Monthly Archives: May 2020

Fixing inequities worsened by pandemic main issue for 5th Congressional District Democratic candidates – Roanoke Times

Posted: May 10, 2020 at 5:49 am

Addressing the inequalities in the United States exacerbated by the coronavirus pandemic served as a major motivational force for Democrats running for Congress in central Virginia.

Political campaigns have had to adjust how they get the word out to voters while maintaining social distancing. So instead of a forum held at a high school or community center before a crowd of voters, the four Democrats participated in an online forum on Saturday.

The candidates all brought the issues they discussed, from health care to voting rights, back to the coronavirus pandemic as a reason to make bold improvements to policy at the federal level.

The four candidates are:

n Roger Dean Huffstetler, Marine veteran and Charlottesville entrepreneur who lost the Democratic nomination for the same seat two years ago

n John Lesinski, Marine veteran and former Rappahannock County supervisor who works in commercial real estate

n Claire Russo, Marine veteran and Albemarle County resident

n Cameron Webb, director of health policy and equity at University of Virginia

Voters will choose their nominee June 23. The Democrat will face Rep. Denver Riggleman, R-Nelson, or Bob Good, who are competing in a heated convention that will take place in the next several weeks at a date still to be determined. While the district is favorable to Republicans, House Democrats are targeting the seat.

The 5th Congressional District is Virginias largest district, stretching from Fauquier County to the North Carolina border and including Franklin County and part of Bedford County.

Health care and economic inequality emerged as two of the most pressing issues during the forum, moderated by Del. Elizabeth Guzman, D-Prince William.

This coronavirus pandemic has told us one thing: 2020 will be the health care election, said Webb, who has made fixing the health care system the main focus of his campaign.

Webb, an internal medicine doctor, said making sure people can access affordable health care is more complicated than a three-word slogan. He worked on a White House health care team during the Obama administration to help implement the Affordable Care Act. He said the country can do better than having health insurance tied to employers, and there should be a public option.

Weve got to fix private insurance so were putting people over profits, Webb said.

Huffstetler and Russo both supported a proposal U.S. Sen. Tim Kaine, D-Va., has reintroduced before called Medicare X, which would create a new public option for health insurance. Lesinksi also supported a public option.

This pandemic has clearly demonstrated to all of us that every American must have access to health care, Russo said.

The candidates said the pandemic has fueled a large growth in telemedicine. But Lesinski said people in rural areas dont have that same access because they lack broadband.

He said that as the country emerges from the coronavirus crisis and tries to rebuild its economy, rural America will fall behind unless it has the broadband needed to attract employers and to allow for people to work from home.

Its the rural electrification issue of our time, Lesinski said.

Huffstetler emphasized his familys working class roots and said his campaign is focused addressing economic inequality. He said the economy has been changing, and people dont always keep the same job for more than 30 years, and workers need to upgrade their skills. Hed like to work on developing a program so community colleges and industries partner together to maintain a skilled workforce.

My legislative priorities are making sure that when people work hard in this country, the country has their back, Huffstetler said.

Russo said the federal government did not prepare for the pandemic as it should have done. Citing her own background as a Marine officer training Marines and an intelligence officer learning lessons from past wars and applying them to the future, she said shes equipped to work on steering the country out of the crisis and preparing for future ones.

Its never been more clear that its going to take bold leadership to guide this country out of this crisis in a fair and just manner, Russo said.

Lesinski connected the poor planning for a viral outbreak to the lack of bold action on climate change. Climate change is a legislative priority for Lesinski, who said reducing the countrys carbon footprint and shifting to renewable energy will create new jobs.

Its a canary in the coal mine for fighting climate change, because if we dont get on this now, were going to lose a lot more lives, he said.

The candidates all agreed that the pandemic has highlighted the need to expand voting rights. Huffstetler said there should be automatic voter registration when people get their drivers license. He said working people cant always make it to the polls on Election Day, so he said being able to vote absentee without providing an excuse is essential.

There is no reason under the sun we should be making it harder to vote, Huffstetler said.

Lesinki said that even though states are making progress in expanding voting rights, more needs to be done at the federal level. He referenced the federal court decision this week to waive the witness requirement to cast absentee ballots in the June primaries in Virginia.

Republicans tried to retain the witness requirement, citing the risk of voter fraud. There is no evidence of widespread voter fraud with voting by mail.

The strategy here clearly is voter suppression, voter suppression of those individuals the Republican Party feels is going to be a continued threat to them winning or gaining a majority, Lesinski said.

During the last election, Riggleman defeated Democrat Leslie Cockburn by about 20,000 votes. Webb raised the issue of 38,000 black residents who arent registered to vote in the district, and more than 30,000 registered black voters didnt vote in the last election.

I think when we field the full team as Democrats, when we expand the electorate, we win, Webb said.

Go here to see the original:

Fixing inequities worsened by pandemic main issue for 5th Congressional District Democratic candidates - Roanoke Times

Posted in Democrat | Comments Off on Fixing inequities worsened by pandemic main issue for 5th Congressional District Democratic candidates – Roanoke Times

Democrats on collision course with Trump and Republicans over Postal Service bailout – msnNOW

Posted: at 5:49 am

Provided by Washington Examiner

House Democrats want the next round of coronavirus aid to include a massive bailout of the U.S. Postal Service, which has, for years, experienced declining revenue exacerbated further by the coronavirus epidemic.

But Republicans and President Trump want significant reforms implemented before providing new funding.

Speaker Nancy Pelosi, a California Democrat, told reporters shell include a $25 billion bailout of the postal service in a massive economic aid package that is likely to top $1 trillion.

"We have to fight for the Postal Service," Pelosi said this week. "And people across the country are all tweeting and writing to me and stuff like that, saying we really protect our post office."

The post office bailout proposal is similar to a plan House Democrats proposed earlier this year. It was ultimately excluded from the $2.2 trillion spending bill passed by Congress on March 27.

House Democratic leaders are eager to get federal aid for the post office in the next round of economic aid.

It is an essential service that we need to maintain, and I think there is a consensus in the House of Representative's Democratic Party leadership and the members that that is necessary and appropriate, Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, a Maryland Democrat, said. So, we want to see that included.

Republicans and Trump say the post office is in need of significant reforms needed to boost revenue and cut costs.

A Government Accountability Office report released this week reported the USPS suffered a net loss of $78 billion from 2007 to 2019.

USPSs current business model is not financially sustainable due to declining mail volumes, increased compensation and benefits costs, and increased unfunded liabilities and debt, the GAO reported. Absent congressional action on critical foundational elements of the USPS business model, USPSs mission and financial solvency are increasingly in peril.

The GAO called on Congress to consider new reforms to the Postal Service to improve operations and financial health. Congress last implemented post office reforms in 2006, but Republicans say new measures are needed.

Republicans on the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee in January asked Postmaster General Megan Brennan for a 10-year business plan to restore financial stability to the USPS. Brennan has yet to produce that plan.

The top Republican on Oversight who requested the plan, former Rep. Mark Meadows, is now Trumps chief of staff.

House Oversight Republicans issued a statement Friday, urging Brennan to finally provide the Committee with the USPS proposal for a sustainable, long-term business plan that was promised over a year ago.

Hoyer told reporters this week he talked to White House officials in March about providing money to the post office.

Brennan warned Friday it cannot keep operating without a bailout due to accelerated revenue loss caused by the pandemic. The USPS calculates it will lose $13 billion this year due to the coronavirus and $54.3 billion in additional losses over the next decade.

"Although the pandemic did not have significant impact on our financial condition in our second quarter, we anticipate that our business will suffer potentially dire consequences for the remainder of the year, and we are already feeling those impacts during the last half of March, Brennan said Friday. At a time when America needs the Postal Service more than ever, the pandemic is starting to have a significant effect on our business with mail volumes plummeting as a result of the pandemic.

In April, the Postal Service Board of Governors asked Congress to appropriate $25 billion to offset coronavirus-related losses, $25 billion to modernize the post office, and another $25 billion in unrestricted borrowing authority from the Treasury.

The White House has so far frowned on providing significant new revenue to the USPS without reforms.

Trump signaled last month he wants the Postal Service to find a way to increase revenue, suggesting they charge companies such as Amazon more money to deliver its packages.

Brennan is retiring next month. Trump has appointed Louis DeJoy, a North Carolina businessman and top Trump donor, to serve as the next postmaster general, beginning June 15.

The post office should raise the price of the packages to the companies, not to the people, Trump said on April 24. And if they did that, it would be a whole different story.

Trump added, If they dont raise the price, Im not signing anything.

More:

Democrats on collision course with Trump and Republicans over Postal Service bailout - msnNOW

Posted in Democrat | Comments Off on Democrats on collision course with Trump and Republicans over Postal Service bailout – msnNOW

Darwinism, Totalitarianism, and the Lockdown – Discovery Institute

Posted: at 5:48 am

As we live through the coronavirus lockdown, some surprisingly diverse sources fromThe New YorkertoTucker Carlson have begun referring their audiences to an alarming word: totalitarianism. In this context, journalist and activistMasha Gessen, writing inThe New Yorker, recommends the work of Hannah Arendt, for her complicated and precise descriptions of isolation, solitude, and loneliness. The reference is apt, and worth exploring, not least because of Arendts insights linking totalitarian ideology with Darwinism.

Hannah Arendt was the leading philosopher of totalitarianism in the 20th century. Her writing, especiallyThe Origins of Totalitarianism(1951), is always interesting and relevant, and her insights into totalitarianism are chillingly accurate. She explicitly links totalitarian ideology to Darwinism naming Darwin often as a cornerstone of modern totalitarianism. She distinguishes between different forms of government, as a function of the set of predicates by which a nation is governed. Some governments rule by deontological rules theocracies that use the Ten Commandments, etc. Some rule by positive law written laws established by legislation. Some rule by tyranny the arbitrary rule by the opinions of one or a few individuals. Each of these has its advantages and disadvantages.

Totalitarianism is something radically different, even radically different from tyranny. Totalitarianism is rule by natural laws she means by laws of nature, not natural law in the scholastic sense. Nazism ruled by biological natural laws drawn from Darwin and his followers concepts of racial superiority, survival of the fittest, etc. Communists rule by natural laws of class, history, and economics the class struggle, struggle against capitalism, etc.Marxists draw parallels between these laws and those established by Darwin. As Darwin discovered the law of evolution in organic nature,said Friedrich Engels, Marx discovered the law of evolution in human history.

Its noteworthy that while we think of Hitler and Stalin as tyrants, Arendt would say that they werent really tyrants in the sense she means. Tyrants are arbitrary, and totalitarians arent. For example, Caligula (a classic tyrant) could make his horse a senator, just by whim. Hitler could not have made a Jew his minister of defense, and Stalin could not have made a capitalist his minister of the interior.

Tyrants are less dangerous because they are not wedded to unalterable ideology. In this sense, Augustus was a tyrant, too he had complete personal power but his rule was for the most part rational and humane. Totalitarians are much more dangerous than tyrants because they are absolutely committed to an ideology, and that ideology takes precedence over all other considerations over positive law, over moral law, over personal relationships. Germans were expected to turn in Jews to the Gestapo, even if the Jew was a friend. Soviet citizens were expected to turn in relatives who didnt buy into Communism to the Cheka, even close relatives such as parents.

Totalitarianism is uniquely dangerous because it is objectively driven and unchecked by any other considerations. It is very effective in the sense that it systematically destroys opposition in an organized way that tyrants, theocrats, etc. tend not to do.

Arendt noted that totalitarians work using terror. She defined terror as the completely arbitrary use of fear. Anyone could get a knock on the door at 3 a.m. from the Cheka, for any reason. Guilt in the sense of legal violation plays no role the accusation is the conviction, and there is no recourse to law or reason. The goal of terror is to utterly disorganize society and disorganize individual thought. You never can predict, you never can know what is coming next. This disorganization is essential because it leaves only the ruling ideology the natural law as a guiding principle. The struggle is theonlyorganizing principle, and that is the essence of the totalitarian system.Onlythe natural law only the struggle matters, and war is perpetual. Under totalitarianism, people are terrified and paralyzed Arendt often used the word paralyzed. People in a totalitarian state are like panicked livestock, to be bred, culled, slaughtered, and used to advance the ideology and win the perpetual struggle. Terror and paralysis are the cornerstones of public policy in totalitarian states.

The COVID-19 lockdown isnt fully totalitarian, of course.Dennis Prager notesthat while we are closer to a police state than ever in American history, a police state does not mean totalitarian state. America is not a totalitarian state; we still have many freedoms. But you can get a flavor. Proponents of radical lockdown instill fear (as you may be aware if you have followedevents in California). They are arbitrary (you can go to the liquor store but not to church, or in Michigan, you can buy vegetables butnot seeds for a garden). A noteworthy example of this arbitrariness is New York mayor Bill de Blasiosthreat to arrest Orthodox Jewswho attend funerals, whilehe issued no such threat to spectators who gathered in crowds to watch the Blue Angelsfly over a few days ago.

For Arendt, Darwin was at the root of modern totalitarianism, because he offered the most pervasive natural law natural selection. Logically, Darwin influenced both Nazi and Communist totalitarians. The highest qualities of human beings were, according to Darwin, the direct consequence of a struggle built into nature. Darwinism offers a scientific validation of totalitarian natural law, on which a totalitarians system could be built. For Arendt, Darwin was, in a way, the prophet of totalitarianism.

FromThe Origins of Totalitarianism:

Darwinism met with such overwhelming success [in totalitarian systems] because it provided, on the basis of inheritance, the ideological weapons for race and well as class rule

Materialism is an indispensable boost to Darwinian and totalitarian ideology. Thats whyDarwinist Jerry Coynes denial of free will is so dangerous it removes the idea of guilt or innocence, and makes us livestock to be managed and culled according to ideology. In Coynes world without free will, a man cannot coherently say But Im innocent! Without free will, there is no moral innocence or moral guilt. There is only matter in motion, to be controlled by the state for the states (ideological) purposes.

In this COVID crisis, we need to carefully consider the social and political implications of the measures our government takes to stem the pandemic. As Hannah Arendt so masterfully explained, a nation paralyzed by fear and locked down by government-by-edict has moved in a subtle but undeniable way toward totalitarian dynamics. Fear and involuntary quarantine carry more than just an economic price. Totalitarianism is no less deadly than a pandemic and is just as easy to misdiagnose in its early stages.

Photo: Hannah Arendt died in 1975 and was buried on the campus of Bard College, by Loslazos / CC BY-SA.

Go here to read the rest:

Darwinism, Totalitarianism, and the Lockdown - Discovery Institute

Posted in Darwinism | Comments Off on Darwinism, Totalitarianism, and the Lockdown – Discovery Institute

Fifth Amendment | Summary, Rights, & Facts | Britannica

Posted: at 5:46 am

Fifth Amendment, amendment (1791) to the Constitution of the United States, part of the Bill of Rights, that articulates procedural safeguards designed to protect the rights of the criminally accused and to secure life, liberty, and property. For the text of the Fifth Amendment, see below.

Similar to the First Amendment, the Fifth Amendment is divided into five clauses, representing five distinct, yet related, rights. The first clause specifies that [n]o person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger. This grand jury provision requires a body to make a formal presentment or indictment of a person accused of committing a crime against the laws of the federal government. The proceeding is not a trial but rather an ex parte hearing (i.e., one in which only one party, the prosecution, presents evidence) to determine if the government has enough evidence to carry a case to trial. If the grand jury finds sufficient evidence that an offense was committed, it issues an indictment, which then permits a trial. The portion of the clause pertaining to exceptions in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia is a corollary to Article I, Section 8, which grants Congress the power [t]o make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces. Combined, they justify the use of military courts for the armed forces, thus denying military personnel the same procedural rights afforded civilians.

The second section is commonly referred to as the double jeopardy clause, and it protects citizens against a second prosecution after an acquittal or a conviction, as well as against multiple punishments for the same offense. Caveats to this provision include permissions to try persons for civil and criminal aspects of an offense, conspiring to commit as well as to commit an offense, and separate trials for acts that violate laws of both the federal and state governments, although federal laws generally suppress prosecution by the national government if a person is convicted of the same crime in a state proceeding.

The third section is commonly referred to as the self-incrimination clause, and it protects persons accused of committing a crime from being forced to testify against themselves. In the U.S. judicial system a person is presumed innocent, and it is the responsibility of the state (or national government) to prove guilt. Like other pieces of evidence, once presented, words can be used powerfully against a person; however, words can be manipulated in a way that many other objects cannot. Consequently, information gained from sobriety tests, police lineups, voice samples, and the like is constitutionally permissible while evidence gained from compelled testimony is not. As such, persons accused of committing crimes are protected against themselves or, more accurately, how their words may be used against them. The clause, therefore, protects a key aspect of the system as well as the rights of the criminally accused.

The fourth section is commonly referred to as the due process clause. It protects life, liberty, and property from impairment by the federal government. (The Fourteenth Amendment, ratified in 1868, protects the same rights from infringement by the states.) Chiefly concerned with fairness and justice, the due process clause seeks to preserve and protect fundamental rights and ensure that any deprivation of life, liberty, or property occurs in accordance with procedural safeguards. As such, there are both substantive and procedural considerations associated with the due process clause, and this has influenced the development of two separate tracks of due process jurisprudence: procedural and substantive. Procedural due process pertains to the rules, elements, or methods of enforcementthat is, its procedural aspects. Consider the elements of a fair trial and related Sixth Amendment protections. As long as all relevant rights of the accused are adequately protectedas long as the rules of the game, so to speak, are followedthen the government may, in fact, deprive a person of his life, liberty, or property. But what if the rules are not fair? What if the law itselfregardless of how it is enforcedseemingly deprives rights? This raises the controversial spectre of substantive due process rights. It is not inconceivable that the content of the law, regardless of how it is enforced, is itself repugnant to the Constitution because it violates fundamental rights. Over time, the Supreme Court has had an on-again, off-again relationship with liberty-based due process challenges, but it has generally abided by the principle that certain rights are implicit in the concept of ordered liberty (Palko v. Connecticut [1937]), and as such they are afforded constitutional protection. This, in turn, has led to the expansion of the meaning of the term liberty. What arguably began as freedom from restraint has transformed into a virtual cornucopia of rights reasonably related to enumerated rights, without which neither liberty nor justice would exist. For example, the right to an abortion, established in Roe v. Wade (1973), grew from privacy rights, which emerged from the penumbras of the constitution.

More here:
Fifth Amendment | Summary, Rights, & Facts | Britannica

Posted in Fifth Amendment | Comments Off on Fifth Amendment | Summary, Rights, & Facts | Britannica

Patent Owners Cannot Sue the Government for Patent Infringement as a Fifth Amendment Taking – JD Supra

Posted: at 5:46 am

Updated: May 25, 2018:

JD Supra is a legal publishing service that connects experts and their content with broader audiences of professionals, journalists and associations.

This Privacy Policy describes how JD Supra, LLC ("JD Supra" or "we," "us," or "our") collects, uses and shares personal data collected from visitors to our website (located at http://www.jdsupra.com) (our "Website") who view only publicly-available content as well as subscribers to our services (such as our email digests or author tools)(our "Services"). By using our Website and registering for one of our Services, you are agreeing to the terms of this Privacy Policy.

Please note that if you subscribe to one of our Services, you can make choices about how we collect, use and share your information through our Privacy Center under the "My Account" dashboard (available if you are logged into your JD Supra account).

Registration Information. When you register with JD Supra for our Website and Services, either as an author or as a subscriber, you will be asked to provide identifying information to create your JD Supra account ("Registration Data"), such as your:

Other Information: We also collect other information you may voluntarily provide. This may include content you provide for publication. We may also receive your communications with others through our Website and Services (such as contacting an author through our Website) or communications directly with us (such as through email, feedback or other forms or social media). If you are a subscribed user, we will also collect your user preferences, such as the types of articles you would like to read.

Information from third parties (such as, from your employer or LinkedIn): We may also receive information about you from third party sources. For example, your employer may provide your information to us, such as in connection with an article submitted by your employer for publication. If you choose to use LinkedIn to subscribe to our Website and Services, we also collect information related to your LinkedIn account and profile.

Your interactions with our Website and Services: As is true of most websites, we gather certain information automatically. This information includes IP addresses, browser type, Internet service provider (ISP), referring/exit pages, operating system, date/time stamp and clickstream data. We use this information to analyze trends, to administer the Website and our Services, to improve the content and performance of our Website and Services, and to track users' movements around the site. We may also link this automatically-collected data to personal information, for example, to inform authors about who has read their articles. Some of this data is collected through information sent by your web browser. We also use cookies and other tracking technologies to collect this information. To learn more about cookies and other tracking technologies that JD Supra may use on our Website and Services please see our "Cookies Guide" page.

We use the information and data we collect principally in order to provide our Website and Services. More specifically, we may use your personal information to:

JD Supra takes reasonable and appropriate precautions to insure that user information is protected from loss, misuse and unauthorized access, disclosure, alteration and destruction. We restrict access to user information to those individuals who reasonably need access to perform their job functions, such as our third party email service, customer service personnel and technical staff. You should keep in mind that no Internet transmission is ever 100% secure or error-free. Where you use log-in credentials (usernames, passwords) on our Website, please remember that it is your responsibility to safeguard them. If you believe that your log-in credentials have been compromised, please contact us at privacy@jdsupra.com.

Our Website and Services are not directed at children under the age of 16 and we do not knowingly collect personal information from children under the age of 16 through our Website and/or Services. If you have reason to believe that a child under the age of 16 has provided personal information to us, please contact us, and we will endeavor to delete that information from our databases.

Our Website and Services may contain links to other websites. The operators of such other websites may collect information about you, including through cookies or other technologies. If you are using our Website or Services and click a link to another site, you will leave our Website and this Policy will not apply to your use of and activity on those other sites. We encourage you to read the legal notices posted on those sites, including their privacy policies. We are not responsible for the data collection and use practices of such other sites. This Policy applies solely to the information collected in connection with your use of our Website and Services and does not apply to any practices conducted offline or in connection with any other websites.

JD Supra's principal place of business is in the United States. By subscribing to our website, you expressly consent to your information being processed in the United States.

You can make a request to exercise any of these rights by emailing us at privacy@jdsupra.com or by writing to us at:

You can also manage your profile and subscriptions through our Privacy Center under the "My Account" dashboard.

We will make all practical efforts to respect your wishes. There may be times, however, where we are not able to fulfill your request, for example, if applicable law prohibits our compliance. Please note that JD Supra does not use "automatic decision making" or "profiling" as those terms are defined in the GDPR.

Pursuant to Section 1798.83 of the California Civil Code, our customers who are California residents have the right to request certain information regarding our disclosure of personal information to third parties for their direct marketing purposes.

You can make a request for this information by emailing us at privacy@jdsupra.com or by writing to us at:

Some browsers have incorporated a Do Not Track (DNT) feature. These features, when turned on, send a signal that you prefer that the website you are visiting not collect and use data regarding your online searching and browsing activities. As there is not yet a common understanding on how to interpret the DNT signal, we currently do not respond to DNT signals on our site.

For non-EU/Swiss residents, if you would like to know what personal information we have about you, you can send an e-mail to privacy@jdsupra.com. We will be in contact with you (by mail or otherwise) to verify your identity and provide you the information you request. We will respond within 30 days to your request for access to your personal information. In some cases, we may not be able to remove your personal information, in which case we will let you know if we are unable to do so and why. If you would like to correct or update your personal information, you can manage your profile and subscriptions through our Privacy Center under the "My Account" dashboard. If you would like to delete your account or remove your information from our Website and Services, send an e-mail to privacy@jdsupra.com.

We reserve the right to change this Privacy Policy at any time. Please refer to the date at the top of this page to determine when this Policy was last revised. Any changes to our Privacy Policy will become effective upon posting of the revised policy on the Website. By continuing to use our Website and Services following such changes, you will be deemed to have agreed to such changes.

If you have any questions about this Privacy Policy, the practices of this site, your dealings with our Website or Services, or if you would like to change any of the information you have provided to us, please contact us at: privacy@jdsupra.com.

As with many websites, JD Supra's website (located at http://www.jdsupra.com) (our "Website") and our services (such as our email article digests)(our "Services") use a standard technology called a "cookie" and other similar technologies (such as, pixels and web beacons), which are small data files that are transferred to your computer when you use our Website and Services. These technologies automatically identify your browser whenever you interact with our Website and Services.

We use cookies and other tracking technologies to:

There are different types of cookies and other technologies used our Website, notably:

JD Supra Cookies. We place our own cookies on your computer to track certain information about you while you are using our Website and Services. For example, we place a session cookie on your computer each time you visit our Website. We use these cookies to allow you to log-in to your subscriber account. In addition, through these cookies we are able to collect information about how you use the Website, including what browser you may be using, your IP address, and the URL address you came from upon visiting our Website and the URL you next visit (even if those URLs are not on our Website). We also utilize email web beacons to monitor whether our emails are being delivered and read. We also use these tools to help deliver reader analytics to our authors to give them insight into their readership and help them to improve their content, so that it is most useful for our users.

Analytics/Performance Cookies. JD Supra also uses the following analytic tools to help us analyze the performance of our Website and Services as well as how visitors use our Website and Services:

Facebook, Twitter and other Social Network Cookies. Our content pages allow you to share content appearing on our Website and Services to your social media accounts through the "Like," "Tweet," or similar buttons displayed on such pages. To accomplish this Service, we embed code that such third party social networks provide and that we do not control. These buttons know that you are logged in to your social network account and therefore such social networks could also know that you are viewing the JD Supra Website.

If you would like to change how a browser uses cookies, including blocking or deleting cookies from the JD Supra Website and Services you can do so by changing the settings in your web browser. To control cookies, most browsers allow you to either accept or reject all cookies, only accept certain types of cookies, or prompt you every time a site wishes to save a cookie. It's also easy to delete cookies that are already saved on your device by a browser.

The processes for controlling and deleting cookies vary depending on which browser you use. To find out how to do so with a particular browser, you can use your browser's "Help" function or alternatively, you can visit http://www.aboutcookies.org which explains, step-by-step, how to control and delete cookies in most browsers.

We may update this cookie policy and our Privacy Policy from time-to-time, particularly as technology changes. You can always check this page for the latest version. We may also notify you of changes to our privacy policy by email.

If you have any questions about how we use cookies and other tracking technologies, please contact us at: privacy@jdsupra.com.

See more here:
Patent Owners Cannot Sue the Government for Patent Infringement as a Fifth Amendment Taking - JD Supra

Posted in Fifth Amendment | Comments Off on Patent Owners Cannot Sue the Government for Patent Infringement as a Fifth Amendment Taking – JD Supra

Rant and Rave for May 7, 2020 | Opinion | moultrieobserver.com – Moultrie Observer

Posted: at 5:46 am

Banning evictions is like taking property

Banning evictions and foreclosures, to me, is taking of property for private use. Evictions and foreclosures are now halted, thereby violating landlords and others Fifth Amendment rights under Knick_V_Township_of_Scott which reads in part, ...a government violates the Constitution whenever it takes property without advance compensation.... This lock down, in one form or another, will last a long time.

Can we just boot them both?

Lets try this. Given that we have two candidates whove got sexual assault claims against them (25 to 1, Trump leads and there is that recording of him saying those nice things about women) just boot both of them.

Both parties can scrape somebody up for a quick campaign. Biden has his issues and Trump already showed hes unfit so why not?

School Board should show people more respect

The School Board needs to think about decisions they make! The votes that got them there are the same ones who can take them out! Colquitt County needs change in their school board. I will be voting for all new people. They need to learn appreciate people that they think are below them.

Court: Immigrants can be deported if they break law

Saw where the Supreme Court ruled 5-4 that immigrants with lawful permanent resident status cannot fight deportation due to a previous offense, though the crime wasnt grounds for deportation. I guess illegal is illegal ... who knew? Why should this require a Supreme Court ruling? Because Democrats want the whole world within our borders, or our borders to include the whole world.

Shelter in place no longer protecting many people

This shelter in place argument only goes so far. After a long period of time, shelter in place no longer protects many people, including healthy people and people without risk factors. Why must everyone shelter in place? Essentially house arrest since people can be arrested or cited for violating the shelter in place law, which hasnt even been legally passed.

We are making critical coverage of the coronavirus available for free. Please consider subscribing so we can continue to bring you the latest news and information on this developing story.

View original post here:
Rant and Rave for May 7, 2020 | Opinion | moultrieobserver.com - Moultrie Observer

Posted in Fifth Amendment | Comments Off on Rant and Rave for May 7, 2020 | Opinion | moultrieobserver.com – Moultrie Observer

Government sued over immigrant children not receiving COVID-19 checks | TheHill – The Hill

Posted: at 5:46 am

A group of U.S. citizens whose parents are undocumented immigrants are suing the government for being denied relief money from the coronavirus stimulus bill that was signed into law in March.

The group filed a class-action lawsuit in federal court on Tuesday, arguing that their exclusion from the relief package is unconstitutional.

"The refusal to distribute this benefit to U.S. citizen children undermines the CARES Acts goal of providing assistance to Americans in need, frustrates the Acts efforts to jumpstart the economy, and punishes citizen children for their parents status punishment that is particularly nonsensical given that undocumented immigrants, collectively, pay billions of dollars each year in taxes," their lawsuit reads.

The lawsuit was filed in Maryland's federal district court by the Georgetown University law school's Institute for Constitutional Advocacy and Protection on behalf of the group.

The Coronavirus Aid, Relief and Economic Security (CARES) Act pays out up to $1,200 to eligible adults and up to $500 for each of their children. But in order to receive the money, beneficiaries must have Social Security numbers, which undocumented immigrants lack, meaning their children can't obtain the stimulus checks even if they are American citizens.

The lawsuit argues that undocumented immigrants have been particularly hard-hit by the pandemic's toll on the economy. They largely work in low-wage jobs and are ineligible for unemployment insurance, making the $500 relief payments crucial for families headed by undocumented parents, the class-action complaint argues.

One of the plaintiffs, identified only as Norma over security concerns, says that she lost her job in a restaurant that was shut down because of the pandemic and she has no way to get relief money for her son who was born in the U.S.

I have lost my job, and in my home three adults have the coronavirus; none of us are working, Norma said in a statement released through her lawyers. My son is an American citizen, and we need him to receive the CARES Act benefit to provide food and a roof over his head until this difficult moment passes.

The lawsuit alleges that the exclusion violates the equal protections in the Fifth Amendment and asked the court to rule that the group is eligible for relief payments.

A spokeswoman for the Treasury Department, which is named in the lawsuit as a defendant, did not immediately respond when asked for comment.

Visit link:
Government sued over immigrant children not receiving COVID-19 checks | TheHill - The Hill

Posted in Fifth Amendment | Comments Off on Government sued over immigrant children not receiving COVID-19 checks | TheHill – The Hill

Michigan Rep. Justin Amash on Why Hed Run for President as a Libertarian and the Culture of the GOP – TIME

Posted: May 9, 2020 at 12:46 pm

Rep. Justin Amash announced April 28 that he was launching an exploratory committee to seek the Libertarian Partys presidential nomination.

There had long been buzz about a potential presidential run around Amash, who last year left the Republican party and became an Independent member of Congress (a spokesperson for Amash says he is now officially a Libertarian member of Congress). Though hes been critical of Trump and the Republican party, Amash says his main argument is broader: He believes the country is locked in what hes repeatedly called a partisan death spiral in which representative government is broken.

Amash, who says he will not seek reelection to his current House seat, spoke with TIME via Skype from his home in Michigan on May 3, where he discussed the state of the current Republican party, how he believes campaigning virtually levels the playing field, and why he thinks he has a pathway to the nomination.

Below is a lightly edited, condensed transcript of the interview.

As a presidential candidate, what would the core idea of your campaign be?

The core idea is liberty and representative government. And what we have right now in Washington is a very broken system. What happens right now too often is a few leaders in Congress negotiate with the White House, and they decide everything for everyone. And this leads to a lot of frustration and a lot of partisanship because when Congress cant deliberate actual policies, when you have most members of Congress left out of the process, then they start to debate personalities.

Why are you dipping your toes into this with an exploratory committee instead of just outright running?

Im new to the Libertarian Party, and Im seeking the nomination of the Libertarian Party. I want to be respectful of all the delegates, I want to be respectful of the people who have been a part of that party for a long time. And Im starting it as an exploratory committee so that I can try to earn the nomination, and if Im able to get further along and obtain the nomination, then we can talk about changing it to a full committee.

Do you have a deadline then when it comes to deciding whether you will actually run versus exploratory?

I dont have a specific deadline in mind. I think as this goes on, well have a better idea of where we stand with the delegates. And there may come a point where I feel more comfortable moving forward concretely and saying, yes, Im in 100%, Im going all the way. But right now I want to make sure Im being respectful of the delegates and working to earn their trust. And Im going to continue to work to do that over the next few weeks.

Why now, when its so late in the election cycle, and in the middle of a pandemic?

Well for one thing, I think its important to think about the fact that the election cycles have been getting longer. Theyre starting early in the year before the election, and we dont need that much campaigning going on for a presidency, otherwise these things are just nonstop, around-the-clock, and people get really tired of it. But actually, at the beginning of this year, in February, I started to look at it very carefully, and wanted to consider whether I would be a candidate, and I would have made a decision earlier, but then we had the coronavirus pandemic come up, and I had to make the decision, the right decision, I believe, to delay the final judgement of whether Im going to jump in or not, because I want to be able to represent my constituents during this time, I wanted to make sure Im in top of what was going on in Congress, and I wanted to reassess how a pandemic situation where were all stuck at home would affect the campaign.

Is it still possible to advance the things you want to talk about as a third-party candidate?

It is possible to do that, and the way Im going to do that is by getting my message out there. And if I do that, I feel confident that people will see that among the three candidates, the one running as a Libertarian Party nominee right now, or seeking the Libertarian Party nomination, is the one who will be the most compelling and qualified candidate of the three.

Do you think your presence in the race will help or hurt either candidate?

I think it hurts both candidates. The goal is to win, so you obviously want to take votes from both candidates. Theres a huge pool of voters who arent represented by either of the parties, and a lot of times, they just stay home or they settle for one of the two parties, but they would be happy to vote for someone else if they felt there was another candidate that was compelling.

Have you thought about whether youd vote for Biden or Trump?

I would not vote for Biden or Trump. Getting rid of Donald Trump does not fix the problems because Donald Trump is just a symptom of the problems. The problems will still exist with Joe Biden in the White House.

Is there anything that your friends in the Republican Party could do to redeem themselves now in your eyes?

I dont think that theres any way to pull them back from where they are. The culture of Donald Trump that has become dominant in the Republican Party is not going away anytime soon. Its probably here for at least a decade. Its a very different tone; its a very different style. Theres not much focus on principles anymore, its a focus on personality.

What makes you think that theres a viable path for you?

When you think about whether Republicans are firmly behind Trump, yes, theyre firmly behind Trump because they dont see an alternative. And they view the alternative right now as Joe Biden, and thats not a viable alternative for most Republicans. So there is a path for a third candidate to receive votes from Republicans.

Michigan has been in the news recently for the protests against the governors coronavirus policies. Can I ask what you made of them?

I support people protesting. I support their right to protest. I think people are very upset in Michigan about much of the overreach. I do condemn and denounce things like using Nazi flags or Nazi symbols at protests. Or coming into the state capitol holding weapons in a way that might be intimidating to many people.

What about the protests where folks havent been adhering to socialdistancing practices?

It shouldnt happen where people dont keep away from each other by at least 6 ft. I mean, were hearing from doctors and epidemiologists and others. We should adhere to those guidelines.

What was the decision not to run for reelection like?

It was one of the most difficult decisions of my life. I think its important to focus on one race at a time, and this is the race Im focused on. Ultimately I decided that even though I can win reelection as an independent, I wasnt sure it would make the same kind of difference to our system as running a presidential campaign and winning that campaign. If you win as an independent, some people might just write it off to some oddity of the third district of Michigan, saying, well in that district, an independent can win, but it wont work anywhere else. If you win the presidency as a Libertarian, you have a chance to really upset the system in a way that can restore our constitutional process and our representative government, and to me that is the more important thing.

Whats it like being home and deciding whether you want to run for President under these circumstances?

Its a different kind of campaign, but its one that actually may work to my benefit. If we were running a normal campaign, I obviously dont have the name ID yet to go out and hold massive rallies or any of those kinds of things, like the President might, or maybe Joe Biden might. So were at a point where we can compete with the other candidates through video and through technology, and I have an advantage in that, maybe, as a younger candidate, going out there and getting my message out on social media and elsewhere.

Thank you! For your security, we've sent a confirmation email to the address you entered. Click the link to confirm your subscription and begin receiving our newsletters. If you don't get the confirmation within 10 minutes, please check your spam folder.

Write to Lissandra Villa at lissandra.villa@time.com.

Here is the original post:

Michigan Rep. Justin Amash on Why Hed Run for President as a Libertarian and the Culture of the GOP - TIME

Posted in Libertarian | Comments Off on Michigan Rep. Justin Amash on Why Hed Run for President as a Libertarian and the Culture of the GOP – TIME

Governments Have Screwed Up Mask Purchase and Distribution. Maybe Everyone Should Be a Libertarian in a Pandemic. – Reason

Posted: at 12:46 pm

The government has not been an efficient or competent dispenser of the masks so vital to protecting health care workers and patients from COVID-19.

As of mid-April, The Wall Street Journal reports, the federal government had for whatever reason dedicated millions in contracts, involving at least 80 percent of the 20 million N95 masks it was trying to procure, from "suppliers that either had never done business with the federal government or had only taken on small prior contracts that didn't include medical supplies." Predictably, some of those vendors"missed delivery deadlines or have backed out because of supply problems. The parent company of one supplier is in bankruptcy and its owners have been accused of fraud in lawsuits by multiple business partners."

One contractor, who usually works in hospital renovation for the government, told the Journal he just figured he'd be able to find the masks somehow through suppliers he typically worked with. After he agreed to a $5.5 million contract, the paper says, he was "stymied by sellers that don't really have high-quality masks or who jack up the price."

At least one would-be contractor has now been nabbed for fraud on such a mask deal.

ProPublicatagged along with what theJournalcalled the "largest N95 mask contract given out by the VA [Veterans Administration], for an initial $35.4 million." The company, Federal Government Experts, "agreed to provide the VA six million masks for $5.90 apiece by April 25, with potential for another five million masks at the same price at a later date, for a total of $64.9 million, according to federal contracting data."

It didn't work out. As Robert Stewartthe boss at Federal Government Expertswondered to the ProPublica reporter himself, "Awarding a $34.5 million contract to a small company without any supply chain experience.Why would you do that?"

Stewart let that reporter tag along on fruitless (and expensive) private jet rides (including picking up what Stewart hoped would be his proud parents) on his way to cities where he didn't know he'd find any masks, and in general to witness him get jerked around by other unreliable potential sources for the masks he promised to deliver.

The fiasco ended with no masks deliveredbut at least, according to the VA, no money paid either. (This contract paid only on delivery.) Despite months of scrambling, the Veterans Administration was not prepared to keep its hospitals equipped with masks. As of now over 2,000 V.A. employees have tested positive.

Stewart's absurd deal is only the tip of the iceberg in questionable procurement practices. ProPublica notes that the administration "has handed out at least $5.1 billion in no-bid contracts to address the pandemic."

The feds aren't the only ones making bad mask decisions. California is currently trying to get a refund on a $456.9 million wire transfer it sent as a down payment on a $600 million contract for 110 million N95 masks. It paid the money to a firm called Blue Flame Medical, which, The Wall Street Journalinforms us, was "founded days earlier by former Republican fundraiser Mike Gula.Blue Flame struck a flurry of deals with states looking for medical supplies in late March and the first weeks of April, most of which have unraveled." Maryland and Alabama are also cancelling orders with the company, having decided that they are unlikely to be fulfilled.

Meanwhile, the Los Angeles Timesreports that Gov. Gavin Newsom of California is refusing "to reveal the contents of a $990-million contract for purchasing protective masks from a Chinese electric car manufacturer." All the state would cough up was that they committed to buying 200 million masks a month for two months, of which 150 million were N95, but "all other details, including the price paid per mask, have been kept confidential." Even the state's legislators are being blocked from learning details of the deal. Such secrecy is not comforting when such enormous amounts of public funds are being spent.

When it does have the masks, the government hasn't been a great or intelligent caretaker or distributor of them. The Transportation Security Agency decided to hoard more than 1.3 million N95 respirator masks (which it received from Customs and Border Protection) rather than distribute them to hospitals or agencies or people who might lack themeven, as ProPublica reported, "as the number of people coming through U.S. airports dropped by 95% and the TSA instructed many employees to stay home to avoid being infected."

Other wasteful, clumsy, or even macabre stories have arisen from government attempts to help with or procure medical equipment. In Seattle, the county Public Health Department sent a Native American community health board body bags instead of requested medical supplies.

Before COVID-19 hit, certain pundits were promoting "state capacity libertarianism"the idea that it is silly to focus on how much government spends or taxes, or the ways it dictates how people live, buy, sell, or behave, or the breadth and width of tasks it takes upon itself: What's important, this argument holds, is how effective and smart government is at doing what it tries to do.

The idea was, at best, an attempt to turn libertarian energies toward making government better at what it does. But these not-at-all-shocking snafus show no obvious way the concept could help, other than hand-waving calls to have better people making better decisions.

Mask procurement is not going awry because government lacks the capacity to do anything. They have plenty of money, essentially as much as they want to have, and they have plenty of staff. It's not because they don't have professional experts and bureaucrats trying to manage things, and it's not because Republicans hate government and want it to fail.

Even in a relatively free market, fraud and incompetence exist. The government in its mask decisions have shown a keen ability to find market actors who are very bad (deliberately or not) at what they do and offer them ungodly amounts of money. But government's unique combination of endless money and impunity for messing things up mean that the state is going to get things more wrong, more often. And that's true even, or perhaps especially, when it's urgent that the state get things right. The evidence is in the news every day, even if ideological blinders prevent non-libertarians from acknowledging it.

More here:

Governments Have Screwed Up Mask Purchase and Distribution. Maybe Everyone Should Be a Libertarian in a Pandemic. - Reason

Posted in Libertarian | Comments Off on Governments Have Screwed Up Mask Purchase and Distribution. Maybe Everyone Should Be a Libertarian in a Pandemic. – Reason

We Need Economists, Civil Libertarians, and Epidemiologists in the COVID-19 Discussion – Reason

Posted: at 12:46 pm

At the supermarket last week, amidst too many empty shelves, the manager looked at me through a plexiglass sneeze barrier and groused, "they need to open things up. I'd rather get the sniffles than face an angry mob."

COVID-19 is more than the "sniffles"so far, over a quarter-million people have died globally during the pandemic, according to the Johns Hopkins University Coronavirus Resource Center. But it's also not the only risk human beings face, even if many policymakers seem consumed with it to the exclusion of all else. There are also the economic repercussions of harsh enforcement of lockdown measures to consider. And we should also include in there the danger to life and liberty inherent in mandated shutdown orders that are enforced by police and jails.

To focus on the virus alone to the exclusion of other threats is to court disaster. Well, not just to court itdisaster is here.

For the week ending May 2, another 3.2 million Americans filed unemployment claims, bringing the total number to over 33 million for the seven weeks since pandemic-related lockdowns began. On a similar note, the European Union predicts its economy will contract by 7.5 percent in 2020 because of the pandemic and related lockdown measures. And "the global economy likely shrank an annualized 12.6 percent in first quarter 2020 relative to fourth quarter 2019 and will weaken a further 8.6 percent in the second quarter," according to the Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas.

If numbers bore you, we can just go with the International Monetary Fund's pithy description: "worst economic downturn since the Great Depression" because of the pandemic and related lockdowns. Or there's the United Nations' equally catchy forecast of "multiple famines of biblical proportions"not entirely due to the pandemic, but certainly made much worse by the disruptions it has created.

Enforcing lockdowns inflicts a cost on our freedom, too.

"As countries around the world institute extraordinary measures to fight the pandemic, both dictatorships and democracies are curtailing civil liberties on a massive scale," Florian Bieber of Austria's University of Graz observed in Foreign Policy.

That has meant opportunistic muzzling of dissent and arrests of critics, as documented by monitors including Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch. But it has also meant moronic enforcement of stay-at-home orders, such as protecting people from infection by beating them (the predictable go-to for many law-enforcers around the world). Less brutal but just as stupid are arrests for playing with family members in public parks, and jailings for hanging out with friends and opening businesses without government permissionheavy-handed moves that increase the danger of transmitting disease through contact with cops and incarceration in crowded cells.

Which is to say, focusing narrowly on the danger of the virus has made billions of human beings poorer than they were before, and less free than they have every right to be. And, as the phrase "multiple famines of biblical proportions" implies, there are add-on costs in terms of human life and welfare to being impoverished and under the boot.

"In some cases, people are dying because of the inappropriate application of measures that have been supposedly put in place to save them," United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights Michelle Bachelet concedes.

That's probably a little more analysis than the local supermarket manager had in mind when he talked about balancing fear of "sniffles" against that of an "angry mob," but he did a fair job of recognizing that there are tradeoffs in dealing with the pandemic. He knows that his customers are hurting because of the measures taken to battle the virus, that their paychecks are drying up, and that it's difficult to fully stock shelves because some items are in short supply.

That's not to say he and I would necessarily agree on the proper balance between the competing dangers. Like I said, I think there's more to COVID-19 than "sniffles." But if one of us enforces his judgment on the other with a nightstick, that disagreement becomes a lot more costly than if we're free to make our own assessments about the proper balance of risksespecially since we don't know each other's risk tolerances and abilities to weather one danger relative to another.

Noah Feldman, professor of law at Harvard, frames the ability to conceive of tradeoffs in handling the pandemic in terms of the different ways epidemiologists and economists think.

"Unlike epidemiologists, who identify a biological enemy and try to defeat it without thinking much about the costs, economists live on trade-offs," he wrote for Bloomberg. "It's an article of faith for economists that there is no such thing as an absolute valuenot even the value of human life. Instead, most economists embrace the hardheaded reality that helping one person often leaves another less well-off."

If you add a civil libertarian (or perhaps just a jaded defense attorney, who knows that "law enforcement" is synonymous with busted heads) to that mix, you might get an even better-balanced discussion of the tradeoffs in various approaches to dealing with the pandemic. That would make for a much more serious discussion about the danger of a new, deadly, and highly contagious virus, balanced with the risk of poverty and despair from shutting down societies in order to battle that virus, and considering the peril inherent in turning the world into a vast prison in order to enforce a shutdown.

Maybe that's a discussion we could have soon. Because the tradeoffs among considerations of health, prosperity, and liberty are catching up with us even if we don't want to acknowledge them.

More here:

We Need Economists, Civil Libertarians, and Epidemiologists in the COVID-19 Discussion - Reason

Posted in Libertarian | Comments Off on We Need Economists, Civil Libertarians, and Epidemiologists in the COVID-19 Discussion – Reason