Posted on 07/18/2010 10:04:03 AM PDT by conimbricenses
PRIMGHAR, Iowa -- U.S. District Court Judge Mark W. Bennett has ordered Osceola County Sheriff Douglas L. Weber to issue a gun permit to a resident and to complete a college-level course involving the First Amendment.
Bennett’s written decision on Wednesday involves the case of Paul Dorr, of Ocheyedan, who was denied a permit to carry a concealed weapon.
Dorr and his son, Alexander, were denied gun permits after being engaged in extensive First Amendment activity -- protesting, passing out leaflets and writing letters to the editor -- the opinion notes.
(Excerpt) Read more at siouxcityjournal.com ...
If only we could find a judge who would do the same thing to every cop in America, not to mention most of Congress.
If the Judge agreed that he violated the man's rights then he should have jailed the sheriff.
But since the judicial system rarely prosecutes cops for anything - even the bad ones - I'll count this as a victory.
According to the ruling the judge is requiring the sheriff to submit the course to him for approval before enrolling. The judge is a Clinton appointee, but seems to be real big on the Bill of Rights.
Fantastic!
I want this guy on the Supreme court
Having studied the First Amendment in college, I think this was a stupid ruling. College level courses are generally run by communists and socialists who view the first amendment as something only designed to promote socialism and communism.
He should have simply ordered the Sheriff to read the Federalist Papers and Thomas Paine and the letters of Thomas Jefferson and turn in a book report to him.
That being said, I don't think the Judge had the authority to issue this order. He may have had the authority to force him to issue a permit (under a writ of mandamus) but he certainly had no authority to send him to a re-education camp.
January 1, 2011 Iowa joins the long list of states that are deemed "shall issue" concealed carry.
President George W. Bush
Ok, here's a question for you. Under what section and clause of the constitution does it grant a federal judge the authority to send a sheriff to a re-education camp?
His ordering the sheriff to issue the permit was permissible under a writ of mandate. Clearly the judge had that authority.
But doesn't it scare you that a Federal Judge can actually order someone to take a college level class in the First Amendment?
And do you think there is a college in America that teaches the First Amendment from an originalist viewpoint?
Frankly this decision scares me. If a conservative judge can order a liberal to a re-education camp, then cannot a liberal judge do that to you or me?
A ruling worthy of Judge Roy Bean.
“He may have had the authority to force him to issue a permit (under a writ of mandamus) but he certainly had no authority to send him to a re-education camp.”
You are right sir.
Thank you for sharing your insights, dear brother in Christ! You are on a roll today.
SLAP!
Thanks.
Frankly I was expecting that the first post in reaction to mine would be for someone to call me an idiot.
The tendency towards tyranny is not solely the province of the left. The left is just better at it. They have more experience.
It does reek of that, even though some folks need to be re educated - or educated.
Well well.
Every year, judges require many thousands of people to attend alcohol education classes for DUI convictions. Attendance is a condition of probation in lieu of jail time.
Those classes are much more similar to 're-education camps' (mandatory attendance and breathalyzer testing) than any college class would be.
You know the tendency in fallen man is to control the behavior of others. Our founders understood that principle and made provision for a limited federal government.
The first amendment did not grant us the right to free speech, assembly, religion, etc. Those rights were considered inalienable. The first amendment simply prohibited Congress from infringing upon those rights.
Unfortunately that hasn't stopped Congress and every day they pass more and more laws that infringe upon our right to be wrong or to think differently than the ruling class.
Eventually the first amendment will have no meaning at all. There are currently more exceptions to the first amendment than there are rules.
Conservatives are just as tempted to outlaw speech that they find offensive as Liberals are. Liberals, however, are not restrained by the original intent of the Constitution. Conservatives should be, but too often are guided by emotion and they pass laws which on their face they should know are unconstitutional. When you reason with your heart, you are, by nature a liberal.
While I pretty much agree with you, this sort of thing has been going on for a long time... Requiring offenders to attend driving schools, alcohol or drug education classes, and even forcing prostitution offenders to attend classes...
Mark
If the judge had sentenced the sheriff to sensitivity training or anger management, I’d agree. In this case, though, the court ordered a law enforcement officer (and officer of the court,) to get retrained on the laws he is sworn to uphold. That doesn’t seem out of line to me at all.
Actually this is different. The Sheriff was not accused of a crime or convicted of a crime. Sending someone to alcohol or drug classes as a punishment for a crime (which is generally provisional and voluntary and designed to reduce time served) is clearly constitutional. But the Sheriff was not accused of a crime. He was accused of refusing to properly grant a permit. The sole remedy available to the plaintiff is a writ of mandamus which would order the Sheriff to issue the permit as part of his duties as an officer of the government. But to order him to attend some classes in addition is clearly well beyond the authority of the judge.
This is the kind of judicial activism that we would all be screaming about if a liberal judge had done it to... Joe Arpaio.
We should be as vigilant in protecting the rights of lefties as we are in protecting our own rights. Rights are rights and when we protect them selectively, then we cannot complain when they are violated selectively against us.
Would that be your reaction if a Liberal Federal Judge had ordered Joe Arpaio to attend some classes that the liberal judge thought might help him to "understand" the constitution?
Would that be OK with you?
“U.S. District Court Judge Mark W. Bennett was appointed by
President George W. Bush”
According to the Federal Judicial Center, he was appointed by Bill Clinton:
http://www.fjc.gov/public/home.nsf/hisj
Sorry, here’s the proper link:
http://www.fjc.gov/servlet/nGetInfo?jid=156&cid=999&ctype=na&instate=na
“I want this guy on the Supreme Court.”
I was thinking the same thing.
I’m stunned that this judge is a CLINTON appointee. He sounds more like a Reagan appointee.
Again, I agree with you that courts should not (as they regularly do) venture into creative sentencing which includes things like sensitivity training, AA meetings, and the like. My more narrow judgment of this particular case is that a court of law ordering an officer of the court to receive training on the law really isn’t the same thing.
I do think you could make a legitimate argument, on Federalism grounds, that a US judge should not order training for a county government official.
And even if that were not the case, I'd still support a mandatory class on the Constitution for every person who becomes a police officer (or any other type of public "servant" for that matter). It's one of those basic things that even the "good" ones need to know.
And considering that this sheriff's actions ALREADY demonstrate that he has an abysmal understanding of the Constitution, ordering him to take a class on it at the local community college (hardly a Berkeley-style leftist hotbed) is unlikely to do him any harm and with a little luck he'll get a basic civics intro on the Bill of Rights.
The only difference here is the shoe’s on the other foot now. Normally those alcohol/drug/whatever reeducation classes are taught by asshole cops who think they’re experts on everything and have a serious case of “ruhspect muh authoritah” syndrome. Now it’s the cop being sent to a much more benign college class and as far as I’m concerned it’s a welcome reversal of roles.
I didn't know the sheriff had been convicted of a federal crime. What crime did he commit that allowed the judge the authority to sentence him to be re-educated?
And considering that this sheriff's actions ALREADY demonstrate that he has an abysmal understanding of the Constitution, ordering him to take a class on it at the local community college (hardly a Berkeley-style leftist hotbed) is unlikely to do him any harm and with a little luck he'll get a basic civics intro on the Bill of Rights.
A liberal judge might think that Joe Arpaio has an abysmal understanding of the Constitution and the rights of immigrants and then he might order Judge Arpaio or Governor Brewer to attend Constitution and latino studies classes at UC Berkeley. I guess you'd be OK with that, huh?
He deprived someone of a Civil Right. It's "Law Enforcement", not writing them as they go along. The judge could have been hard on him.
Many offenders who could be charged are offered creative alternatives. There is no specific provision that allows a judge to have someone convicted of shoplifting hanging a sign around their neck that says "I am a shoplifter"-It could be argued that it is "Unusual Punishment"...But shoplifter would rather do that than time.
The real point is that these cop types almost never get held accountable when they trample on somebody else's rights (and this sheriff clearly did). Subjecting them to a taste of their own medicine is not an inherently bad thing.
“His ordering the sheriff to issue the permit was permissible under a writ of mandate.”
The judge made a determination that a sworn law officer, one sworn to uphold the Constitution, did not understand it. Judges order people into Alcohol education classes all the time. Parenting classes, drug classes, anger-management classes. Having a liberal judge tell you you have to recycle is OK, but telling a government official to learn the constitution is not?
Oh yes, he does.
My employers frequently required me to take courses to do my job better- Just on the job training, and very appropriate to the job.
I didn't know the sheriff had been convicted of a federal crime.
Violating the explicit letter of the Constitution is not always a *criminal* offense. But it is always in the jurisdictional domain of the federal court system should they so exercise it.
Excellent post!
I do think you could make a legitimate argument, on Federalism grounds, that a US judge should not order training for a county government official.
I personally think the incorporation doctrine is absurd and contrary to the explicit wishes of the founders. But holding that it exists and is pretty much settled law, it does indisputably permit federal court jurisdiction over local government officials who violate the Bill of Rights. This sheriff violated the Bill of Rights several times over. That much is not even disputable.
Anybody got a link to the wriiten ruling? I would like to read it.
I used to think that the basic difference between a conservative and a liberal is that conservatives reason with their brains and liberals reason with their hearts.
After seeing some of the posts on this thread praising the Judge for ordering the Sheriff to re-education classes, I’m beginning to doubt my premise.
It seems that conservatives are just as prone to tyranny as liberals. Liberals are just more experienced in it.
Think about the implications of this decision on conservatives. If a conservative judge can order a liberal sheriff to re-education camps because he has a different view of the constitution than the conservative judge, what do you think a liberal judge could do to conservative sheriffs like Joe Arpaio?
The judge has no authority to order this sheriff to be re-educated. No true conservative would ever argue that he does. Only a tyrant or a person who believes in tyranny could argue such a case.
You guys need to re-evaluate your positions. Perhaps I can find a judge who could order you to read Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Paine and the Federalist papers.
I suppose you would have no problem with that.
1. Joe Arpaio is an idiot. He willfully disregards portions of the Constitution he finds inconvenient, and his goonish and ill-thought tactics do more damage to our cause than good by painting a giant target on us for the left to attack.
2. The fact that you profess to be a strict constructionist while simultaneously and repeatedly upholding Arpaio as your prime example also suggests that your "strict" adherence to the Constitution is selective and compromised.
3. I detest the incorporation doctrine on historical grounds, but it *is* a reality of settled law and practice. Holding that to be the case, there is absolutely ZERO doubt that a federal judge has the authority to intervene against a local government official if that official is violating the U.S. Constitution, and this one plainly was.
4. Your repeated use of the word "tyranny" to describe this particular action is both hyperbolic and inappropriate. When weighed as a penalty relative to his direct and tangible offense against the Constitution, the order for this sheriff to take what is little more than a community college class of his choice on the Constitution is exceedingly mild, and exhibits no characteristics that could even remotely be called "tyrannical" by a reasonable person. When viewed relative to the offenses perpetrated by this sheriff against the gunowner, your apparent sympathy for his plight is similarly telling in that it again defies your purported interest in strictly upholding the Constitution.
In short, you started with a mildly interesting critique of the decision but took it to the level of absurdity, apparently out of some personal bias that seems to elicit your sympathy specifically to persons in the law enforcement profession. And yet you accuse others of being "emotional."
You gotta read the article. Its worth the read. Hysterical how the judge slams the sheriff.
Why is he telling the sheriff to take a course on the First Amendment? Wouldn’t it be for the 2nd Amendment?
You make a good point. But what about judges that make people go to rehab or anger management?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.