by Bob Barr | May 29, 2019 | Uncategorized |
Townhall.com When America’s first red light camera system was installed in Jackson, Mississippi in 1992, it was hailed as the beginning of a program that would save lives, improve driving skills, and free police officers from having to monitor busy intersections. The devices sprang up at intersections in cities large and small across the country; fueled by the huge amount of money the devices generated for local governments (and for the private companies that actually owned and operated the cameras and the accompanying software). Defense lawyers, civil libertarians and privacy experts raised serious concerns about the constitutionality of the devices and questioned the manner by which fines were being levied on owners of vehicles nabbed by the electronic cameras. Many complaints focused on the fact that the devices were designed more to generate revenue than for safety. Not surprisingly, however, when questioned about the propriety or legality of charging drivers with expensive traffic offenses, local officials would claim with straight faces that revenue was not the primary – or even a secondary – reason for installing and using the devices; and the money kept rolling in. But something odd was happening at many of the intersections monitored by red light cameras. Even as the number of citations issued for running a red light at such locations increased dramatically, so too did accidents. Studies of this counter-intuitive phenomenon revealed that at camera-monitored intersections, accidents were occurring because drivers – fearful of being caught on camera slipping through a light just before it changed from yellow to red – were slamming on their brakes, and either rear-ending the vehicle in front...
by Bob Barr | May 28, 2019 | Uncategorized |
The Daily Caller You can’t be tried twice for the same offense. The concept of being free from “double jeopardy” is a right that has been recognized in law for thousands of years. The ancient Greek, Roman and Jewish legal systems incorporated the principle of double jeopardy in their judicial codes. So fundamental has this right been viewed, that it survived even the ravages visited upon the rule of law during the Dark Ages. The right of a person to be free from being “twice put in jeopardy of life or limb” found its way into the core of our Bill of Rights. Now, in the latest example of a liberal state government placing its hatred of President Trump above respect for long-standing legal tradition, the New York General Assembly has decided to weaken the protection against double jeopardy heretofore enjoyed by those within its borders. First, a note of background. In our federal system of governing, power is shared between the federal and the several state governments, with each constituting a separate and legal “sovereign” empowered and entitled to enforce its code of criminal law; even if doing so places an individual at risk of a successive prosecution for the same offense. Notwithstanding what appears on its face to be an exercise in “double jeopardy,” the U.S. Supreme Court has long permitted the practice (but a case currently before the High Court for decision could change that). However, recognizing the fundamental unfairness resulting from this application of “dual sovereignty,” many states, including New York, have enacted laws that prevent state prosecutors from bringing criminal charges against a person...
by Bob Barr | May 22, 2019 | Uncategorized |
Townhall.com Since 1926, the SAT has served as the standard of scholastic assessment for college-bound students. Each year, some two million high school students pay at least $47.50 to take the exam, which is virtually mandatory for acceptance into any competitive college or university in the United States. Although never meant to be a perfect barometer of college success, the SAT has been a well-regarded instrument for helping to identify high achieving students for nearly a century. Until now. Some Brainiac, or a committee thereof, has decided that in order to remain “relevant” (or something), the test must broaden its platform to calculate more than a student’s ability to master scholastic problems involving math, language and other subject areas heretofore considered a relevant measure of academic performance. It will now be designed to measure the “adversity” in which the test-taker lives or has lived. If that sounds nonsensical; it is. The College Board, which is the private non-profit organization that developed the SAT and oversees its administration, announced it would be adding a special “bonus” score in addition to the standard scores for math and language; factors unrelated to the test taker’s raw test results. Resembling more an exercise in alchemy to divine a student’s true, intrinsic ability as distinct from their actual test results, the “adversity score” will be based on a concoction of circumstantial factors such as family income, neighborhood crime and poverty levels, and housing environments. As Inside Higher Ed notes, this data will come from the College Board’s own databases containing information on U.S. high schools and surrounding areas; though it is problematically unclear from where the...
by Bob Barr | May 16, 2019 | Uncategorized |
The Daily Caller Late last month, President Trump signed an executive memorandum officially notifying the United Nations that the United States was withdrawing its support for a United Nations-backed treaty former Secretary of State John Kerry signed in 2013. With this action — “un-signing” a treaty document — Trump sent a clear, unambiguous, and long-overdue signal to the domestic and international gun control movement, that since 2001 had been pressing for a U.N. foothold to regulate firearms use and possession within our country: “Back off!” In signing this document, Trump drove a stake into the heart of the Arms Trade Treaty (ATT); and our Second Amendment is the stronger for that action. Oh, the outcry from the left! New Jersey’s Bob Menendez, ranking Democrat on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, wailed that in taking this “disturbing” action, Trump was “[jeopardizing] U.S. security.” Rachel Stohl, managing director for the Stimson Center in the nation’s capital, somehow concluded that the president’s action will “harm the American economy.” The common catchword by these and other globalists in describing the ATT that is now dead to the United States, was — as always for the gun control movement – “common sense.” In fact, there was nothing “common sense” about this document and the ongoing process to make it the operative mechanism for international gun control. Always seeking relevance and power since it was established in the immediate aftermath of WWII, the U.N. has worked for nearly two decades to shoehorn gun control into its “world peace” mission. In this, it has been strikingly successful, with some 130 countries signing the ATT and over 100 actually...
by Bob Barr | May 7, 2019 | Uncategorized |
The Daily Caller George Soros, along with Michael Bloomberg, has become the man conservatives love to hate; and with good reason. He harbors extreme left-wing political views, he is fabulously wealthy, and he has long-exhibited a willingness to “put his money where his mouth is.” Perhaps even more important than his wealth, however, is the fact that Soros understands that to effect lasting and systemic societal change, requires a consistent focus on politics at the local level. In this, Soros shares an understanding with Bloomberg; but where the former New York Mayor continues to focus like a laser on one issue — gun control — Soros is intent on achieving a far broader goal – to alter the basic structure of our judicial system. Soros cleverly — and smartly — has concluded that one of the most effective vehicles through which to accomplish this ambitious goal, is to fund left-leaning candidates for the one elected office that perhaps more than any other is able to change the fundamental values by which communities function — the local district attorney or “D.A.” While Soros’ crusade to implement this plan has not met with success in every instance, his victories in just the past four years have been significant. Throughout our nation’s history, prosecutors have enjoyed significant power to decide which cases to investigate and prosecute. The principle of “prosecutorial discretion” inherited from British law, clothes prosecutors with immunity against being second-guessed in their decisions about which cases to pursue and which to leave aside — in other words, what values to prioritize by prosecuting which crimes. Thus, if a prosecutor determines...
by Bob Barr | Apr 24, 2019 | Uncategorized |
FoxNews.com by Bob Barr Some House Democrats who are calling for impeachment proceedings against President Trump on a charge of obstruction of justice claim that President Clinton was impeached in 1998 for far less serious misconduct. As a leader of the Clinton impeachment effort, I disagree. I still believe the Clinton impeachment was justified. But based on what is now in the public record, I don’t believe a Trump impeachment is warranted. Clinton, of course, remained in office after the House impeached him on charges of perjury and obstruction of justice because the Senate acquitted him in a trial. Even if the Democratic-controlled House impeached President Trump, he would also likely stay in office after a Senate trial. Impeachment simply means the House charges the president with serious misconduct it considers to be what the Constitution calls “high crimes and misdemeanors.” The phrase is not defined in the Constitution, and in a sense can mean whatever a simple majority in the House says it means. However, there are two instances in which sitting presidents have been impeached – Andrew Johnson and Clinton – and one in which President Nixon almost certainly would have been impeached had he not first resigned. Looking at these cases gives us clear guidance that there needs to be a very substantial and substantive basis set forth on the record in order for the impeachment process to have the credibility it merits. With Democrats in majority control of the House – holding 235 seats, compared to the 197 seats held by Republicans – odds are that the Democrats can impeach Trump if they want to. Congressional Democrats opposed to...
