You can probably guess why
(Washington Post) As severe cold grips the eastern U.S. on March 21, Punxsutawney Phil’s forecast for an early spring is best described as an epic failure. The prosecuting attorney of Butler County, Ohio, Michael Gmoser, wants the groundhog to pay for his flawed prediction, with his life.
Gmoser filed an indictment against Phil which reads accordingly:
On or about February 02,2013, at Gobbler’s Knob, Punxsutawney Phil did purposely, and with prior calculation and design, cause the people to believe that Spring would come early. Contrary to the Groundhog day report, a snowstorm and record low temperatures have been and are predicted to continue in the near future, which constitutes the offense of MISREPRESENTATION OF EARLY SPRING, a Unclassified Felony, and against the peace and dignity of the State Of Ohio.
SPECIFICATION: The people further find and specify that due to the aggravating circumstances and misrepresentation to the people that the death penalty be implemented to the defendant, Punxsutawney Phil
Well, yeah, he’s not really serious. But, it just goes to show that a groundhog is no better at predicting weather than Warmists are.
Any wages on what the political party he belongs to?
You have no humor in you, do you.
The following is based on information from Punxsutawney Phil’s website.
In the ideal world of liberals, Punxsutawney Phil…….
……… at the age of 125, would have been forced to retire long ago as he is beyond state retirement age.
……… “magic elixir” which has kept him alive all these years would be banned by the FDA, even for his own use.
……… medical care would be controlled by a review board after he was “counseled” on “end of life” scenarios.
……… would be forced to have a license before stating whether he saw his shadow or not.
……… would be protested by unions for not being a member of the IFWPMM (International Federation of Weather Prognosticating Marmota Monaxes.)
……… would be fined by the EPA for his home encroaching into a protected wetlands without a permit or an environmental impact study.
……… would be required to register his teeth as an assault weapon and not be able to have more than 10 individual claws. (Who needs more than 10 toes?)
……… would be comdemned by PETA for wearing real fur.
……… would be a subject of the DOJ for discriminating by not enabling racoons, possums, rabbits, and field mice to say if they saw their shadow or not.
……… would be condemned for not getting UN approval before making statements on weather.
……… would be required to install solar panels on his home. The panels would cost $300 on the open market, but through government grants and oversight would cost $8764.00 (approximately.)
……… would see “Occupy Gobbler’s Knob” descend on his home and place of work demanding he pay more taxes and declaring him to be a “1%’er.”
……… would be sued by the ACLU and the Americans for Separation of Church and State for saying, Oh Lord, it’s cold out here.”
LoL gitarcarver….
If this holds, then can we at least hold our local weathernewscasters for failing to predict the rain 2 days from now?
Hey GC, Speaking of death and guns. (lol)..
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/03/22/judge-rejects-louisiana-law-barring-felons-from-owning-guns/
Recall we talked of why felons are banned from owning guns. If one takes the view that going to jail serves as the criminal’s punishment, and being punished then cleans the record per se, then why should a person remain with fewer rights as a person who only committed a non-felony?
If a person does their time of service to the public and the public is content with releasing the person, then is not the punishment completed?
Now, if the person is released on probation, then sure, they are still under a punishment and thus can be restricted by the state. BUt, once probation ends, why shouldn’t a person regain their rights?
Gumball,
You might be right if one holds the the the record is “cleaned.” I don’t hold that view. In fact, it can be argued that we don’t clean the slate because a person with a second conviction faces a stiffer penalty than a person convicted of an offense for the first time.
But the question goes deeper than that. When a person demonstrates they feel their rights (such as the right to bear arms) can deprive the rights of another (such as the right to pursue happiness, obtain and keep property or even the right to life itself,) society can, will, and does say to the person, “you have to show you can live without violating others rights.” That demonstration is part of the penalty for commiting the crime to begin with.
This is not a new line of thought. James Madison, George Mason, and George Washington all argued the same thing – that once a person put their rights ahead of another, the state and society could limit or deprive the criminal of certain rights. This was a view stated in Blackstone’s Commentaries on law and the founding fathers were more than familier with Blackstone.
The case in New Orleans that you cite doesn’t say the state cannot deprive or regulate a felon’s rights, but rather that as the right to bear arms was a “fundamental right” according to the Louisiana constitution (not the US Constitution) the state had to show more cause in restricting the right to bear arms.
The case involved a guy who was convicted of simple burglary (no weapon) but yet was deprived the right to have a gun as if he had used one in the crime. The judge found the law depriving him of the right to have a gun un-Constitutional not because the state cannot restrict the rights of felons, but that the law created to restrict those rights was too broad.
I see, thank you GC. However,
isn’t that what probation is for? Once they’ve proven they can live without violating society’s laws, and be productive, their probation ends (with timelimit as well).
Granted, people have records. People have records for lots of things. But, we don’t hold those records against people for most things in life. (granted we do ask people if they’ve been arrested for anything on job applications. could this be discrimination?)
Why is the right to bear arms and to vote the rights that are taken away for certain ex-felons?
When you speak of Blackstone (have no idea what that is) or the founders and their opinions, are you referring to taking rights away from current criminals? Or from those who have already served their time?
Gumball,
Sir William Blackstone was an English judge and jurist in in middle of the 18th century. He wrote a 4 volume set called “Commentaries on English Law.”
“Commentaries” is notable not only because it states English law (which is where we get much of US law,) but because it gives the reasoning behind the laws. Blackstone was cited in many early cases in US courts and continues to be cited today in cases up to and including those decided by the Supreme Court. Some say “Commentaries” is the summary of the legal basis of this country.
I asked that question once of someone who studied the history of punishment and prisons and was told probation was and continues to be an alternative to incarceration, thereby saving the state money. I agree that there is an element of probation in some circumstances to help re-integrate a person back into society, but that does not appear to be the sole and original function of probation.
Just a point of clarification, we don’t ask people if they have been arrested because a mere arrest does not mean guilt. You can ask if a person has been convicted of a felony, but not if they have been arrested. However the DOJ is now trying to say that a person convicted of a felony is not a disqualifier for a job unless the company can prove the the action for the felony conviction directly relates to the job the applicant is applying for (ie a convicted embezzeler applying for an accounting job.) The DOJ is claiming that felony convictions have a “disparate impact” on minorities. In my opinion, this is more governmental control of a private business as a felony conviction shows a lapse in moral judgement and the company – not the government – should determine whether they want a convicted felon as a employee.
I don’t know why those particular rights are limited, only that there is an established legal precedent going way back in time that the goverment can restrict the rights of felons.
Personally, I am not comfortable allowing a convicted pedophile to have the unrestricted right to assmble with near a school or assemble with a group of kids away from other adult supervision. As some claim driving a car is a “right,” I have to say that I am uncomfortable allowing a felon convicted of killing someone while drunk to drive. I am uncomfortable with allowing someone who has been convicted several times of shooting someone or robbing them at gunpoint from having a gun. I am not thrilled with the idea of someone convicted of voter fraud ever voting again.
I don’t know where I draw the line, but I do know the line exists.
As Blackstone says, (paraphrasing) the right of men belong to the individual but affect others. Therefore the law has the ability and duty to protect othets from those who have shown no regard for the rights of others in bring convicted of a felony.
Thank you GC. I appreciate the clarifications.
Granted, the issues you state uncomfortableness are ones that would definitely come to play when\if rights are determined to be inalienable after punishment has been met. I too am uncomfortable, especially with those issues you cite.
Yet, while we seek to protect the public from those who would seek to do us harm, are we OK with the government deciding that rights, certain rights, can be removed?
Why is it that voting and gun-ownership rights can be removed even after punishment has been served, yet prisoners who are currently doing time can have their speech and religious freedom and dietary rights upheld? While in prison? Yet, the right to vote can be withheld for life?
I’m uncomfortable with the government deciding which rights we are allowed to have and when.
Gumball,
As I have grown older, I have found that the answers to questions are often times more complex than a “silver bullet.” Such is the case with the restriction of “rights.” The reason for this may be that there are rights that belong to he individual, and in addition there are rights that belong to the individual but also affect others.
For example, freedom of religion seldom affects others while a gun may affect others. Felons are more likely to use a weapon in a crime than law abiding citizens which is why that right is restricted.
Even though voting does not directly affect others, the 14th Amendment (approved by the people) says a person can not vote if they are convicted of a crime. There are theories as to why this is in there, but one compelling reason is that many feel that a person who has shown great disregard for laws should not have a say in creating more.
So you have two ideas at work here – a restriction on rights that affect others and a restriction on a right that while not affecting others, the person has abused through breaking the law.
Isn’t it ironic though, that we as public are quick to remove the right to own a gun from someone who has done their time, but are also quick to support the odd and fanciful religious notions of those same people when they were in prison. That extra and added expense does affect others. My taxes. And, viewed that in light that there is an increase in the attack and prevention of christian religious freedom in public by free peoples. It makes me sick. I’m supposed to honor a prisoner’s right to have a sweathouse, but I can’t wear a cross to work, or as a community say a prayer before a sport event?
I agree. It is a fuzzy line that we draw. As I’ve grown older I’ve moved toward the idea that gov’ts should not be allowed to decide who has rights and who doesn’t on people who are not breaking the law.