Thursday, August 05, 2010
Filming the Police and "Anchor Babies"
Two stories of note and comment today.
First, filming the police. As a conservative, I've typically been very pro-police over the years. I believe in law and order, except when the law becomes lawless in its behavior. That includes all branches of government.
However, this little case in Time Magazine puts me on the other side -- on this issue at least. The case in question stems from a person pulled over by an off-duty policeman, out of uniform and brandishing a pistol. The man being pulled over filmed the incident, and now they're trying to put him in prison for five years.
This needs to be disobeyed en masse. When someone under the cover of law begins abusing their authority, it is the inherent right of the citizenry to expose it and deal with it. I am reasonably confident the courts will slap this down, but if not, film them anyway, and in droves. "We the people" still means something. And if legislators won't address it as they ought, replace the legislators.
Next, the always fun Ann Coulter (herself a Constitutional attorney), discusses so-called "anchor babies." For those unfamiliar with the term, it's what they call the infants of illegal aliens -- aliens who take advantage of a constitutional provision originally intended only to deal with the children of slaves after the Civil War. Illegals come here on purpose to have babies, and the babies are then considered U.S. citizens. Outrageous, but as Ann points out, you can thank the late Justice William Brennan for it. Brennan has since assumed room temperature, but the damage he did while on the Supreme Court still lives.
It's time for either a legislative remedy or a constitutional amendment. Brennan wrongly and unilaterally re-interpreted the Constitution to mean something the Founders never intended. Removing this so-called "anchor baby" provision will, in my humble opinion, will in part help reduce incentives for illegals to violate our borders.
It remains to be seen whether the gutless wonders in our Congress and legislatures will do it.
A late addendum: I should point out that the individual in question who filmed the officer hardly appears to be a paragon of virtue, and was allegedly driving very recklessly. He needs to be prosecuted if that is the case. My point is more aimed in general at the idea of someone being prosecuted for wiretapping for filming a police officer. It shouldn't be done willy-nilly, but if there is legitimate abuse going on, I'm all for it being exposed.