While most cities in America long ago got rid of rent control, New York remains a bastion of government-mandated limits on what landlords can charge renters. About 50 percent of New York’s rental market is affected by rent control or rent stabilization, policies that keep rents artificially low and produce housing shortages, higher overall housing costs, and all sorts of corruption.

The court case Harmon v. Kimmel may finally bring an end to rent control laws that have been on the books in one form or another since the 1940s. James D. Harmon owns a building in Manhattan where the tenants are paying rents that are about 60 percent below the going market rate. After losing various legal battles at lower levels, Harmon has petitioned the Supreme Court to hear his argument that rent stabilization is a form of takings that should be prohibited under the Constitution. The Court has not yet announced whether it will hear the case but has asked the state and city of New York to respond to Harmon’s argument.

Cato’s Burrus wrote a friend of the court brief on the case and explains why rent control and rent stabilization are bad at promoting affordable housing and abridgments of economic freedom.

Shot and edited by Joshua Swain.

Go to Reason.tv for downloadable versions, and subscribe to our YouTube Channel to receive notifications when new material goes live.

Most conservatives understand that Rep. Blackburn is one of the more reliably intelligent and sober figures in contemporary politics.  That’s particularly true when it comes to technology policy.  While most political leaders speak in simplistic talking points, Rep. Blackburn is known for developing real knowledge about, and applies her steady conservative principles to, the issues.

As the most prominent example, Rep. Blackburn remains one of the most steadfast and informed opponents of so-called “Net Neutrality,” which truly will launch governmental micromanagement of Internet service.

So it’s especially odd and ironic that some conservatives suddenly slur her.  Said RedState’s (and CNN’s) Erick Erickson, “I am pledging right now that I will do everything in my power to defeat her in her 2012 re-election bid.”  His rationale?  Erickson has joined the likes of MoveOn.org, Demand Progress, the Marxist group Free Press and others on the left in fanatically opposing legislation to stop foreign Internet piracy, H.R. 3261, the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA).  In doing so, he and other generally reliable conservatives are promoting lawlessness and outright theft by foreign pirates over constitutionally protected property rights.

So what is SOPA, and why all of the fuss?

First, a personal observation:  I have never witnessed an opposition campaign characterized by such misinformation, ignorance and outright dishonesty as the one waged by opponents of the legislation.  To be clear, I have never met Mr. Erickson, I respect him generally and have absolutely zero ill will toward him personally.  He provides, however, a perfect example of misinformation by making claims such as, “The Act intends to stop online piracy. The way the Act goes about doing this is, in large part, allowing Eric Holder to take control of the internet and shut down websites he does not like.”  That is flatly, horribly false.  Anyone who has actually read the bill knows how preposterous that comment is.  Unfortunately, it’s all too typical of the anti-SOPA coalition.

In previous commentaries I have addressed and corrected the main anti-SOPA myths more fully, but here’s the essence of the truth people should know about it.

First, the bill targets foreign rogue websites dedicated to the theft of American intellectual property that would already be subject to seizure if located within the U.S.  Such websites currently pirate hundreds of billions of dollars worth of American intellectual property, which accounts for an enormous portion of domestic jobs, exports and output.

Second, the bill incorporates exhaustive due process protections for all parties involved.  This is critical, because opponents falsely claim that the Attorney General or rights holders would somehow possess arbitrary powers against innocent actors.  Quite the contrary, the bill explicitly incorporates the same Federal Rules of Civil Procedure that apply to all litigation. Relief can only be granted upon such prerequisites as notice to adverse parties, specific facts that “clearly show that immediate and irreparable injury, loss, or damage” will occur, specific details justifying relief and opportunity for adverse parties to present their rebuttal.  The bill also punishes false claims, protects defendants against impossible or unreasonable burdens, allows courts to modify relief in the interests of justice and allows damages (including legal fees) for wronged defendants.

So when opponents of SOPA claim that it deprives anyone of due process, they are speaking either dishonestly or ignorantly.  That is a simple fact.

Opponents of SOPA also falsely claim that it somehow constitutes “censorship” or a threat to “free speech.”  Setting aside for a moment the sham that foreign thieves operating outside the jurisdiction of the United States somehow enjoy any First Amendment protections, otherwise illegal activity does not magically achieve sacred status or legal immunity simply because it occurs on the Internet rather than on a street corner.  Moreover, this legislation and judicial orders pursuant to it would remain subject to the same judicial review applicable to any other statute.

Compounding the irony, Google, no friend to the conservative cause, constitutes the primary corporate interest driving opposition to the bill.  That’s no surprise, since Google profits handsomely from the theft of others’ intellectual property online.  Just last August, the search giant admitted wrongdoing and agreed to pay a $500 million fine to avoid criminal charges that it had padded its bottom line for years by knowingly accepting advertising by foreign pharmacies preying on American consumers, which led to the illegal imports of unsafe prescription drugs.

In other words, it’s no coincidence that the largest corporate interest fueling the misinformed opposition to giving domestic rights holders the tools necessary to protect their property against foreign theft online is also the company that stands to gain the most financially from SOPA’s defeat.  Indeed, the legislation’s defeat should be viewed for what it is: the ultimate policy bailout for Google.  And lest conservatives forget, Google furiously supports “Net Neutrality,” which actually does constitute toxic governmental encroachment against Internet freedom.

So shame on so many SOPA opponents on the right, who have curiously joined the online equivalent of Occupy Wall Street to put the interests of foreign thieves ahead of the constitutional rights of American property owners.

The fact that they can’t oppose the bill on honest, genuine bases speaks volumes.  As does the fact that they demonize proven champions of freedom like Rep. Blackburn, who is among the staunchest defenders against actual threats of censorship and improper government expansion.

Unlike some other states, it is very difficult to get a voter initiative on the ballot in Mississippi; this year, we have three initiatives that would amend our state constitution, a truly remarkable feat.  All three are key conservative issues in an overwhelmingly conservative state:  abortion, voter identification, and eminent domain abuse.Personally, I’m hoping for a triple play, and voting “YES!” on all three.  The issue that I am working on, however, is abortion.

When this battle is won in Mississippi, it doesn’t just set up a challenge to Roe v. Wade, it eviscerates that case and all of its unholy progeny.  It gives a method by which every state in the nation can extend the most basic civil rights to the most innocent and deserving members of the human race — our unborn children.

When is a person a “person”?

All humans deserve equal protection of the laws and the right to due process, but the law only extends these rights to every “person.”  Thanks to the outstanding work of Personhood Mississippi, we in Mississippi will have the chance to be the first state in the history of our union to define a “person” to include all unborn humans.  Initiative 26 will define the term person as follows:

SECTION 33.  Person defined.  As used in this Article III of the state constitution, “The term ‘person’ or ‘persons’ shall include every human being from the moment of fertilization, cloning or the functional equivalent thereof.

If Mississippians vote Yes on Amendment 26, all human beings would be ensured equal rights in our state and protection under law, regardless of their size, location or developmental stage.  Calling abortion “murder” will no longer be merely a moral judgment, but an established legal determination.  In other words, abortion will be illegal.

Mothers in crisis will be protected from the greedy corporations that kill their unborn children and do immense medical and psychological harm to these mothers while reaping billions of dollars in profits.  As a bonus, human cloning, embryo stem cell research, and other forms of medical cannibalism would be effectively stopped, necessarily focusing the attention of medical researchers on approaches that have been proven to actually work (like adult stem cells) and do not require the killing of an innocent person.  This initiative also stops Obamacare from funding abortions in the state of Mississippi with your tax dollars; after all, anyone performing an abortion will be arrested.

Abortionists are spreading many lies about our initiative, but the truth is that all forms of contraception that merely inhibit the egg from hooking up with a sperm will still be legal and easily obtainable, and in vitro fertilization (IVF) will still be legal and as obtainable as it is now.  (Unfortunately, this also means that the law won’t stop public schools from handing out condoms to your children, but let’s take these things one step at a time.)

Direct democracy vs. judicial tyranny.

As a father, husband, a “person” and most of all a Christian, I am thrilled with the intended result.  As lawyer and a constitution-loving conservative, however, I must confess that I am also enamored with the process that is leading to this result.  First of all, this is a people’s initiative, not a decision by seven old men in black robes playing gods.  Voter initiatives are direct democracy, an expression of the will of the people.  The contrast could not be greater:  the most democratic form of state government rejecting the tyranny of the least democratic branch of our federal government.  This truly is government of the persons, by the persons, and for the persons.

Civil rights:  not just for the born anymore.

More than that, however, the idea behind personhood came from the very court case that has robbed 53 million unborn Americans of their right to “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.”  During oral arguments on the infamous Roe v. Wade debacle, there are several times when personhood was discussed, including this chilling exchange:

Justice Potter Stewart: Well, if it were established that an unborn fetus is a person within the protection of the Fourteenth Amendment, you would have almost an impossible case here, would you not?

Ms Sarah Weddington: I would have a very difficult case. [Laughter]

Justice Potter Stewart: You certainly would because you’d have the same kind of thing you’d have to say that this would be the equivalent to after the child was born.

Ms Sarah Weddington: That’s right.

Justice Potter Stewart: If the mother thought that it bothered her health having the child around, she could have it killed. Isn’t that correct?

Ms Sarah Weddington: That’s correct.

The Court thus made the point that the abortionists would lose “if it were established that an unborn fetus is a person within the protection of the Fourteenth Amendment,” and the abortionists’ attorney agreed.  Why was this such an obvious conclusion?  If you base the right of a mother to kill another “person” solely on “medical privacy” grounds, then a mother could legally kill any person regardless of whether the person’s date of birth is in the future or the past.  If “medical privacy” is the only grounds to consider, and if an individual’s status as a “person” cannot be considered, then a mother could have her newborn or five year old killed out of “medical privacy” concerns.

But, an individual’s status as a “person” is all-important; it is the trump card of all trump cards.  In order to allow abortion at will after “person” is defined to encompass all unborn children, Court would have to find that the right to medical privacy must be so inviolate that it becomes a license to kill other “persons,” who are just as much a “person” as the mother.  Fortunately, every “person” is entitled to due process and equal protection of the laws, and a mother cannot legally kill any “person.”  Thus, when an unborn child is constitutionally considered to be a “person,” said Justice Stewart, “this would be the equivalent to after the child was born.”  In short, an (unborn) person is a (newborn) person is an (adult) person.

There’s a nice video/slideshow here of actual audio excerpts from the oral arguments, so you can hear for yourself the case that was made for the personhood amendment.

It is clear that once the legal definition of “person” includes all unborn children, then they are entitled to equal protection of the laws (such as our laws against homicide in its various forms) and due process.  Their inalienable rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness can no longer be denied to them by Planned Parenthood. 

After reading the oral argument exchange I quoted above, you may well wonder why the Court ultimately ruled for the abortionists.  In the following exchange, we see how the abortionists (and ultimately the Court) managed to get around the rights of the unborn:

Justice Harry A. Blackmun: Well, do I get from this then that your case depends primarily on the proposition that the fetus has no constitutional rights?

Ms Sarah Weddington: It depends on saying that the woman has a fundament constitutional right and that the state has not proved any compelling interest for regulation in the area.

Notice the sidestep; the abortionists’ lawyer wanted nothing to do with any discussion of the constitutional rights of the unborn.  Instead, she wanted to focus solely on the constitutional privacy rights of the mother, which she could do only because there was no definition of “person” in Texas law or federal constitutional law.

This remains the abortionists’ tactic today.  In public hearings being held throughout Mississippi by our Secretary of State, abortion zealots make all the usual arguments about women’s rights, women’s health, focusing on jobs and socialist utopian healthcare schemes, blah blah blah, but they never utter a single word about the unborn child.  On July 26, I joined many others who spoke on behalf of Initiative 26 in Hattiesburg.  With both logic and passion we discussed the many adverse health and psychological effects on mothers, women’s rights, medical privacy, birth control issues and government intrusion into our lives — we are not monolithic in our arguments by any means.  Yet we, the pro side, were the only ones to discuss the actual wording of the initiative, and we were the only ones to discuss the rights of the unborn.  Indeed, we were the only ones to even mention the unborn.

Folks, now is the time, and Mississippi is the place to have this battle.  I know that everyone has been focused on the interminably long debt ceiling debacle; indeed, I followed that horror show in-depth as well.  Still, it is merely the crisis du jour, and it will pass — there’s nothing more you can do about it, so perhaps you should focus on something that you can help out with.  Our biggest need in this battle is public awareness, and talking about this initiative, writing about this initiative, commenting about this initiative and voting for this initiative will have a tremendous effect.

Every day that we do nothing about the American Holocaust, thousands of innocent children lose their lives, and their mothers are brutalized by the most efficient killing machine since Nazi Germany:  Planned Parenthood.  Besides, if you want to restore America to its former greatness, and make it the world’s greatest defender of freedom and its engine of prosperity, your first goal must be to defeat and utterly destroy liberalism.  This cannot be done without taking the holiest sacrament from the godless religion of Liberalism — abortion.  Defeat abortion, and you defeat liberalism.

We are gathering momentum; Gov. Mike Huckabee will be here on September 8 to speak in support of the personhood initiative, and other speakers are being lined up.  Yard signs are popping up everywhere, a true sign of a grassroots, citizens’ effort.  What the Tea Party accomplished in 2010 was great, but what we’ll accomplish with this initiative will be the single most important piece of civil rights legislation in our country’s history.  So pay attention to this fight; in several very real ways, our future as a nation depends upon it.

A federal judge overturned California’s ban on same-sex marriage US media reported Wednesday, the latest twist in a legal saga which could have nationwide implications for the divisive social issue.

In a written opinion, Judge Vaughn Walker found in favor of rights activists who argued that a November 2008 referendum which barred gays and lesbians from tying the knot was discriminatory and therefore violated the US Constitution.

Mainstream Media, ACORN, Media Matters (all the supposed defenders of due process and journalistic ethics) are jumping to conclusions over the arrest today of James O’Keefe, with the clear intention to smear and, if possible, convict O’Keefe and his alleged co-conspirators in the court of public opinion in order to taint the “jury of their peers.”

The ACORN story was a huge black eye for the organized left and their allies and cohorts in the mainstream media. So they are relishing every minute of this breaking story, making it their top story – while they ignored the initial ACORN story until they no longer could.

MSNBC and other “news organizations” are even billing this developing story as “Watergate”. What do  Keith Olbermann and Rachel Maddow know? And when did they know it?

I’m sure they would like to believe O’Keefe is stupid enough to try to “wiretap” a sitting U.S. senator in broad daylight during office hours, while recording the entire sequence of events on his cell phone camera. And they’d like you to believe it, too.

But there is absolutely no allegation in the criminal complaint that “wiretapping” or “bugging” is any part of this case, just the charge that O’Keefe and the others entered Sen. Landrieu’s office in New Orleans “for the purpose of interfering with the office’s telephone system.”

And yet Carol Leonnig, in a story in Wednesday’s Washington Post writes in her lede:

The conservative young filmmaker whose undercover sting damaged a liberal activist group last year faces federal criminal charges in an alleged plot to bug the New Orleans office of Sen. Mary Landrieu

In other words, speculation is rampant, but facts are few. And basic logic suggests that there’s much more to this story since there is so little information.

Leonnig, as you may remember, is the reporter who was forced to retract the false and libelous accusation that O’Keefe was motivated by racism in his ACORN sting.

Will Leonnig and the Washington Post be compelled to retract again?

Let me state clearly for the record: wiretapping is wrong. But until I hear the full story from James O’Keefe, I will not speculate as to what he was doing in Louisiana.

Regardless of the outcome we will keep the readers of Big Government apprised of this emerging story.