Wired Reports Following a nationwide backlash by municipalities against the USA Patriot Act, San Francisco will present voters with a ballot measure that proponents say will protect city residents from federal snooping.
Proposition E, which is slated for vote in California’s March 2 primary election, would authorize the Board of Supervisors — instead of individual city workers — to respond to federal requests for San Franciscans’ private records.
“This will protect people’s privacy in a direct way,” said McGoldrick. “If we get orders from the Bush-Cheney-Ashcroft regime we’ll be able to see if any kind of profiling or abuse is being committed.”
Re: S.F.: If You’re Asked, Don’t Tell
“Regime”? My goodness. Well, as attorney Colin V. Gallagher notes in a paid argument against the measure in the official Voter Information Pamphlet, “City councils do not have discretion under the U.S. Constitution [which, NB, McGoldrick claims to be defending! J.S.] to decide which federal laws, such as the Patriot Act or RICO, they will not comply with. Should the Board of Supervisors actually decide not to comply with a federal court order to release records, the Board could be found to be in contempt of court. Substantial financial penalties could result to the City from the Board’s decision to disobey a court order.” Other than that, though, it’s a dandy idea…
Conservative Means
Ironic. California liberals adopting the “public proposition� tact to change law. I thought such measures were nothing but bullying techniques of the majority.
It was just 10 short years ago when the contentious, yet highly popular Proposition 187 was pooh poohed by self professed liberal Federal Judge Mariana Pfaelzer. This despite a gaudy 59% approval to stop the welfare gravy train for illegal aliens. Pfaelzer reasoned, “It (Prop 187) usurped the federal government’s authority to regulate immigration.â€?
It will be interesting to see if the Ninth Circuit’s deference to Federal law will extend to the “government’s authority to protect citizens� if this proposition passes and is subsequently challenged.
Re:Conservative Means
Tomeboy, your point about 187 is well taken. However, the way you choose to express it is just excruciating. If you wish to criticize the judge as liberal, then what point is there to callling her “self professed”? The judge didn’t “pooh pooh” the law: she struck it down. “Gaudy” is a synonym for “tasteless”: is this what you mean? Finally, your phrase “welfare gravy train for illegal aliens” is as pointless as it is brutal.
Are you trying to convert people to your point of view?
Re:Conservative Means
Jack – If memory serves, we have had this discussion before. Again, I thank you for your advise.
A few points:
>>then what point is there to callling her “self professed
Perhaps your argument is with the editorial staff at Human Events?
Bring Back Proposition 187
Human Events; 8/18/2003, Vol. 59 Issue 28, p1
8/2003, Vol. 59 Issue 28, p1
>>”Gaudy” as a synonym for tasteless: is this what you mean?
Perhaps a better question is did you really mean what you said about my point being well taken only to question my real position with this Merriam Webster’s business? While you have your tome cracked, you may notice that “marked by dazzling brilliance” ie conspicuousness.
To the point, I find a theme with those who are quick to make issues of style. Lame come to mind. (you may take a minute to check this one out too)
cont.
(Cont.)
For now just a gentle “heads up�.
Criticism is fine and welcomed. I certainly make no pretense of being the wordsmith that you are. However there is an unwritten rule that style/typo criticisms in Blogs are “out-of-boundsâ€?. I’ve been posting here for quite a while and no one has taken issue with my style. This goes for many who don’t agree with my points. I would prefer to keep relationships with fellow conservatives “cordialâ€? at least. You’re bitching about style is not cordial Frank. And no longer welcomed.
Here’s the rub.
When you mix this unsolicited advice with pissy arrogance you have crossed a line. At least with me. You’re teetering here Frank. If my writing is as painful for you as you say, DON’T READ IT! (Similar to the choice others have made about your echo chamber)
It’s content we deal with here Frank. If you agree with my point on Prop 187 leave it there and keep your smart-ass rhetorical questions in your pocket with your red pen.
Re:cont.
I criticize your writing because I agree with the point you make. Those who reject the point you make will dismiss you as a crank and say nothing.
Re:cont.
>>I criticize your writing because I agree with the point you make. Those who reject the point you make will dismiss you as a crank and say nothing.
This makes no sense.
Admittedly you do get my point. (Which was my point to begin with before writing class began.) So if you get and I get it, it stands to reason others will get it too.
The business of being a “crank” is a reach. Our political philosophy may not be shared with many on this board, but these folks are smart enough to know piffle when they see it.
Circular reasoning aside,
let’s leave it alone and stick with those points that you get after all.