Wednesday, December 17, 2008

Another lawsuit gonna cost us

and once again due to a flawed activists' initiative...
☛ TS U.S. DOJ to challenge Measure J

Update: (Well, maybe it won't cost SO much...)
☛ TS Eureka will defend Measure J
Measure J, passed in November with 57 percent of the vote. It prohibits military recruiting of minors within city limits.

Tuesday, City Attorney Sheryl Schaffner announced that the city had received a letter from the U.S. Department of Justice announcing its intent to file a lawsuit challenging the measure.

Arcata's version of the act, Measure F, also garnered a letter of pending legal action from the feds, but Mayor Mark Wheetley said the council has yet to decide whether to defend the act because City Attorney Nancy Diamond is currently out of town.

Within days of receiving the notice of pending legal action, the Eureka City Council opted to defend Measure J, but not at any cost. In fact, Schaffner said the council stipulated that the Schaffner's office will have to fight the case with no additional city resources.

”The city has no legal obligation to defend it, but the council feels an ethical obligation to put up a defense within their abilities out of respect for the 57 percent of the voters in the city that voted for it,” Schaffner said, adding that the case is now likely to dominate her time. “It means other things don't get done, and the council understands that the community will have to understand that too. That's the nature of intense litigation -- you just have to drop whatever else you're doing.”

Be sure'n Thank Dave Meserve.

fred has it, too: Measure J: Another Wasted Effort

24 comments:

  1. In what way is measure J flawed?

    ReplyDelete
  2. Good god Tom - read it.

    Actually I think that this is way too funny. Let the cities of Arcata and Eureka which have these ordinances pay to defend them. Maybe after the money wasted on them comes to light, the folks in both locales will run the authors out of town.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Maybe the Military shouldn't recruit to anyone that can't legally sign a contract.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Sad thing is, this will be used as an excuse by those liberal fascists in Arcata who want to avoid police review at all costs, even when Eureka and the Supervisors are totally embarrassing them by proceeding with forming a police review committee and hiring an independent auditor, leaving so-called liberal Arcata in the dust with no accountability for Mendosa, who has been in office for way too long.

    Thanks Dave Meserve for fucking it up for us once again!

    ReplyDelete
  5. Tom, you're wither part of this country or you're not.

    If you aren't going to allow voluntary service, you'll end up with the return of the Draft. Or you will have a country with no defense. In which case, of course we could just fold up the federal government tent and save a ton of money, for the short term that we survived.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Tom - you aren’t very bright are you?

    First, please review the first amendment and the equal protection clauses of the US Constitution. The Arcata measures and Eureka measures target political speech and are not narrowly drawn to advance a legitimate state interest and target one group of people only.

    Set your watches sports fans for the length of time these two go down in flames.

    Lmaoroth -dnpmp

    ReplyDelete
  7. Or perhaps Tom you can answer the question put a bit differently:

    Can Measure J pass the strict scrutiny test, asking whether the organization's (military) freedom of expressive association and speech could be overridden by regulations adopted to serve compelling state interests, unrelated to the suppression of ideas, that cannot be achieved through means significantly less restrictive of associational freedoms.

    And if you and Meserve et al don't know what that means then you shouldn't be drafting or supporting such patently unconstitutional measures like J (and T)

    ReplyDelete
  8. Hey Tom - maybe you should have asked the question of Measure J being flawed before you voted on it.


    What a maroon.

    ReplyDelete
  9. O-hell Tom don't need to read nutten. David Cobb tells him whatup dude.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Military service should be mandatory. Then when one blathers about fightin' for our freedoms, maybe they will be a little less willing to go to war for anything less.

    Dred

    ReplyDelete
  11. Rose,and others....Curious to know why it is so wrong for Al Gore's propaganda to infultrate classrooms,yet the military industrial complex gets a free pass?And where does this measure state where kids cannot contact recruiters themselves?

    ReplyDelete
  12. Resquan makes a couple of good points.

    But I did think it was interesting that there were no teenagers involved in the campaign or at the Council meeting last night.

    I don't think the aging, anti govt/war ex hippies, give the kids enough credit.

    ReplyDelete
  13. "there were no teenagers involved in the campaign"

    Actually there were.Some of whom were incessantly pushed by recruiters.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Oh horse shit Mark.

    You need to self medicate again -

    ReplyDelete
  15. Humboldt heretic12/18/2008 10:26 AM

    Now we know the source of Dred's warmista fundamentalism. She's in favor of involuntary servitude (that's slavery for those of you in Arcata).

    ReplyDelete
  16. Thanks Mresquan, I'll expect to see you put an anti-Gore measure on the ballot just to be fair.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Heretic enjoys his freedoms at someone else's expense.

    Dred

    ReplyDelete
  18. I wouldn't go jumping to any conclusions, there, dred.

    It's an interesting question, though - I could argue that since the Draft came to an end, men no longer have in common that experience of fighting, or preparing to fight, our real enemies. That camaraderie that came about from a shared experience is missing.

    So now our men fight each other, on blogs, and with political attack groups. The instinct is now directed inward, a form of national Seppuku.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Humboldt heretic12/19/2008 12:42 PM

    Dred,
    FYI heretic is an honorably discharged veteran of a 20th century military conflict.

    ReplyDelete
  20. A draft would make the upwardly mobile more diligent if their sons and daughters were being sacrificed for the purpose of enriching a political party's business cronies and consolidating political power. A larger majority voicing their indignation and casting their votes to throw the offenders out of office at the first opportunity might make those political opportunists less bold. Cynicism regarding proclamations for war based on government's presented evidence should prompt questions to uncover the truth. We were so easily manipulated by talks of mushroom clouds and weapons of mass-destruction and far too late did the majority realize it's mistake.

    Dred

    ReplyDelete
  21. You may want to check your facts, dred. Last I heard the military's demographic roughly mirrors society, despite all the easy rhetoric and myths to the contrary.

    But it's your rhetoric that will be used - that a disproportionate percentage of poor black kids enroll - which is why you ALREADY have your Democratic Senators pushing that line.

    If a Draft is reinstituted, it will be the Dems who do it - yet if you ask any draft age kid, they will tell you it is the republicans doing it. They're always shocked to hear who it is introducing the idea.

    My favorites, though, are the Arcata uber-liberals, who opined that a draft would be a good thing because it would either draft or send to Canada the riff-raff on the Plaza.

    ReplyDelete
  22. The pending draft will at least wake people up.If Rose is put in a situation where her grandson is forced to sign and sent to fight,I'd imagine she'd adopt more peaceful resolutions and ditch the pro-war,needed military might,outlook.But unfortunately,knowing that,the Bush loving hawks will condemn it,yet will continue to press Obama to continue with their mass war,mass military objectives

    ReplyDelete
  23. GRANDSON!!!?

    You figure it's gonna take 20+ years for the Draft to return? I guess that's possible.

    ReplyDelete
  24. Well,you know what I am getting at.It will be at most,2 years before it's implemented.

    ReplyDelete

Comments are open. Play nice.