To Do

Some topics I'd like to write about in the indefinite, maybe next future:

* Law examined as a magical/religious ritual system.

* A law review article on the prospects for expanding the U.S. Constitution's takings clause as a foundation for a better approach to civil rights.

* A military technology post going beyond the first order issues, like surface combatants and tanks being obsolescence waiting to be made manifest, to a way of thinking that fits drones and robots and guided missiles and AI and other sensor technology into a synthesized vision for the future.

* Musings on how to insulate our political system of incompetents, narcissists, criminals, corruption, psychopaths, and hate without unduly compromising democracy and other positive political values.

* Musings on institutions and technologies that would facilitate political and economic development in a leapfrog manner in undeveloped countries, particularly in Africa.

* An end game for the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and the larger problems of Ottoman Empire succession that have been playing out since its collapse after World War I.

* A well-researched piece shedding light on prospects for political, social, and religious progress in the Islamic world.

* Musings on whether the population decline in the developed world flowing from the near universal phenomena of demographic transition could be a good thing, and how Mormonism that seems to have defied demographic transition fits into this worldview.

* Thoughts about what a post-religious, post-ethnic cosmopolitan society's life scripts which we are unwittingly or consciously rewriting will look like.

* Analysis of how we will live in a post-climate change world, as it seems that this is not an existential threat to the human race's survival, and will eventually cease to continue after it is too late to massively change life on Earth.

* Brainstorming on what people will do for a living and the economics more generally of a world that is more automated than our existing post-industrial world, and how this will impact social and economic structure of our society.

* Musings on the prospects for de-Nazification of our society from MAGA, racists, Christian Nationalist foundations. The younger generation seems far less afflicted with this so it could happen.

* Consideration of what kind of international institutions could come to replace troubled ones like NATO and the UN in an increasingly small world.

* Strategies for movement politics that would change hearts and minds in a way that would make progressive political ambitions achievable politically, something that a lack of majorities in existing political systems prevents now.

* Examining the most problematic threads of the progressive movement, the non-progressive left, and the far-right can be most channeled, and how circumstances fueling the far-right can be channeled and addressed in less destructive ways.

* What a dystopia in which the modern agents of barbarism gain the upper hand might look like and whether that dystopia can be prevented.

* How to save academia from administrative bloat, or in the alternative, why this administrative component of higher education is necessary.

* Prospects of massive, good quality, automated educational classes.

* Considering the pros and cons of the balkanization of popular culture.

* Agricultural technologies and developments as interfaced with climate change and dealing with inevitable rural community impacts that is would drive.

* Thinking through second order consequences of advancing medical technologies.

Mental Energy Levels

Some activities take more mental energy, alertness, and attention than others. From low to high:

* Sleeping

* Staring blankly while sitting or lounging

* Sipping a drink alcoholic or otherwise

* Cuddling

* Taking a bath

* Listening to music

* Driving in ordinary conditions

* Interacting with a pet

* Watching spectator sports

* Looking at art in a gallery or museum

* Browsing statistics (e.g. in an almanac or government publication) or maps

* Washing dishes or dealing with trash/recycling/compost

* Facebook

* Grocery shopping

* Making journal entries

* Reading the newspaper or its online equivalent

* Scanning academic journal abstracts

* Researching a non-legal topic

* Watching TV or a streaming video

* Watching a full length movie or opera or ballet or play

* Choosing presents for particular occasions

* Applying math or physics rules that I already know

* Gardening or landscaping work

* Making a music playlist

* Cooking

* Reading fiction for pleasure

* World building in anticipation of writing fiction

* Leading a meeting

* Blogging 

* Rehearing for a music or drama performance

* Participating in most team sports at my mediocre level

* Typical legal work outside of a trial or hearing

* Teaching a continuing education class or college class

* Tutoring

* Reading non-fiction (or a fiction classic for a class)

* Learning how to use a new appliance

* Figuring out why a computer or app thing isn't working properly, or learning a new computer or phone skill

* Social chit chat or being at a party

* Filing papers (i.e. into categories and files)

* Writing fiction

* Planning an event or trip

* The design phase of a remodeling or landscaping project

* Hiking or going on a walk in an unfamiliar place

* Handling the return of a purchased product

* Learning new math or physics topics independently

* Driving in extreme conditions (e.g. an intense snowstorm)

* Acting as a lawyer in a trial or hearing or high pressure emergency situation

* Doing business management/accounting work

* Ice skating

* Trying to learn a foreign language

Colorado's State Bivens Law

Colorado's General Assembly has enacted a state law authorizing suits for money damages against federal, state, and local officials violating federal constitutional rights in connection with civil immigration enforcement, because the U.S. Supreme Court has declined to extend Bivens (a U.S. Supreme Court case which created a federal common law remedy in the form of a private civil action for damages for certain violations of federal constitutional rights by federal officials) to do so. The bill has not yet been signed by the Governor, but he has not publicly threatened to veto the bill either.

Ideally, it wouldn't have been limited to civil immigration enforcement, which may be the provision of the law which makes it most vulnerable to being held unconstitutional, as immigration law is a purely federal function, but it isn't at all clear that narrowing this law beyond its maximum constitutional scope invalidates it, and there is quite a bit of law (outlined in Section 1 of the bill) which supports the conclusion that this mostly unused check on misconduct by federal official is constitutional.

The limitation of the law to civil immigration enforcement, however, does limit room to complain that the waiver of various immunities would do serious mischief to the ordinary actions of law enforcement in the state at the state and local level.

The bill's full and final text is below:

Senate Bill 26-05:

Be it enacted by the General Assembly of the State of Colorado: 

SECTION 1.  Legislative declaration. 

(1)  The general assembly finds and declares that: 

(a)  Since the earliest days of the nation, the United States supreme court has held, in cases such as Little v. Barreme, 6 U.S. 170 (1804), and Murray v. The Charming Betsey, 6 U.S. 64 (1804), that federal officials may be liable in damages for violations of federal laws; 

(b)  In later 19th century cases as well, the United States supreme court held that federal officials could be liable for damages even for reasons relating to but beyond the lawful scope of federal duties, Mitchell v. Harmony, 54 U.S. 115 (1851), and in particular that state courts possessed jurisdiction to consider such damages claims, Teal v. Felton, 53 U.S. 284 (1852); 

(c)  The United States supreme court has long held that federal employees are not inherently beyond the reach of state laws simply because they are federal employees. For example, in Johnson v. Maryland, 254 U.S. 51 (1920), the court noted, "[A]n employee of the United States does not secure a general immunity from state law while acting in the course of his employment", and in Colorado v. Symes, 286 U.S. 510 (1932), the court stated, "Federal officers and employees are not, merely because they are such, granted immunity from prosecution in state courts for crimes against state law". 

(d)  Decades later, the United States supreme court continued to recognize the role of state law in holding federal officials accountable for legal violations, noting in Wheeldin v. Wheeler, 373 U.S. 647 (1963), "[w]hen it comes to suits for damages for abuse of power, federal officials are usually governed by local law"; 

(e)  When the United States supreme court recognized a federal law cause of action for violation of certain constitutional rights in Bivens v. Six Unknown Fed. Narcotics Agents, 403 U.S. 388 (1971), that cause of action was in addition to, rather than instead of, traditional state law remedies. Even one of the dissenting justices in Bivens noted the ongoing role of state courts, writing, "The task of evaluating the pros and cons of creating judicial remedies for particular wrongs is a matter for Congress and the legislatures of the States". 

(f)  More recently, congress has made federal statutory law the exclusive remedy for certain claims sounding in tort, but this exclusivity specifically "does not extend or apply to a civil action against an employee of the Government [. . .] which is brought for a violation of the Constitution of the United States", 28 U.S.C. sec. 2679. The prime sponsor of legislation amending the federal "Tort Claims Act" to provide for limited exclusivity took pains to clarify, "We make special provisions here to make clear that the more controversial issue of constitutional torts is not covered by this bill. If you are accused of having violated someone's constitutional rights, this bill does not affect it", 134 Cong. Rec. 15963 (1988). 

(g)  In 2022, in declining to extend the scope of the Bivens action in Egbert v. Boule, 596 U.S. 482 (2022), the United States supreme court observed that legislatures, not courts, are the better branches of government to fashion damages remedies; 

(h)  In its most recently completed term, the United States supreme court declined, in Martin v. United States, 145 S. Ct. 1689 (2025), to extend the doctrine of supremacy clause immunity beyond its traditional criminal law context; 

(i)  Violating the federal constitutional rights of residents of the United States has never been and can never be "necessary and proper" to the execution of the laws and powers of the United States within the meaning of article I, section 8, clause 18 of the United States constitution; and 

(j)  In enacting this act, the Colorado general assembly affirms its longstanding and rightful role as a sovereign state in providing forum in its courts for adjudication of claims of federal constitutional violations. 

SECTION 2.  In Colorado Revised Statutes add 13-20-1302 as follows: 

13-20-1302.  Civil action for violation of constitutional rights during immigration enforcement - relief - attorney fees - time limit to commence action - definition. 

(1)  A PERSON WHO HAS THEIR RIGHTS THAT ARE GUARANTEED BY THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION VIOLATED BY ANOTHER PERSON WHO, ACTING UNDER COLOR OF ANY FEDERAL, STATE, OR LOCAL LAW, IS PARTICIPATING IN CIVIL IMMIGRATION ENFORCEMENT, MAY BRING A CIVIL ACTION AGAINST ANOTHER PERSON WHOSE CONDUCT WAS THE PROXIMATE CAUSE OF THE VIOLATION. A PERSON FOUND TO HAVE VIOLATED THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION WHILE PARTICIPATING IN CIVIL  IMMIGRATION ENFORCEMENT IS LIABLE TO THE PERSON WHOSE RIGHTS ARE VIOLATED FOR LEGAL OR EQUITABLE RELIEF OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE RELIEF. 

(2) (a)  IN AN ACTION BROUGHT PURSUANT TO THIS SECTION, A COURT SHALL AWARD REASONABLE ATTORNEY FEES AND COSTS TO A PREVAILING PLAINTIFF. IN ACTIONS FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF, A COURT SHALL DEEM A PLAINTIFF TO HAVE PREVAILED IF THE PLAINTIFF'S SUIT WAS A SUBSTANTIAL FACTOR OR SIGNIFICANT CATALYST IN OBTAINING THE RESULTS SOUGHT BY THE LITIGATION. 

(b)  WHEN A JUDGMENT IS ENTERED IN FAVOR OF A DEFENDANT, THE COURT MAY AWARD REASONABLE COSTS AND ATTORNEY FEES TO THE DEFENDANT FOR DEFENDING ANY CLAIMS THE COURT FINDS FRIVOLOUS. 

(3)  TO THE MAXIMUM EXTENT PERMISSIBLE UNDER THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION AND 42 U.S.C. SEC. 1983, A GRANT OF IMMUNITY TO A DEFENDANT, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, SOVEREIGN IMMUNITY; OFFICIAL IMMUNITY; INTERGOVERNMENTAL IMMUNITY; QUALIFIED IMMUNITY; SUPREMACY CLAUSE IMMUNITY; STATUTORY IMMUNITY, INCLUDING THE "COLORADO GOVERNMENTAL IMMUNITY ACT", ARTICLE 10 OF TITLE 24; OR COMMON LAW IMMUNITY, DOES NOT APPLY IN AN ACTION BROUGHT PURSUANT TO THIS SECTION. 

(4)  AS USED IN THIS SECTION, UNLESS THE CONTEXT OTHERWISE REQUIRES, "CIVIL IMMIGRATION ENFORCEMENT" MEANS AN ACTION TO INVESTIGATE, QUESTION, DETAIN, TRANSFER, OR ARREST A PERSON FOR THE PURPOSE OF ENFORCING FEDERAL CIVIL IMMIGRATION LAW. "CIVIL IMMIGRATION ENFORCEMENT" DOES NOT INCLUDE AN ACTION COMMITTED BY A PEACE OFFICER WHO IS ACTING WITHIN THE SCOPE OF THE PEACE OFFICER'S DUTIES CONSISTENT WITH STATE LAW. 

(5)  PURSUANT TO SECTION 13-80-102, A CIVIL ACTION DESCRIBED IN THIS SECTION MUST BE COMMENCED WITHIN TWO YEARS AFTER THE CAUSE OF ACTION ACCRUES. 

SECTION 3.  In Colorado Revised Statutes, 13-80-102, amend (1)(k); and add (1)(l) as follows: 13-80-102.  General limitation of actions - two years.  The following civil actions, regardless of the theory upon which suit is brought, or against whom suit is brought, must be commenced within two years after the cause of action accrues, and not thereafter: 

(k)  All actions brought under AND PURSUANT TO section 13-21-109(2) [ed. the bad check statute]; 

(l)  AN ACTION ALLEGING A VIOLATION OF CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS DURING CIVIL IMMIGRATION ENFORCEMENT BROUGHT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13-20-1302. 

SECTION 4.  Severability. If any provision of this act or the application of this act to any person or circumstance is held invalid, the invalidity does not affect other provisions or applications of the act that can be given effect without the invalid provision or application, and to this end the provisions of this act are declared to be severable. 

SECTION 5.  Appropriation. (1)  For the 2026-27 state fiscal year, $125,604 is appropriated to the department of law. This appropriation is from the legal services cash fund created in section 24-31-108 (4), C.R.S., from revenue received from the department of personnel that is continuously appropriated to the department of personnel from the risk management fund created in section 24-30-1510 (1)(a), C.R.S. The appropriation to the department of law is based on an assumption that the department of law will require an additional 0.5 FTE. To implement this act, the department of law may use this appropriation to provide legal services for the department of personnel.

SECTION 6. Safety clause. The general assembly finds, determines, and declares that this act is necessary for the immediate preservation of the public peace, health, or safety or for appropriations for the support and maintenance of the departments of the state and state institutions.