I thought this was an interesting question, so I did some digging. What I found was that some people are so easily influenced by surface issues that they are generally unwilling to "scratch it." Therefore, blatant accusations are leveled and the final result is a blind, inept group attempting to influence public opinion.
I thought it was strange that Dr. Paul would vote against such a measure, so rather than immediately say "he doesn't care for kids," I literally spent several hours combing the internet and the Library of Congress for answers. What I found is not very easy to explain, so I provided the document specific to my reason in my blog, and you can download it here:
Warning: It is long, boring, and hard to understand if you don't know law. But if you're going to critisize Dr. Paul about not voting for AMBER, you'd be a total idiot if you did not at least review this document_ I say that with absolute sincerity.
www.brooklaw.edu/students/journals/bjlp/jlp12ii_phillips.pdf
Here are some of the highlights:
The AMBER alert and PROTECT acts are two similar measures that were passed through congress after 2002. AMBER, at the outset, was relatively straightforward. It provided the means which were necessary to create a nationwide broadcasting system to help locate missing or exploited children.
Unfortunately, the "clean" version of the AMBER alert bill was poisoned by an ammendment authored by the DOJ and sponsored by Representative Tom Feeney, tentatively titled the "Feeney Amendment." Like many controversial bills introduced in the past, the Feeney Amendment was another example of how members of Congress manipulate valid and uncontroversial bills. This bill was presented to congress in an ambush and given a limited time to consider the new amendment's overall ramifications.
Reading through the document, I found that not only was the Feeney Amendment unconstitutional, it also limited the judicial branches' authority to set sentencing guidelines.
The American Bar Association stated that the Feeney Ammendment "would all but eliminate the discretionary power of federal judges to achieve justice in individual cases, and effectively transform the Sentencing Guidelines into a system of mandatory minimum sentences."
Chief Justice William Rehnquist wrote that "this legislation, if enacted, would do serious harm to the basic structure of the sentencing guideline system and would seriously impair the ability of courts to impose just and reasonable sentences."
The Federal Judges Association explained that "this amendment undermines the essential attribute of judging, which is to apply the law to the specific case by making an informed and dispassionate judgment."
"The framers of the Constitution declined to assign the responsibility of federal sentencing to any one of the three branches. The sentencing system has always involved the participation of each branch of government. This sharing of responsibility is in accord with separation of power principles. The Supreme Court has observed that "[w]hile the Constitution diffuses power the better to secure liberty, it also contemplates that practice will integrate the dispersed powers into a workable government. It enjoins upon its branches separateness but interdependence, autonomy but reciprocity." The sentencing process reflects this integration of dispersed powers by affording Congress the power to set sentencing ranges and determine the scope of judicial discretion, the Executive the power to prosecute crimes, and the Judiciary the power to determine sentences and exercise discretion within the framework established by Congress."
Although Congress has the power to establish sentencing ranges, judicial contribution to the promulgation of the Guidelines is essential because of the political nature of criminal sentencing. The public's perspective on crime is influenced by the media, and Congress reacts to public concerns by toughening criminal sentences. The danger of placing complete control over the development of the Guidelines in the hands of Congress is that members of Congress may be influenced by the need to appear "tough on crime" for reelection purposes rather than engage in a meaningful analysis of whether current sentencing practices are fair.
Indeed, the evidence suggests that the sentencing system, driven by mandatory minimums and the Guidelines, is leading to distortions of the fairness and equality originally intended by the Guidelines because these measures have resulted in a disparate impact on minorities. Additionally, America's prison population has dramatically increased since the enactment of the Guidelines and the implementation of mandatory minimums.The constitutional guarantees of lifetime tenure and protection against salary diminishment enhance judicial impartiality and afford judges greater protection against the same political and public pressures exerted on Congress. Federal judges uniquely contribute to the work of the Commission because of their greater impartiality and expertise in criminal sentencing.
Traditionally, the courts and Congress have shared responsibility for establishing Federal sentencing policy. Congress defines criminal conduct and sets maximum sentences, while the courts impose sentences in individual cases. Any suggestion that the Executive Branch should be responsible for promulgating the guidelines would present troubling constitutional problems. More importantly, it would fundamentally alter the relationship of the Congress and the Judiciary with respect to sentencing policy and its implementation. Giving such significant control over the determination of sentences to the same branch of government that is responsible for the prosecution of criminal cases is no more appropriate than granting such power to a consortium of defense attorneys.
If the power of the Executive Branch to prosecute criminal violations were joined with the power to prescribe sentences for those convicted, it would constitute a potential for tyranny. These powers should not be lodged in the prosecuting branch any more than in a "consortium of defense attorneys."
There are also other reporting requirements enacted by the bill that would exhert undue pressure on Judges by revealing most, if not all details of a given case within 15 to 30 days of judgement.
While Chief Justice Rehnquist approved of the general authority of Congress to collect information in aid of formulating legislation on sentencing, he went on to explain that individualized collection of information on a judge-by-judge basis "is more troubling . . . . For side-by-side with the broad authority of Congress to legislate and gather information in this area is the principle that federal judges may not be removed from office for their judicial acts . . . . [A] judge's judicial acts may not serve as a basis for impeachment." This principle, the Chief Justice observed, has existed for nearly 200 years, following the trial of Justice Samuel Chase of the Supreme Court by the Senate.
Enactment of the Feeney Amendments does not reflect the legislative process at its best. Considering the devastating impact the original Feeney Amendment would have wrought on judicial sentencing discretion, it is remarkable that the House passed it based on a mere twenty minutes of debate. Although part of the reason for the enactment of the Feeney Amendment was due to concern over implementing the AMBER Plan on a nationwide scale, enactment of the Feeney Amendment reveals that the Judicial Branch requires protection from members of Congress and the Executive who fundamentally distrust judicial independence and discretion in sentencing or fail to appreciate the moral consequences of a sentencing system lacking the input of the judiciary.
I can hardly blame Dr. Paul for having the ability to both read and understand the bills being presented to him. I lament for most of the other members of Congress who railroaded this legislation through without so much as batting an eyelid.
If you still oppose Dr. Paul's stance after reading the document, perhaps you should consider being a Neo-Con.
~One.
No comments:
Post a Comment