Fanning the Flames...

The arguments surrounding gay marriage continue. Currently, the only state to permit the practice of same sex unions, at least in the legal sense, has taken up a vote to keep a law banning gay marriage and civil unions alive. While I take the libertarian approach to this issue and consider the arguments as largely an exercise in semantics, a new new science exhibit may smash the argument between nature and nurture wide open.

The idea that animals naturally gravitate toward homosexuality will more than shock those who consider the alternative lifestyle as a blight on God's creation. It implies that homosexuality is part of the grand design, or at least has a role. While this will fail to deter the most adamant of the religious right, if true it could lead to a change in education and how we see homosexuality on a macro-social level.

Quixotic

Does this fail to make sense to anyone else?

A Note on Capital Punishment

Saddam Hussien's execution brings new weight to the debate surrounding captial punishment. Ethically, the argument is that a ruling government shouldn't be able to kill when killing is otherwise against the law. Interestingly, the state of New Jersey is considering banning captial punishment. The operation of the legal system today makes it more expensive to execute someone than to put them in prison for life. Economcially, execution makes little sense. Similarlly, execution rates usually have to increases substantially in order to inhibit the crimes it punishes. The net result render execution as a poor form of punishment for those who would disobey the law, at least in the United States.

The Acidity of the Legal Profession...

I really hope I am not this jaded when I am long into the profession. Though, I hear this is what happens. After this last Christmas, I longed for work, if only because it got me out of a bad situation at home. At the very least, I was entertained by the sentiment, but realized it could be my head in the noose...if it pays well.

What Being a Republican Used to Be

The leader of the intellectual bloggers at Balkinization has an interesting post regarding how Ford was the model of Republicans used to be. Interesting read if you get the chance.

Resolutions...

I don't normally make new year's resolutions, but seeing as it has been a while since my last post, I feel it necessary to explain what has been going on in my life that has rendered the Grey Area void of its usual content. In the last three weeks, my life has upended itself into a model of disarray that has left me with little motivation to blog about current events, or any other topic relevant to the content of these 215 posts.

The romantic relationship in my life has ended, leaving me in what can only be said as an awkward living situation. As a result, work is not the only point of stress in my life. The result is a lack of motivation to post about anything.

I don't want to make resolutions since we all know that no one keeps their new year's resolutions. Instead, I offer myself a life goal, to which this blog will benefit. With the new year, I am hoping for a new direction in life, a better job, better health, a dedicated server for this website (or at the very least a new domain), meet some new people, and some new intellectually stimulating experiences. This is my goal for this year and years to come. Hopefully, those of you who read these words will bear with me during the times to come, and hopefully what the Grey Area will evolve to become in the future.

Back to Newty and the First Amendment...

I wrote a post a couple of weeks ago detailing former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich's argument that the government needs to curb free speech to protect Americans from the threat of terrorism. Apparently, he has a response to the sharp rebuke that followed his comments.

His response argues that free speech restrictions are necessary to protect the country that makes the First Amendment possible, and that people like the "ACLU left" is flat wrong on the issue. Before digging into other aspects of his retort, you have to consider the logic of this statement from the perspective of our society and the Constitution. We have an unfettered right to free speech. To limit that liberty means the end of free speech, and to some extent, the end of the society that created it. Mr. Gingrich would rather destroy protections and policies of this union to protect it. Logically, this means what he wishes to protect will no longer exist. What, then, is the point? It's not just the "leftists" or "liberals" who should have a problem with this kind of proposition, it is the true ideological conservatives like the libertarians. For someone to consider a libertarian liberally minded would show that the so-called conservatives have drifted so far to the right that they are beyond conservatism and become fascists. Neo-conservatives are not, by any interpretation, conservative. Liberals want to change the status quo while conservatives want to retain the status quo. Mr. Gingrich, and fellow neo-conservatives who share his beliefs, wish to push this country away from the rights protected by the Constitution, truly advocating liberalism.

As far as the rest of his comments are concerned...

"If you give me any signal in the age of terrorism that you're a terrorist, I'd say the burden of proof was on you"

One of the other great benefits of American citizenship is the right to trial by jury and the presumption of innocence. While I appreciate some of the policies he supports like energy independence and supporting scientific research, I am far from interested in sacrificing the protections of the Bill of Rights.

New York's War on Fat

By now, everyone has heard about New York's valiant attempt to abridge the fundamental freedom to gorge oneself on all manner of unhealthy comestible products leading inexorably to their death. Some think this is a healthy move, others see it as the act of a nanny state. In all likelihood, the audacity of New York state will infect the withering will of other states spreading a totalitarian movement of bad taste.

Luckily, the founding fathers wrote a provision in the Constitution to prevent this intrusion onto culinary liberty. Article I, section 8 contains a provision known as the Commerce Clause provides plenary power to the United States Congress to regulate commerce between the states. This aims to create uniformity among the member-states of the federal union and enforce notions of comity among the states by preventing one state from enacting a law concerning commerce that would effect another state. In Swift & Co. v. United States, the United States Supreme Court determined that state regulations on commerce may not directly or purposefully effect the operation of interstate commerce. The only way such a law may pass Constitutional muster is if the effect is minimal or accidental.

The dormant commerce clause may have lingering effects in this case as well. Generally speaking, the dormant commerce clause operates as a check against states to prevent them from creating laws that impermissibly favor local businesses over national businesses. The modern form of this area of the law analyzes the effect on business in other states. Under either analysis the trans fat ban violates the Constitution. The leading restaurant chains who employ trans fats are national fast food chains. This New York law, though beneficial in its intent, would alter the operation of these businesses all over the country either requiring special products just for New York, or changing the product they sell nationally. Through the lens of the dormant commerce clause, this law would also run afoul of the Constitution because it favors smaller in-state businesses who can easily adapt to the change required by the law. Regardless of how successful the law may be at keeping citizens' waists trim, the law may not survive constitutional scrutiny.

No Good Deed...

While I will continue to question the application of the word good in this instance, it seems like those responsible for the terrible acts perpetrated against Afghan and Iraqi civilians won't go unpunished, or at least without an attempt at punishment. The success of this lawsuit is similar to likelihood that Congress will impeach the President.

More Reasons to Hate the RIAA

By now most people have heard of the Recording Industry Association of America, or the RIAA. These are the guys that want to prevent music buyers from putting music from CDs on to their MP3 players. The infamous language of one executive quoted on this blog is that iPod owners are thieves. We can't forget their repeated malicious plan to sue their average American customers for downloading music. As if we needed more reasons to despise the RIAA, they have graciously provided two more. While they currently attempt to rob their customers, now they are trying to rob the musicians, too. In addition, in order to leave no stone unturned, the RIAA has used their tactic of filing frivolous lawsuits to target websites who post guitar sheet music on line. For the record, this is a great example of how big business can put itself out of existence by alienating their customers. Maybe those overpaid corporate execs will realise that cold hard economics will bury them when their customers vote with their wallets and go elsewhere.