Young Americans for Liberty protested unions last weekend at California State University Fresno (CSUF) by constructing "union" and “right to work” hot dog stands at the school’s annual fair.

Inside the “unionized hot dog stand” conservative student-actors played the parts of employees who refused to work efficiently.

While one “unionized” actor took orders, another placed hot dogs on buns, and yet two others distributed condiment packets. The "union workers” constantly went on “strike” and raised prices to cover their slow business.

Actors playing employees in the “right to work” booth, meanwhile, did brisk business, selling more than 1,000 actual hot dogs to fair attendees for $2 each.

Organizer of the event, Andrew McMillan, who is the CSUF Young Americans for Liberty president-elect, said some of the fair attendees were so shocked by the “unionized worker's" dismal performance that they actually paid up to $25 for a poorly assembled hot dog.

McMillan said he believes this is a form of "forced unionization" and is actually driving people out of the state of California.

“We believe people are voting with their feet and going places where they can keep the most money in their own pockets,” he said.

This is the first in a series of public forums KU-YAL members participated in during April Activism month.

On April 17, Kansas YAL students attended a campus forum and distributed materials showing our support of the people’s right to bear arms, which shall not be infringed. The materials included a chart highlighting the disparity in crime statistics for Chicago, D.C., and Houston before and after gun bans.

The discussion centered on the national gun debate at the Dole Institute of Politics.  The event, titled "GUN CONTROL: Freedom vs. Safety," attracted considerable interest and was hosted by members of the Student Advisory Board, including our very own chapter member Anthony Orwick.  This is part of our strategy to have members involved in key working groups and coalitions on campus to promote liberty.

Fireworks were surprisingly mild between Patricia Stoneking, President of the Kansas Rifle Association, and Allen Rostron, Constitutional Law Scholar and Professor at UMKC and Former Senior Staff Attorney at the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence. Oh, goodie.

My Moot Court coach, Robert Molko, wrote an excellent law review article on the unique fourth amendment problems from drone surveillance. Here's an excerpt:

The Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution protects our privacy from unreasonable intrusions by the government and we have come to depend on that protection.  Over the years, we have learned to cherish our privacy and shield it from not only governmental intrusion but also from everyone else if we so choose. It is probably our most cherished “possession”. For more than forty years, the courts have used the Katz “reasonable expectation of privacy” (REP)

test to determine whether government conduct is constitutional. This test has been highly criticized by the courts and scholars when applied to advancing technology. Yet, it still survives and, as this paper will demonstrate, it will continue to survive in drone surveillance cases. However, the United States Supreme Court may alter its manner of application. 

Over the years, the courts have permitted aerial surveillance from navigable airspace where civilian planes or helicopters routinely fly, but have disallowed such surveillance if it occurred from unusually low altitudes. However, the advances in surveillance and optics technology have made it possible to detect very small objects from high altitudes. If we add to that the stealth nature of drones, we are suddenly faced with silent monitors in the sky that can observe 

everything we do in any area exposed to the sky.14 Carried to an extreme, we would not be able to enjoy any privacy in even a secluded and fenced-in backyard or private estate. 

Read the whole thing here!

As every American schoolchild knows, the newly drafted Constitution was not ratified without an intense political debate between the Federalists (who wanted ratification) and Anti-Federalists (who feared the creation of a stronger central government). Anti-Federalist "Brutus" (believed to be New York judge Robert Yates), argued in 1787 against the newly proposed Congress' tax power. He had this to say:

This power [to tax], exercised without limitation, will introduce itself into every comer of the city, and country — It will wait upon the ladies at their toilett, and will not leave them in any of their domestic concerns; it will accompany them to the ball, the play, and the assembly; it will go with them when they visit, and will, on all occasions, sit beside them in their carriages, nor will it desert them even at church; it will enter the house of every gentleman, watch over his cellar, wait upon his cook in the kitchen, follow the servants into the parlour, preside over the table, and note down all he eats or drinks; it will attend him to his bed-chamber, and watch him while he sleeps; it will take cognizance of the professional man in his office, or his study; it will watch the merchant in the counting-house, or in his store; it will follow the mechanic to his shop, and in his work, and will haunt him in his family, and in his bed; it will be a constant companion of the industrious farmer in all his labour, it will be with him in the house, and in the field, observe the toil of his hands, and the sweat of his brow; it will penetrate into the most obscure cottage; and finally, it will light upon the head of every person in the United States. To all these different classes of people, and in all these circumstances, in which it will attend them, the language in which it will address them, will be GIVE! GIVE!"

Amazing isn't it? This was before the passage of the 16th Amendment  and the creation of the IRS. Fast-forward 226 years later, it would appear Brutus' worst fears were realized with the State now spreading its tax tendrils in every possible activity you can think of. Virtually nothing is left untouched.

Besides taxes, the Anti-Federalists presciently anticipated the modern Leviathan state that recognizes no limits on its power.