“Let the punishment fit the crime” is a concept of jurisprudence that goes back to biblical times. With the noted exception of Justice Atonin Scalia, most legal scholars argue that the concept is covered by the Eighth Amendment to the US Constitution: “federal and state criminal laws can’t allow excessive bail or fines, or “cruel and unusual punishment.” Although whether the punishment does indeed fit a given crime is naturally subjective, it is a concept that has been applied throughout America’s history; that is, until Barack Obama became President of these United States. The Obama Doctrine, as demonstrated by through actions and deeds, since he took office, can be summed up as follows: The federal government can do what ever it pleases and is unrestrained by the constitution or the federal courts, including the Supreme Court. Furthermore, the degree of punishment for an alleged crime will be at the sole discretion of the federal government.
Under the leadership _ or lack thereof _ the federal government has become a lawless tyrant that applies the principles of law and punishment against its citizen in any way they see fit. How many times have you read articles about the IRS ceasing the bank accounts of a citizen on the “suspicion” of laundering money and it is up to the citizen to prove their innocence at their cost? How many times have you read about police confiscating cash from citizens on the “suspicion” that the money is related to drug trafficking? Other examples would be the over-the-top raids by the EPA on Gibson Guitar Company or the BLM raid on the Bundy ranch in Nevada. One could go on and on. Today Fox News is reporting on more extreme overreach by the Obama’s “Police State”.
You, no doubt, recall the government’s investigation of the collapse of the Enron Corporation. One of the results of this investigation was Congress passing the Sarbanes-Oxley Act (SOX), which, among other things, made the shredding of documents (evidence) a severe crime, carrying a maximum 20-year prison sentence. Does it sound to you that the Sarbanes-Oxley Act has anything to do with breaking the laws on fishermen catching undersized fish? If you answered no, you would be wrong in Obama’s police state, according to the Fox article:
In 2007, Captain John Yates was fishing off the coast of Florida when the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), whose officers were deputized as federal agents by the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), inspected his boat. These agents claimed that Yates had caught undersized fish and instructed him to return to shore for inspection. Before the boat reached shore, Yates allegedly told his crew to throw some of the fish overboard, an act that typically results in a $500 fine or temporary license suspension.
But, our federal tyrants decided to make an example out of Captain Yates. Federal prosecutors decided that the “alleged” throwing of fish overboard was equivalent to the shredding of documents and so they charged Captain Yates under the Sarbanes-Oxley Act and, believe it or not, the case has gone all the way to the Supreme Court! Instead of defending himself against a fine and possibly losing his fishing license, he has spent three years trying to avoid twenty years in prison. Clearly, the federal prosecutors and the lower courts have forgotten the principle of “let the punishment fit the crime.”
Funny how the Department of Justice doesn’t take the same approach to the disappearance of so many emails sought by Congressional investigation of government wrong doing.
Under President Obama, the government “Of The people” has become the government that “Intimidate The people”.
Well, that’s what I’m thinking. What are your thoughts?