Stuart Buck on Secret Service Jurisdiction:
My co-blogger David Kopel is concerned with the jurisdiction of the Secret Service, and argues that no one has been making the case for the new law about it. I haven't followed the issue closely myself, despite a quick snarky post last month, but Stuart Buck has been looking into it.

Related Posts (on one page):

  1. Stuart Buck on Secret Service Jurisdiction:
  2. More power for Secret Service? ACLU and Kopel say "no":
mike (mail):
I remember the affirmative action bake sales that the Bruin Republicans used to put on on Bruin Walk while I was a student at UCLA. They nearly started a race riot on campus. I would say race riots are probably a "bad thing" that should be avoided if possible. I don't like going against free speech rights but there are certain situations that warrant exceptions.

Like a UCLA conservative is one to talk anyways, what with your mcarthyist blacklist of liberal ucla professors -!
1.30.2006 4:52pm
Once again, Orin Kerr starts a post saying he isn't an expert on a subject, then links to an article by someone who enthusiastically supports the administration position That person, Stuart Buck, then uses the familiar tactic of concentrating on the legal minutia surrounding the issue, without getting into the morality or advisability of either the existing laws or the new one. Nor does he address, in this time of heightened sensitivity to words like monarchy and civil liberties, the possibility that such laws will lead to the type of encroachment on civil liberties that no right minded person could want.

Stuart then drags out the familiar "conspiracy theorists are concerned", to start the subliminal juices going that only wingbats are alarmed, and goes on to make the moral equivalent of the following argument:

"The government already has laws whereby it can cut off your big toe. It also has laws that it can cut off your little toe. This is just coordinating its policies under one roof so that it can cut off your foot."

Stuart then suggests that the "events" being addressed are political rallies, conventions, and events of that ilk.

How quickly Sturt forgets that "vegan day" gatherings and Peta protests also now fall under that umbrella.

Stuart wraps up with a cautionary warning: Gee, if you didn't have laws like this, someone could murder someone in front of an FBI agent and that agent could not arrest the person or do anything.

Well, I am not a lawyer, and I will defer to some lawyer I respect if I am wrong about this, but I bet there are plenty of laws which allow an FBI agent to take action when he witnesses someone murdering someone else (even the "citizen's arrest" provision, which I think is part of our legal system) without having to resort to an expanding, all powerful SECRET POLICE to protect the citizens.

I am really, really nervous about what I consider to be the increasingly fascist tendencies that our government, and a majority of our citizens, are willing to support.

So Orin, what is your opinion on this new law?
1.30.2006 6:22pm