catallaxy.net

… for silliness rising to unconstitutional levels.

The Foundation for Individual Rights in Education defends the rights of students and faculty to practice their first amendment rights on America’s campuses. This right is shockingly in danger at our bastions of tolerance and communication of course, since we should only be tolerant of certain things…

This week Murray State’s sexual harassment definition was named FIRE’s Speech Code of the Month for its overly broad restrictions such as:

* “Calling a person a doll, babe, or honey”
* “Making sexual innuendoes”
* “Telling sexual jokes or stories”
* “Turning discussions to sexual topics”
* “Looking a person up and down (elevator eyes)”
* “Displaying sexual and/or derogatory comments about men/women on coffee mugs, hats, clothing, etc.”

You read that right. This poorly designed and unfunny coffee mug could potentially be a violation:

But does that mean it is necessarily unacceptable? Actually according to Murray’s website, it does:

UNACCEPTABLE BEHAVIORS FALLS INTO 3 CATEGORIES:

1. Behavior that is clearly wrong any time it happens: grabbing someone’s genitals, forced kissing, nasty insults, blocking someone’s way, stalking.

2. Behavior that is offensive to some people and not to others: jokes, language, teasing.

3. Behavior that may or may not be offensive, depending on who is doing it or how it is done (the nature of the relationship) touching, compliments, asking someone out for a date.

So if the coffee mug is offensive to me, it’s unacceptable. Also, requesting dates is unacceptable.

Welcome to free speech on America’s campuses.

He knows just what to do with those dastardly lobbyists! From the AP:

The assisted-suicide advocate Jack Kevorkian announced that he was running for Congress as an independent. If elected, he said his main priority would be promoting the Ninth Amendment, which protects rights not explicitly specified elsewhere in the Constitution. Mr. Kevorkian, 79, says he interprets it as protecting a person’s choice to die through assisted suicide or to avoid wearing a seat belt. The Congressional seat in Detroit’s suburbs is now held by Representative Joe Knollenberg, a Republican who is seeking re-election.

Emphasis added. The campaign slogans abound. Leave yours in the comments. [via Jerry Taylor]

I believe they’re doing it again. The General Assembly is violating the state constitution before our very own eyes and they’re doing it by passing an unconstitutional budget. Not surprisingly, 84 members of Kentucky’s House voted for it. Here’s the key phrase, which actually describes the budget:

AN ACT relating to appropriations and revenue measures

You might be surprised to learn that the state constitution actually prohibits the comingling of appropriation measures and revenue measures. Here’s a key phrase that every lawmaker swears to support when he or she is sworn in:

All bills for raising revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives, but the Senate may propose amendments thereto: Provided, No new matter shall be introduced, under color of amendment, which does not relate to raising revenue.

Emphasis mine. In layman’s terms, it means that bills to raise revenue can’t do anything else. They have to raise revenue only. That means, in translation, that a bill that spends state money may not also raise money, since a bill to raise money can’t also spend money. But the state constitution goes further:

No law enacted by the General Assembly shall relate to more than one subject, and that shall be expressed in the title, and no law shall be revised, amended, or the provisions thereof extended or conferred by reference to its title only, but so much thereof as is revised, amended, extended or conferred, shall be reenacted and published at length.

What does that mean? It actually, in part, restates the restriction I quoted earlier. Bills may not relate to more than one subject. Revenue is a subject. Appropriation is a subject. They may not comingle.

And yet, the state constitution makes this idea even more clear, but I won’t quote the whole section:

… The Governor shall have the power to disapprove any part or parts of appropriation bills embracing distinct items, and the part or parts disapproved shall not become a law unless reconsidered and passed, as in case of a bill.

Emphasis mine. Kentucky’s governor, like many governors, has the right to veto distinct portions of appropriation bills. This bill, as stated by the general assembly, relates to raising revenue. So it’s either unconstitutional or the title of the bill is wrong.

You’d think Harry Moberly would have been more careful in crafting this budget.

I wrote on this subject for the Bluegrass Institute a few years ago.

David Adams at the Bluegrass Institute revives a portion of Kentucky’s constitution that lawmakers would rather forget.

Reason Magazine’s Julian Sanchez and David Weigel have the scoop. It’s not pretty.

Libertarian blogger and Worldnetdaily columnist Vox Day points out this disturbing stance taken by the Bush administration:

Since “unrestricted’ private ownership of guns clearly threatens the public safety, the 2nd Amendment can be interpreted to allow a variety of gun restrictions, according to the Bush administration.

The argument was delivered by U.S. Solicitor General Paul D. Clement in a brief filed with the U.S. Supreme Court in the ongoing arguments over the legality of a District of Columbia ban on handguns in homes, according to a report from the Los Angeles Times. Clement suggested that gun rights are limited and subject to “reasonable regulation” and said all federal limits on guns should be upheld.

“Given the unquestionable threat to public safety that unrestricted private firearm possession would entail, various categories of firearm-related regulation are permitted by the 2nd Amendment,” he wrote in the brief, the Times reported.

More here.

It seems that Churchill Downs’ much publicized exemption to Louisville’s smoking ban is a goner.

The council exempted facilities leased, owned or operated by the Kentucky Horse Racing Authority. A group of business owners, the Metro Louisville Hospitality Coalition, filed a lawsuit challenging Churchill Downs’ exemption and asking that the ban be overturned as arbitrary and vague.

…

Mike Hatzell, the attorney for the businesses that sued, said the ruling validates their claim that the exemption — and possibly the entire ban — is unconstitutional. Hatzell hopes Louisville’s metro council will reconsider the ban and, if it allows smoking at Churchill Downs, it will also allow smoking at some restaurants and bars.

Insert your own tortured scream of “What about the children! Won’t someone please think about the CHILDREN!” here.