Can a President Ever Really Control Gas Pump Prices?

One of the things that has always perplexed me is the way that Americans interpret costs at the gas pump. When gas it $4.00 a gallon people mutter, "That frickin' Bush" or "The Frickin' Obama." But when it drops to $1.47 like it did where I live recently (we paid $1.59 today), nobody ever mutters "Thank you Mr. President."

The fact of the matter is we all know that the President doesn't really have anything to do with gas prices. Or does he?

The fact of the matter is that President George W. Bush was once in the oil business and has lots of friends there. So things were kind of allowed, disregarded, and there was a bit of 'looking the other way' under his watch and gas prices soared. That may not be a fair 'cause and effect', but it deserves a thought.

However what does seem more concrete is our President's willingness to negotiate with Iran and therefore they desperately need to raise money fast, and to Hell with OPEC, they are flooding the world with oil in an attempt to raise funds quickly. It's good for me! And it's good for you.

So hate the President all you want, but we have already caught the Iranians in a lie. Naysayers will cry "See? They can't be trusted!" Or objectively you could ascertain that "Wow. We caught them. This is working." It's all about what party you're affiliated with. But the big deal is low prices at the pump.

Just enjoy the oil glut at the pumps this holiday season, because after all, don't we deserve it? We paid $1.59 today and that was in the high gas prices of the world, Belding.  Belding is normally 20 cents higher. So there's that.

Is Freedom of Speech on Trial?

A interesting case is shaping up in Big Rapids, Michigan (the only ‘Big Rapids in the USA' according to a painted banner on the wall of a hanger of their airport.)

It seems a former pastor was handing out pamphlets on the sidewalk in front of the Mecosta County Courthouse to anyone who was entering the Courthouse. The pamphlet basically said that jurors had the right to vote their conscience regardless of instructions from the Judge or others. (There is apparently no law requiring the jurors to obey judicial instructions to the letter.) And basically when you vote in a jury you can always vote your conscience, if you just keep your mouth shut about it. Like when you enter a voting booth. What you do in there is nobody’s business. 

But now, insurance broker Keith Wood who was handing out pamphlets to anyone who would take one on the sidewalk in front of the Mecosta County Courthouse is in hot water. He was approached by court officials  while on the sidewalk and threatened with arrest unless he went inside to speak with the Judge. So he complied. He went inside to speak with the Judge.

Mecosta Prosecutor Brian Thiede claims that Wood was giving members of the jury “a pamphlet that encouraged jurors to violate their oaths and directly contradicted the instructions the jurors would be given thereby tainting the entire jury panel.” So the Judge ordered Wood to be arrested, and placed in jail. With a $150,000 bail. First of all, Wood was handing them out to anyone who would take them, and he had no idea who potential jurors were. How could he? I have been through the Jury process at least 10 times. Sometimes I’m called, sometimes I’m not. But I never know before I walk in the building. 

So the attorney for Mr. Wood, a Mr. Kallman out of Lansing, said his client’s free speech rights are being violated. Because once inside in the presence of District Court Judge Peter Jaklevic, Jaklevic ordered Mecosta Sheriff’s Deputy Jeff Roberts to arrest Wood (the father of seven), where he was jailed 12 hours until he could pay his 10% of his unbelievable bail of $150,000. He, the father of seven remember, had to put it on a credit card. 

Of course Wood and his attorney claims, rightly so, that he could not have been targeting jurors, since no jurors had been impaneled. There was at that point no jury to taint. He was just handing out pamphlets to anyone who would take one on the public’s sidewalk. So attorney Kallman subpoenaed the prosecutors, and the Judge as witnesses in his case during a preliminary examination before Mecosta County Circuit Court Judge Kimberly Booher for a preliminary hearing on December 10th. Of course Thiede opposes the subpoenas and is asking they be thrown out. Of course he is. He’s starting to get scared. He might be about to be called on the carpet for his shenanigans. He might even lose his job. But then there is also the likelihood that Judge Jaklevic and Judge Booher share offices next to each other and play golf together. 

Since the case is beginning to garner national attention, Eugene Volokh, a legal columnist for the Washington Post, and a Professor at the UCLA School of Law, states: “Sidewalks are a traditional public forum in which the First Amendment rights are at their strongest.” However, Don Herzog, a law professor at the University of Michigan, is quoted in U.S News and World Report, and we all know what that means, that he believes “the prosecution will ultimately prevail, even if the charges seem harsh.” Seem harsh? $150,00 bail and a 5 year felony for handing out a pamphlet on a public sidewalk? Further, Ilya Somin, law professor at George Mason University says that Wood’s prosecution is "probably unconstitutional.” Of course there’s the fact that one Judge will make a decision on whether another of their brethren should be subject to subpoena. Doubtful, but that’s America. The place where everybody that puts on a uniform is a hero. 

By the way, the case seems to be garnering national attention and is far and away in favor or Mr. Wood….. and the first amendment. My good pal Al Abassee, an economics and political science professor at Ferris State University, also chimed in with some interesting thoughts. He said, in part:

"Interesting in that all of our civil rights are under attack. Accordingly, Article III sections 1-3 are all applicable. Anyone may bring a charge against another, however, it is not a right of the court to bring an action 'against'. The constitution simply allows for hearing of case actions. This in itself is an interesting concept as the 'court' has taken a proactive action of bringing charges against a citizen when the courts authorization by constitutional authority is only interpretive. All enforcement action is by Executive Branch only.

The other interesting view is that I find interesting is not that of "free speech" but upon 1st review is the abhorrent violation of  Article 6, Clause 3, "..judicial officers...(s)hall be bound by oath and affirmation, to uphold this constitution..." . By taking said position, the court is taking an action of without a case of law present. While this is an affront to basic civil liberties of the 'free speech' doctrine it also smacks in the face of the individuals "4th amendment rights" of arbitrary arrest, which directly opposes search and seizure without warrant or probable cause. In this case I view upon the basis of "stop and frisk".  Further, I find this an aggressive violation of his 8th, 9th and even 10th amendment rights, and I have not even gotten to his 14th amendment rights violations. 

I do find an actionable cause that could be taken by him on his denial of  his 11th amendment rights. 

If I recall, the court cannot take an action against an individual by creating a case, the case itself must be brought prosecutorially, to the court before they have right of jurisdiction."

Exactly. By what authority can the court arbitrary order someone to be arrested? This judge just became a police officer. And that is contrary to his authority.

So, there you have additional insights. Not only does Mr. Wood have an likely lawsuit of his own being laid at his doorstep, his attorney could potentially be arguing this to the Supreme Court. Stranger things have happened.