Seems to me the fall caused the kid to see the future if he was talking about harming cops. That’s the first thing I’d think of after knowing they tazed someone who was in the condition he was.
http://www.ballot-access.org/…
On June 26, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled part of the McCain-Feingold campaign finance law unconstitutional. Davis v Federal Election Commission, 07-320. The vote was 5-4. Here is the opinion.
This case concerned the “Millionaire’s Amendment”, which relaxes contribution limits for any congressional candidate who has a wealthy opponent. Specifically, if any congressional candidate spends at least $350,000 of his or her own funds on the campaign, then the opponents of that candidate are released from the $2,300 limit on contributions to their campaign. The majority opinion, by Justice Samuel Alito, says that the Constitution does not permit the government to set unequal contribution limits. The opinion’s key sentence, on page 16 of the majority opinion, says, “It is a dangerous business for Congress to use the election laws to influence the voters’ choices.” Also, on page 18, “The unprecedented step of imposing different contribution and coordinated party expenditure limits on candidates vying for the same seat is antithetical to the First Amendment.”
This language should make it easier to win lawsuits against state public funding laws which set unequal rewards for some candidates, relative to other candidates. Public funding laws in Maine, Arizona, and New Mexico, treat all candidates exactly the same. The public funding that formerly existed in Massachusetts also treated all candidates equally. But public funding laws in Connecticut and New Jersey, and a pending bill in California, do not treat all candidates the same; qualifications to get public funding are easier for Republicans and Democrats than for other candidates.
Justice Stevens dissented, and said that the 1976 U.S. Supreme Court decision Buckley v Valeo was mistaken when it struck down limits on campaign expenditures. He expressed the view that too much campaign advertising “obscures the issues.” He also said that “the Constitution does not require Congress to treat all declared candidates the same.” This contradicts his opinion in Cook v Gralike, 531 U.S. 510 (2001). In that opinion, he said states may not “favor or disfavor a class of candidates.” That decision struck down a Missouri state law that provided that candidates for Congress should have labels on the ballot that said what their position is, on amending the U.S. Constitution to provide for term limits for Congress.
Justices David Souter, Ruth Ginsburg, and Stephen Breyer voted that the Millionaires’ Amendment is constitutional, but they didn’t join the portion of Justice Stevens’ dissent that said Buckley v Valeo should be overturned.
As I see it the entire McCain-Feingold law is antithetical to the 1st.
No one else broke 10%. Phillies got 5.0%. Interestingly according to Eric Garris over at Third Party Watch Ron Paul may have actually won:
[I]t appears that Smith was beaten by “write-in votes.” The 12 ballot candidates received a total of 13,750 votes statewide, out of about 80,000 who are registered statewide.
A check of major counties shows that, in each case, the number of “write-in votes” exceeded Smith’s total. For example, in Los Angeles, the largest county in the state (making up a third of the state’s population) reported 2,157 write-in votes, compared to Smith’s total of 746. Orange County reported 1,279 write-ins compared to Smith’s total of 352. San Francisco County reported 145 write-ins, compared to Smith’s total of 86. Alameda County reported 138 write-ins, compared to Smith’s total of 133.
Unfortunately, the write-in votes will not be counted, since no one filed as an official write-in candidate, but one can make an educated guess as to what candidate LP registrants would write in.
A young Saint Louis, Missouri motorist faces trouble with local police upset at the national attention his September 7 video of an out-of-control officer has drawn to ongoing problems within area law enforcement agencies. On Sunday, Brett Darrow filmed a Saint Louis Metropolitan Police Department cruiser staking out his home.
The patrol car drove away as Darrow started his car and followed. Because his camera had been set to capture night-time footage, the first 45 seconds of the video is obscured. It does, however, capture the police car making questionable turning maneuvers in order to get away. Members of the police community are on the record regarding their desire to stake out Darrow’s home and harass the twenty-year-old. In late June, users of St. Louis CopTalk, an unofficial forum for Saint Louis area law enforcement, posted Darrow’s home address along with messages containing apparent death threats in retaliation for the young motorist’s taping of a DUI roadblock in November and a traffic ticket in June. One CopTalk user repeating the address wrote, “Every copper, City and County, should etch this little punks [sic] name in their [sic] memory. Brett Darrow, [address deleted], city of St. Louis.” (View screen capture of post)
Last month I posted about this. I had been hearing about this post and the stalking but here is a bit more evidence. Darrow really needs to be quicker on the camera though. It’s really disgusting. The original cop actually got fired which is good but the fact that these others have no problem following this guy around and staking our his home is scary. I’m curious as to what will be said on the cop forums after this story.
