Rejectionists Fail to Learn from History
Canadians Got it Correctly
My wife and I are visiting our middle daughter in Owen Sound, Ontario. It is a small waterfront community on the eastern shore of Lake Huron, nestled in Georgian Bay. We went to a local park where a memorial to the African-American slaves who fled the American South prior to the Civil War via the Underground Railroad and ended their journey in that community.
Many came north fleeing oppression and confinement through Wisconsin and crossed Lake Michigan and came into Canada. Others came north through New England and crossed Lake Erie into Ontario. Some estimates put the number of former slaves who crossed into Canada during those tumultuous times at between 15 to 20 thousand. They came to Canada because that country refused to extradite former slaves back to their former owners in the States when claims were made for their return.
The memorial in Harrison Park in Owen Sound recounts the contributions these earlier immigrants made to local life and economic growth. It showcases the coded signals families along the Underground Railroad sewed into quilts hung on fences or clotheslines that told travelers which way to proceed along their journey north. One symbol used a star pattern to remind travelers to follow the North Star to freedom. A sailboat pattern warned of a large body of water ahead that would need to be crossed. A flying geese pattern of triangles used north pointing wings to show the way. A crossroads pattern warned of potential dangers from people traveling in a different direction. Others warned of dangers or obstacles and some indicated safety.
The park later became a gathering place for the descendants of those early escapees to meet for annual reunions each August and celebrate their continuing freedom. The gathering date notes the passage of legislation granting permanent freedom to all former slaves throughout the British Commonwealth.
In Wisconsin, abolitionists created safe houses for escaped slaves traveling the Underground Railroad to rest along their journey north to freedom before the Civil War and President Lincoln’s signing of the Emancipation Proclamation permanently freeing all those held in slavery in our Southern states. Abolitionists were common in Waukesha, Milton and Burlington. Crowds gathered in Racine and other communities to demand the release of captured runaway slaves. They stood up to the bounty hunters sent from slave owning communities to bring owners’ “property” back home. Wisconsin sent the Iron Brigade to fight with the Union Army in the Civil War to put a final end to enslavement of fellow human beings. They mustered at Camp Randall in Madison before traveling south to free fellow human beings.
All this history has come full circle once more as we struggle to find solutions for those fleeing oppression and punishment in foreign lands. The United States is in conflict once more about what to do with brown skinned people who want to be free and see our country as their last best hope for a better, safer life than they have in their South and Central American homelands.
Many of us would welcome these new immigrants and encourage their integration into the American fabric. We know that successive waves of immigrants, including those with different colored skin or different languages and cultures, have successfully entered life in this country and made significant contributions to our economy and culture. There are others, stoked by fear and hatred of those with different skin tones or who speak different languages, who want to build walls to keep the “invading hoards” from taking our jobs and raping our women. Canada, in stark contrast, has let it be known that it will accept all those that we refuse to admit.
The new American rejectionists refuse to even consider the possibility that the new freedom seekers might just be able to help us out. They fail to recognize the contributions those from south of our borders already make to agriculture, the food processing industry, restaurants and nursing homes where they do much of the hands-on care of our elderly and infirm. The do not remember when we actually invited the Braceros to come north to work in the fields picking crops and following the migrant trail to work the fields from south to north when those already here refused the work.
It always amazes me when we fail to learn from our history and fail to see the opportunity in welcoming new workers and their families into our communities. We are better than our rejectionist past and those who share that belief need to stand and be counted at the ballot box when we choose the next round of representatives to speak for us in Madison and Washington.
Onward Together
Saturday, September 21, 2019
Saturday, September 7, 2019
Free Speech?
Is Speech Free on UW Campuses?
Crafting a solution in search of a problem
In November, 2016, Ben Shapiro, a conservative activist and author was scheduled to give a public speech on the University of Wisconsin-Madison campus. As he was starting his speech, several people in the audience disrupted his talk with chants of “Shame” and “Safety.” Shapiro responded by writing “MORONS” on the blackboard and gave the audience a double middle-finger salute. Students surrounded the stage for a short time and prevented Shapiro from speaking. The protesters were shown the door and Shapiro was able to finish his speech.
In 2017, the Wisconsin Assembly passed a bill aimed a punishing those who disrupt speeches on UW campuses subjecting them to harsh penalties, including expulsion for a third offense. The bill failed to pass in the state Senate after the UW Board of Regents passed temporary new rules that provided much of what the Assembly bill contained. The Regents are currently in the process of formally promulgating these rules to be part of the state’s Administrative Code which will need final approval by the legislature and the governor before they take final effect.
Notwithstanding this march towards curtailing speech on our state university campuses, four members of the current legislature have introduced a new bill more draconian than the first one. Republican Representatives Cody Horlacher, Robin Vos and Dave Murphy were joined by Senator Chris Kapenga in sponsoring the new bill. The new one goes further than the first by allowing recovery of attorney’s fees and damages if a violation is found.
In an accompanying memo, the sponsors declared, “Campuses across the country have erupted in protest, including violent riots, as the growing debate over who has the right to speak threatens our nation’s first amendment.” Their memo, aimed at finding legislative co-sponsors for the measure, continues claiming free speech violations have taken place on several UW campuses, including Madison, Oshkosh, Stout and Stevens Point. The memo offers no details of these alleged violations and none of the four sponsors provided any details when asked if there were any other events than the one involving Shapiro.
Mark Pitsch, a spokesman for the UW System, confirmed that there have been no free speech rights violations on any of the state’s 13 universities and 13 branch campuses since the Regents adopted the current rules in 2017.
It appears that our GOP controlled legislature is proposing solutions to a problem that does not exist.
Even if it was a problem, passage in our current divided government is far from certain. Governor Tony Evers sat on the UW Board of Regents as the State Superintendent of Public Instruction when the first rules were passed. He cast the sole dissenting vote on the new rule indicating it would chill free speech rights of those opposed to a speaker’s views. His current spokeswoman indicated that his position has not changed, signaling a probable veto of the bill and new Regent rules should either pass.
State Senator Chris Taylor (D-Madison) claims the new bill is being pushed by the Republicans knowing it will be vetoed in order to use it for political messaging. Taylor indicated they will claim Evers and Democrats are anti-free speech when, in fact, the new bill is anti-free speech.
The bills both appear to track model language suggested by the Goldwater Institute, an Arizona right-wing think tank funded by the Bradley, Walton and Koch foundations, among others. So far, 17 states have enacted a variant of the model campus free-speech legislation with bills pending in several others.
A key provision requires state campuses to “remain neutral …. on the public policy controversies of the day.” The clear intent of these bills is to take our universities out of the debates on current public policy issues. They are based upon the discredited notion that universities are inherently liberal and anti-conservative and skew instruction to match those views.
To the contrary, our universities are places where all can come to learn and develop their own world view based on history and accumulated knowledge. There is no better place to develop personal views about the policies and debates that form our society and culture. Universities can supply the instruction that links the past to current issues of public interest and concern.
You cannot understand racism without knowledge of our history of slavery and the post-civil war efforts to keep newly freed slaves in bondage. You cannot understand why oil and gas pipelines are being protested by Native American tribes as threats to their very existence without an understanding of the history of the attempts to obliterate Native people and their cultures. You cannot understand the current fascism of the right without knowing the history of European fascism and our involvement in two World Wars to end it. The birthplace of the modern environmental, civil rights and anti-war movements was on university campuses across the nation.
After learning these foundational histories, it is only proper that protests over the current iterations of these evil movements be not only allowed, but encouraged, on our campuses and in our communities. Punishing people who stand up against oppression is the wrong message.
Crafting a solution in search of a problem
In November, 2016, Ben Shapiro, a conservative activist and author was scheduled to give a public speech on the University of Wisconsin-Madison campus. As he was starting his speech, several people in the audience disrupted his talk with chants of “Shame” and “Safety.” Shapiro responded by writing “MORONS” on the blackboard and gave the audience a double middle-finger salute. Students surrounded the stage for a short time and prevented Shapiro from speaking. The protesters were shown the door and Shapiro was able to finish his speech.
In 2017, the Wisconsin Assembly passed a bill aimed a punishing those who disrupt speeches on UW campuses subjecting them to harsh penalties, including expulsion for a third offense. The bill failed to pass in the state Senate after the UW Board of Regents passed temporary new rules that provided much of what the Assembly bill contained. The Regents are currently in the process of formally promulgating these rules to be part of the state’s Administrative Code which will need final approval by the legislature and the governor before they take final effect.
Notwithstanding this march towards curtailing speech on our state university campuses, four members of the current legislature have introduced a new bill more draconian than the first one. Republican Representatives Cody Horlacher, Robin Vos and Dave Murphy were joined by Senator Chris Kapenga in sponsoring the new bill. The new one goes further than the first by allowing recovery of attorney’s fees and damages if a violation is found.
In an accompanying memo, the sponsors declared, “Campuses across the country have erupted in protest, including violent riots, as the growing debate over who has the right to speak threatens our nation’s first amendment.” Their memo, aimed at finding legislative co-sponsors for the measure, continues claiming free speech violations have taken place on several UW campuses, including Madison, Oshkosh, Stout and Stevens Point. The memo offers no details of these alleged violations and none of the four sponsors provided any details when asked if there were any other events than the one involving Shapiro.
Mark Pitsch, a spokesman for the UW System, confirmed that there have been no free speech rights violations on any of the state’s 13 universities and 13 branch campuses since the Regents adopted the current rules in 2017.
It appears that our GOP controlled legislature is proposing solutions to a problem that does not exist.
Even if it was a problem, passage in our current divided government is far from certain. Governor Tony Evers sat on the UW Board of Regents as the State Superintendent of Public Instruction when the first rules were passed. He cast the sole dissenting vote on the new rule indicating it would chill free speech rights of those opposed to a speaker’s views. His current spokeswoman indicated that his position has not changed, signaling a probable veto of the bill and new Regent rules should either pass.
State Senator Chris Taylor (D-Madison) claims the new bill is being pushed by the Republicans knowing it will be vetoed in order to use it for political messaging. Taylor indicated they will claim Evers and Democrats are anti-free speech when, in fact, the new bill is anti-free speech.
The bills both appear to track model language suggested by the Goldwater Institute, an Arizona right-wing think tank funded by the Bradley, Walton and Koch foundations, among others. So far, 17 states have enacted a variant of the model campus free-speech legislation with bills pending in several others.
A key provision requires state campuses to “remain neutral …. on the public policy controversies of the day.” The clear intent of these bills is to take our universities out of the debates on current public policy issues. They are based upon the discredited notion that universities are inherently liberal and anti-conservative and skew instruction to match those views.
To the contrary, our universities are places where all can come to learn and develop their own world view based on history and accumulated knowledge. There is no better place to develop personal views about the policies and debates that form our society and culture. Universities can supply the instruction that links the past to current issues of public interest and concern.
You cannot understand racism without knowledge of our history of slavery and the post-civil war efforts to keep newly freed slaves in bondage. You cannot understand why oil and gas pipelines are being protested by Native American tribes as threats to their very existence without an understanding of the history of the attempts to obliterate Native people and their cultures. You cannot understand the current fascism of the right without knowing the history of European fascism and our involvement in two World Wars to end it. The birthplace of the modern environmental, civil rights and anti-war movements was on university campuses across the nation.
After learning these foundational histories, it is only proper that protests over the current iterations of these evil movements be not only allowed, but encouraged, on our campuses and in our communities. Punishing people who stand up against oppression is the wrong message.
Saturday, August 24, 2019
Climate Change Action Now
Climate Change Action
The Time is Now
It is great to see Wisconsin acting to combat climate change and increase protection of our shared environment based upon sound science, not who puts dirty energy money into campaign coffers.
Governor Tony Evers recently signed an executive order setting a goal for our state to transition to 100% carbon free electricity by 2050. He established an Office of Sustainability and Clean Energy to oversee the effort. These actions set a tone for state action on the issue of climate change and promoting the use of clean energy. They deserve full legislative support and funding to put science back into the policy making agencies that support the effort.
These actions are important because Wisconsin’s climate is changing just like the rest of the world, fossil fuel funded climate change deniers notwithstanding. We’ve seen increasing temperatures year after year. NOAA just announced that this past July was the hottest ever recorded worldwide. The Great Lakes are getting warmer and causing heavier rainfalls and increased flooding. Storms and wild fires streak across the land with increasing strength and damage.
Milwaukee’s Metropolitan Sewerage District was forced to allow five sewerage overflows into the Milwaukee River and Lake Michigan in just three months this year. The District is only allowed to have six during any given year. Wisconsin farmers had to delay planting this Spring due to heavier than normal rains. Our lakes are experiencing unprecedented algae blooms, leading to beach closures across the state.
Some see Evers’ deadline as too far into the future. A new wave of young climate activists is pushing for a 100% clean energy transition by 2030, twenty years sooner than Evers’ deadline. These young people see their futures imperiled by climate change and are demanding changes sooner so their planet remains habitable.
On another front, Wisconsin Attorney General Josh Kaul recently joined a coalition of 22 other states, seven local governments and several environmental groups that recently announced a lawsuit against the Trump Administration’s Environmental Protection Agency over its new ACE, or “Dirty Power” rule.
The ACE rule replaced the Clean Power Plan which imposed the first nationwide limits on one of the largest sources of climate change pollution, existing fossil fuel burning power plants. The EPA’s new rule rolls back these limits, freeing plants to continue burning expensive and polluting coal. It also adds restrictions on state efforts to move to clean renewable and affordable generation of electricity.
In a press release, Attorney General Kaul noted that “climate change is not only real; it is a crisis. We’re only beginning to see its effects, including severe flooding and extreme temperatures. We can’t afford to wait for 20 years or a decade to take meaningful action. We need to step up now and to start responding to the climate crisis like our kids’ future depends on it – because it does.”
The new EPA ACE rule barely mentions climate change and ignores the science that proves we have a looming climate crisis. It disregards the requirements of the Clean Air Act requiring limits on air pollutants through best practices like cap and trade programs that have proven effective in reducing power plant emissions of climate changing pollutants. The new rule actually prohibits states from participating in cap and trade programs. Instead, the Trump EPA proposes utility equipment upgrades that will reduce emissions by only 0.7 percent by 2030 as opposed to having no rule at all. The EPAs own analysis of the new rule’s impact on polluting emissions shows it will cost more in economic damage and significantly increase power plant burdens on air quality.
It is clear that fossil fuel money drives the Trump climate change denial train and brought us this new effort to revitalize a dying industry. Wisconsin legislators would do well to jump off that train at the next station and support Wisconsin and national efforts to take climate change seriously. We need new laws promoting renewable energy generation and pollution reduction strategies. We need to remove the surcharge for registering hybrid electric vehicles. We need more energy efficient mass transit. We need more energy efficiency regulations that lower home heating and cooling costs.
We all live on this planet and cannot bury our heads in the coal ash any longer. We have no Planet B and need to take substantial steps to correct the errors from the last century of industrial progress by transitioning to renewable and sustainable energy systems that will help restore clean air and water which we all need for survival.
The Time is Now
It is great to see Wisconsin acting to combat climate change and increase protection of our shared environment based upon sound science, not who puts dirty energy money into campaign coffers.
Governor Tony Evers recently signed an executive order setting a goal for our state to transition to 100% carbon free electricity by 2050. He established an Office of Sustainability and Clean Energy to oversee the effort. These actions set a tone for state action on the issue of climate change and promoting the use of clean energy. They deserve full legislative support and funding to put science back into the policy making agencies that support the effort.
These actions are important because Wisconsin’s climate is changing just like the rest of the world, fossil fuel funded climate change deniers notwithstanding. We’ve seen increasing temperatures year after year. NOAA just announced that this past July was the hottest ever recorded worldwide. The Great Lakes are getting warmer and causing heavier rainfalls and increased flooding. Storms and wild fires streak across the land with increasing strength and damage.
Milwaukee’s Metropolitan Sewerage District was forced to allow five sewerage overflows into the Milwaukee River and Lake Michigan in just three months this year. The District is only allowed to have six during any given year. Wisconsin farmers had to delay planting this Spring due to heavier than normal rains. Our lakes are experiencing unprecedented algae blooms, leading to beach closures across the state.
Some see Evers’ deadline as too far into the future. A new wave of young climate activists is pushing for a 100% clean energy transition by 2030, twenty years sooner than Evers’ deadline. These young people see their futures imperiled by climate change and are demanding changes sooner so their planet remains habitable.
On another front, Wisconsin Attorney General Josh Kaul recently joined a coalition of 22 other states, seven local governments and several environmental groups that recently announced a lawsuit against the Trump Administration’s Environmental Protection Agency over its new ACE, or “Dirty Power” rule.
The ACE rule replaced the Clean Power Plan which imposed the first nationwide limits on one of the largest sources of climate change pollution, existing fossil fuel burning power plants. The EPA’s new rule rolls back these limits, freeing plants to continue burning expensive and polluting coal. It also adds restrictions on state efforts to move to clean renewable and affordable generation of electricity.
In a press release, Attorney General Kaul noted that “climate change is not only real; it is a crisis. We’re only beginning to see its effects, including severe flooding and extreme temperatures. We can’t afford to wait for 20 years or a decade to take meaningful action. We need to step up now and to start responding to the climate crisis like our kids’ future depends on it – because it does.”
The new EPA ACE rule barely mentions climate change and ignores the science that proves we have a looming climate crisis. It disregards the requirements of the Clean Air Act requiring limits on air pollutants through best practices like cap and trade programs that have proven effective in reducing power plant emissions of climate changing pollutants. The new rule actually prohibits states from participating in cap and trade programs. Instead, the Trump EPA proposes utility equipment upgrades that will reduce emissions by only 0.7 percent by 2030 as opposed to having no rule at all. The EPAs own analysis of the new rule’s impact on polluting emissions shows it will cost more in economic damage and significantly increase power plant burdens on air quality.
It is clear that fossil fuel money drives the Trump climate change denial train and brought us this new effort to revitalize a dying industry. Wisconsin legislators would do well to jump off that train at the next station and support Wisconsin and national efforts to take climate change seriously. We need new laws promoting renewable energy generation and pollution reduction strategies. We need to remove the surcharge for registering hybrid electric vehicles. We need more energy efficient mass transit. We need more energy efficiency regulations that lower home heating and cooling costs.
We all live on this planet and cannot bury our heads in the coal ash any longer. We have no Planet B and need to take substantial steps to correct the errors from the last century of industrial progress by transitioning to renewable and sustainable energy systems that will help restore clean air and water which we all need for survival.
Saturday, August 10, 2019
Time for Gun Law Reform
Wisconsin Wants Common Sense Gun Law Reform
Let the Legislature Debate New Laws
In the wake of yet more mass shootings this week that left far too many dead and injured, Wisconsin Governor Tony Evers asked Senate Majority Leader Scott Fitzgerald and Assembly Speaker Robin Vos to meet and discuss how to address the growing problem of gun violence. There have been over 250 mass shootings this year alone where 4 or more died, with two occurring in Wisconsin.
After agreeing to meet, Vos immediately tweeted that he would not consider gun law reform and blamed the recent carnage on “mental illness.” Fitzgerald indicated that he would not consider any bills that infringed on the 2nd Amendment and Due Process. Their entrenched views will certainly preclude legislative consideration of universal background checks for all firearm purchases or of “red flag” laws that would permit a judge to order firearm confiscation from those found to be a serious threat to themselves or others.
These modest proposals are already finding renewed favor in states historically opposed to gun law reforms such as Ohio where the republican governor called for similar measures in light of the killing sprees in Dayton and El Paso.
Blaming “mental illness” for our gun violence problem is a distraction dreamed up by the NRA and pedaled by those afraid of losing NRA support. According to U.S. Senator Chris Murphy, 19 out of twenty murderers and 4 out of 5 mass shooters do not have mental illness diagnoses. All of the civilized countries in the world have citizens with mental illness, yet none come close to having as many gun homicides or mass shootings as we do, except those at war. Trump’s recent blaming of the mentally ill for the latest round of killings is all the more bizarre when we recall that one of his first presidential acts was to reverse the Obama era rule barring firearm sales to the mentally ill.
Hatred of others not like the shooter based on religion, race or country of origin is not a “mental illness.” Hatred and fear of others are among the hallmarks of the white supremacist nationalists all too often found with their fingers on the trigger of the assault-style weapons that kill our fellow citizens.
The current batch of white supremacist nationalist killers have often been self-described Trump supporters who appear to have been given permission to repel the “invaders” and wipe out the “infestations” their leader describes at his rallies and in his tweets. Trump’s refusal to consider basic gun reform measures further emboldens the haters to continue their killings. His recent condemnation of white supremacy and hatred ring hollow when followed by his tweets attacking his critics in racist and hate filled terms.
Other GOP notables trot out obsession with violent video games as a leading cause of our mass shooting carnage. Other countries, notably China and Japan, have far more video gamers that we do, yet far fewer mass shootings or murders by firearm. No other country where video gamers play violent games comes close to approaching our levels of gun violence.
What all of our mass shooters have in common is all too easy access to the assault style rifles with high capacity magazines and ammunition designed to inflict the greatest amount of damage to human bodies. Lack of access to these weapons of mass destruction is one of the hallmarks of those countries with almost no mass shootings.
The tide of public opinion on gun control has shifted. Over 80 percent of Wisconsin citizens in a recent Marquette University Law School poll supported universal background checks for all firearm purchases. This would eliminate the so-called “gun show” loophole in present law that exempts private firearm sales from current background check rules. Over half of those polled also supported a ban on assault-style rifles.
Twenty-two states now have “red flag” laws similar to those now proposed by Wisconsin Attorney General Josh Kaul. These laws provide due process protections for gun owners by requiring a hearing before a judge where evidence of current danger to self or others must be presented before firearms can be removed by law enforcement. Such measures will certainly pass constitutional muster under the 2nd Amendment.
While important first steps, these measures will not address the need to further restrict access to the weapons whose sole purpose is to kill human beings. Until we renew the assault weapons ban, the killings will continue unabated.
Speaker Vos and Majority Leader Fitzgerald would do well to take a step back from the NRA talking points and mythology and allow the legislature to freely debate how best protect all Wisconsin citizens from further gun violence. Let us urge them to act on reasonable gun reform before there is another Wisconsin mass shooting. We deserve no less.
Let the Legislature Debate New Laws
In the wake of yet more mass shootings this week that left far too many dead and injured, Wisconsin Governor Tony Evers asked Senate Majority Leader Scott Fitzgerald and Assembly Speaker Robin Vos to meet and discuss how to address the growing problem of gun violence. There have been over 250 mass shootings this year alone where 4 or more died, with two occurring in Wisconsin.
After agreeing to meet, Vos immediately tweeted that he would not consider gun law reform and blamed the recent carnage on “mental illness.” Fitzgerald indicated that he would not consider any bills that infringed on the 2nd Amendment and Due Process. Their entrenched views will certainly preclude legislative consideration of universal background checks for all firearm purchases or of “red flag” laws that would permit a judge to order firearm confiscation from those found to be a serious threat to themselves or others.
These modest proposals are already finding renewed favor in states historically opposed to gun law reforms such as Ohio where the republican governor called for similar measures in light of the killing sprees in Dayton and El Paso.
Blaming “mental illness” for our gun violence problem is a distraction dreamed up by the NRA and pedaled by those afraid of losing NRA support. According to U.S. Senator Chris Murphy, 19 out of twenty murderers and 4 out of 5 mass shooters do not have mental illness diagnoses. All of the civilized countries in the world have citizens with mental illness, yet none come close to having as many gun homicides or mass shootings as we do, except those at war. Trump’s recent blaming of the mentally ill for the latest round of killings is all the more bizarre when we recall that one of his first presidential acts was to reverse the Obama era rule barring firearm sales to the mentally ill.
Hatred of others not like the shooter based on religion, race or country of origin is not a “mental illness.” Hatred and fear of others are among the hallmarks of the white supremacist nationalists all too often found with their fingers on the trigger of the assault-style weapons that kill our fellow citizens.
The current batch of white supremacist nationalist killers have often been self-described Trump supporters who appear to have been given permission to repel the “invaders” and wipe out the “infestations” their leader describes at his rallies and in his tweets. Trump’s refusal to consider basic gun reform measures further emboldens the haters to continue their killings. His recent condemnation of white supremacy and hatred ring hollow when followed by his tweets attacking his critics in racist and hate filled terms.
Other GOP notables trot out obsession with violent video games as a leading cause of our mass shooting carnage. Other countries, notably China and Japan, have far more video gamers that we do, yet far fewer mass shootings or murders by firearm. No other country where video gamers play violent games comes close to approaching our levels of gun violence.
What all of our mass shooters have in common is all too easy access to the assault style rifles with high capacity magazines and ammunition designed to inflict the greatest amount of damage to human bodies. Lack of access to these weapons of mass destruction is one of the hallmarks of those countries with almost no mass shootings.
The tide of public opinion on gun control has shifted. Over 80 percent of Wisconsin citizens in a recent Marquette University Law School poll supported universal background checks for all firearm purchases. This would eliminate the so-called “gun show” loophole in present law that exempts private firearm sales from current background check rules. Over half of those polled also supported a ban on assault-style rifles.
Twenty-two states now have “red flag” laws similar to those now proposed by Wisconsin Attorney General Josh Kaul. These laws provide due process protections for gun owners by requiring a hearing before a judge where evidence of current danger to self or others must be presented before firearms can be removed by law enforcement. Such measures will certainly pass constitutional muster under the 2nd Amendment.
While important first steps, these measures will not address the need to further restrict access to the weapons whose sole purpose is to kill human beings. Until we renew the assault weapons ban, the killings will continue unabated.
Speaker Vos and Majority Leader Fitzgerald would do well to take a step back from the NRA talking points and mythology and allow the legislature to freely debate how best protect all Wisconsin citizens from further gun violence. Let us urge them to act on reasonable gun reform before there is another Wisconsin mass shooting. We deserve no less.
Saturday, July 27, 2019
Death Penalty Is Wrong
The Death Penalty is Wrong
Wisconsin rejects Capital Punishment
The U. S. Department of Justice just announced that it would start executing people convicted of federal capital offenses in December. President Trump’s apologist Attorney General, William Barr, announced that the first five inmates will die within six weeks. How a staunchly pro-life administration justifies state sponsored killing, while opposing abortion on demand, continues to baffle me.
The Federal government restored using capital punishment in 1988 and only executed three inmates up to 2003, when it was again suspended. Thirty-seven Federal inmates were executed from 1927 to 2003. In 2014, President Obama ordered a review of death penalty procedures because of concerns over botched executions performed with lethal injections. The current administration announced that the lethal injection concerns have been resolved, clearing the way to start the killings once again.
Here in Wisconsin, the death penalty was abolished at the end of the 19th century. There was an effort to reinstitute it in the middle 1990s when republicans controlled the legislature and held the governor’s office.
I had the privilege to be the Chair of the Wisconsin State Bar’s Criminal Law Section from 1994-97. That section is made up of prosecutors, defense lawyers and judges involved with Wisconsin’s criminal justice system.
Our Section looked at the legislative proposal to re-introduce capital punishment and concluded that capital punishment was flawed on a number of levels. We were concerned about the possibility of executing an innocent person. At that time, DNA testing was offering some increased certainty, but many cases lack DNA evidence to test. Research into false confessions and the vagaries of eyewitness identification also lent support to our opposition to the penalty. We all knew that the criminal justice system cannot get it right all of the time and that it is wrong to convict and kill innocent people.
We also looked at the impact of capital prosecutions on the rest of the justice system. Capital cases cost several times more than other cases that go to trial. Expert testimony, pre-trial litigation and appeals add to the costs and the time cases take to conclusion, taking resources away from other areas of the justice system. Court time for capital cases would take time away from civil cases and would grind the rest of the court system to a halt, especially in smaller counties.
The issues we identified in the 1990s are still present today. They are magnified at the federal level where now Federal courts can impose the death penalty for a federal crime committed in a state that does not have the death penalty.
President Trump ran his campaign on a “pro-life” platform, promising to appoint “pro-life” judges to the Federal courts. If you believe “life begins at conception” and “all lives matter,” how can you support state sanctioned killing?
I worked with many prosecutors in state and federal courts over the years of my work as a defense lawyer. Former Milwaukee County District Attorney, E. Michael McCann, was among the best and most thoughtful prosecutors I ever tried cases against. McCann, a devout Catholic, was a staunch opponent of the death penalty throughout his tenure and was a strong voice in the debate over its reintroduction. His faith drove his belief that state sanctioned killing was wrong morally. He also understood how trying death cases would take limited resources away from other important law enforcement prosecutions.
Our work, coupled with the advocacy of other anti-death penalty groups, convinced the Wisconsin legislature not to pursue reintroduction of the death penalty. The proposals died in committee without ever coming to a full vote in either chamber of the legislature. Subsequent efforts to pursue capital punishment also withered and stopped all together by 2000.
Only 22 states now allow capital punishment. Most are republican controlled. How states without the death penalty will react to federal courts sentencing their citizens to death when their state courts cannot will create an interesting political dynamic.
All of the legalities and moral considerations aside, I still fail to understand how those professing to be “pro-life” can support an administration that engages in state sponsored killing of its own citizens, especially when we have life means life sentencing laws for the most serious offenses.
Attorney General Barr has injected an issue into our political debate that will further divide the electorate and give Trump’s opponents another point of discussion in upcoming election cycles. It is time we abolished the death penalty as many other civilized countries have done.
Wisconsin rejects Capital Punishment
The U. S. Department of Justice just announced that it would start executing people convicted of federal capital offenses in December. President Trump’s apologist Attorney General, William Barr, announced that the first five inmates will die within six weeks. How a staunchly pro-life administration justifies state sponsored killing, while opposing abortion on demand, continues to baffle me.
The Federal government restored using capital punishment in 1988 and only executed three inmates up to 2003, when it was again suspended. Thirty-seven Federal inmates were executed from 1927 to 2003. In 2014, President Obama ordered a review of death penalty procedures because of concerns over botched executions performed with lethal injections. The current administration announced that the lethal injection concerns have been resolved, clearing the way to start the killings once again.
Here in Wisconsin, the death penalty was abolished at the end of the 19th century. There was an effort to reinstitute it in the middle 1990s when republicans controlled the legislature and held the governor’s office.
I had the privilege to be the Chair of the Wisconsin State Bar’s Criminal Law Section from 1994-97. That section is made up of prosecutors, defense lawyers and judges involved with Wisconsin’s criminal justice system.
Our Section looked at the legislative proposal to re-introduce capital punishment and concluded that capital punishment was flawed on a number of levels. We were concerned about the possibility of executing an innocent person. At that time, DNA testing was offering some increased certainty, but many cases lack DNA evidence to test. Research into false confessions and the vagaries of eyewitness identification also lent support to our opposition to the penalty. We all knew that the criminal justice system cannot get it right all of the time and that it is wrong to convict and kill innocent people.
We also looked at the impact of capital prosecutions on the rest of the justice system. Capital cases cost several times more than other cases that go to trial. Expert testimony, pre-trial litigation and appeals add to the costs and the time cases take to conclusion, taking resources away from other areas of the justice system. Court time for capital cases would take time away from civil cases and would grind the rest of the court system to a halt, especially in smaller counties.
The issues we identified in the 1990s are still present today. They are magnified at the federal level where now Federal courts can impose the death penalty for a federal crime committed in a state that does not have the death penalty.
President Trump ran his campaign on a “pro-life” platform, promising to appoint “pro-life” judges to the Federal courts. If you believe “life begins at conception” and “all lives matter,” how can you support state sanctioned killing?
I worked with many prosecutors in state and federal courts over the years of my work as a defense lawyer. Former Milwaukee County District Attorney, E. Michael McCann, was among the best and most thoughtful prosecutors I ever tried cases against. McCann, a devout Catholic, was a staunch opponent of the death penalty throughout his tenure and was a strong voice in the debate over its reintroduction. His faith drove his belief that state sanctioned killing was wrong morally. He also understood how trying death cases would take limited resources away from other important law enforcement prosecutions.
Our work, coupled with the advocacy of other anti-death penalty groups, convinced the Wisconsin legislature not to pursue reintroduction of the death penalty. The proposals died in committee without ever coming to a full vote in either chamber of the legislature. Subsequent efforts to pursue capital punishment also withered and stopped all together by 2000.
Only 22 states now allow capital punishment. Most are republican controlled. How states without the death penalty will react to federal courts sentencing their citizens to death when their state courts cannot will create an interesting political dynamic.
All of the legalities and moral considerations aside, I still fail to understand how those professing to be “pro-life” can support an administration that engages in state sponsored killing of its own citizens, especially when we have life means life sentencing laws for the most serious offenses.
Attorney General Barr has injected an issue into our political debate that will further divide the electorate and give Trump’s opponents another point of discussion in upcoming election cycles. It is time we abolished the death penalty as many other civilized countries have done.
Friday, July 12, 2019
Obamacare Unconstitutional?
Be Careful What You Wish For
Litigation often brings unintended consequences
Republicans have long railed against the Affordable Care Act, better known as Obamacare. Salivating at the chance to be rid of the epitome of socialist government run amok, 22 Attorneys General from republican led states brought suit in Federal Court to have the entire act declared unconstitutional. They most recently pressed their case before a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit in the deep south. Two of the three judges favorably received the GOP arguments, foreshadowing a favorable decision. Whichever way the appeals court judges rule, the loser will ask the U.S. Supreme Court to take the case. Standing in the way are five of the nine justices who voted to uphold the law in 2012.
Should Obamacare be declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court, several of its very popular provisions will cease to be in force immediately. Among those would be protection for those 133 million Americans with pre-existing conditions that currently prohibits insurance companies from denying coverage for those maladies. We recall vividly the recent lame-duck session of our own legislature that failed to pass state protection for pre-existing conditions proposed just in case the Obamacare litigation gutted them.
There are a number of other Obamacare provisions that would be eliminated immediately with a decision that the whole law fails to pass constitutional muster. A recent survey of the law in the New York Times outlines what is at risk.
Obamacare also provides a number of other protections for health insurance consumers including elimination of the caps on the lifetime amounts that could be paid under a policy, elimination of caps on the amount insurers can require for deductibles, prohibitions against charging older customers more than younger ones and prohibitions on dropping more expensive benefits like prescription medication coverages. All would vanish if Obamacare is declared void.
Obamacare provided permanent authorization of the Indian Health Service that provides doctors and hospitals to more that two million Native Americans.
Obamacare enabled the Food and Drug Administration to consider and approve biosimilar medications. They are like generic versions of biologic medications which cannot be copied as easily as typical drugs. So far twenty-one biosimilar medications have been approved by the FDA. Elimination of Obamacare could jeopardize those approvals and discourage new biologics from coming to market.
Obamacare created a new office to innovate new methods of paying for healthcare services, such as lump sum payments for hip replacements and courses to lower diabetes risk. Even the Trump administration seized on this one, using it to link Medicare payments for certain drugs to prices from an international index thus lowering costs. Ending Obamacare would eliminate these efforts as well.
Obamacare changed several Medicare payment formulas, reducing amounts paid to hospitals. Healthcare providers adjusted their practices to accommodate these changes and undoing them would be difficult. The changes extended the life of the Medicare Hospital Trust Fund and their loss would cause Medicare to lose several years of solvency.
Obamacare requires drug companies to disclose gifts and payments to physicians, exposing bias in prescribing practices. The end of Obamacare eliminates this safeguard.
Obamacare reduced the “doughnut hole” in Medicare drug plans that enabled the plans to stop paying for seniors’ meds once they reached a certain amount. Eliminating Obamacare makes seniors on fixed incomes liable for much more of the costs for their medications.
Obamacare included benefits for breastfeeding mothers like insurance coverage for breast pumps and a requirement that employers provide private spaces for mother to express milk. Thousands of employers that have changed policies to accommodate breastfeeding employees could drop these benefits should Obamacare be invalidated.
Let’s not forget the 21 million Americans who would lose all healthcare coverage if Obamacare is invalidated.
If recent history is any guide, our GOP dominated legislature could not even pass legislation to protect those with pre-existing conditions. How can we expect it to provide Obamacare protections for these other benefits current law provides?
To top it off, a declaration that Obamacare is unconstitutional will pave the way for passage of “Medicare for All” on the national level. A measure that already commands support from a solid majority of the American voting public.
Be careful what you wish for, very careful.
Saturday, June 29, 2019
Leave our Constitution Alone
Leave our Constitution Alone
It works just fine
When our founding fathers sat down to write our new nation’s Constitution and Bill of Rights, they recognized that we needed protections against governmental abuses that deprived citizens of their freedom. With abuses by the English crown in mind, they crafted bedrock principles to protect us against future governments run amok.
When the government accuses a citizen of a crime, the citizen starts the process with the presumption of innocence. This requires the government to carry the burden of proving that a crime was committed and that the citizen accused committed it. The accused never has to prove her innocence.
The second principle requires the government to prove the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt. This is the highest evidentiary standard used in the law and is meant to ensure a high degree of certainty in the verdict.
The third principle requires the accused be afforded due process of law. This means the government has to tell the accused what crime has been charged, what evidence it intends to use to prove it and provide a neutral forum to hear that evidence.
Finally, the accused is guaranteed that her case will be tried before a jury of her peers who have to unanimously agree as to her guilt or innocence.
These protections are buttressed by additional requirements preventing governmental invasions of privacy. Before the government can invade your home looking for evidence, it must first obtain a warrant from a judge based upon a credible showing that evidence of a crime is probably located in the place to be searched.
These protections against government over-reach have worked well since our nation was founded. They apply to all and can be invoked by anyone who stands accused.
Because those who commit criminal offenses are not well regarded, some in our legislatures seek to curry favor with those who would dispense with these protections for the “obviously guilty” by “getting tough on crime.” One such effort led to the passage of a victim’s rights amendment to our Wisconsin Constitution. It provided “victims” with a set of rights to make sure that they are treated fairly by the criminal justice system. It set up an obvious conflict with the rights afforded to the criminally accused that is still being litigated in criminal cases.
Not to be out done in stripping rights from the accused, our legislature has recently passed a new set of “victims’ rights,” known as “Marsy’s Law.” Because the proposed provisions change the state constitution, they must be approved by the voters in a statewide referendum this fall.
The Wisconsin Justice Institute (WJI) recently published an analysis of “Marsy’s Law” authored by noted criminal defense lawyer, Dean Strang.
Strang looked at all 16 provisions of the new law and noted that voters must consider all in an up or down vote, not 16 separate votes. He concludes that while some of the provisions are laudable and workable, some unconstitutionally invade the rights given to the accused and place undue burdens upon law enforcement officers and district attorneys seeking to comply.
While people can be and are harmed by the acts of others, they do not become “victims” in the criminal law sense until the person who caused the harm is convicted by a jury of his peers who unanimously agreed that the government proved his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. “Marsy’s Law” continues the effort to put a finding that one is a “victim” before the accused is tried and convicted.
Here are some of the problem areas identified in the WJI analysis titled “Marsy’s Flaws.”
One provides a “victim” with a right to privacy. This directly invades the accused’s right to notice of the charges against him, the identity of his accusers and the evidence that will be presented by the government in its effort to convict. This new “right” will create a false sense of hope and expectations for those harmed.
Another right is to have the proceedings be “free from unreasonable delay.” The proposed law does not tell us who gets to decide if a delay is unreasonable, nor does it fashion a remedy. Would a delayed trial mean that charges are dismissed or that the accused must be found guilty without a trial? The first would not please the “victim” and the second would not pass constitutional muster.
A third provision allows the “victim” to attend all court proceedings upon request. This will not work as written. It would require the state to provide notice and transportation to all “victims” wanting to attend but unable to afford to and that judges schedule proceedings so that their attendance can happen. For a working, out of state “victim,” this would mean court hearings at night or on weekends to accommodate schedules.
A fourth requires “victim” access to the attorney for the government upon request. Most district attorney offices have victim-witness coordinators who serve as points of contact with prosecutors. Most DAs do not have the time to meet with “victims” whenever they ask. Again, this provision creates false hopes and is unworkable given current staffing levels.
A fifth requires that a “victim” be allowed to address the court in any proceeding where one of her rights is implicated. This will create chaos in the courtroom as “victims” often disagree with decisions made by prosecutors and sometimes even ask that charges be dismissed or reduced.
Finally, Marsy’s law provides that “victims” are entitled to “full” restitution from the person ordered to pay it. What happens when the offender cannot pay due to incarceration or death? This provision would then require state taxpayers to foot the bill.
“Marsy’s Law” is not needed to address a real problem. Its passage is meant to appease the “tough on crime” crowd that has led us to be one of the countries with the largest prison population on the planet. Our constitution was written to protect us all from government over-reach. Let’s keep it that way.
It works just fine
When our founding fathers sat down to write our new nation’s Constitution and Bill of Rights, they recognized that we needed protections against governmental abuses that deprived citizens of their freedom. With abuses by the English crown in mind, they crafted bedrock principles to protect us against future governments run amok.
When the government accuses a citizen of a crime, the citizen starts the process with the presumption of innocence. This requires the government to carry the burden of proving that a crime was committed and that the citizen accused committed it. The accused never has to prove her innocence.
The second principle requires the government to prove the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt. This is the highest evidentiary standard used in the law and is meant to ensure a high degree of certainty in the verdict.
The third principle requires the accused be afforded due process of law. This means the government has to tell the accused what crime has been charged, what evidence it intends to use to prove it and provide a neutral forum to hear that evidence.
Finally, the accused is guaranteed that her case will be tried before a jury of her peers who have to unanimously agree as to her guilt or innocence.
These protections are buttressed by additional requirements preventing governmental invasions of privacy. Before the government can invade your home looking for evidence, it must first obtain a warrant from a judge based upon a credible showing that evidence of a crime is probably located in the place to be searched.
These protections against government over-reach have worked well since our nation was founded. They apply to all and can be invoked by anyone who stands accused.
Because those who commit criminal offenses are not well regarded, some in our legislatures seek to curry favor with those who would dispense with these protections for the “obviously guilty” by “getting tough on crime.” One such effort led to the passage of a victim’s rights amendment to our Wisconsin Constitution. It provided “victims” with a set of rights to make sure that they are treated fairly by the criminal justice system. It set up an obvious conflict with the rights afforded to the criminally accused that is still being litigated in criminal cases.
Not to be out done in stripping rights from the accused, our legislature has recently passed a new set of “victims’ rights,” known as “Marsy’s Law.” Because the proposed provisions change the state constitution, they must be approved by the voters in a statewide referendum this fall.
The Wisconsin Justice Institute (WJI) recently published an analysis of “Marsy’s Law” authored by noted criminal defense lawyer, Dean Strang.
Strang looked at all 16 provisions of the new law and noted that voters must consider all in an up or down vote, not 16 separate votes. He concludes that while some of the provisions are laudable and workable, some unconstitutionally invade the rights given to the accused and place undue burdens upon law enforcement officers and district attorneys seeking to comply.
While people can be and are harmed by the acts of others, they do not become “victims” in the criminal law sense until the person who caused the harm is convicted by a jury of his peers who unanimously agreed that the government proved his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. “Marsy’s Law” continues the effort to put a finding that one is a “victim” before the accused is tried and convicted.
Here are some of the problem areas identified in the WJI analysis titled “Marsy’s Flaws.”
One provides a “victim” with a right to privacy. This directly invades the accused’s right to notice of the charges against him, the identity of his accusers and the evidence that will be presented by the government in its effort to convict. This new “right” will create a false sense of hope and expectations for those harmed.
Another right is to have the proceedings be “free from unreasonable delay.” The proposed law does not tell us who gets to decide if a delay is unreasonable, nor does it fashion a remedy. Would a delayed trial mean that charges are dismissed or that the accused must be found guilty without a trial? The first would not please the “victim” and the second would not pass constitutional muster.
A third provision allows the “victim” to attend all court proceedings upon request. This will not work as written. It would require the state to provide notice and transportation to all “victims” wanting to attend but unable to afford to and that judges schedule proceedings so that their attendance can happen. For a working, out of state “victim,” this would mean court hearings at night or on weekends to accommodate schedules.
A fourth requires “victim” access to the attorney for the government upon request. Most district attorney offices have victim-witness coordinators who serve as points of contact with prosecutors. Most DAs do not have the time to meet with “victims” whenever they ask. Again, this provision creates false hopes and is unworkable given current staffing levels.
A fifth requires that a “victim” be allowed to address the court in any proceeding where one of her rights is implicated. This will create chaos in the courtroom as “victims” often disagree with decisions made by prosecutors and sometimes even ask that charges be dismissed or reduced.
Finally, Marsy’s law provides that “victims” are entitled to “full” restitution from the person ordered to pay it. What happens when the offender cannot pay due to incarceration or death? This provision would then require state taxpayers to foot the bill.
“Marsy’s Law” is not needed to address a real problem. Its passage is meant to appease the “tough on crime” crowd that has led us to be one of the countries with the largest prison population on the planet. Our constitution was written to protect us all from government over-reach. Let’s keep it that way.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)