By Alex Culpepper

Debate Right: Should Ohio law require nightclub and bar owners to install metal detectors?

By Dave Landon

Last week, a series of gunshots rang out in the early morning hours in the parking lot of what some have described as a “troubled” Huber Heights bar. When the smoke cleared there was one individual dead and two seriously wounded, one of whom later succumbed from his wounds. The Heat Nightclub, which only opened its doors in November 2010, has been the subject of community concern almost from the time it served its first drink. In July 2011, a 24-year-old club patron was shot in the club parking lot. The club has faced increasing opposition by the City of Huber Heights, which has attempted to close the club for over a year. After last week’s shooting, the city went to court to accomplish what they have been unable to convince the Ohio Liquor Commission to do: close the Heat Nightclub.

As the legal system becomes involved in Heat Nightclub’s future, it has been suggested that there should be legislation by the State of Ohio that requires bars and nightclubs to invest in metal detectors and other security systems in an effort to keep guns out of these drinking establishments. This is a typical one-size-fits-all kneejerk reaction and one more attempt to saddle business with unnecessary regulations. These nightclubs and bars have huge capital investments. It’s in their interest to keep their patrons safe from harm. Many of them have already made the calculated business decision to invest in metal detectors and other security systems, such as video surveillance, in order to protect their investments. What they really don’t need is for government to give them one more regulation that may not be necessary.

In the case of the Huber Heights nightclub, there was a metal detector in place in an effort to keep guns out of the nightclub. The violence that took place occurred in the parking lot as the trouble, which evidently started in the bar, spilled outside. The issue of violence at some of these clubs cannot be solved by mandating metal detectors at the front door. There is usually an issue of poor management when a club has a continuing need to call 911 to bring in the local police to break-up fights and disruptive behavior.

What must be kept in mind is that the last thing a club owner wants is to involve the local police as peace keepers. Every emergency run by the police to a club goes against the club’s record for their annual license renewal with the Ohio Department of Liquor Control. As a result, there is a reluctance to call the police when trouble starts inside the club. Instead, there is initially an attempt to handle the matter in-house. This is where club management either is successful, or as in the case of the Heat Nightclub, comes up short. Having top-notch personnel with the skills to defuse a volatile situation is how a nightclub stays in business. It’s more critical than metal detectors or cameras. Simply ushering the combatants out into the parking lot doesn’t solve the problem and certainly doesn’t protect your liquor license. The gun-free nightclub can’t ensure a gun-free parking lot.

If one were to survey which clubs create the most police calls, it would be clubs that cater to younger crowds, hands down. One study suggested that music with a pounding beat may “be a risk factor since it frequently creates an atmosphere of intense physical activity.” Young people, who are inexperienced drinkers, and who believe themselves to be invulnerable, are sometimes caught up in the energy created in such an atmosphere. However, make no mistake, violence can occur at any club genre: country, college bar, techno or hip-hop.

The standard of care for most bars and clubs, locally and across the country, is one of “reasonable care” based on the nature and location of each individual establishment, and the reasonably foreseeable risks of each establishment. Of course, Mayor Bloomberg’s New York City has set guidelines, because that’s what Mayor Bloomberg does, as to what security measures including metal detectors and how many security personnel are required for each establishment. There are also some cities in England that tightly regulate the safety requirements of the local clubs. These are measures which a club owner already knows whether or not are necessary for their establishment. For many clubs and bars the measures are unnecessary and will drive up the cost of doing business. The regulations in one English city go so far as to dictate the number of cameras a club must operate.

Most owners of bars and nightclubs have the goal of providing a safe and hospitable establishment where patrons can gather for a good time while enjoying an adult beverage. Slamming these small businesses with more regulations is not the most effective means to ensure the safety of the patrons of these establishments.

David H. Landon is the former Chairman of the Montgomery County Republican Party Central Committee. He can be reached at DaveLandon@DaytonCityPaper.com.

By Alex Culpepper

Illustration: Sam Rhoden

In March, the U.S. Supreme Court heard arguments in the U.S. v. Windsor case, which will decide whether the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) is constitutional. The media reports and polling numbers surrounding the case revealed Americans are truly softening their stances on gay marriage, and the Court’s ruling could open wide the door for gay couples to wed. A lesser-known movement is the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA) that seeks to make it illegal for an employer to discriminate based on sexual orientation or gender identity. Sponsors of this bill hope to ride the recent wave of public support for same-sex marriage and get this passed. The bill hit the Senate and House floor on April 25. Both the DOMA case and the ENDA legislation form a backdrop for the recent experience of Carla Hale of Columbus, Ohio.

For nearly 20 years, Carla Hale was a teacher at Bishop Watterson High School in Columbus. Back in March, an anonymous letter writer revealed to the Diocese of Columbus an obituary written by Hale about her recently deceased mother. In that obituary, Hale included the name of her same-sex partner. The school questioned her about the obituary and Hale told them what she wrote was true. Two weeks later, she was fired.

The Diocese of Columbus and the school say Hale was fired because her relationship violates moral laws of the Catholic Church. Supporters of the decision point to a contract drawn up by the Roman Catholic Diocese of Columbus and the Central Ohio Association of Catholic Educators stating teachers can be fired for violating codes of moral behavior. Supporters say it is fair to expect educators in Catholic schools to faithfully honor and follow Church doctrine. Further, morality-based firings have happened before in Ohio Catholic schools: In Cincinnati an assistant principal was fired for showing support for gay marriage in a blog post, and two other Ohio teachers were fired for becoming pregnant although they were not married.

Supporters have rallied to Hale’s defense and are critical of the decision by the Diocese of Columbus. Thousands of them, including many current and former students and alumni, have signed a petition supporting her reinstatement. Hale disagrees with the decision from the Diocese and maintains she always kept her private life to herself and never advocated her lifestyle or sexual orientation as a teacher. She since has filed a grievance and found legal counsel. If her plea for reinstatement falls short, she may have the law on her side because Columbus has a city ordinance that makes it illegal to discriminate based on sexual orientation.

So, Carla Hale sits and waits for a response to her grievance from the Diocese, and their actions will determine whether this story gets another chapter and more national media attention. In the end, the Catholic Diocese of Columbus defends their position by claiming Hale failed to uphold the code of morality expected from educators in their schools. Hale believes her situation is the result of discrimination that is unfair and maybe illegal, and she wants to return to her position at the school.

 By Alex Culpepper

Newtown, Conn.; Aurora, Colo.; Fort Hood, Texas; Blacksburg, Va.; Oklahoma City, Okla.; and Boston, Mass. – all these places have one particular characteristic in common: they are sites of mass carnage generating huge casualties. Even though they share the same terrible misfortune of hosting a massacre, they are not all quite the same, because in two of those places assailants used bombs instead of guns. The two bombings show how effective bombs can be at causing destruction and generating terror – after all, they allowed Ted Kaczynski to wreak havoc for 17 years. The most recent bombing in Boston, however, has created more discussion about violence in our culture and has also exposed a new layer in the debate about gun control.

The recent bombing at the Boston Marathon has provided fuel for opponents of gun control to express that restricting gun ownership will not be an adequate solution to prevent carnage. They point to that incident, the Oklahoma City bombing, other recent bombing attempts and shootings as evidence that dangerous people will do nearly anything to create massacres, and even the strictest of laws would have little chance of stopping them, especially if the laws are not enforced. And if we are to have increased restrictions on guns and their availability, they argue, then we need bomb-control laws now because bombs can create similar – or even greater – damage. But as with guns, they say making laws prohibiting bomb-making items would not then prevent mad bombers from dealing death; it would only frustrate legitimate users of those items.

Supporters of gun control see things differently. They would admit that no laws are 100 percent effective, but they argue certain restrictions on what weapons people can own are helpful in preventing future tragedies, from either bombs or shootings. The idea behind gun restrictions is to limit the availability of tools used to create violence and death, and if it would be possible to restrict availability of items commonly found in homemade bombs then that would be good as well. Applying this logic of less is better of anything that is capable of creating mass casualties, gun control supporters believe gun crimes, homicides and massacres will be greatly reduced.

With constitutional rights at stake and fears of so-called slippery slope legislation that could infringe on those rights, gun rights supporters are suspicious of talk about firearm restrictions. Yet, gun control supporters want freedom, too – the freedom from being shot or blown up at an array of venues, or at least a reduced chance of it happening. Both sides know the potential for mass killings could lurk anywhere, but each disagrees about the solution, or if a solution is even realistic.

Reach DCP freelance writer Alex Culpepper at AlexCulpepper@DaytonCityPaper.com.

Debate Forum Question of the Week:

Just as guns were tools for the premeditated carnage of Newtown, Conn.; Aurora, Colo.; Fort Hood, Texas; and Virginia Tech (just to name a few), fertilizer was used by Timothy McVeigh in Oklahoma City, and now pressure cookers and ball bearings in Boston. Is the gun control debate truly about controlling tools of mass carnage?  Should there now be laws requiring background checks and registration for persons who wish to purchase pressure cookers and ball bearings at WalMart? Is controlling potential tools of carnage (guns, fertilizer, pressure cookers) a solution, or just a bandage? 

Debate Left: Regulations aren’t for criminals – they’re for us

By Ben Tomkins

The great human tragedy is perhaps the most difficult condition to manage legislatively. Raw, inflammatory emotions – both personally and rhetorically – make it all but impossible to broach relevant social questions that are often highly nuanced and worthy of deep introspection. School shootings, bombings and calculated terrorist acts gouge those things that are held most sacrosanct by our culture and our legal system – our family, our privacy and our solidarity – and as a result bring to the foreground profound questions about our fundamental personal and civic values.

In writing this piece, at a time when the families, victims and community members of the Boston attack are still in a state of shock and without answer for their loss, I suppose I am both the better and the worse individual to address these questions because of the simple fact that I am removed from its epicenter.

Given the all-too-recent horrors of the Boston Marathon bombing and the Newtown shootings, the reality of our voluntarily weaponized society must be reexamined. Personally, I am equally appalled by the extreme insensitivity of organizations like the NRA, and the intellectual sloth of those who would suggest something patently absurd as regulating pressure cooker sales. To be fair, I have not heard of anyone calling for a pressure cooker or ball bearing regulation, and if I did it would reduce my view of their critical faculties well beyond that of an individual making the gun argument. Nonetheless, the point still stands. Using the deaths of humans to paint frothing, vitriolic, black-and-white reductio ad absurdum arguments to forward a social agenda is the last thing we need to come to some kind of a mutual resolution regarding the issues of weapons and terrorism in our society.

If we take the example of the pressure cooker bomb for the sake of a foil, I think a distinction can be drawn immediately between generic elements of destruction and those that are demonstrably worthy of some regulation. A pressure cooker is a generic example one of a hundred possible household items that could be used to make a bomb. You could just as easily put explosives in, well, a Ryder truck and drive it into a building in Oklahoma. Similarly, ball bearings may as well be deck screws or teaspoons.

Guns are fundamentally different. A gun is not a generic delivery system for a bullet. You can’t just shove a bullet into a piece of PVC pipe and start shooting people. I’ve always hated the “guns don’t kill people, people kill people” pseudo-profundity that dribbles out of the mouths of the less intelligent of the pro-gun crowd and onto the front of their stupid t-shirts. I’m sorry, but I think you’re missing the point, dear. Every gun owner is a personally knighted defender of the rest of humanity right up to the point that they start murdering people. The issue is the ease with which one can make the transition.

Likewise, the government already has restrictions on various dangerous chemicals. The average human, for instance, can’t just go to Walgreens and buy Agent Orange. This would be a somewhat insane thing for society to allow. Also, many other chemicals, fertilizers and lab equipment listed on a document known as the Special Surveillance list are not banned, but are carefully monitored. Red phosphorus, one of the primary chemicals necessary for making crystal meth, is highly regulated so as to make it very difficult for the average member of the public to attain. The same is true of nitrate fertilizers that can be easily converted into a bomb. Some lab equipment is on the list, and even cold medicine containing pseudoephedrine requires a pharmacist to enter your name and purchase date into their computer to stop people from buying fifty packages for the purpose of making meth.

But to understand the purpose of this document is to understand exactly the way in which regulation does help to prevent proliferation and reduce crime. We have all heard the argument – largely in reference to guns, but now for bomb components as well – that we shouldn’t limit the availability of these things because once a person is using them for criminal purposes we aren’t going to stop them anyway. Well, obviously. However, what the Special Surveillance list does is it criminalizes otherwise law-abiding individuals who casually mishandle or sell these items to others.

This serves as a tremendous deterrent to crime, in that it reminds citizens to take extra precautions to ensure that they handle these things responsibly. If a lab technician knows that they can’t just sell a centrifuge to their buddy because it seems harmless, then casual transactions with profound results will be greatly reduced.

If Boston and Newtown have taught us anything, it’s that it is time to look anew at the social casualness with which we as a society treat those things that have the tangible potential for mass harm. Not mom’s pressure cooker or a handful of deck screws, but objects and products that have an obviously narrow usage for both law abiding citizens and criminals alike.

Ben Tomkins is a violinist, teacher, journalist and critically acclaimed composer currently living in Denver, Colo. He hates stupidity and generally believes that the volume of one’s voice is inversely proportional to one’s knowledge of the issue. 

Reach Ben Tompkins at BenTomkins@DaytonCityPaper.com.

Debate Right: We must be careful not to overreact

Whenever our nation goes through a tragedy, many times there is a rush to react quickly, which results in our constitutional rights being challenged. Looking back through history there are numerous examples of this occurrence.

During the American Civil War, President Abraham Lincoln suspended habeas corpus, essentially ending a citizen’s right to challenge their incarceration by the government by going before a judge or court. Lincoln at the time felt it was justified in order to keep the Union together, capture southern sympathizers and ultimately bring the country back together.

Shortly after the bombing of Pearl Harbor by the Japanese military, President Franklin Roosevelt ordered Japanese Americans to be interned. Roosevelt was trying to prevent sabotage by what were believed to be Japanese in the U.S. helping the Empire of Japan.

And after the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks, the passage of the Patriot Act gave the U.S. government broad powers for wiretapping, surveillance and more to prevent terrorism. President Bush felt the law would help the FBI and CIA capture terrorists both abroad and domestically and prevent them from harming Americans and American interests.

Some view these historic responses to tragic events by our nation as mistakes and in lots of cases complete violations of the U.S. Constitution.

President George H.W. Bush said, “In remembering, it is important to come to grips with the past. No nation can fully understand itself or find its place in the world if it does not look with clear eyes at all the glories and disgraces of its past. We in the United States acknowledge such an injustice in our history. The internment of Americans of Japanese ancestry was a great injustice, and it will never be repeated.”

The recent events of violence during the past year from the Aurora, Colo. movie theater shooting to the recent Boston marathon bombings are no exception. They were horrendous crimes on U.S. soil and those responsible shall receive the full weight of the law against them.

However, those tragic events are challenging our rights as Americans. They have cast doubt on the very ideals and freedoms we hold as Americans. Unlike the reaction our nation had after the bombings of Pearl Harbor, we must learn from our history and continue to maintain the constitutional principles of the U.S.

Many believe the appropriate action in order to prevent such tragedies is to regulate the “ingredients” of terror. They would like to regulate, control or – in a few cases – outlaw pressure cookers, ball bearings and fertilizers. Alternatively, many want background checks of individuals who are purchasing such items. However, is regulating ordinary and legal items a solution to preventing terror whether foreign or domestic?

Is putting restrictions on pressure cookers or ball bearings a good use of the U.S. government’s time to prevent repeats? Maybe a better and more effective solution would be to be more aggressive in spotting those who are looking to do damage? Several elected officials and citizens are calling for severe restrictions on the purchase, use and sale of firearms in the U.S. One issue that is never addressed by them is that in most instances those who purchase firearms through the legal process are not the ones who commit these terror crimes, and if, say, a law abiding gun owner were carrying their firearm they could stop a terror event from even happening through self-defense.

Not to mention the Second Amendment allowing Americans to own firearms. The U.S. Supreme Court has upheld the amendment numerous times.

Those who commit terror will find other ways to make homemade bombs using new ingredients. Ultimately, the true terrors that must be stopped are the individuals who bring it. It’s the saying that “guns don’t kill people, people kill people.” Therefore, the main focus should be stopping those individuals and possibly empowering private law-abiding citizens who could defend against terror.

As more questions from the Boston bombing are answered and time begins to pass from that tragic event and others, sensible thinking will return. Our heightened urgency to react will diminish some. Regardless, we cannot shred the very foundation that makes our nation a free society.

Having a free society can be very difficult. Our Founding Fathers strove for it and built a foundation that protects it. Freedom is what makes being an American special.

The U.S. is made up of people from all cultures throughout the world, with different mindsets, religions, priorities and overall beliefs. The one thing that binds all Americans together regardless of wealth, education, sex and religion is our freedom. The former President of South Africa, Nelson Mandela, said, “For to be free is not merely to cast off one’s chains, but to live in a way that respects and enhances the freedom of others.”

The moment our government begins to impinge on our freedoms, specifically the rights of a free society, we will begin to lose what it means to be an American and the enjoyment of a free society.

Rob Scott is a practicing attorney at Oldham & Deitering, LLC. Scott is the Chairman of the Montgomery County Republican Party, founder of the Dayton Tea Party and a Councilman in the City of Kettering, Ohio. He can be contacted at rob@oldhamdeitering.com or gemcitylaw.com.

A court case is underway in Madison County in which a woman is charged with posting false and damaging claims about a local public official on her personal Facebook page. Should a person’s private Facebook posts be considered legitimate journalism and subject to the same standards of libel as other credible media outlets such a magazine or newspaper article? 

 By Alex Culpepper

The recent passage of the measure to prevent a government shutdown allows U.S. lawmakers to step back and exhale for a moment. On March 26, President Obama signed H.R. 933, and with it comes funding to keep the government operational through September. This “stop-gap” bill is the product of budget battles and debates dominating lawmakers’ energy and attention for months. More budget talks will begin in the summer, but for now, government employees will be paid, agencies will continue operations and other issues will get attention.

The passing of H.R. 933, however, was not without issue. It produced a controversy in its wake, and it was not a budget controversy. Contained within H.R. 933 is a small rider called Section 735, which offers biotech companies immunity from litigation concerning the planting and cultivating of unapproved Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs). According to news from Washington, the measure was a last-minute addition to the bill, and many senators and representatives allegedly knew nothing about its existence. The votes from Ohio’s senators and regional representatives on H.R. 933 went like this: Sherrod Brown (D), Yea; Rob Portman (R), Nay; Mike Turner (R), Yea; John Boehner (R) and Steve Austria (R) did not cast votes.

Opponents of Section 735 are troubled. They have called this rider nothing less than submission to special interests and the product of a secret, backroom deal that was slipped in without a hearing or debate. Furthermore, because so many lawmakers claim to have been unaware of the rider, opponents believe it reveals Congress was not reading the bill, and that troubles them as well. The potential violation of due process is also a great concern for opponents because Section 735 frees biotech companies from any liability regarding the cultivation of unapproved and potentially harmful products. Opponents also decry the precedent it sets because it opens the door for companies to get what they want by generating sympathy from lawmakers.

Backers of Section 735 say no alarms are necessary because it simply protects companies and farmers from frivolous lawsuits, further claiming environmentalists have a history of interfering with approved plants being cultivated. They go on to say lawsuits interfere with their development of legitimate products. They argue this legislation allows farmers to plant and grow crops while the USDA engages in environmental reviews rather than not have them planted at all or have them destroyed. Roy Blunt (R-MO), the sponsor of Section 735, had this to say about it: “What [Section 735] says is if you plant a crop that is legal to plant when you plant it, you get to harvest it.” He also states the bill provides just one year of protection for biotech companies.

Opponents of biotech companies’ GMOs have been trying for years to stop their proliferation. To them, Section 735 is a great step backward because they say it shuts down the ability of a federal court to protect consumer rights and the environment. The biotech companies claim to seek protection from activism that uses courts to interfere with innovation and creates financial hardship for farmers. Whether Section 735 becomes permanent depends on what happens in September when the federal government must come up with a budget deal or find another way to fund operations for fiscal year 2014.

 Debate Forum Question of the Week:

A nearly unknown section of a budget bill passed by Congress last week (Section 735 of H.R. 933) now gives biotech companies such as Monsanto immunity from liability and litigation for their role in development, planting and harvesting of Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs) now and in the future. Has Congress violated their constitutional obligation to uphold due process and protect public health? Or is this a logical step toward protecting corporate innovation from frivolous lawsuits?  

Debate Forum Left: When a seed isn’t just a seed

By Marianne Stanley

Who could have ever dreamed up the far-fetched idea that we could no longer trust our food to nourish rather than poison and even kill us? We are swimming in a soup of chemicals both internally and externally – in our air, our water, our foods. Monsanto is one of the greatest offenders in the realm of creating hazards to health and life on this planet in both the plant and animal world. The fact that most people think it is an agricultural company when it is actually a vast chemical corporation is testament to its marketing prowess.

Its “sins” against humanity and other living things are great and many. Monsanto is a regular player in Washington’s “revolving door” practice, where former congressmen go to work for the company and ultimately come back to work for government in some powerful capacity. Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, for instance, used to be a lawyer for Monsanto. Years later, he wrote the deciding opinion on Monsanto’s supposed “right” to patent seeds. First of all, as an ex-employee of that corporation, he should have recused himself from the case. Secondly, up until this decision, no form of existing life could be patented. Seeds are the key to mankind’s foodstuffs. Whoever holds the patent controls the food and, ultimately, the well-being of people themselves.

It is alarming enough that Monsanto has been allowed to patent its genetically modified (GM) seeds, releasing into our environment untested organisms that have already been shown to cause sterility, birth defects, cancer, seizures and even death. But Monsanto also bullies, harasses and sues small farmers whose fields contain some of the GM plants due to wind and natural cross-contamination. They have put farmers out of business with their mafia-like tactics while hundreds of thousands of suicides among Indian cotton farmers are attributed to practices and products that have destroyed them, from inferior yields to its costly seeds. These GE seeds, unlike traditional crop seeds, are sterile, forcing farmers to buy more seed every year.

While some are trying to say that the “Monsanto Protection Act” within the federal budget bill is just “business as usual” – since congressmen are always putting riders in bills to bring some “pork” home to their districts – this is something entirely, totally, 100 percent different and needs to be shown for what it is. This is the official and blatantly public end of the U.S. as it was designed to be; this is the demise of our separation of powers that has been eroding but which has not been complete until now.

What this rider says is that even if the creation, production, selling, moving, growing, harvesting or use of its genetically modified seeds leads to harm or even widespread death, that no matter what the results of its actions are, no one – not even our own government – can sue it, stop it or hold it accountable. No court will be allowed its proper role of oversight, of judicial review of the acts of the other two branches of government, be they laws or regulations. Monsanto has been given carte blanche to pursue its total commitment to profit at the expense of life itself.

Every American who is alarmed at the thought of corporations taking control over their lives should begin to educate themselves on these megalithic corporations who are actively involved in buying our lawmakers, to our detriment, from banks to chemical corporations. The senator who slid this rider into the unrelated budget bill is Republican Roy Blunt, the senator most highly rated by Monsanto and the one who has received the highest donation amounts from them.

Monsanto’s profits jumped 22 percent in the last quarter alone. As they are handed the keys to life itself, the rest of us must not sit idly and ignorantly by while their genetically engineered corn, rice, cotton, soy and canola send their bacterial microbes deep into our own digestive systems, turning them into little pesticide factories with unpredictable consequences. With virtually all our soy, corn and canola products genetically engineered, plus a large percentage of our rice and cotton, avoid them unless they’re organic. We should not be the subjects of a vast unscientific lab experiment.

It was Monsanto that created Agent Orange, which left half a million Asian babies with birth defects, along with countless American GIs returning from Vietnam. Its other products are equally dangerous and/or deadly. While saccharin is labeled accurately as a carcinogen in other countries, Monsanto has been able to keep its congressmen in line in consistently refusing to mandate labeling of GE foods, going so far as to enlist Donald Rumsfeld to reverse the original ban on aspartame after studies showed it caused holes in the brains of baby mice. Monsanto, cast as a consumer-friendly agricultural company also gave us toxic waste dumps, dioxin, DDT, PCBs and cancer-causing plastic bottles.

We are a country in dire straits when our government is in cahoots with big business, rather than being singularly committed to the well-being of the people of this nation. If you do nothing else today, email, call or write your representatives, including the president, to express your disapproval of that rider … then watch “Seeds of Destruction,” “The Future of Food,” “The World According to Monsanto,” “Seeds of Deception” and “Sweet Misery, A Poisoned World” so that you have a window into this unfolding crisis.

 By Alex Culpepper

As part of the U.S. Department of the Treasury, The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) collects money for the U.S. government in the form of tax payments from citizens. In many cases, people send in their tax bills around the time of the tax return filing deadline in April every year. For various reasons, though, some people do not pay their taxes on time and some do not pay them for a long time, leading to tax collection actions ranging from mild reminders to potentially life-changing enforcement procedures. One of the more severe actions taken against delinquent taxpayers is the tax lien on property and assets, which means the IRS can use property and assets as collateral in order to retrieve unpaid tax money. A possible new way of securing those funds, at least from federal employees, may be to deny or terminate employment based on unpaid tax status.

On March 20, the U.S. House adopted H.R. 249, The Federal Employee Tax Accountability Act of 2013, a bill that would make it lawful to terminate and deny federal employment to those with “serious delinquent tax debt” who are under tax liens. According to house members backing the bill, the legislation is one of several bills offered as a response to what they believe is a lack of faith citizens have with the government’s attempts to control waste and abuse of taxpayer money. This bill has support in congress, but it also has some opposition.

One of the bill’s sponsors, Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah), says the “intent” of the bill is to ensure people are making a “good faith effort” to pay their taxes. He says that it should be considered motivation to get them to pay, rather than to punish them by firing. Supporters of the bill claim this legislation targets a significant problem because the delinquent taxpayers in question are responsible for about $1 billion of tax debt. Supporters further contend that the new law would not apply to all delinquent taxpayers – just those under tax liens.

One problem opponents of the legislation have is the bill focuses solely on federal employees and singles them out for “special targeting” and “demonizes” them unnecessarily. Opponents also say they are unsure why the bill should apply only to federal workers when their rate of tax delinquency is much lower than the public at large. Further, opponents believe the bill is a poor way to settle delinquent tax bills because it would be much harder to get money from someone who is unemployed. Finally, opponents claim laws are already in place to retrieve back taxes, leaving such a bill unnecessary.

H.R. 249 comes at a time when federal workers are under a pay rate freeze and may be subject to furloughs. Regardless, the IRS still must collect taxes. Supporters believe the bill will serve as a motivational tool to get people to pay their taxes. Opponents have concerns because they think the bill is an unnecessary and illogical solution for collecting unpaid debt. The bill still has some obstacles to clear before becoming law.

 By Alex Culpepper

James Holmes is the man accused of walking into an Aurora, Colorado, movie theater on July 20, 2012, taking out his guns and opening fire, killing 12 people and wounding dozens more. After the incident, he was promptly arrested and booked on nearly 170 counts of murder and other charges. He was arraigned March 12 in a Colorado court and Judge William Sylvester entered a not guilty plea for him. Holmes’ lawyers may eventually enter a plea of not guilty by reason of insanity for an April 1 hearing in which prosecutors may seek the death penalty. If Holmes enters the insanity plea and it is accepted, the death penalty will probably be off the table. He may have a lighter sentence if convicted and he possibly could be acquitted and serve time in a mental institution rather than a prison.

There’s a catch in it for Holmes’ defense, though. If Holmes submits an insanity plea, then Judge Sylvester has given the green light for prosecutors to interrogate him while doctors administer a “truth serum.” This serum is a barbiturate fed intravenously and is intended to lower inhibitions and bring forth information normally unavailable in a sober condition. This process is known as a “narcoanalytic interview,” and it is both unusual in a criminal trial and a possible violation of a person’s constitutional rights.

Supporters of the judge’s decision in this case have a simple goal: they hope to find evidence Holmes was legally sane during the shooting and competent to stand trial for murder and other crimes. They believe evidence from the narcoanalytic interview would provide what they need to support their case. Opponents of the decision to use truth serum have a few problems with it. First, they say the attitude among medical experts is the narcoanalytic interview is not reliable. They say people can still lie under the drug’s effects and can be subject to suggestion, thus giving false statements. Then, opponents say this is a potential violation of the Fifth Amendment because Holmes would lose his right to remain silent while under the effects of the drug and could unlawfully incriminate himself. Further, violations of unreasonable search and seizure and due process under the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments are possible, too, according to Judith Edersheim, the co-director of the Massachusetts General Hospital Center for Law, Brain and Behavior.

The determination of whether Holmes’ plea is not guilty or not guilty by reason of insanity is an important factor in this case. To get the latter plea to trial, he must first submit to the narcoanayltic interview. Courts are in place to allow people to seek justice under the law and supporters of using the truth serum want the interview to happen because they believe information from it will greatly support their case. Courts also must ensure that the rights of both plaintiff and defendant are protected, and opponents fear drugging someone and getting him or her to recall events of an alleged crime may violate the Fifth Amendment right to prevent self-incrimination.

Forum Question of the Week

A Colorado judge has approved government use of a “narcoanalytic interview” for the purpose of confirming whether accused Aurora, Colo. shooter James Holmes had been legally insane when he engaged in his shooting spree. Is this judge’s decision sound? Or is it a challenge to our Constitution’s right to remain silent under the Fifth Amendment? 

 By Alex Culpepper

The period in the United States from Reconstruction through the 1960s hosted a great deal of historic events and changes. Repression and racism were rampant, while at the same time African Americans attempted to exercise their rights to vote. Even if one could get to a voting station, the literacy tests, poll taxes, intimidation and violence was argued as reasons why minorities – particularly African Americans – were in essence being prevented from exercising their right to vote. The injustices and the resulting inertia finally led to the passing of the 1965 Voting Rights Act.

The Voting Rights Act (VRA) was enacted to provide an umbrella of protection for minorities against barriers that undermine their rights to vote. The VRA guarantees citizens no longer need to take complicated tests or suffer the whims of officials at polling places. To ensure these rights are protected, Section 5 of the VRA is in place to require federal approval for any changes to voting laws in areas where discrimination has been a particular problem historically.

Section 5 was recently an issue before the U.S. Supreme Court in the case of Shelby County v. Holder. The Court heard oral arguments and issued statements that some claim now reveal their beliefs about the VRA. Based on Court analysts’ opinions, the five conservative justices seem poised to use their majority to strike it down. If they do, opponents are expected to argue any voting district in the country can issue rules about what is required in order to cast a vote and not require federal approval.

Supporters of the VRA are particularly shocked by the Court’s declarations. To them, gutting Section 5 is at best a Republican strategy to grab and sustain Republican majorities through gerrymandering, and at worst reinstitutes policies resembling Jim Crow segregation. Others similarly fear it would turn back the clock on the struggles won by African Americans in the twentieth century and deal a blow to the Civil Rights Movement. Still others offer supportive statistics illustrating the importance of the VRA: in Mississippi alone the federal government struck down attempted voting rule changes 173 times since 1965. Further, some note the Court’s tone to be strikingly at odds with Congress, which renewed the VRA with near unanimous approval in 2006.

VRA opponents support the conservative Supremes’ alleged leanings in believing the VRA is no longer necessary because African Americans have achieved and gained so much since 1965 that it essentially defines the act an anachronism. An African American now occupies the White House and will have occupied it for eight years. Others similarly think the VRA and its enforcement focuses too much on events and actions that happened long ago, suggesting that discriminatory practices have presented a smaller barrier over time. During the oral arguments, Justices Kennedy and Scalia suggested that the VRA is another example of needless government intrusion. Kennedy said the VRA interferes with Alabama’s sovereignty to manage its own rules aside from federal government mandates. Justice Scalia called it “perpetuation of racial entitlement.”

Perhaps the Voting Rights Act has done something few pieces of legislation have ever done: solve a problem. If that is the case, then Scalia and Kennedy are paying it the greatest compliment—it worked and is still working; we can move on now. A majority in Congress, however, seems to differ in favor of the VRA, citing the federal government has dealt with nearly 200 unacceptable changes to voting laws in just one state since 1965.

Debate Forum Question of the Week: Does the 1965 Voting Rights Act remain relevant today?

 By Alex Culpepper

People refer to it as the “Scopes Monkey Trial,” but it is officially known as The State of Tennessee v. John Thomas Scopes. Basically, this 1925 case charged John Scopes, a Tennessee high school science teacher, with teaching evolution in his classes, which was a violation of the Butler Law that prohibited teaching evolution in Tennessee schools. This famous case pitted two legendary attorneys –William Jennings Bryan and Clarence Darrow– against each other and it ended with Scopes losing and paying a fine. The Butler Law stood for decades afterward, but two legacies remain from the case: evolution as sound science gained traction with the public at large and the issue involving science, evolution and religion in the classroom remains controversial to this day. Ohio has inherited these winds.

John Freshwater was a science teacher in Mount Vernon, Ohio, until the school board decommissioned him in 2011 for using religious materials to teach science in his classes and introducing creationist doctrine in his evolution lessons. Two separate courts heard Freshwater’s case and both sided with the school board. Freshwater recently brought his case before the Ohio Supreme Court and has been aided legally by a Virginia civil liberties organization known as the Rutherford Institute. His defense is that it was not clear which materials or methods were acceptable in his district and his teaching is protected as free speech. The Court heard oral arguments Wednesday, Feb. 27, and a decision is forthcoming.

School board lawyers leveled charges that Freshwater pushed his religious beliefs on students he taught. They charged him with violating the constitutional Separation of Church and State by displaying a Bible in the classroom and handing out religious-based material that challenges current scientific findings. Part of the argument presented by school board lawyers is that a teacher at a state institution surrenders his or her right to free speech when in the classroom. Further, school district administrators ordered Freshwater to cease his religious overtures in class when they caught wind of his activities.

Freshwater’s counsel, however, claimed that the school board “exaggerated” the teacher’s religion-pushing activities in the classroom and showed hostility toward religion. The defense argument went on to state Freshwater used religious materials as an expression of free speech and academic freedom in order to address controversial scientific issues. In further support of the teacher’s methods, his lawyer reported his students performed well on standardized tests. As for the Bible, Freshwater’s lawyer says displaying a Bible does not equal religious indoctrination and it mostly laid on his desk among other books.

John Freshwater’s case is not the first of its kind to surface in Ohio. In 2002, the Ohio State School Board sought to have intelligent design approved as appropriate subject matter. Then in 2011, representatives from the Springboro School District attempted to get creationism in the curriculum. Outside influences stalled efforts to move forward in both cases. Freshwater and his supporters have reason to be hopeful, though, because all of those present at the Court’s oral hearing believe that the justices’ questions helped the teacher’s cause. The verdict, though, may be some months away.

Commentary Forum Question of the Week:

 By Alex Culpepper

Florida is a realm of resort hotels, blazing year-round summer sunshine and salty sea breezes. It’s also the U.S. Supreme Court’s proving ground for drug-sniffing dog cases regarding probable cause in searches. The Court has decided one case – Florida v. Harris – about the legality of using an alert by a drug-sniffing dog to qualify as probable cause for a search of a person’s vehicle. The Court unanimously backed the police in that case, overturning a previous Florida Supreme Court ruling. The other case – Florida v. Jardines – remains to be decided. It will determine whether that same alert by a drug-sniffing dog applies to a person’s residence and qualifies as probable cause.

To find evidence of illegal activity, such as drug possession, the police must have probable cause and a search warrant to investigate your vehicle or home. Probable cause could be any activity or characteristic a police officer deems suspicious and suggests evidence of a crime. One of the Court’s conclusions in the Florida v. Harris ruling was that the dog’s alert to contraband can be the sole probable cause that initiates a search of a person’s vehicle. With this decision fresh on the books, the Court will vote whether that same conclusion applies to a person’s home.

Those outraged by this ruling oppose it because they believe the warrantless use of a drug-sniffing dog is not probable cause and amounts to a Fourth Amendment violation of illegal search and seizure. In short, they believe that the justices have it backwards, meaning that probable cause should first be established and then the dog can sniff for something illegal. In addition, some people claim that the drug-sniffing dogs are not always as accurate as advertised and they can be manipulated by unscrupulous police officers to render false alerts.

The Supreme Court has upheld in the cases of traffic stops, airport luggage checks and package checks the contraband-sniffing dog is perfectly legal. The Court also ruled in the past the use of drug-sniffing dogs does not violate the Fourth Amendment because the sniff test is not a search and does “not involve opening or otherwise exposing non-contraband to public view, and it was specifically designed to reveal the presence of contraband.” To further support the use of drug-sniffing dog alerts as probable cause, the police claim the drug-sniffing dogs supply a formidable presence to successfully combat the drug trade.

Florida v. Jardines has been in the court for more than a year and who knows how or when the Supreme Court will vote? One thing is certain: the justices are generating more debate about this case than for Florida v. Harris. In the past, the Court has proclaimed a person’s home is entitled to more privacy than his or her car or luggage. On the other hand, the Court does have a history of supporting warrantless searches even though the justices make distinctions about where those searches can be performed.

Reach DCP forum moderator Alex Culpepper at AlexCulpepper@DaytonCityPaper.com

Debate Forum Question of the Week:

Should the police be allowed to engage in a warrantless seach of a private residence based solely on the alert of a contraband-sniffing dog as probable cause?

Debate Left: Smell the glove

In retrospect, I’m shocked that the reliability and constitutionality of using a drug sniffing dog has never crossed my mind. I guess I always assumed that the trained canine nose was a magic homing beacon that the cops on “Law and Order” kept in the trunk of their car in case Jerry Orbach’s perfect hair failed to charm a perp into confessing. You see Jerry standing there, shoving bamboo slivers under this guy’s fingernails, and the suspect is spitting in his face and denying everything. But as soon as they threaten to get the dog to search his house, the guy goes custard-colored and starts spilling his guts because he knows the second Rin Tin Tizzang shows up he’s going to plow through the drywall and cannonball into the giant pile of crack rocks stashed in the back closet like it’s made of dead fish.

It’s crazy, really, given that I own a dog and yet I considered it an article of faith that a police dog’s alert was unimpeachable. And I don’t own just any dog, I own a Brittany-from-a-rescue – as opposed to the morally inferior “he’s-a-pure-bred-Brittany.” This dog has been genetically perfected by humans to be trained to do absolutely anything and has a sense of smell that can detect one drop of pheasant urine in a five-mile radius. He points at squirrels and suspicious noises on instinct. He responds to the word “woah” and silently creeps forward at my heel like he’s got a ruckus-detecting circuit board crammed into his brainstem. And what does he use these magic powers for?

To seek out and consume his own feces.

That’s why every single dog at the Westminster Kennel Club has a leash around its neck. Oh, you never wondered about that? Why even the most highly-trained dogs on the planet are required to wear leashes? Yeah. It’s because every person in that ring knows that the second they take the slack off that dog’s windpipe it’s going to lick its balls right there on national television.

This is exactly the problem we run into when we begin using animals as a basis for probable cause. I could use my remaining words to speculate about police dogs as a whole, but animals do not come out of factories like infrared detectors. The most enlightening comments I heard on this subject came from a zookeeper whom I asked about elephant husbandry. He told me that zookeepers are not elephant experts. They are only experts on the elephants they take care of in their zoo. Sure, they can feed and take care of elephants anywhere, but dealing with intelligent animals is 90 percent specific experience and 10 percent general knowledge.

In that regard, I can only talk about my dog and how his behavior leads me to believe that police dogs on the whole might be unreliable witnesses and no less unconstitutional than an infrared scanner. Let us address three pertinent points:

1.  A police dog may be subject to its handler’s suggestion.

I think this has to be conceded simply because it’s an animal, but nevertheless let’s plumb this a little deeper. My dog is borderline psychic, but only about specific things. I know it’s trite, but my dog can sense something in my voice, body language and god knows what else that allows him to distinguish between when I’m calling him downstairs to clean up my spilled waffle syrup and when it’s shower time. I swear, I cannot tell what I’m doing differently, but he knows. Every time. I’ve even had my wife listen and she can’t tell, and she can sniff out BS better than anyone I know. Forget unscrupulous, do I think that a police dog might be impelled to give a false alert simply because its handler is suspicious? Absolutely. Particularly when I see how easy it is to get my dog worked up just by saying the word “toes” and pointing to where that waffle may or may not have hit the carpet.

2.  A dog’s sense of smell is less invasive than an infrared device. 

Justice Kagan states that a dog is constitutional because it’s sampling what’s freely available in the air rather than scanning what is not by way of an infrared device. It’s the fingerprint off the discarded cigarette trick. As soon as you make your personal effects publicly available, it’s fair game for the police. I don’t see a difference between a publicly available smell and a publicly available heat signature and neither does my dog. He will shove his nose into your crotch at the first available opportunity and he doesn’t care if he’s got a warrant.

3.  The mere presence of a police dog is enough to influence a suspect’s perception by police.

Um, yeah. If you saw how idiotic I act around my dog, you’d shoot me in the temple as a favor. Simply by introducing a large, dangerous animal into the equation, you’re putting someone under unfair pressure.

As such, I don’t see anything whatsoever that indicates that a dog would be any more reliable or less invasive than any other means of detection. I’m not saying they aren’t useful, but they should be held to the same probable cause standards as any other detection device.

Ben Tomkins is a violinist, teacher, journalist, and critically acclaimed composer currently living in Denver, Colo. He hates stupidity, and generally believes that the volume of one’s voice is inversely proportional to one’s knowledge of the issue. Reach Ben Tompkins at BenTomkins@DaytonCityPaper.com.

Debate Right- Notice to drug users: There is no expectation of privacy in your car