Under the Rug

 UNDER THE RUG

The Newton Daily News recently had an opinion piece about rugs and sweeping things under them.  This particular piece was concerned about the number of homeless people who are currently under the rug and how many more would be swept there.  The author of that piece, Farrah Hassen, J. D., believes the situation is dire and needs addressed.

Having a bunch of homeless people living in tents and other temporary shelters littering the sidewalks and underpasses is certainly a concern.  After all, one doesn't want the litter nor the other effects of homelessness such as panhandling and unwanted conversation with derelicts.   So what is the solution?  

You can always throw them in jail, but then you have to feed them and give them a bed to sleep in and guess who has to stand the cost of this? Us!  We've been doing the same with those we deem sex offenders for a number of years now.  But there are less sex offenders than there are homeless people (presumably), so we have been able to accommodate our sex offenders in jail and prison when they decide to camp in places deemed unacceptable - - such as within city limits.

But homelessness seems to be significantly increasing.  Instead of a tent or two, we may now have dozens of homeless to deal with when doing such routine things as grocery shopping.  Who wants a bunch of hungry people standing around watching you load your groceries into the back of your SUV?  Not me!

So in search of a remedy, there is always jail - - a tried and true American solution.  It can't be helped folks.  Rather than providing housing or at least, giving them a place where they can pitch their tents or set up what other temporary structures they can come up with, we just need to chase them out of town altogether and be rid of them.  What Dr. Hassen proposes, that our governments should take responsibility for these people, is totally farfetched and unacceptable.  The idea that our government should concern itself with anyone other than those with enough money not to need government assistance is absurd. 

The U. S. Supreme Court couldn't think of anything better than making criminals out of them and if they can't think of anything better than that, why should we?

Richard E H Phelps II

Mingo

The Prosecution of Falstaff

 THE PROSECUTION OF FALSTAFF

The Case of Young

Supreme Court of Iowa

We now have prosecutions and convictions of criminal offenses determined by whether it would have been something which Falstaff might have been guilty of or Hotspur.  Now for those of you who are unfamiliar with either, they are creatures of Shakespeare who now has attained the imminence of a legal authority in the annals of Iowa criminal jurisprudence.

Our case law, the literature of the courts, has now added Shakespeare as an authority to which we must pay homage.  I am not familiar with Blackstone's Commentaries so am unable to derive the historical verity of Shakespeare's status as a source of the common law of England, but if Justice Mansfield says it is so, it must be.

In the Case of Young, first name Artell, the federal authorities had obtained the signature of Young when being released from federal prison, that he would agree to having his house searched if there was "reasonable suspicion" that he might have illegal substances on or about his property.  The idea of these probation agreements meeting the current standards of contractual arrangements - - not a factor.

So, federal agents searched Mr. Young's residence without a warrant and found piddling amounts (obviously personal use) of crack, cocaine, and marijuana.  Apparently the Feds were too busy to deal with Mr. Young, so they called up state law enforcement and said "Hey, we've got a guy you can prosecute and throw back in prison, but we haven't got time to do it so it would be wonderful if you would do it".  And, of course, our state law enforcement said "sure, we're always available to help you guys out".

The issue that our Supreme Court wrestled with in this case, was whether the U. S. Constitution should apply to the search or the Iowa Constitution should apply.  Do you need a warrant to search the home of a person on probation?  The Feds didn't have a warrant.  There was much discussion of "a special-needs exception" and other morsels of ratiocination, but the Court said that because federal agents did it and Mr. Young was on federal probation, federal law applies and the Feds don't have to follow Iowa law when searching the residence of an Iowa citizen in the State of Iowa.  Good to know, right?

So there you have it, Shakespeare is now  legal authority in the guise of Falstaff (Hotspur is another issue altogether)  and the Feds can search your home without a warrant if you're on federal probation.  As I have often said, and not proven wrong, our State will find a reason to prove you a criminal, even if they have to hunt for it in the literature of the 16th and 17th centuries.  It's called 'stare decisis'.

Richard E H Phelps II

Mingo