Events Calendar
In This Section
Most Read Stories
Blogs:
Pets:
Summit teams up with Rescue Waggin' to save dogs
The Heldenfiles:
Songs for an American Day
Patrick McManamon:
Touching on the Browns, Cavs
Akron Zips:
Opponent outlook: Northern Illinois
Browns Bulletin:
Single-game ticket sales begin July 11
Tribe Matters:
Wedge assured of job through season
Cleveland Browns:
Stallworth test showed marijuana
Kent State Sports:
Men's Basketball Scheduling update
Cleveland Cavaliers:
Updated: Free Agency: Another Gone - Apparently
All Da King's Men:
The Obligatory Palin Post
Blog of Mass Destruction:
Wow….Sarah Palin Resigns Governorship
Akron Law Café:
Abraham Lincoln and the Fourth of July
Varsity Letters:
Highland senior receives honor
See Jane Style:
Picnic Wear
Car Chase:
Where do We Go from Here?
Let's Talk Real Estate:
Happy 4th of July!
Ohio Travels with Betty:
Tom asks where to stay while visiting the football Hall of Fame.
Sound Check:
Rundgren fans rejoice!: Second night of AWATS at The Civic added
HRLite House:
Morscruethal Behaviors or Just Lip Service?
Akron Gamer:
Hot link: Best of Nintendo at E3
Published on Tuesday, Jun 17, 2008
The following editorial appeared in the Lima News on Monday:
Election years often see elected officials voting for measures they should not. The phenomenon visited the Ohio General Assembly last week, as representatives followed the poor lead of senators in passing constitutionally questionable legislation.
Senate Bill 17 is a typical tough-on-crime bill. It starts well-intentioned — increasing penalties for repeat drunken drivers — but it then overlooks constitutional protections Americans have. Sen. Timothy Grendell, R-Chesterland, coming up with the bill is troubling. He's an attorney, as are many of his colleagues who voted for it, including Sens. Steve Buehrer, R-Delta, and Keith Faber, R-Celina, and Rep. Tony Core, R-Rushsylvania. They know better. Grendell also made a run for attorney general in 2006; someone considering being the state's top cop should have respect for the Constitution.
Grendell's bill essentially would free a law-enforcement officer to use any ''reasonable'' method to draw blood from someone who refused to submit to a breath test.
That's doubly problematic. First, as state Rep. Matt Huffman, R-Lima, explained to us, police can in emergency cases forgo getting a warrant to draw blood. But most cases are not emergencies. Grendell's bill would make an emergency of any time someone refuses to blow, skipping the impartial judge who normally would rule on such a matter.
Huffman, one of six representatives (along with John Adams, R-Sidney) to vote against the bill, said he believes it will be found unconstitutional. (Amendment IV: The right of the people to be secure in their persons, homes, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated. . . . )
Huffman said he doesn't see the logic in voting for a bill he doesn't believe will meet constitutional muster. Too bad so few lawmakers thought so clearly on the measure.
Of a more technical nature, but no less problematic, is defining ''reasonable.'' The odds of that ending up in court are pretty good, too.
By a 33-0 vote in the Senate and a 87-6 vote in the House, most Ohio lawmakers showed more concern for their re-election commercials than for basic American rights. We hope Gov. Ted Strickland shows more respect for the Constitution with a veto.
The following editorial appeared in the Lima News on Monday:
Get the full article here.
Comments
Click here to post your comments
