Individual Liberty — Individual Responsibility 

Killing mammals to save fish

For those of you that believe that government can provide the solution to society's ills, I'd like to point out how much of a mess it makes of things in nature. From KOMO-TV…

A federal agency has authorized the lethal removal of sea lions that prey on migrating salmon and steelhead at the base of Bonneville Dam on the Columbia River.

…

Sea lions are protected under the Marine Mammals Protection Act, and the allowable kill would be limited to about 85 animals.

…And of course the salmon are protected by the Endangered Species Act. So what we have here is an example of the federal government authorizing the interference with nature… in the name of protecting nature.

Sea lions can be killed because of an amendment to the Marine Mammals Protection Act if the states ask for and receive permission. Meanwhile, the salmon receive federal protection, even though it's just a subspecies we're protecting.

I wonder if the commercial value of the salmon harvest has anything to do with this conflict?

If we're really interested in preserving nature, shouldn't we let nature be nature?

New York replaces one philanderer with another...

What is it about Democratic politicians anyway?

The thunderous applause was still ringing in his ears when the state's new governor, David Paterson, told the Daily News that he and his wife had extramarital affairs.

In a stunning revelation, both Paterson, 53, and his wife, Michelle, 46, acknowledged in a joint interview they each had intimate relationships with others during a rocky period in their marriage several years ago.

Okay, so it's not just Democratic politicians. So it was several years ago, not now. It didn't involve public funds. Both Mr. AND Mrs. Paterson apparently had affairs.

It's just a bit ironic that this would hit the news so soon after Eliot Spitzer's peccadillo ruined his career. This one's not likely to ruin Mr. Paterson's political career though.

Why do we even have legislatures anymore?

This year's crop of Presidential candidates is anything but inspiring. Conservatives don't really have any great choices, but John McCain is certainly looking better than Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton. Even so, if conservatives want to hold the line against socialism we need to concentrate on the congressional elections.

… or so I thought.

This AP story reminds me of where the real problems in our government lie. It's in the court systems.

MINNEAPOLIS (AP) - A federal appeals court on Monday upheld an injunction against a Minnesota law that targeted at children under 17 who rent or buy violent video games.

A three-judge panel of the 8th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals agreed with a lower-court judge that Minnesota went too far when it passed its law two years ago because the state couldn't prove that such games hurt children.

Excuse me?

Since when is it the court's job to decide that the legislature went too far because the state "couldn't prove that such games hurt children"? Where does it say that a law has to be based on "proof of harm"?

The law would have hit kids under 17 with a $25 fine if they rented or bought a video game rated "M" for mature or "AO" for adults only. It also would have required stores to put up signs warning of the fines.

Game makers and retailers swiftly challenged the law, arguing it was an unconstitutional restriction of free speech. U.S. District Judge James Rosenbaum ruled in their favor in July 2006.

Free speech? Give me a break.

Who rates these games anyway? According to their website, the Entertainment Software Rating Board is …

a non-profit, self-regulatory body that independently assigns ratings, enforces advertising guidelines, and help ensure responsible online privacy practices for the interactive entertainment software industry.

Here's the definition of the "M" and "AO" ratings from the ESRB website.

MATURE
Titles rated M (Mature) have content that may be suitable for persons ages 17 and older. Titles in this category may contain intense violence, blood and gore, sexual content and/or strong language.

ADULTS ONLY
Titles rated AO (Adults Only) have content that should only be played by persons 18 years and older. Titles in this category may include prolonged scenes of intense violence and/or graphic sexual content and nudity.

The game makers voluntarily have their games rated. I can't stress that enough. They know what the content of their games is. They know who it's targeted at.

Are all games required to have a rating?

The rating system is voluntary, although virtually all games that are sold at retail in the U.S. and Canada are rated by the ESRB. Many retailers, including most major chains, have policies to only stock or sell games that carry an ESRB rating, and most console manufacturers will only permit games that have been rated by ESRB to be published for their platforms.

Retailers generally have their own policies not to sell or rent "M" or "AO" rated games to minors.

Do retailers support and enforce the ESRB rating system?

While the ESRB does not have the authority to enforce its ratings at the retail level, it does work closely with retailers and game centers to display information that explains to customers how the rating system works. Many major retailers currently have their own store policies requiring age verification for the sale or rental of M (Mature) and AO (Adults Only) rated games, and ESRB encourages and supports these efforts. The most recent mystery shop study conducted by the U.S. Federal Trade Commission (FTC) found that national retailers enforced their store policies by refusing to sell M-rated video games to minors 62% of the time.

This doesn't prove that these games actually harm children. But it does demonstrate that both game makers and retailers don't intend for them to fall into the hands of children either.

So the Minnesota state legislature decides that having 62% of retailers block minors from accessing this sort of content isn't quite enough. They pass a law to fine minors that purchase or rent it a whopping $25.00. Twenty five dollars.

That's a rather paltry fine. Nevertheless, the same game makers and retailers that claim that they're interested in keeping this sort of content out of the hands of minors claim that their right to freedom of speech has been violated.

What a crock of excrement!

There are laws on the books that prohibit minors from purchasing or viewing pornography. These laws make it a crime, with potentially severe punishment to distribute pornography to minors.

These laws have been upheld by the courts… so far.

Yet a U.S. District Court judge decides that the legislature can't pass a law prohibiting the sale or rental of "M" or "AO" rated games to minors.

ARTICLE III
DISTRIBUTION OF THE POWERS OF GOVERNMENT

Section 1. DIVISION OF POWERS. The powers of government shall be divided into three distinct departments: legislative, executive and judicial. No person or persons belonging to or constituting one of these departments shall exercise any of the powers properly belonging to either of the others except in the instances expressly provided in this constitution.

Funny… I don't think that anything in the Minnesota State Constitution or the federal Constitution gives the legislative power to the courts. I don't think there's anything in the Minnesota State Constitution or the federal Constitution that places a requirement on the Legislature to establish "proof of harm" before enacting a law.

This is clearly a case of one branch of the government taking the powers of another branch into its own hands. Judges deciding to take away the legislative power from the branch that it's vested in.

Why do we even have legislatures anymore? Our federal Constitution guarantees the states a Republican form of government. The 8th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals just proved that we live in an oligarchy.

[Update: If there's any doubt that the courts have long wanted the legislative power for themselves…

The Free Online Dictionary defines legislature thusly…

leg·is·la·ture (lj-slchr)

n. An officially elected or otherwise selected body of people vested with the responsibility and power to make laws for a political unit, such as a state or nation.

Meanwhile, one of the very first U.S. Justices to establish the precedent of legislating from the bench had this to say…

"It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is. Those who apply the rule to particular cases, must of necessity expound and interpret that rule. If two laws conflict with each other, the courts must decide on the operation of each."

— Chief Justice John Marshall

I don't think we can have it both ways. It's either up to the legislature to say what the law is, or for the courts to say what the law is. I always thought we elected legislators to do that job. Apparently I was wrong. We appoint judges to do it.]

Cross posted at NW Bloggers.