Latest Updates RSS Feed or subscribe via email
Last week, Sam DuBose was shot in the face and killed by a University of Cincinnati police officer, Ray Tensing, after being pulled over for not having a front license plate on his vehicle. Today, the officer was indicted for murder—a result that would not have happened, were it not for the officer’s body camera.
Officer Tensing’s statement to the reporting police officer affirms that Tensing “began to be dragged by a male black driver who was operating a 1998 Green Honda Accord.” Tensing claims that “he almost was run over by the driver of the Honda Accord and was forced to shoot the driver with his duty weapon.”
Another officer, Phillip Kidd, offered corroborating testimony to the reporting officer, affirming that he “witnessed the Honda Accord drag Officer Tensing, and that he witnessed Officer Tensing [subsequently] fire a single shot.”
Both officers lied.
Libertas Institute has a fall research internship available for college students or recent graduates. Join our successful organization to help advance the cause of liberty in Utah!
We are in need of policy research assistance to prepare some of the legislative proposals Libertas will be advancing in the 2016 general session beginning in January. See here for an example of recent policies we worked on.
- Research assigned policies spanning a broad spectrum of subjects
- Compile, sort, and analyze data
- Prepare reports and summarize data
- Write articles on assigned topics
- Must be interested in and aware of the political process
- Understanding of, and passion for, liberty
- High attention to detail
- Excellent research and writing skills
- Social media experience
These are unpaid positions, though we will gladly work with your school to provide credit if that is an option. Any necessary expenditures related to assigned work will be reimbursed.
Interns will work in Lehi on a part-time basis, either a morning or afternoon shift. The length of the internship will roughly match the fall semester schedule, though we are flexible to work around the intern’s needs.
Interested students should submit a résumé and two writing samples to firstname.lastname@example.org with “Research internship application” in the subject line.
In 2009, the long-time lawyer for the National Education Association (NEA), Bob Chanin, gave a farewell speech to a crowd of thousands of assembled delegates at the organization’s annual conference. In a moment of startling frankness, Mr. Chanin revealed the core concern and focus of this large and politically powerful education union.
“Despite what some among us would like to believe,” NEA’s effectiveness “is not because of our creative ideas,” he said. “It is not because of the merit of our positions. It is not because we care about children, and it is not because we have a vision of a great public school for every child.” Having made that clear, he moved on to his point:
The following op-ed by our vice president, DJ Schanz, was published this weekend in the Salt Lake Tribune.
By their own admission, many same-sex marriage proponents view the Supreme Court’s recent ruling more as the beginning—and certainly not the end—of a larger legislative and judicial war. This contention has exhausted hundreds of millions of dollars and man hours. Even worse, it has turned neighbors into enemies.
You don’t see such hostility between Mormons and Catholics regarding the form and method of baptism. The former church believes that baptizing infants is a “mockery before God” whereas the latter considers it “an immemorial tradition of the Church.” Each group disagrees with the other, but not to the point of bitterness and public strife.
Obviously, there is no government definition of baptism; one denomination has not been able to impose its doctrinal position on their peers through the force of law. As such, there is no attempt to wrest control of political power to modify and expand that definition to be more inclusive. Each group operates in a “live and let live” fashion, using persuasion to convince others.
Salt Lake City, UT (June 26, 2015) — In response to the U.S. Supreme Court’s opinion this morning, legalizing same-sex marriages throughout the nation, Libertas Institute president Connor Boyack issued the following response:
“Our LGBT friends have good reason to be happy today, but those concerned about our laws and legal structure have great cause for alarm. As Chief Justice Roberts said in his dissent, ‘The majority’s decision is an act of will, not legal judgment. The right it announces has no basis in the Constitution or this Court’s precedent… Just who do we think we are?’
“Today’s opinion—and let’s be clear, that’s all it is—provides an opportunity for lawmakers to reconsider their long-standing support for government intervention in such an important societal relationship. In the coming months, we will be encouraging elected officials to consider a proposal to repeal government licensure of marriage, allowing churches, notaries public, and others to privately officiate and sanction these unions.
“Despite what some lawyers think, there is no ‘fundamental right’ to a government permission slip. The long-standing violation of the sacred union of marriage—encouraged by those looking to shape society to match their vision—needs to be fixed.”
A similar proposal recently passed the Alabama State Senate 22-3, but the legislature adjourned before it was considered in the House. Libertas Institute is encouraging supporters to sign this petition.
This morning, the U.S. Supreme Court issued its opinion in the King v. Burwell case. At issue were the subsidies for federal health insurance exchanges in states that had not set up their own. In a 6-3 decision upholding the law, the Court ruled that when Congress referenced an exchange “established by the State,” they actually meant “established by the State or the Federal Government.”
Predictably, the dissent—issued by Justice Scalia—pointed out the absurdity of this approach. “Words no longer have meaning,” he wrote, “if an Exchange that is not established by a State is ‘established by the State.'”
But these linguistic gymnastics are part and parcel of the nation’s highest court; calling a “penalty” a tax, as in another Obamacare suit, or claiming that commerce among the several states means any transaction—or potential transaction—by any single individual anywhere, is a drop in the ocean of awful and expansive jurisprudence that has, in its totality, given to Congress a default green light—a presumption of constitutionality for whatever it wants to do.
The degree to which the Court has become disconnected from the founding document it is supposed to interpret and uphold is especially evident in this King opinion, in which the majority opinion says this:
“No bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law impairing the obligation of contracts shall be passed.”
—Utah Constitution, Article 1, Section 18 (see also Article 1, Section 10 of the U.S. Constitution)
A fundamental principle of law in our country is that of prospective application—that laws should apply to individuals and actions in the future as opposed to retroactively in the past. For this reason, both the United States and Utah Constitutions expressly prohibit “ex post facto” laws—laws that apply after the fact. This principle was so obvious to the Constitution’s framers that some even opposed its inclusion, arguing that it was unnecessary.
Oliver Ellsworth, a delegate from Connecticut, said “there was no lawyer, no civilian who would not say that ex post facto laws were void in themselves” and James Wilson, a delegate from Pennsylvania, was literally embarrassed at the thought of what other nations would think if the Constitution made explicit something so obvious. He said he was “against inserting anything in the Constitution as to ex post facto laws. It will bring reflexions on the Constitution—and proclaim that we are ignorant of the first principles of Legislation, or are constituting a Government which will be so.”
After ratification of the Constitution, Thomas Jefferson remarked that some state constitutions did not see the need to even mention the prohibition on ex post facto laws because it was so obvious:
A new study published in the Lancet medical journal—the most comprehensive study of its kind to date—looks at adolescent marijuana use in states with legalized medical marijuana from 1991 to 2014. Using annual, repeated cross-sectional surveys of over one million teenagers, the study finds that marijuana use does not increase when states legalize medical marijuana.
The authors of the study write that “the risk of marijuana use in states before passing medical marijuana laws did not differ significantly from the risk after medical marijuana laws were passed.” The study finds that states with higher rates of teenage marijuana use before enacting their medical programs into law were unaffected by the new legal framework.
According to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 40% of adolescents nationwide have tried marijuana at one or more times in their life. In Utah, that number is only 20%. As the new study indicates, based on indicators from over 20 other states, this number is unlikely to rise if Utah’s legislature allows a medical cannabis program.
While a slight uptick in teen use would not have justified denying sick Utahns the medical treatment they need, it is nevertheless a welcome development to have findings indicating that this concern—shared by some Utah legislators—is resolved.
In an age where every cell phone user is a potential videographer, police tactics have come under increased scrutiny from the public as headlines of law enforcement confrontations gone wrong are captured by citizen bystanders. These stories underscore the growing call for reforms in policing tactics and transparency through department-issued body-worn cameras for officers. Some want to see increased use of body cameras, including mandates for their use all police departments, in the hopes that such transparency will yield a reduction in incidents of force.
Studies in Rialto, California, and elsewhere have shown the benefits of body camera programs—including significant reductions in use of force incidents. For this reason, many police departments are adopting the use of this new technology. The cameras not only help bring transparency and accountability for police actions, but more often than not, they show the good work officers do and frequently exonerate officers against false complaints. Camera footage can also be used as evidence in criminal proceedings and is more reliable than any one officer’s or witness’ memory of events. However, cameras also pose a number of unique challenges. These challenges mean that policies governing the use of cameras need to be well thought out, well written, and enforceable to ensure that cameras are used effectively and in a manner that protect the rights of all involved.
Libertas Institute has put in hundreds of man hours behind the scenes in an ongoing effort to develop and implement such policies in Utah. While the potential benefits of cameras are clear, we do not favor an approach that mandates all departments use them; implementation is very costly. The public budgets that govern police expenditures should control the decision-making process for each department. However, the inevitability is that law enforcement agencies see the immense value of cameras and adopt their use in the absence of a mandate to do so. As this has happened in recent years, the policies that govern the use of body cameras vary from department to department. While this might be reasonable for policies governing other equipment like vehicles or handcuffs, when the privacy rights of all Utahns are at stake—and when officers are often, if not primarily, enforcing state laws—it becomes a state issue.
As industrialization of America’s food system has increased in the past half a century, so too has its centralization. The average person has become almost totally disconnected from their food supply.
This distance between farm and fork has led to a lengthy list of regulations, intended to protect the health of the uninformed consumer who does not, and cannot, know anything about the safety, security, or quality of what they are buying.
Such regulations are unnecessary, and therefore should not be required, of producers who sell directly to informed consumers who can either inspect the farm’s assets and processes, or buy a product knowing that it is free of regulation.
Freeing up small farmers will increase their number, reduce restrictive compliance costs, and protect the freedom of both parties, thereby confining regulation to its proper domain.