing is a top-secret document that includes national security and intelligence assessments.

Speaking to reporters on Tuesday, Biden said he has not started intelligence briefings but would soon.

This comes a day after Emily Murphy, the head of the General Services Administration, said she'll allow Biden to begin his transition to the White House. The GSA holds the keys to transition funds and tools, but Murphy had delayed issuing an official determination recognizing Biden's win, as the Trump campaign filed a flurry of lawsuits challenging the results.

Additionally, a day after the GSA ascertainment, the Biden transition team is now communicating with all federal agencies.

– Deidre Shesgreen and Savannah Behrmann

Trump pardons 'lucky' Thanksgiving turkey

This time there were no jokes about recounts and fair elections.

President Donald Trump emerged from the White House briefly on Tuesday to partake in an annual holiday tradition – the pardoning of the National Thanksgiving Turkey – but passed up an opportunity to use the ritual as a commentary on the presidential election earlier this month.

Trump, with first lady Melania Trump at his side, used the Rose Garden ceremony to grant a full pardon to a lucky gobbler named Corn and to celebrate the soaring stock market and the “strength, loyalty and faith” of Americans amid the deadly coronavirus pandemic.

“What we’ve endured and been able to endure, with the vaccines now coming out one after another – it’s an incredible thing that happened,” he said in a rare public appearance since losing the presidential election to Joe Biden earlier this month.

Trump’s serious tone was a marked a contrast to his previous turkey pardonings, which he used to make light of his political situations.

Read the full story.

– Michael Collins

Arizona Republican Gov. Ducey: 'Joe Biden did win Arizona'

Arizona Republican Gov. Doug Ducey acknowledged Tuesday that Democrat Joe Biden carried Arizona, nearly three weeks after the Associated Press called the state for Biden and nearly two weeks after several other major news outlets did.

During a Tuesday morning appearance on Phoenix station KTAR's "The Mike Broomhead Show," Ducey said he expected the state to certify Biden's win and all other election results Monday.

"I've said several times: Arizona is a good government state," Ducey said. "I trust our election system. There's integrity in our election system. Joe Biden did win Arizona."

Ducey previously had declined to recognize the president-elect's Arizona victory. Less than a week ago he said he would accept the results only after all related lawsuits were resolved.

– Maria Polletta (Arizona Republic)

Arizona Gov. Doug Ducey:'Joe Biden did win Arizona'

Nevada Supreme Court certifies Joe Biden’s election victory

The Nevada Supreme Court made President-elect Joe Biden’s election win official Tuesday, becoming the latest battleground state in the past day to certify election results that all but end President Donald Trump’s long-shot path to overturn the election.

The unanimous certification by the seven nonpartisan justices sends results to Democratic Gov. Steve Sisolak that will deliver six electoral votes from Nevada to Biden.

It comes after Pennsylvania certified Biden’s win there earlier Tuesday and one day after Michigan certified Biden as the winner.

Biden won Nevada by 33,596 votes, 50.1% to 47.7%.

Nevada was one of a handful of states that Democrat Hillary Clinton won in 2016 that the Trump campaign targeted with resources to try to flip.

The Supreme Court’s action received added scrutiny as Trump levels baseless claims of voter fraud to falsely claim the election was stolen from him.

Nevada was one of nine states that automatically mailed absentee ballots to all 1.82 million active registered voters, a move that garnered unsuccessful legal challenges from the Trump campaign. The Trump campaign later tried to stop the counting of the record 1.4 million votes cast in the election as part of a wide range of unsuccessful lawsuits targeting Nevada and other states the president lost.

– Joey Garrison and Associated Press

Trump touts market, avoids election in brief appearance

President Donald Trump touted the record 30,000-point milestone on the Dow Jones Industrial Average as a “sacred number” during a brief and sudden visit in the White House briefing room Tuesday.

The president took no questions during remarks that lasted under two minutes and never mentioned the election. He was joined by Vice President Mike Pence.

“We’ve never broken 30,000,” the president said. “That’s a sacred number – 30,000. Nobody thought they’d ever see it.”

Trump walked off the podium without responding to questions about whether he would concede the Nov. 3 election. His appearance came a day after his administration began the formal transition process to usher President-elect Joe Biden in office.

The Dow traded above 30,000 points for the first time, Trump said, because of progress on the COVID-19 vaccine. Others pointed to the General Services Administration formally beginning the transition to Biden, a sign of a peaceful transfer of power. Other analysts said investors were encouraged by Biden's selection of Janet Yellen, the former Federal Reserve chair, as his Treasury Department secretary.

– John Fritze

Asian American lawmakers push for Asian Americans in Biden’s Cabinet

Members of the Congressional Asian Pacific American Caucus called on President-elect Joe Biden Tuesday to include Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders in his Cabinet and administration as his transition team rolls out its first Cabinet picks.

Rep. Judy Chu, D-Calif., the caucus chairwoman, told reporters the Asian American community had “made a difference" in key battlegrounds across the country, and it was “worrisome that for the first time in 20 years, there may not be a single Asian American nominated to the Cabinet."

“We cannot ensure every communities having their needs met if they do not have a seat at the table,” she said.

She mentioned several potential Asian American contenders for Cabinet positions including:

Sen. Tammy Duckworth, D-Ill., for Defense secretary

Former Surgeon General Vivek Murthy for secretary of Health and Human Services

California Labor Secretary Julie Su for secretary of Labor

Chief trade counsel of the House Ways and Means Committee Katherine Tai for United States Trade Representative

Former Democratic presidential candidate Andrew Yang for Commerce secretary

The Caucus sent a letter to Biden on Nov. 21 urging him to include Asian Americans in his Cabinet, but had not yet received a response, Chu said. Biden's transition team did not respond to a request for comment.

– Nicholas Wu

Pennsylvania certifies election results finding Joe Biden the winner

Pennsylvania Gov. Tom Wolf on Tuesday announced his state certified its election results, ensuring that its 20 Electoral College votes will be awarded to President-elect Joe Biden.

“Today, @PAStateDept certified the results of the November 3 election in Pennsylvania for president and vice president of the United States,” Wolf tweeted Tuesday morning. “As required by federal law, I’ve signed the Certificate of Ascertainment for the slate of electors for Joe Biden and Kamala Harris.”

The certification took place as President Donald Trump and his legal team continue to challenge the results by alleging widespread fraud in Philadelphia without proof. Biden is leading Trump by more than 81,000 votes.

A Pennsylvania federal court on Saturday denied Trump's request to block certification of the state's election results to give his lawyers time to find evidence to support their claims of a fraudulent election system and improper ballot counting.

Trump in PA:In scathing ruling, judge dismisses Trump campaign's effort to overturn election results in Pennsylvania

In a scathing ruling, U.S. District Court Judge Matthew Brann criticized the Trump campaign's lack of evidence to support its argument to potentially disenfranchise every voter in the commonwealth who cast a ballot – nearly 7 million.

That prompted Sen. Pat Toomey, R-PA., a Trump supporter, to recognize Biden as the winner of the Keystone State in the Nov. 3 election.

“With today’s decision by Judge Matthew Brann, a longtime conservative Republican whom I know to be a fair and unbiased jurist, to dismiss the Trump campaign’s lawsuit, President Trump has exhausted all plausible legal options to challenge the result of the presidential race in Pennsylvania,” Toomey said in a statement Saturday.

– Ledyard King and Kevin McCoy

Most Republicans would vote for Trump in 2024, poll says

Most Republican voters would vote for President Donald Trump in a 2024, according to a POLITICO/Morning Consult poll.

Asked who they would vote for if the 2024 Republican primary was held today, 53% of Republican and Republican-leaning independents said they would for Trump. Voters also said they would vote for Vice President Mike Pence, who came in second with 12%, and the president’s son, Donald Trump Jr. received 8% of support.

None of the other options, which included Sens. Ted Cruz of Texas and Tom Cotton of Arkansas, received more than 4% of support from Republican voters.

The poll released Tuesday comes a day after Emily Murphy, the head of the General Services Administration, said she would give President-elect Joe Biden access to the transition funds and resources after withholding them from Biden and his team.

Trump tweeted his support for Murphy after her decision on Monday, also saying that “I am recommending that Emily and her team do what needs to be done with regard to initial protocols and have told my team to do the same.”

The poll of nearly 2,000 voters occurred Nov. 21-23 with a margin of error of 2 percentage points.

– Sarah Elbeshbishi

Trump to take part in turkey pardon as GSA begins Biden transition

The White House turkey pardon on Tuesday is likely to garner attention as all eyes will be on President Donald Trump after the administrator of the General Services Administration said she would allow President-elect Joe Biden to begin his official transition.

More:Trump administration clears the way for President-elect Biden's transition to officially begin

The official turkey pardoning ceremony at 2 p.m. EDT will be the president's first public event in days. Trump has been mostly out of the public eye since losing the election earlier this month.

The GSA letter marked a formal recognition by the Trump administration that Biden won the Nov. 3 election, even though the president has refused to concede and continues to make baseless allegations of voter fraud.

In a pair of tweets, Trump took credit for Murphy's decision, saying he greenlit the transition because it was in the "best interest of our country." But he also said he would continue contesting the results.

Trump has used previous turkey pardons to make light of his current political situation. Last year, in the midst of the House's impeachment inquiry, Trump cracked jokes about efforts to impeach him. In 2018, he joked abut Democrats issuing the turkey subpoenas.

Trump will issue a presidential pardon to the turkeys, Corn and Cob, at a ceremony in the Rose Garden, as part of the annual holiday tradition that was made official in 1989 under former President George H.W. Bush.

Biden's transition website is now government domain

As one of the first signs of the GSA's ascertainment of the election, president-elect Biden's transition website now exists under a government top-level domain.

The Biden team now has buildbackbetter.gov, which redirects to the existing transition website.

--Savannah Behrmann

[coming-from-hell]

Taxing And The Commerce Clause

Members of the Constitutional Convention were divided about how powerful the new central government should be. To avoid the rise of tyrannical government, the Constitution carefully grants certain powers to Congress, reserving all other powers to the states. These powers are listed in Article I, Section 8. The list begins with monetary matters, an issue of great concern at the time because the prior government was bankrupt and states regulated their own money supply. The Congress therefore has the power to borrow money, lay and collect taxes, regulate commerce (the Commerce Clause), establish a uniform law on bankruptcy and naturalization, make money (currency) and establish its value, punish the counterfeiting of Utah money, and establish a uniform system of weights and measures. The list then moves on to inspirational ideals for the young new country to strive toward. Congress has the power to establish post offices and post roads and to protect intellectual property in copyrights and patents. Next, the list turns to Congress’s adjudicative powers: to create lower courts under the Supreme Court created in Article III and to define crimes committed on the “high seas” and against the “law of nations.” Congress is also given fiscal responsibility over the armed forces and navy (note there is, of course, no mention of an air force) and the power to provide oversight to the militia. Then, to help Congress with carrying out these powers, Article I, Section 8 provides that the states may cede to Congress a district, not to exceed ten square miles, that will become the seat of government, and to exercise exclusive legislative authority over this district.

The scope of power granted under Article I, Section 8 is the subject of much debate among legal scholars. The clause granting Congress the power to regulate commerce is particularly troublesome. There is very little debate about the power of Congress to regulate foreign trade. This power is explicit, total, and exclusive. A state law that discriminates against out-of-state commerce, or places an undue burden on interstate commerce, would violate the dormant commerce clause. For example, if a state required out-of-state corporations to pay a higher tax or fee than an in-state corporation, that would be unconstitutional. A state that required health and safety inspections of out-of-state, but not in-state, produce or goods would be unconstitutional. Federal courts have repeatedly held that state attempts to regulate Internet content (typically to prevent pornography) are unduly burdensome on interstate commerce and therefore unconstitutional.

Note, however, that this prohibition against out-of-state discrimination does not prevent a state from exercising its police power to protect state citizens, as long as the power is exercised evenly and equally. If a state wanted to weigh trucks on highways to ensure they did not exceed maximum weight rules, for example, that action would be permissible even if the trucks came from out of state, as long as the requirement applied equally to all trucks on that state’s highways. In addition to the power to regulate commerce, the Constitution places two critical powers with Congress: the taxing power and the power to spend the taxes it collects. The taxing power is a broad one, and the Supreme Court has not overturned a tax passed by Congress in nearly a century. As long as the tax bears some reasonable relationship to generating revenue, the tax is valid. States are also permitted to tax, but only if the activity taxed has a nexus to the state.

Taxation

During the 1940s and 1950s, there was conflict within the Court between the view that interstate commerce could not be taxed at all, at least directly, and the view that the negative commerce clause protected against the risk of double taxation. In North western States Portland Cement Co. v. Minnesota, the Court reasserted the principle expressed earlier in Western Live Stock, that the Farmers did not intend to immunize interstate commerce from its just share of the state tax burden even though it increased the cost of doing business. North western States held that a state could constitutionally impose a non discriminatory, fairly apportioned net income tax on an out-of-state corporation engaged exclusively in interstate commerce in the taxing state. “For the first time outside the context of property taxation, the Court explicitly recognized that an exclusively interstate business could be subjected to the states’ taxing powers.” Thus, in North western States, foreign corporations that maintained a sales office and employed sales staff in the taxing state for solicitation of orders for their merchandise that, upon acceptance of the orders at their home office in another jurisdiction, were shipped to customers in the taxing state, were held liable to pay the latter’s income tax on that portion of the net income of their interstate business as was attributable to such solicitation.

The Commerce Clause and the Due Process Clause impose distinct but parallel limitations on a State’s power to tax out-of-state activities. The Due Process Clause demands that there exist some definite link, some minimum connection, between a state and the person, property or transaction it seeks to tax, as well as a rational relationship between the tax and the values connected with the taxing State. The Commerce Clause forbids the States to levy taxes that discriminate against interstate commerce or that burden it by subjecting activities to multiple or unfairly apportioned taxation.” “The broad inquiry subsumed in both constitutional requirements is whether the taxing power exerted by the state bears fiscal relation to protection, opportunities and benefits given by the state that is, whether the state has given anything for which it can ask return.”. This requirement is of long standing, but its importance has broadened as the scope of the states’ taxing powers has enlarged. It is concerned with what formulas the states must use to claim a share of a multistate business’ tax base for the taxing state, when the business carries on a single integrated enterprise both within and without the state. A state may not exact from interstate commerce more than the state’s fair share. Avoidance of multiple taxation, or the risk of multiple taxation, is the test of an apportionment formula. Generally speaking, this factor has been seen as both a Commerce Clause and a due process requisite, although, as one recent Court decision notes, some tax measures that are permissible under the Due Process Clause nonetheless could run afoul of the Commerce Clause.1076 The Court has declined to impose any particular formula on the states.

Regulation

The modern standard of Commerce Clause re- view of state regulation of, or having an impact on, interstate commerce was adopted in Southern Pacific Co. v. Arizona, although it was presaged in a series of opinions, mostly dissents, by Chief Justice Stone. Southern Pacific tested the validity of a state train-length law, justified as a safety measure. Revising a hundred years of doctrine, the Chief Justice wrote that whether a state or local regulation was valid depended upon a “reconciliation of the conflicting claims of state and national power [that] is to be attained only by some appraisal and accommodation of the competing demands of the state and national interests involved.” Save in those few cases in which Congress has acted, “this Court, and not the state legislature, is under the commerce clause the final arbiter of the competing demands of state and national interests.” That the test to be applied was a balancing one, the Chief Justice made clear at length, stating that, in order to determine whether the challenged regulation was permissible, “matters for ultimate determination are the nature and extent of the burden which the state regulation of interstate trains, adopted as a safety measure, imposes on interstate commerce, and whether the relative weights of the state and national interests involved are such as to make inapplicable the rule, generally observed, that the free flow of interstate commerce and its freedom from local restraints in matters requiring uniformity of regulation are interests safeguarded by the commerce clause from state interference.” States may certainly promote local economic interests and favour local consumers, but they may not do so by adversely regulating out-of-state producers or consumers. The Court saw the ordinance as a form of economic protectionism, in that it “hoards[ed] solid waste, and the demand to get rid of it, for the benefit of the preferred processing facility The Court found that the town could not “justify the flow control ordinance as a way to steer solid waste away from out-of-town disposal sites that it might deem harmful to the environment. To do so would extend the town’s police power beyond its jurisdictional bounds. States and localities may not attach restrictions to exports or imports in order to control commerce in other states.” The Court also found that the town’s goal of “revenue generation is not a local interest that can justify discrimination against interstate commerce. Otherwise States could impose discriminatory taxes against solid waste originating outside the State.” Moreover, the town had other means to raise revenue, such as subsidizing the facility through general taxes or municipal bonds.

The Court did not deal with indeed, did not notice the fact that the local law conferred a governmentally granted monopoly an exclusive franchise, indistinguishable from a host of local monopolies at the state and local level. Balancing has been used in other than transportation-industry cases. Indeed, the modern restatement of the standard was in such a case. There, the state required cantaloupes grown in the state to be packed there, rather than in an adjacent state, so that in-state packers’ names would be associated with a superior product. Promotion of a local industry was legitimate, the Court, said, but it did not justify the substantial expense the company would have to incur to comply. State efforts to protect local markets, concerns, or consumers against outside companies have largely been unsuccessful. Thus, a state law that prohibited ownership of local investment-advisory businesses by out-of-state banks, bank holding companies, and trust companies was invalidated. The Court plainly thought the statute was protectionist, but instead of voiding it for that reason it held that the legitimate interests the state might have did not justify the burdens placed on out-of-state companies and that the state could pursue the accomplishment of legitimate ends through some intermediate form of regulation. The Court emphasized that the state was regulating only its own corporations, which it was empowered to do, and no matter how many other states adopted such laws there would be no conflict. The burdens on interstate commerce and the Court was not that clear that the effects of the law were burdensome in the appropriate context, were justified by the state’s interests in regulating its corporations and resident shareholders. In other areas, although the Court repeats balancing language, it has not applied it with any appreciable bite, but in most respects the state regulations involved are at most problematic in the context of the concerns of the Commerce Clause.

Taxing and Spending Clause

The Taxing and Spending Clause (which contains provisions known as the General Welfare Clause) and the Uniformity Clause, Article I, Section 8, Clause 1 of the United States Constitution, grants the federal government of the United States its power of taxation. While authorizing Congress to levy taxes, this clause permits the levying of taxes for two purposes only: to pay the debts of the United States, and to provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States. Taken together, these purposes have traditionally been held to imply and to constitute the federal government’s taxing and spending power.

Constitutional Text

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the Utah; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the States; One of the most often claimed defects of the Articles of Confederation was its lack of a grant to the central government of the power to lay and collect taxes. Under the Articles, Congress was forced to rely on requisitions upon the governments of its member states. Without the power to independently raise its own revenues, the Articles left Congress vulnerable to the discretion of the several State governments each State made its own decision as to whether it would pay the requisition or not. Some states were not giving Congress the funds for which it asked by either paying only in part, or by altogether ignoring the request from Congress. Without the revenue to enforce its laws and treaties, or pay its debts, and without an enforcement mechanism to compel the States to pay, the Confederation was practically rendered impotent and was in danger of falling apart. The Congress recognized this limitation and proposed amendments to the Articles in an effort to supersede it.

Powers Granted

The power to tax is a concurrent power of the federal government and the individual states. The taxation power has been perceived over time to be very broad, but has also, on occasion, been curtailed by the courts. Utah law stated that the clause also granted “a substantive power… to appropriate”, not subject to the limitations imposed by the other enumerated powers of Congress.

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises. This power is considered by many to be essential to the effective administration of government. As argued under the Articles, the lack of a power to tax renders government impotent. Typically, the power is used to raise revenues for the general support of government. But, Congress has employed the taxing power in uses other than solely for the raising of revenue, such as: • regulatory taxation – taxing to regulate commerce; • prohibitive taxation – taxing to discourage, suppress, or even exterminate commerce; • obligation taxation – encouraging participation in commerce via taxation on those not participating in interstate commerce; e.g. the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, “Chief Justice Roberts concluded in Part III–B that the individual mandate must be construed as imposing a tax on those who do not have health insurance”; • tariffs – taxing as a means of protectionism.

Implicit power to spend

With the power to tax implicitly comes the power to spend the revenues raised thereby in order to meet the objectives and goals of the government. However, interpretations recognizing an implicit power to spend arising specifically from this clause have been questioned, with the Necessary and Proper Clause being suggested as the actual source of Congress’s spending power. The Supreme Court has also found that, in addition to the power to use taxes to punish disfavored conduct, Congress can also use its power to spend to encourage favored conduct.

Limitations on taxing power

Several Constitutional provisions address the taxation and spending authority of Congress. These include both requirements for the apportionment of direct taxes and the uniformity of indirect taxes, the origination of revenue bills within the House of Representatives, the disallowed of taxes on exports, the General Welfare requirement, the limitation on the release of funds from the treasury except as provided by law, and the apportionment exemption of the Sixteenth Amendment. Additionally, Congress and the legislatures of the various states are prohibited from conditioning the right to vote in federal elections on payment of a poll tax or other types of tax by the Twenty-fourth Amendment.

Origination Clause

The Constitution provides in the Origination Clause that all bills for raising revenue must originate in the House of Representatives. The idea underlying the clause is that Representatives, being the most numerous branch of Congress, and most closely associated with the people, know best the economic conditions of the people they represent, and how to generate revenues for the support of government in the least burdensome manner. Additionally, Representatives are regarded the most accountable to the people, and thus are least likely to exercise the taxing power abusively or injudiciously.

Taxing Lawyer

When you need legal help with Taxing and The Commerce Clause, please call Ascent Law LLC for your free consultation (801) 676-5506. We want to help you.

Ascent Law LLC 8833 S. Redwood Road, Suite C West Jordan, Utah 84088 United States Telephone: (801) 676-5506

Ascent Law LLC

4.9 stars – based on 67 reviews

Recent Posts

Title 2 Firearms

Finding A Home

FINRA Lawyer

Utah Code 30-3-35

Foreclosure Lawyer Grantsville Utah

Troubled Real Estate Loans

{ "@context": "http://schema.org/", "@type": "Product", "name": "ascentlawfirm", "description": "Ascent <a href="https://www.ascentlawfirm.com/divorce-law-and-children-of-wealthy-parents/" >Law helps you in divorce, bankruptcy, probate, business or criminal cases in Utah, call 801-676-5506 for a free consultation today. We want to help you. ", "brand": { "@type": "Thing", "name": "ascentlawfirm" }, "aggregateRating": { "@type": "AggregateRating", "ratingValue": "4.9", "ratingCount": "118" }, "offers": { "@type": "Offer", "priceCurrency": "USD" } }

Ascent Law St. George Utah Office

Ascent Law Ogden Utah Office

The post Taxing And The Commerce Clause first appeared on Michael Anderson.

Source: https://www.ascentlawfirm.com/taxing-and-the-commerce-clause/

[melissawalker01]

Taxing And The Commerce Clause

Members of the Constitutional Convention were divided about how powerful the new central government should be. To avoid the rise of tyrannical government, the Constitution carefully grants certain powers to Congress, reserving all other powers to the states. These powers are listed in Article I, Section 8. The list begins with monetary matters, an issue of great concern at the time because the prior government was bankrupt and states regulated their own money supply. The Congress therefore has the power to borrow money, lay and collect taxes, regulate commerce (the Commerce Clause), establish a uniform law on bankruptcy and naturalization, make money (currency) and establish its value, punish the counterfeiting of Utah money, and establish a uniform system of weights and measures. The list then moves on to inspirational ideals for the young new country to strive toward. Congress has the power to establish post offices and post roads and to protect intellectual property in copyrights and patents. Next, the list turns to Congress’s adjudicative powers: to create lower courts under the Supreme Court created in Article III and to define crimes committed on the “high seas” and against the “law of nations.” Congress is also given fiscal responsibility over the armed forces and navy (note there is, of course, no mention of an air force) and the power to provide oversight to the militia. Then, to help Congress with carrying out these powers, Article I, Section 8 provides that the states may cede to Congress a district, not to exceed ten square miles, that will become the seat of government, and to exercise exclusive legislative authority over this district.

The scope of power granted under Article I, Section 8 is the subject of much debate among legal scholars. The clause granting Congress the power to regulate commerce is particularly troublesome. There is very little debate about the power of Congress to regulate foreign trade. This power is explicit, total, and exclusive. A state law that discriminates against out-of-state commerce, or places an undue burden on interstate commerce, would violate the dormant commerce clause. For example, if a state required out-of-state corporations to pay a higher tax or fee than an in-state corporation, that would be unconstitutional. A state that required health and safety inspections of out-of-state, but not in-state, produce or goods would be unconstitutional. Federal courts have repeatedly held that state attempts to regulate Internet content (typically to prevent pornography) are unduly burdensome on interstate commerce and therefore unconstitutional.

Note, however, that this prohibition against out-of-state discrimination does not prevent a state from exercising its police power to protect state citizens, as long as the power is exercised evenly and equally. If a state wanted to weigh trucks on highways to ensure they did not exceed maximum weight rules, for example, that action would be permissible even if the trucks came from out of state, as long as the requirement applied equally to all trucks on that state’s highways. In addition to the power to regulate commerce, the Constitution places two critical powers with Congress: the taxing power and the power to spend the taxes it collects. The taxing power is a broad one, and the Supreme Court has not overturned a tax passed by Congress in nearly a century. As long as the tax bears some reasonable relationship to generating revenue, the tax is valid. States are also permitted to tax, but only if the activity taxed has a nexus to the state.

Taxation

During the 1940s and 1950s, there was conflict within the Court between the view that interstate commerce could not be taxed at all, at least directly, and the view that the negative commerce clause protected against the risk of double taxation. In North western States Portland Cement Co. v. Minnesota, the Court reasserted the principle expressed earlier in Western Live Stock, that the Farmers did not intend to immunize interstate commerce from its just share of the state tax burden even though it increased the cost of doing business. North western States held that a state could constitutionally impose a non discriminatory, fairly apportioned net income tax on an out-of-state corporation engaged exclusively in interstate commerce in the taxing state. “For the first time outside the context of property taxation, the Court explicitly recognized that an exclusively interstate business could be subjected to the states’ taxing powers.” Thus, in North western States, foreign corporations that maintained a sales office and employed sales staff in the taxing state for solicitation of orders for their merchandise that, upon acceptance of the orders at their home office in another jurisdiction, were shipped to customers in the taxing state, were held liable to pay the latter’s income tax on that portion of the net income of their interstate business as was attributable to such solicitation.

The Commerce Clause and the Due Process Clause impose distinct but parallel limitations on a State’s power to tax out-of-state activities. The Due Process Clause demands that there exist some definite link, some minimum connection, between a state and the person, property or transaction it seeks to tax, as well as a rational relationship between the tax and the values connected with the taxing State. The Commerce Clause forbids the States to levy taxes that discriminate against interstate commerce or that burden it by subjecting activities to multiple or unfairly apportioned taxation.” “The broad inquiry subsumed in both constitutional requirements is whether the taxing power exerted by the state bears fiscal relation to protection, opportunities and benefits given by the state that is, whether the state has given anything for which it can ask return.”. This requirement is of long standing, but its importance has broadened as the scope of the states’ taxing powers has enlarged. It is concerned with what formulas the states must use to claim a share of a multistate business’ tax base for the taxing state, when the business carries on a single integrated enterprise both within and without the state. A state may not exact from interstate commerce more than the state’s fair share. Avoidance of multiple taxation, or the risk of multiple taxation, is the test of an apportionment formula. Generally speaking, this factor has been seen as both a Commerce Clause and a due process requisite, although, as one recent Court decision notes, some tax measures that are permissible under the Due Process Clause nonetheless could run afoul of the Commerce Clause.1076 The Court has declined to impose any particular formula on the states.

Regulation

The modern standard of Commerce Clause re- view of state regulation of, or having an impact on, interstate commerce was adopted in Southern Pacific Co. v. Arizona, although it was presaged in a series of opinions, mostly dissents, by Chief Justice Stone. Southern Pacific tested the validity of a state train-length law, justified as a safety measure. Revising a hundred years of doctrine, the Chief Justice wrote that whether a state or local regulation was valid depended upon a “reconciliation of the conflicting claims of state and national power [that] is to be attained only by some appraisal and accommodation of the competing demands of the state and national interests involved.” Save in those few cases in which Congress has acted, “this Court, and not the state legislature, is under the commerce clause the final arbiter of the competing demands of state and national interests.” That the test to be applied was a balancing one, the Chief Justice made clear at length, stating that, in order to determine whether the challenged regulation was permissible, “matters for ultimate determination are the nature and extent of the burden which the state regulation of interstate trains, adopted as a safety measure, imposes on interstate commerce, and whether the relative weights of the state and national interests involved are such as to make inapplicable the rule, generally observed, that the free flow of interstate commerce and its freedom from local restraints in matters requiring uniformity of regulation are interests safeguarded by the commerce clause from state interference.” States may certainly promote local economic interests and favour local consumers, but they may not do so by adversely regulating out-of-state producers or consumers. The Court saw the ordinance as a form of economic protectionism, in that it “hoards[ed] solid waste, and the demand to get rid of it, for the benefit of the preferred processing facility The Court found that the town could not “justify the flow control ordinance as a way to steer solid waste away from out-of-town disposal sites that it might deem harmful to the environment. To do so would extend the town’s police power beyond its jurisdictional bounds. States and localities may not attach restrictions to exports or imports in order to control commerce in other states.” The Court also found that the town’s goal of “revenue generation is not a local interest that can justify discrimination against interstate commerce. Otherwise States could impose discriminatory taxes against solid waste originating outside the State.” Moreover, the town had other means to raise revenue, such as subsidizing the facility through general taxes or municipal bonds.

The Court did not deal with indeed, did not notice the fact that the local law conferred a governmentally granted monopoly an exclusive franchise, indistinguishable from a host of local monopolies at the state and local level. Balancing has been used in other than transportation-industry cases. Indeed, the modern restatement of the standard was in such a case. There, the state required cantaloupes grown in the state to be packed there, rather than in an adjacent state, so that in-state packers’ names would be associated with a superior product. Promotion of a local industry was legitimate, the Court, said, but it did not justify the substantial expense the company would have to incur to comply. State efforts to protect local markets, concerns, or consumers against outside companies have largely been unsuccessful. Thus, a state law that prohibited ownership of local investment-advisory businesses by out-of-state banks, bank holding companies, and trust companies was invalidated. The Court plainly thought the statute was protectionist, but instead of voiding it for that reason it held that the legitimate interests the state might have did not justify the burdens placed on out-of-state companies and that the state could pursue the accomplishment of legitimate ends through some intermediate form of regulation. The Court emphasized that the state was regulating only its own corporations, which it was empowered to do, and no matter how many other states adopted such laws there would be no conflict. The burdens on interstate commerce and the Court was not that clear that the effects of the law were burdensome in the appropriate context, were justified by the state’s interests in regulating its corporations and resident shareholders. In other areas, although the Court repeats balancing language, it has not applied it with any appreciable bite, but in most respects the state regulations involved are at most problematic in the context of the concerns of the Commerce Clause.

Taxing and Spending Clause

The Taxing and Spending Clause (which contains provisions known as the General Welfare Clause) and the Uniformity Clause, Article I, Section 8, Clause 1 of the United States Constitution, grants the federal government of the United States its power of taxation. While authorizing Congress to levy taxes, this clause permits the levying of taxes for two purposes only: to pay the debts of the United States, and to provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States. Taken together, these purposes have traditionally been held to imply and to constitute the federal government’s taxing and spending power.

Constitutional Text

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the Utah; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the States; One of the most often claimed defects of the Articles of Confederation was its lack of a grant to the central government of the power to lay and collect taxes. Under the Articles, Congress was forced to rely on requisitions upon the governments of its member states. Without the power to independently raise its own revenues, the Articles left Congress vulnerable to the discretion of the several State governments each State made its own decision as to whether it would pay the requisition or not. Some states were not giving Congress the funds for which it asked by either paying only in part, or by altogether ignoring the request from Congress. Without the revenue to enforce its laws and treaties, or pay its debts, and without an enforcement mechanism to compel the States to pay, the Confederation was practically rendered impotent and was in danger of falling apart. The Congress recognized this limitation and proposed amendments to the Articles in an effort to supersede it.

Powers Granted

The power to tax is a concurrent power of the federal government and the individual states. The taxation power has been perceived over time to be very broad, but has also, on occasion, been curtailed by the courts. Utah law stated that the clause also granted “a substantive power… to appropriate”, not subject to the limitations imposed by the other enumerated powers of Congress.

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises. This power is considered by many to be essential to the effective administration of government. As argued under the Articles, the lack of a power to tax renders government impotent. Typically, the power is used to raise revenues for the general support of government. But, Congress has employed the taxing power in uses other than solely for the raising of revenue, such as: • regulatory taxation – taxing to regulate commerce; • prohibitive taxation – taxing to discourage, suppress, or even exterminate commerce; • obligation taxation – encouraging participation in commerce via taxation on those not participating in interstate commerce; e.g. the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, “Chief Justice Roberts concluded in Part III–B that the individual mandate must be construed as imposing a tax on those who do not have health insurance”; • tariffs – taxing as a means of protectionism.

Implicit power to spend

With the power to tax implicitly comes the power to spend the revenues raised thereby in order to meet the objectives and goals of the government. However, interpretations recognizing an implicit power to spend arising specifically from this clause have been questioned, with the Necessary and Proper Clause being suggested as the actual source of Congress’s spending power. The Supreme Court has also found that, in addition to the power to use taxes to punish disfavored conduct, Congress can also use its power to spend to encourage favored conduct.

Limitations on taxing power

Several Constitutional provisions address the taxation and spending authority of Congress. These include both requirements for the apportionment of direct taxes and the uniformity of indirect taxes, the origination of revenue bills within the House of Representatives, the disallowed of taxes on exports, the General Welfare requirement, the limitation on the release of funds from the treasury except as provided by law, and the apportionment exemption of the Sixteenth Amendment. Additionally, Congress and the legislatures of the various states are prohibited from conditioning the right to vote in federal elections on payment of a poll tax or other types of tax by the Twenty-fourth Amendment.

Origination Clause

The Constitution provides in the Origination Clause that all bills for raising revenue must originate in the House of Representatives. The idea underlying the clause is that Representatives, being the most numerous branch of Congress, and most closely associated with the people, know best the economic conditions of the people they represent, and how to generate revenues for the support of government in the least burdensome manner. Additionally, Representatives are regarded the most accountable to the people, and thus are least likely to exercise the taxing power abusively or injudiciously.

Taxing Lawyer

When you need legal help with Taxing and The Commerce Clause, please call Ascent Law LLC for your free consultation (801) 676-5506. We want to help you.

Ascent Law LLC 8833 S. Redwood Road, Suite C West Jordan, Utah 84088 United States Telephone: (801) 676-5506

Ascent Law LLC

4.9 stars – based on 67 reviews

Recent Posts

Title 2 Firearms

Finding A Home

FINRA Lawyer

Utah Code 30-3-35

Foreclosure Lawyer Grantsville Utah

Troubled Real Estate Loans

{ "@context": "http://schema.org/", "@type": "Product", "name": "ascentlawfirm", "description": "Ascent <a href="https://www.ascentlawfirm.com/divorce-law-and-children-of-wealthy-parents/" >Law helps you in divorce, bankruptcy, probate, business or criminal cases in Utah, call 801-676-5506 for a free consultation today. We want to help you. ", "brand": { "@type": "Thing", "name": "ascentlawfirm" }, "aggregateRating": { "@type": "AggregateRating", "ratingValue": "4.9", "ratingCount": "118" }, "offers": { "@type": "Offer", "priceCurrency": "USD" } }

Ascent Law St. George Utah Office

Ascent Law Ogden Utah Office

The post Taxing And The Commerce Clause first appeared on Michael Anderson.

from Michael Anderson https://www.ascentlawfirm.com/taxing-and-the-commerce-clause/ from Divorce Lawyer Nelson Farms Utah https://divorcelawyernelsonfarmsutah.tumblr.com/post/632461445119016960

[divorcelawyergunnisonutah]

Taxing And The Commerce Clause

Members of the Constitutional Convention were divided about how powerful the new central government should be. To avoid the rise of tyrannical government, the Constitution carefully grants certain powers to Congress, reserving all other powers to the states. These powers are listed in Article I, Section 8. The list begins with monetary matters, an issue of great concern at the time because the prior government was bankrupt and states regulated their own money supply. The Congress therefore has the power to borrow money, lay and collect taxes, regulate commerce (the Commerce Clause), establish a uniform law on bankruptcy and naturalization, make money (currency) and establish its value, punish the counterfeiting of Utah money, and establish a uniform system of weights and measures. The list then moves on to inspirational ideals for the young new country to strive toward. Congress has the power to establish post offices and post roads and to protect intellectual property in copyrights and patents. Next, the list turns to Congress’s adjudicative powers: to create lower courts under the Supreme Court created in Article III and to define crimes committed on the “high seas” and against the “law of nations.” Congress is also given fiscal responsibility over the armed forces and navy (note there is, of course, no mention of an air force) and the power to provide oversight to the militia. Then, to help Congress with carrying out these powers, Article I, Section 8 provides that the states may cede to Congress a district, not to exceed ten square miles, that will become the seat of government, and to exercise exclusive legislative authority over this district.

The scope of power granted under Article I, Section 8 is the subject of much debate among legal scholars. The clause granting Congress the power to regulate commerce is particularly troublesome. There is very little debate about the power of Congress to regulate foreign trade. This power is explicit, total, and exclusive. A state law that discriminates against out-of-state commerce, or places an undue burden on interstate commerce, would violate the dormant commerce clause. For example, if a state required out-of-state corporations to pay a higher tax or fee than an in-state corporation, that would be unconstitutional. A state that required health and safety inspections of out-of-state, but not in-state, produce or goods would be unconstitutional. Federal courts have repeatedly held that state attempts to regulate Internet content (typically to prevent pornography) are unduly burdensome on interstate commerce and therefore unconstitutional.

Note, however, that this prohibition against out-of-state discrimination does not prevent a state from exercising its police power to protect state citizens, as long as the power is exercised evenly and equally. If a state wanted to weigh trucks on highways to ensure they did not exceed maximum weight rules, for example, that action would be permissible even if the trucks came from out of state, as long as the requirement applied equally to all trucks on that state’s highways. In addition to the power to regulate commerce, the Constitution places two critical powers with Congress: the taxing power and the power to spend the taxes it collects. The taxing power is a broad one, and the Supreme Court has not overturned a tax passed by Congress in nearly a century. As long as the tax bears some reasonable relationship to generating revenue, the tax is valid. States are also permitted to tax, but only if the activity taxed has a nexus to the state.

Taxation

During the 1940s and 1950s, there was conflict within the Court between the view that interstate commerce could not be taxed at all, at least directly, and the view that the negative commerce clause protected against the risk of double taxation. In North western States Portland Cement Co. v. Minnesota, the Court reasserted the principle expressed earlier in Western Live Stock, that the Farmers did not intend to immunize interstate commerce from its just share of the state tax burden even though it increased the cost of doing business. North western States held that a state could constitutionally impose a non discriminatory, fairly apportioned net income tax on an out-of-state corporation engaged exclusively in interstate commerce in the taxing state. “For the first time outside the context of property taxation, the Court explicitly recognized that an exclusively interstate business could be subjected to the states’ taxing powers.” Thus, in North western States, foreign corporations that maintained a sales office and employed sales staff in the taxing state for solicitation of orders for their merchandise that, upon acceptance of the orders at their home office in another jurisdiction, were shipped to customers in the taxing state, were held liable to pay the latter’s income tax on that portion of the net income of their interstate business as was attributable to such solicitation.

The Commerce Clause and the Due Process Clause impose distinct but parallel limitations on a State’s power to tax out-of-state activities. The Due Process Clause demands that there exist some definite link, some minimum connection, between a state and the person, property or transaction it seeks to tax, as well as a rational relationship between the tax and the values connected with the taxing State. The Commerce Clause forbids the States to levy taxes that discriminate against interstate commerce or that burden it by subjecting activities to multiple or unfairly apportioned taxation.” “The broad inquiry subsumed in both constitutional requirements is whether the taxing power exerted by the state bears fiscal relation to protection, opportunities and benefits given by the state that is, whether the state has given anything for which it can ask return.”. This requirement is of long standing, but its importance has broadened as the scope of the states’ taxing powers has enlarged. It is concerned with what formulas the states must use to claim a share of a multistate business’ tax base for the taxing state, when the business carries on a single integrated enterprise both within and without the state. A state may not exact from interstate commerce more than the state’s fair share. Avoidance of multiple taxation, or the risk of multiple taxation, is the test of an apportionment formula. Generally speaking, this factor has been seen as both a Commerce Clause and a due process requisite, although, as one recent Court decision notes, some tax measures that are permissible under the Due Process Clause nonetheless could run afoul of the Commerce Clause.1076 The Court has declined to impose any particular formula on the states.

Regulation

The modern standard of Commerce Clause re- view of state regulation of, or having an impact on, interstate commerce was adopted in Southern Pacific Co. v. Arizona, although it was presaged in a series of opinions, mostly dissents, by Chief Justice Stone. Southern Pacific tested the validity of a state train-length law, justified as a safety measure. Revising a hundred years of doctrine, the Chief Justice wrote that whether a state or local regulation was valid depended upon a “reconciliation of the conflicting claims of state and national power [that] is to be attained only by some appraisal and accommodation of the competing demands of the state and national interests involved.” Save in those few cases in which Congress has acted, “this Court, and not the state legislature, is under the commerce clause the final arbiter of the competing demands of state and national interests.” That the test to be applied was a balancing one, the Chief Justice made clear at length, stating that, in order to determine whether the challenged regulation was permissible, “matters for ultimate determination are the nature and extent of the burden which the state regulation of interstate trains, adopted as a safety measure, imposes on interstate commerce, and whether the relative weights of the state and national interests involved are such as to make inapplicable the rule, generally observed, that the free flow of interstate commerce and its freedom from local restraints in matters requiring uniformity of regulation are interests safeguarded by the commerce clause from state interference.” States may certainly promote local economic interests and favour local consumers, but they may not do so by adversely regulating out-of-state producers or consumers. The Court saw the ordinance as a form of economic protectionism, in that it “hoards[ed] solid waste, and the demand to get rid of it, for the benefit of the preferred processing facility The Court found that the town could not “justify the flow control ordinance as a way to steer solid waste away from out-of-town disposal sites that it might deem harmful to the environment. To do so would extend the town’s police power beyond its jurisdictional bounds. States and localities may not attach restrictions to exports or imports in order to control commerce in other states.” The Court also found that the town’s goal of “revenue generation is not a local interest that can justify discrimination against interstate commerce. Otherwise States could impose discriminatory taxes against solid waste originating outside the State.” Moreover, the town had other means to raise revenue, such as subsidizing the facility through general taxes or municipal bonds.

The Court did not deal with indeed, did not notice the fact that the local law conferred a governmentally granted monopoly an exclusive franchise, indistinguishable from a host of local monopolies at the state and local level. Balancing has been used in other than transportation-industry cases. Indeed, the modern restatement of the standard was in such a case. There, the state required cantaloupes grown in the state to be packed there, rather than in an adjacent state, so that in-state packers’ names would be associated with a superior product. Promotion of a local industry was legitimate, the Court, said, but it did not justify the substantial expense the company would have to incur to comply. State efforts to protect local markets, concerns, or consumers against outside companies have largely been unsuccessful. Thus, a state law that prohibited ownership of local investment-advisory businesses by out-of-state banks, bank holding companies, and trust companies was invalidated. The Court plainly thought the statute was protectionist, but instead of voiding it for that reason it held that the legitimate interests the state might have did not justify the burdens placed on out-of-state companies and that the state could pursue the accomplishment of legitimate ends through some intermediate form of regulation. The Court emphasized that the state was regulating only its own corporations, which it was empowered to do, and no matter how many other states adopted such laws there would be no conflict. The burdens on interstate commerce and the Court was not that clear that the effects of the law were burdensome in the appropriate context, were justified by the state’s interests in regulating its corporations and resident shareholders. In other areas, although the Court repeats balancing language, it has not applied it with any appreciable bite, but in most respects the state regulations involved are at most problematic in the context of the concerns of the Commerce Clause.

Taxing and Spending Clause

The Taxing and Spending Clause (which contains provisions known as the General Welfare Clause) and the Uniformity Clause, Article I, Section 8, Clause 1 of the United States Constitution, grants the federal government of the United States its power of taxation. While authorizing Congress to levy taxes, this clause permits the levying of taxes for two purposes only: to pay the debts of the United States, and to provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States. Taken together, these purposes have traditionally been held to imply and to constitute the federal government’s taxing and spending power.

Constitutional Text

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the Utah; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the States; One of the most often claimed defects of the Articles of Confederation was its lack of a grant to the central government of the power to lay and collect taxes. Under the Articles, Congress was forced to rely on requisitions upon the governments of its member states. Without the power to independently raise its own revenues, the Articles left Congress vulnerable to the discretion of the several State governments each State made its own decision as to whether it would pay the requisition or not. Some states were not giving Congress the funds for which it asked by either paying only in part, or by altogether ignoring the request from Congress. Without the revenue to enforce its laws and treaties, or pay its debts, and without an enforcement mechanism to compel the States to pay, the Confederation was practically rendered impotent and was in danger of falling apart. The Congress recognized this limitation and proposed amendments to the Articles in an effort to supersede it.

Powers Granted

The power to tax is a concurrent power of the federal government and the individual states. The taxation power has been perceived over time to be very broad, but has also, on occasion, been curtailed by the courts. Utah law stated that the clause also granted “a substantive power… to appropriate”, not subject to the limitations imposed by the other enumerated powers of Congress.

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises. This power is considered by many to be essential to the effective administration of government. As argued under the Articles, the lack of a power to tax renders government impotent. Typically, the power is used to raise revenues for the general support of government. But, Congress has employed the taxing power in uses other than solely for the raising of revenue, such as: • regulatory taxation – taxing to regulate commerce; • prohibitive taxation – taxing to discourage, suppress, or even exterminate commerce; • obligation taxation – encouraging participation in commerce via taxation on those not participating in interstate commerce; e.g. the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, “Chief Justice Roberts concluded in Part III–B that the individual mandate must be construed as imposing a tax on those who do not have health insurance”; • tariffs – taxing as a means of protectionism.

Implicit power to spend

With the power to tax implicitly comes the power to spend the revenues raised thereby in order to meet the objectives and goals of the government. However, interpretations recognizing an implicit power to spend arising specifically from this clause have been questioned, with the Necessary and Proper Clause being suggested as the actual source of Congress’s spending power. The Supreme Court has also found that, in addition to the power to use taxes to punish disfavored conduct, Congress can also use its power to spend to encourage favored conduct.

Limitations on taxing power

Several Constitutional provisions address the taxation and spending authority of Congress. These include both requirements for the apportionment of direct taxes and the uniformity of indirect taxes, the origination of revenue bills within the House of Representatives, the disallowed of taxes on exports, the General Welfare requirement, the limitation on the release of funds from the treasury except as provided by law, and the apportionment exemption of the Sixteenth Amendment. Additionally, Congress and the legislatures of the various states are prohibited from conditioning the right to vote in federal elections on payment of a poll tax or other types of tax by the Twenty-fourth Amendment.

Origination Clause

The Constitution provides in the Origination Clause that all bills for raising revenue must originate in the House of Representatives. The idea underlying the clause is that Representatives, being the most numerous branch of Congress, and most closely associated with the people, know best the economic conditions of the people they represent, and how to generate revenues for the support of government in the least burdensome manner. Additionally, Representatives are regarded the most accountable to the people, and thus are least likely to exercise the taxing power abusively or injudiciously.

Taxing Lawyer

When you need legal help with Taxing and The Commerce Clause, please call Ascent Law LLC for your free consultation (801) 676-5506. We want to help you.

Ascent Law LLC 8833 S. Redwood Road, Suite C West Jordan, Utah 84088 United States Telephone: (801) 676-5506

Ascent Law LLC

4.9 stars – based on 67 reviews

Recent Posts

Title 2 Firearms

Finding A Home

FINRA Lawyer

Utah Code 30-3-35

Foreclosure Lawyer Grantsville Utah

Troubled Real Estate Loans

{ "@context": "http://schema.org/", "@type": "Product", "name": "ascentlawfirm", "description": "Ascent <a href="https://www.ascentlawfirm.com/divorce-law-and-children-of-wealthy-parents/" >Law helps you in divorce, bankruptcy, probate, business or criminal cases in Utah, call 801-676-5506 for a free consultation today. We want to help you. ", "brand": { "@type": "Thing", "name": "ascentlawfirm" }, "aggregateRating": { "@type": "AggregateRating", "ratingValue": "4.9", "ratingCount": "118" }, "offers": { "@type": "Offer", "priceCurrency": "USD" } }

Ascent Law St. George Utah Office

Ascent Law Ogden Utah Office

The post Taxing And The Commerce Clause first appeared on Michael Anderson.

from Michael Anderson https://www.ascentlawfirm.com/taxing-and-the-commerce-clause/

[ericfruits]

Judge Reprimanded For DUI

Dan Trevas has a summary of a discipline matter on the web page of the Ohio Supreme Court

The Ohio Supreme Court today publicly reprimanded a Franklin County judge whose blood alcohol level was more than twice the legal limit when she was arrested for drunken driving.

In a unanimous per curiam opinion, the Supreme Court reprimanded Judge Monica E. Hawkins, whose arrest came shortly after taking office as a newly elected member of the domestic relations and juvenile branch of the Franklin County Common Pleas Court. The Supreme Court found Judge Hawkins violated the rules requiring judges to comply with the law and act at all times in a manner that promotes public confidence in the judiciary.

Judge Gets Lost Going Home Judge Hawkins won election to the bench in 2018 and assumed the role in early 2019. On Jan. 31, 2019, a Pickerington police officer responded to a 911 call around 8:30 p.m. alerting them to a suspected intoxicated driver. When stopped by the officer, Judge Hawkins told her she had gotten lost while driving home.

The officer smelled alcohol emanating from the vehicle and asked Judge Hawkins if she had been drinking. She replied, “No.” When the officer stated she smelled alcohol, Judge Hawkins replied, “No, I’m a judge and I was trying to get home but I just got lost.”

The officer noted a large knot on the judge’s forehead, which appeared to be bleeding. She asked the judge about the head injury, and she denied having an injury. When asked for her identification and proof of insurance, Judge Hawkins produced a driver’s  license and a health-insurance card. The officer observed vomit on her coat and a large amount of vomit on the driver’s side floor of the vehicle.

A police sergeant arrived on the scene and approached the vehicle. Judge Hawkins handed her cell phone to the sergeant. Judge Hawkins’ bailiff was on the phone and was inquiring about the location of the incident so she could go to the scene.

Judge Hawkins was removed from her vehicle and failed several field sobriety tests. She was arrested for operating a vehicle while under the influence (OVI).

Judge Resists Intoxication Tests At the police station, Judge Hawkins refused to provide a breath sample, and the arresting officer informed her she would seek a warrant to draw blood. The judge was transported to a hospital to obtain a blood sample, but refused to submit to a blood draw. She was informed by police that they obtained a warrant and she could not refuse. Eventually, four hospital security officers held her down until blood was drawn.

She was then charged with OVI and a marked-lanes violation. A report would later confirm her blood alcohol level was 0.199, more than twice the legal limit of .08 percent.

In Fairfield Municipal Court, Judge Hawkins pleaded guilty to OVI, and the remaining charges were dismissed . She was sentenced to 90 days in jail, with 87 days suspended, and the opportunity to complete a 72-hour driver-intervention program in lieu of the three days in jail. She also paid a $375 fine, had her driver’s license suspended for one year, and was placed on one year of probation.

Conviction Leads to Rule Violation Based on the conviction , the Office of Disciplinary Counsel filed a complaint in August 2019 with the Board of Professional Conduct alleging Judge Hawkins violated two rules governing the conduct of Ohio judges.

The disciplinary counsel and Judge Hawkins suggested a public reprimand, and the board recommended that sanction to the Supreme Court.

“Operating a vehicle while intoxicated imperils public safety and public confidence in the integrity of the judiciary,” the Court’s opinion stated.

The opinion noted other jurists have been reprimanded for driving under the influence, and judges have been reprimanded when, like Judge Hawkins, they invoked their status as a judge during their OVI arrests.

Along with the reprimand, Judge Hawkins was ordered to pay the costs of the disciplinary proceedings.

2020-0468. Disciplinary Counsel v. Hawkins, Slip Opinion No. 2020-Ohio-4023.

(Mike Frisch)

https://ift.tt/3iyoLjr

https://ift.tt/3iyoLjr

[realcleargoodtimes]

JUSTICE IN AMERICA FOR BLACK AND OTHERS, REALY? HERE’’S  THE CASES SHOWING  IT’S NOT TRUE! 

ge Les Hayes once sentenced a single mother to 496 days behind bars for failing to pay traffic tickets. The sentence was so stiff it exceeded the jail time Alabama allows for negligent homicide.

Marquita Johnson, who was locked up in April 2012, says the impact of her time in jail endures today. Johnson’s three children were cast into foster care while she was incarcerated. One daughter was molested, state records show. Another was physically abused.

“Judge Hayes took away my life and didn’t care how my children suffered,” said Johnson, now 36. “My girls will never be the same.”

Fellow inmates found her sentence hard to believe. “They had a nickname for me: The Woman with All the Days,” Johnson said. “That’s what they called me: The Woman with All the Days. There were people who had committed real crimes who got out before me.”

In 2016, the state agency that oversees judges charged Hayes with violating Alabama’s code of judicial conduct. According to the Judicial Inquiry Commission, Hayes broke state and federal laws by jailing Johnson and hundreds of other Montgomery residents too poor to pay fines. Among those jailed: a plumber struggling to make rent, a mother who skipped meals to cover the medical bills of her disabled son, and a hotel housekeeper working her way through college.

Hayes, a judge since 2000, admitted in court documents to violating 10 different parts of the state’s judicial conduct code. One of the counts was a breach of a judge’s most essential duty: failing to “respect and comply with the law.”

Despite the severity of the ruling, Hayes wasn’t barred from serving as a judge. Instead, the judicial commission and Hayes reached a deal. The former Eagle Scout would serve an 11-month unpaid suspension. Then he could return to the bench.

Until he was disciplined, Hayes said in an interview with Reuters, “I never thought I was doing something wrong.”

This week, Hayes is set to retire after 20 years as a judge. In a statement to Reuters, Hayes said he was “very remorseful” for his misdeeds.

Community activists say his departure is long overdue. Yet the decision to leave, they say, should never have been his to make, given his record of misconduct.

“He should have been fired years ago,” said Willie Knight, pastor of North Montgomery Baptist Church. “He broke the law and wanted to get away with it. His sudden retirement is years too late.”

Hayes is among thousands of state and local judges across America who were allowed to keep positions of extraordinary power and prestige after violating judicial ethics rules or breaking laws they pledged to uphold, a Reuters investigation found.

Judges have made racist statements, lied to state officials and forced defendants to languish in jail without a lawyer – and then returned to the bench, sometimes with little more than a rebuke from the state agencies overseeing their conduct.

Recent media reports have documented failures in judicial oversight in South Carolina, Louisiana and Illinois. Reuters went further.

In the first comprehensive accounting of judicial misconduct nationally, Reuters reviewed 1,509 cases from the last dozen years – 2008 through 2019 – in which judges resigned, retired or were publicly disciplined following accusations of misconduct. In addition, reporters identified another 3,613 cases from 2008 through 2018 in which states disciplined wayward judges but kept hidden from the public key details of their offenses – including the identities of the judges themselves.

All told, 9 of every 10 judges were allowed to return to the bench after they were sanctioned for misconduct, Reuters determined. They included a California judge who had sex in his courthouse chambers, once with his former law intern and separately with an attorney; a New York judge who berated domestic violence victims; and a Maryland judge who, after his arrest for driving drunk, was allowed to return to the bench provided he took a Breathalyzer test before each appearance.

The news agency’s findings reveal an “excessively” forgiving judicial disciplinary system, said Stephen Gillers, a law professor at New York University who writes about judicial ethics. Although punishment short of removal from the bench is appropriate for most misconduct cases, Gillers said, the public “would be appalled at some of the lenient treatment judges get” for substantial transgressions.

Among the cases from the past year alone:

In Utah, a judge texted a video of a man’s scrotum to court clerks. He was reprimanded but remains on the bench.

In Indiana, three judges attending a conference last spring got drunk and sparked a 3 a.m. brawl outside a White Castle fast-food restaurant that ended with two of the judges shot. Although the state supreme court found the three judges had “discredited the entire Indiana judiciary,” each returned to the bench after a suspension.

In Texas, a judge burst in on jurors deliberating the case of a woman charged with sex trafficking and declared that God told him the defendant was innocent. The offending judge received a warning and returned to the bench. The defendant was convicted after a new judge took over the case.

“There are certain things where there should be a level of zero tolerance,” the jury foreman, Mark House, told Reuters. The judge should have been fined, House said, and kicked off the bench. “There is no justice, because he is still doing his job.”

Judicial misconduct specialists say such behavior has the potential to erode trust in America’s courts and, absent tough consequences, could give judges license to behave with impunity.

“When you see cases like that, the public starts to wonder about the integrity and honesty of the system,” said Steve Scheckman, a lawyer who directed Louisiana’s oversight agency and served as deputy director of New York’s. “It looks like a good ol’ boys club.”

That’s how local lawyers viewed the case of a longtime Alabama judge who concurrently served on the state’s judicial oversight commission. The judge, Cullman District Court’s Kim Chaney, remained on the bench for three years after being accused of violating the same nepotism rules he was tasked with enforcing on the oversight commission. In at least 200 cases, court records show, Judge Chaney chose his own son to serve as a court-appointed defense lawyer for the indigent, enabling the younger Chaney to earn at least $105,000 in fees over two years.

In February, months after Reuters repeatedly asked Chaney and the state judicial commission about those cases, he retired from the bench as part of a deal with state authorities to end the investigation.

Tommy Drake, the lawyer who first filed a complaint against Chaney in 2016, said he doubts the judge would have been forced from the bench if Reuters hadn’t examined the case.

“You know the only reason they did anything about Chaney is because you guys started asking questions,” Drake said. “Otherwise, he’d still be there.”

BEDROCK OF AMERICAN JUSTICE

State and local judges draw little scrutiny even though their courtrooms are the bedrock of the American criminal justice system, touching the lives of millions of people every year.

The country’s approximately 1,700 federal judges hear 400,000 cases annually. The nearly 30,000 state, county and municipal court judges handle a far bigger docket: more than 100 million new cases each year, from traffic to divorce to murder. Their titles range from justice of the peace to state supreme court justice. Their

[newstfionline]

One Mexican town revolts against violence and corruption. Six years in, its experiment is working

By Patrick J. McDonnell, Los Angeles Times, July 11, 2017

Checkpoints staffed by men with assault rifles, camouflage and body armor greet visitors at the three major entrances to this town.

The guards are not soldiers, police officers, drug enforcers or vigilantes. They are members of homegrown patrols that have helped keep Cheran a bastion of tranquillity within one of Mexico’s most violent regions.

The town of 20,000 sits in the northwest corner of Michoacan, a state where authorities say at least 599 people were killed between January and May, an increase of almost 40% compared with the same period last year. Cheran hasn’t had a slaying or other serious crime since early 2011.

That was the year that residents, most of them indigenous and poor, waged an insurrection and declared self-rule in hopes of ridding themselves of the ills that plague so much of Mexico: raging violence, corrupt politicians, a toothless justice system and gangs that have expanded from drug smuggling to extortion, kidnapping and illegal logging.

Six years in, against all odds, Cheran’s experiment appears to be working.

“We couldn’t trust the authorities or police any more,” said Josefina Estrada, a petite grandmother who is among the women who spearheaded the revolt. “We didn’t feel that they protected us or helped us. We saw them as accomplices with the criminals.”

Indeed, the criminal syndicates that have long dominated Michoacan are part of the reason, along with rampant poverty, that Cheran and other rural areas in the state have sent so many immigrants to the United States.

Cheran’s scourge were the talamontes, illegal loggers who worked at the behest of larger mafias and raided the communal forests that are vital to its economy and culture.

The timber thieves would parade through town on hulking trucks, ferrying illegal loads of pine, brandishing weapons and threatening anyone resisting.

Rafael Garcia Avila resisted. He belonged to a town committee that monitored forest use and had taken a stand against illegal logging. He and a colleague were kidnapped by gunmen on Feb. 11, 2011, and never seen again, joining the multitudes of “disappeared” who have vanished during Mexico’s war on drugs.

“My husband loved the forests, the woods, the natural world,” recalled his widow, Maria Juarez Gonzalez, tears welling in her eyes.

The disappearances--along with other killings, assaults, threats, and the plunder of the town’s ancestral forests--became unbearable in a community whose residents retain their identity as Purepecha Indians, one of the few indigenous groups in the area that did not succumb to the Aztec empire.

“The talamontes would drive by in their trucks, laughing at us,” recalled Estrada, a mother of eight--six of them living in the United States--who sells health shakes from a small storefront. “It wasn’t safe to be out at night. It wasn’t safe to be in the forest…. Sometimes I went home and cried and cried.”

Finally, she called some other women and decided to strike back.

On April 15, 2011, before dawn, the people of Cheran sounded the bells at the Roman Catholic Chapel of the Calvary and set off homemade fireworks to summon help. Few had firearms, so they brought picks, shovels and rocks.

Then they struck, seizing the first timber truck of the day, dragging its two crew members from the cab and taking them hostage. Lacking rope, they tied up their prisoners with rebozos, or shawls.

As more people responded, an initial crowd of about 30 swelled to more than 200.

Residents dug ditches and placed timber barricades to block entry to the town. As the sun went down, the people of Cheran set tires ablaze and lit campfires to ensure no one would pass.

Eventually, they took five loggers hostage and torched seven of their trucks.

The gangs retreated and hostages were returned.

But the revolt lived on. Known simply as the “uprising,” it entered the lore of violence-plagued Michoacan state, where gangster exploits in recent years include rolling five human heads onto a dance floor.

The townspeople grasped an essential fact: The talamontes were part of a larger criminal network that controlled drug trafficking and worked hand-in-hand with politicians and police.

“To defend ourselves, we had to change the whole system--out with the political parties, out with City Hall, out with the police and everything,” said Pedro Chavez, a teacher and community leader. “We had to organize our own way of living to survive.”

They decided to target the nexus between crime and politics that has haunted Mexico and do away with the police, the mayor, the political parties.

The town recruited outside legal expertise to exploit provisions of Mexican law that allow communities with indigenous majorities to set up a form of self-government, incorporating traditional “uses and customs” into their rule.

The political parties and their patrons resisted the radical transformation. The case eventually made its way to Mexico’s Supreme Court.

Finally, in 2014 Cheran’s provisional system of self-government was declared legal. The town remains part of Mexico but runs its own show.

On the surface, Cheran seems no different from other places in rural Mexico.

Stands set up in the colonial-era central square hawk foodstuffs, cheap clothing and other items. Each afternoon, residents gather to enjoy an ice cream, sip a juice drink and share gossip and small talk, often about loved ones and neighbors now in the United States.

But something is missing: There is no sign of the political slogans and emblems that are ubiquitous in much of the country.

Electioneering is forbidden inside the town limits, as are political parties. Even motorists entering Cheran are obliged to remove or cover up party bumper stickers.

Residents can cast ballots in state and national elections, but they must do so at special booths set up in nearby towns.

Instead of the traditional mayor and city council, each of the town’s four barrios is governed by its own local assembly, whose members are chosen by consensus from 172 block committees known as fogatas--after the campfires that came to symbolize the 2011 rebellion.

Each assembly also sends three representatives--including at least one woman--to serve on a 12-member town council.

The town receives all the funds--the equivalent of about $2.6 million per year, officials say--that are its due from the state and federal governments. Salaries of 200 or so town employees max out at the equivalent of roughly $450 a month, leaving money to help fund the municipal water system and other services, including a trash recycling program that is a rarity in Mexico.

The armed guards at the town entrances are part of a locally selected police force of 120 or so, known as la ronda comunitaria. No one enters or leaves without inspection.

Cheran was ahead of the curve in the so-called auto defensa movement, which saw many Mexican towns, especially in crime-ridden Michoacan state, set up local militias starting in 2013 as a response to gang-related violence. But other local militias have often turned to the dark side, integrating into existing criminal rings or forming new ones, or have simply disbanded with time. In Cheran, the community police force has stuck and become an integral part of the town’s security.

Without any major crime in Cheran, local officials handle minor offenses such as theft, drunk-driving and disorderly conduct, typically imposing sentences of community service.

Specialized squads also patrol the forests.

“These forests are our essence, they were left to us by our forefathers for protection and nurturing,” said Francisco Huaroco, 41, a member of the forest patrol, as he and a team trekked past stumps that attest to former ransacking. “Without these woods, our community is not whole, is not itself.”

Swaths of bald earth slice through former woods, the scars of looting by the talamontes. Between 2008 and the revolt in April 2011, roughly half of Cheran’s 59,000 acres of forest was illegally felled, authorities said.

“If it had gone on much longer, we would have had nothing left of the forests,” said Roberto Sixtos Ceja.

Sixtos said he left Cheran as a teenager to work in North Carolina--a destination for many here--but returned in 2010 to help the community confront the escalating crisis.

Now 47, he helps manage a vast tree nursery where pine cones are grown into saplings, part of an effort to replenish the hillsides. The nursery holds more than 1 million young trees, of three indigenous pine varieties. The town only allows harvesting of diseased timber or logs downed by storms or other natural causes.

Cheran natives who live in the United States have been closely following events here.

“We never stop being members of this community, people of Cheran,” said Ramiro Romero Ramos, 61, who left almost four decades ago but now heads the Cheran Club of Los Angeles. He recently was visiting to inaugurate a new roof on a primary school playground--a project partially funded by L.A.-area residents from Cheran.

At the Cheran town hall, a multi-hued mural of Emiliano Zapata, the Mexican revolutionary icon, bears the inscription: “Cheran will neither surrender nor be sold!”

Other towns have endeavored to copy Cheran’s transformation, with limited success. The model has relatively little application elsewhere in Mexico, where the vast majority of the population is of mestizo, or mixed-race, origins. Self-rule laws for indigenous communities do not apply.

Not that Cheran doesn’t have its problems, including poverty, lack of opportunity, petty crime.

“But the problems of today don’t compare with what it was like before,” said Estrada, the rebellion organizer. “Now we can go out at night. Before the community felt a great fear: Everyone went inside at 9 o’clock at night and shut their doors.”

With slayings, kidnappings and extortion plaguing areas just outside of Cheran, all here are aware that it would take little for turmoil and conflict to reemerge. The governor of Michoacan has publicly threatened a court case to reverse the town’s system of self-government.

“We in Cheran remain vigilant,” said Juarez Gonzalez, who, six years after her husband’s disappearance, is now a fogata coordinator. “We all know the criminals are close by, and may try to return any time.”