Tag Archives: judicial system

More Commentary on the Proposed RMGN Amendment

Posted on by jsrule
3

<>< Josh Rule : : 2008 MCPP Intern

(Remember, the views expressed at these links are not necessarily the views of Trying Liberty or the interns who blog here.  Thanks.)

Grand Rapids Pundit:  Grand Rapids Pundit also had a thing or two to say.

Greedy Capitalist: Greedy Capitalist writes a few paragraphs with its view of the situation.

Point of Law: Point of Law posted a follow up piece that simply notices how pervasive the RMGN powerpoint seems to be in the Michigan political blogosphere today.

Michigan Liberal: rich talks about how the proposed RMGN amendment is nothing like the reform it proposes to be.

Right Michigan: A bit of a rant, accompanied by a funny Youtube clip.

Mackinac Center: Mackinac Center Director of Labor Policy Paul Kersey thanks Jim Vote, the intern who discovered the powerpoint (and an ocassional blogger here at Trying Liberty) for his dedication and hard work.

Detroit News: Charlie Cain on the proposed Michigan Chamber of Commerce lawsuit against RMGN.

Detroit Free Press: Dawson Bell on the proposed Michigan Chamber of Commerce lawsuit against RMGN.

Michigan Liberal: Michigan Liberal devotes an entire section of Friday’s ‘Coffee Talk’post to the Mackinac Center’s discovery.

Lansing State Journal: LSJ reporter Derek Wallbank characterizes the powerpoint as an “epic fail”.

MIGOP: MIGOP mentions in a link-list post (like this one, really) the opinion from the other part of the partisan game.

Political Debris: Bill Baker writes a brief introduction to the Charlie Cain article mentioned later in this post.

Taking Care of Business: A quick blurb announcing the Mackinac Center discovery.

Our Midland: Midland Daily News-based forum with a thread on the proposed RMGN amendment.

Detroit News: Another Kathy Barks Hoffman article on the RMGN powerpoint discovery by a Mackinac Center intern.

mlive.com: Peter Luke writes a fairly long post about the discovery of the powerpoint, and how the proposal has been viewed by the Democratic Party prior to the Mackinac Center’s announcement.

American Courthouse: Dan Pero writes at American Courthouse and calls for action.

Point of Law: James R. Copland writes briefly with a slightly more legal analysis.

Detroit News: Charlie Cain comments on the discovery of the powerpoint, what it means, and how groups around the state, including the UAW 1-C and the MEA, have reacted.

Associated Press: Associated Press coverage of the news as it broke, by Kathy Barks Hoffman.  It is showing up on the mlive.com, examiner.com, Chicago Tribune, Detroit News, and Oakland Press websites, among others.

Detroit Free Press: Dawson Bell, Free Press Lansing Bureau, and his opinion on the matter.

Detroit Free Press: Ron Dzwonkowski wonders if the situation is “A partisan gotcha?”

Detroit Free Press: Stephen Henderson asks, “Does Anyone Play Fair?”

Mackinac Center: Official Mackinac Center commentary from President Lawrence Reed, Paul Kersey, Michael Jahr, as well as links to the original story from Trying Liberty and the powerpoint.  Mackinac is also tracking additional news stories.

The Frank Beckmann Show: WJR’s Frank Beckmann talking with the Mackinac Center’s Paul Kersey and Patrick Wright about the powerpoint and its significance.  The recording finishes with comments from Dianne Byrum, who spoke on the 16 Jul 2008 show.

Ballotpedia.org: The ‘Michigan Legislative and Judicial Restructuring Initiative (2008)’page on Ballotpedia mentions that a Mackinac Center intern “discovered a PowerPoint presentation.”

Jack McHugh’s post:  Jack has just been cross-posted at SFE (Students for a Free Economy), RightMichigan, and RedState.

Grand Rapids Libertarian:  loungedaddy at Grand Rapids Libertarian has some fairly pointed dialogue on the issue.

RightMichigan:  Nick at RightMichigan breaks down what he thinks are some of the more important ideas presented in the powerpoint describing the RMGN proposal.  It has been crossposted on colecurtis-colecurtis.

Yahoo!:  Yes, the discovery has made it to Yahoo! news.

(This post will probably be quite fluid in the next days and weeks.  Please continue to check back for additional links relating to Jim Vote’s discovery of the seemingly partisan nature of the proposed Reform Michigan Government Now constitutional amendment.)

More to Come…

Youtube/Viacom Update

Posted on by jsrule
Reply

<>< Josh Rule : : 2008 MCPP Intern

Viacom has relented! Well, at least a little bit.  A BBC news article had a bit more to say on the topic, but it looks like Youtube, and by extension, Google, will not have to provide potentially personally identifying information to Viacom.  The internet movie giant will still have to provide histories of every video ever watched on Youtube, but they will not be providing data that could potentially be used to identify someone.

Neither will Youtube be forced to divulge many of its search algorithms, the trade secrets of search engines like Youtube and Google, which is good news.  Now, whether one argues these algorithms should be available for everyone to study or not is another issue.  The thing worth celebrating here is that whether or not they have to give up these secrets is still their choice.  They are free to do with their discoveries what they wish.  Intellectual property rights are maintained, and that is a good thing.

Mackinac Center Current Comment : : 15 July 2008

Posted on by jsrule
Reply

<>< Josh Rule : : 2008 MCPP Intern

Mackinac Center Director of Communications Michael Jahr wrote about the proposed Reform Michigan Government Now constitutional amendment in today’s Current Comment.  The new amendment seeks to make at least 30 significant changes to the way state government operates in Michigan, including changing the number of justices on its Supreme Court and eliminating several seats in the legislatures.  Wanting to change government to make it smaller and more accountable to the people is a wonderful desire.  It must be tempered, though, by reason and realism.

Perhaps it would be better to propose these changes in smaller, more manageable amendments, rather than trying to cram everything in at once.  Taking small bites takes a bit longer to eat the full meal, but it is often more enjoyable and certainly easier to stomach.  Trying to eat the entire meal in one gigantic bite is not only inadvisable in most cases, but often impossible.  So, while we should continue to dream great dreams about freedom and the respect of human intelligence, we must also be shrewd in achieving them.

What Does That Ruling Even Mean?

Posted on by jsrule
Reply

picture from www.wm.edu<>< Josh Rule : : 2008 MCPP Intern

I want to point everyone to a Michigan Messenger post about the recent ruling in District of Columbia vs. Heller.  The case was about handgun ownership and was ruled in favor of the legality of owning handguns in D.C.  The article does a decent job of explaining the anticipated fallout of the case, and how it will affect, or not affect current Michigan licensing laws and regulations on what weapons can and cannot be owned.  In short, additional precedent will be needed from cases that more broadly apply at the state level before any further regulations are removed in Michigan or any other state.  D.C. vs. Heller was put together as a case to begin a series of victories for second amendment rights, not as the conclusion of such a series.  So, continue to follow Trying Liberty, and we will try to keep you updated as new decisions are handed down from courts around the country.  Hopefully, Liberty will prevail.