By Thomas E. Brewton
Corruption can be reduced only by reducing the size of the Federal government.
Much is being written about unsavory political influence exercised by the army of Washington lobbyists, who act as conduits for large amounts of influence money from special interest groups. Those special interest groups range from business and environmental groups, to abortion advocates, and labor unions.
Tom Daschle's exit from nomination as the commissar of a national socialized healthcare system is among the headliners. Another is Leon Panetta, bound for the CIA, coming off large lecture earnings from groups doing millions of dollars worth of business with the CIA. Already fading into the background is Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's husband's big-bucks connections with some of the less reputable characters on the international scene, people against whom Secretary Clinton must represent the interests of the United States.
On the other hand, limiting people's opportunity to contribute money to help elect and influence representatives friendly to their interests is, apparently to most everyone outside Congress and the Supreme Court, an unconstitutional infringement of First Amendment rights.
If we are not to invade First Amendment rights, what then are we to do?
At the most fundamental level, the problem is what lawyers call an attractive nuisance. If you build a swimming pool it is likely to attract small children, with potentially dire consequences.
If we continually enlarge the size and scope of the Federal government, already the largest dispenser of money in the world, it is not rocket science to forecast that every scoundrel in the world will be looking for ways to game the system or to steal money outright. Notorious bank robber Willie Sutton, when asked why he robbed banks, is supposed to have answered, "Because that's where the money is."
Read the rest of this entry »
Posted by Walt as U.S. Constitutional Issues, U.S. Political Issues at 9:03 AM EST
No Comments »
"The Bible is for the Government of the People, by the People, and for the People." - General Prologue to the Wycliffe Bible in 1384.
Our country and its laws were established on the fundamental belief that our morality emanates from God. While the Constitution begins with the line, "We the people," it does not contain any religious words. Some people cite this as evidence that America is a secular country. Not so. America has always combined secular government with a society based on religious values.
Many settlers in the 1600s came to what they considered this new promised land seeking religious freedom. They identified with the biblical Jewish Exodus from Egypt because they had left Europe and its values as well. Ours is the only country to identify with many Jewish beliefs, and is why our culture calls itself "Judeo-Christian." These values include the importance of laws, fighting for justice, and a belief in judgment by loving and forgiving God.
The Founders understood there is a divine order that rises above the human order. By the 1770s, they sought our freedom from the British Crown with reliance upon, what the Declaration of Independence calls, "Nature's God," the "Creator," and "the Supreme Judge of the World."
The First Amendment was never intended to exclude all references to God from government institutions and public debate. It simply says, "Congress shall not establish a religion or prohibit the free exercise thereof." The word "establish" meant the creation of a state church, as in the Church of England. It is nonsense to say the founders intended the First Amendment to exclude all religious expression in public places.
Read the rest of this entry »
Posted by Walt as Christianity, U.S. Constitutional Issues, US History at 11:54 PM EDT
No Comments »
(Washington, DC) – The American Center for Law and Justice (ACLJ), focusing on constitutional law, said today it is demanding that a community college in New York end its hostility toward a Christian student who has been punished because of her religious beliefs. The ACLJ represents Gina DeLuca, a student at Suffolk County Community College (SCCC), who has received lower grades and has been labeled “closed-minded” by a professor who requires students to acknowledge the possibility that God does not exist in order to participate in a philosophy class. The ACLJ has sent a letter demanding that the school end its discriminatory actions against DeLuca or face a federal lawsuit.
“This is another troubling example of how some in the academic world believe it’s acceptable to violate the First Amendment rights afforded to all students – especially students who hold Christian beliefs,” said Jay Sekulow, Chief Counsel of the ACLJ. “The actions by this professor clearly reflect hostility toward religion. To require students to acknowledge the possibility that God does not exist in order to participate in a class is not only wrong, but clearly violates the constitutional rights of students who hold religious beliefs. Unless this school takes corrective action, we will go to federal court to protect the rights of our client.”
In its letter to Suffolk County Attorney Christine Malafi, the ACLJ explains that the problem began when DeLuca took a philosophy class which is required for graduation.
DeLuca, who has been a student at SCCC for two years, has maintained a 3.9 GPA and has had good relationships with her professors at the school. She received good grades in the philosophy class until her religious beliefs became known.
According to the ACLJ letter, “…the grades she received on class assignments dropped significantly once God and religion became prominent topics of class discussion and her refusal to compromise her Christian faith became apparent. This is because the course goes beyond merely requiring knowledge of prominent philosophers and their arguments or ways of thinking, which Gina does not object to.” The letter adds that the professor “believes that it is his job to get students to change their own personal viewpoints or state that they are unsure of whether their own personal beliefs are correct.”
In addition to giving DeLuca lower grades, the ACLJ contends that the professor labeled her “closed-minded,” “uncritical,” “hurtful,” and “blinded by belief” simply because she did not adopt his way of thinking.
“SCCC must take immediate action to correct this problem,” the ACLJ letter states. “While a college professor may encourage students to be informed about viewpoints and arguments that differ from their own, it is inappropriate—and unconstitutional—for a public college professor to make passing a required course (and thus graduation) contingent upon a student’s willingness to express agreement with philosophical viewpoints that conflict with her religious beliefs.”
The ACLJ is asking the school to end this discriminatory action against DeLuca, provide assurances that her constitutional rights will be preserved, and advise the professor about the First Amendment rights of students. The ACLJ is demanding that the school provide these assurances by April 14th or face a federal lawsuit.
The ACLJ defends the constitutional rights of students nationwide and most recently secured a victory for an Arizona college journalism student who faced discrimination – and a failing grade – because of her Christian faith. After the ACLJ intervened on behalf of that student, the school reversed itself and awarded her an occupational journalism certificate in addition to her associate’s degree.
Led by Chief Counsel Jay Sekulow, the American Center for Law and Justice focuses on constitutional law and is based in Washington, D.C.
Posted by Walt as Christianity, U.S. Constitutional Issues at 11:58 PM EDT
No Comments »
Justice is served!
Williamsburg, VA – Gene R. Nichol, president of the College of William and Mary, submitted a resignation letter yesterday after receiving notice that his contract would not be renewed by the college’s Board of Visitors. Several appointees to the board, who were pending reconfirmation, recently appeared at hearings before the Virginia House of Delegates’ Privileges and Elections Committee.
During the hearings, Nichol was strongly criticized for controversial decisions during his short reign as president. Committee Chairman Mark Cole stated that “a set of recent events warranted a more thorough review” of the Board of Visitors. The events cited as concerning were Nichol’s removal of the cross from Wren Chapel, the resulting loss of a $12 million gift and allowing a “Sex Workers’ Art Show.”
The confirmation hearings focused mainly on Nichol’s controversial actions. “If any university president in the Commonwealth has put a bad light on the Commonwealth … it’s Mr. Nichols,” said Del. Jeffrey Frederick. Del. Clarence Phillips asked the appointees for a commitment to ensure the college is known for “all right and good things,” to “do what’s necessary through your leadership and through your good name.” Committee Chairman Cole warned the appointees: “Everything that happens at William and Mary will rest on your shoulders.”
Read the rest of this entry »
Posted by Walt as Education, U.S. Constitutional Issues at 12:04 PM EST
No Comments »
By Warner Todd Huston
The recent outrage against Constitutional liberty by the Boston Police raises some very interesting questions. Can we voluntarily give up our Constitutional rights? Further, can government legally violate our rights even if we ask them to do so? These are questions that we all need to consider before allowing police into our homes, invited or no.
Last week The Boston Globe reported that the Boston police are about to launch a program in "high-crime neighborhoods" where a roving band of policemen will walk door-to-door and ask parents if they have permission to search the home for guns. These police squads intend to conduct searches without warrants, claiming that the invitation by the homeowner is all they need to commence the search.
Like all steps down the road to tyranny, the pavement here is being laid by folks with good intentions, officials who are, after all, only trying to "help" the community. The Commissar of Police, Edward Davis claims that he is giving the folks of Boston "an option" for what to do about gun violence in the city. The cops "ask permission" to enter and supposedly only do so when given the OK. They also target specific homes that have been fingered as troublesome by neighbors and other intelligence sources.
Some community leaders are professing their faith in this new program that is patterned after one instituted, but later abandoned, by the St. Louis police. Boston’s community leaders seem ready to give this a try because the program is supposed to be spurred by community interaction and tips to the Boston PD. It is interesting and instructive, however, to note that some reports about the demise of the St. Louis program claim that one of the reasons they shut it down there was because the St.
Louis PD began to rely more on their own intelligence and less on community tips. Meaning, the community was no longer involved and the police there began to act as if it was solely their own resources
Read the rest of this entry »
Posted by Walt as U.S. Constitutional Issues at 7:35 AM EST
No Comments »
by Thomas E. Brewton
Enforcing proper behavior is anathema to liberals, but essential to learning.
The recent Supreme Court decision in the MORSE ET AL. v. FREDERICK case, better known as the "BONG HiTS 4 JESUS" case, has generated controversy, both because of the Court's decision, and because of the concurring opinion by Justice Clarence Thomas.
Facts of the case were the following:
"At a school-sanctioned and school-supervised event, petitioner Morse, the high school principal, saw students unfurl a banner stating "BONG HiTS 4 JESUS", which she regarded as promoting illegal drug use. Consistent with established school policy prohibiting such messages at school events, Morse directed the students to take down the banner. When one of the students who had brought the banner to the event respondent Frederick refused, Morse confiscated the banner and later suspended him."
The Court's ruling, expressed in the opinion of Chief Justice John Roberts, was:
"Because schools may take steps to safeguard those entrusted to their care from speech that can reasonably be regarded as encouraging illegal drug use, the school officials in this case did not violate the First Amendment by confiscating the pro-drug banner and suspending Frederick…. Our cases make clear that students do not shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate. Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School Dist., 393 U. S. 503, 506 (1969). At the same time, we have held that the constitutional rights of students in public school are not automatically coextensive with the rights of adults in other settings, Bethel School Dist. No. 403 v. Fraser, 478 U. S. 675, 682 (1986), and that the rights of students must be applied in light of the special characteristics of the school environment."
The Court's decision was opposed by many people, particularly liberal-Progressives.
What really agitated them, however, was the concurring opinion by Justice Clarence Thomas.
Read the rest of this entry »
Posted by Walt as Education, U.S. Constitutional Issues at 11:39 PM EST
No Comments »
by Nancy Salvato
"A little learning is a dangerous thing; drink deep, or taste not the Pierian spring: there shallow draughts intoxicate the brain, and drinking largely sobers us again." — Alexander Pope
Around this time last year I participated in the Center for Civic Education’s National Academy, where Professor Will Harris led a selected group of students in 21 days of intense study on the basic issues of political theory, and the values and principles of American constitutional democracy. Early on, the importance of gaining a "surplus of mind," as a crucial element of the democratic process, was discussed. In order to become thinkers or problem solvers, our citizenry must be taught by teachers who are ambitious in their learning goals. When teachers over simplify learning objectives, this conditions our citizenry to fail at more complicated tasks. Conversely, giving the populace the tools to figure out the world’s complexity enables each person to be more powerful and free. Moreover, this is a necessary component of our system of government.
To elaborate further, a surplus of knowledge is especially useful when dealing with unexpected situations. When weighing the possible consequences of a decision, an intelligent person draws on these reserves. The key to "intelligence" is a capacity to weigh the variables that come into play when assessing individual situations. A surplus of knowledge gives us a reasonable shot at being able to anticipate short and long term repercussions of actions or inaction. Indeed, as a colleague of mine recently noted, every choice comes with regret.
Read the rest of this entry »
Posted by Walt as Education, U.S. Constitutional Issues at 10:25 PM EDT
No Comments »
By Alan Caruba
In a month, August 20 and 21, the leaders of the United States, Canada, and Mexico will sit down together in Montebello, Quebec to discuss making the borders between these three nations disappear. They will discuss progress on a vast highway project passing through America to link Mexico with Canada.
So far, no one has asked the citizens of these three nations whether they want to do this. It is not up for a vote in Congress and, indeed, Congress has no supervision over the gnomes in the U.S. Department of Commerce who are busily “harmonizing” the laws under the auspices of the Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America (SPP).
This, we’re told, is not a treaty so Congress has no constitutional oversight obligation. I guess it’s more like a nice big handshake between the presidents and prime minister of these three nations who, let’s face it, just know better than the rest of us. I mean, do Canadians really think they’re in charge of Canada? Americans should have a say about programs affecting America? Or has anyone asked Mexicans if they want to be part of some “harmonized” configuration not unlike the European Union?
Last time I checked, the European Union lacked a constitution because some of its member states, notably France, had rejected the one that was offered.
Read the rest of this entry »
Posted by Walt as North American Union, U.S. Borders Issues, U.S. Constitutional Issues at 5:25 AM EDT
No Comments »
By Alan Caruba
The murders on the Virginia Tech campus, the worst such rampage in our history, might have been mitigated if just one member of the faculty or a student had the means to return fire.
I have owned guns for decades. On rare occasions, I have had to “show” one of my guns to people with bad intentions. Not surprisingly, they changed their plans to take my money and do me some harm. The Virginia Tech murders confirm the value of empowering ordinary citizens to carry a concealed weapon.
On March 9 I learned of a ruling in the case of Parker v. District of Columbia in which Senior Judge Lawrence H. Silberman wrote an opinion, with Judge Thomas B. Griffith concurring, that restored the Second Amendment to the citizens of the District and, by extension, to every citizen of these United States. Not since 1976, had residents of the District had the right to defend themselves with force of arms.
Judge Silberman wrote, “In sum, the phrase ‘the right of the people’, when read intratextually and in light of Supreme Court precedent, leads us to conclude that the right in question is individual.”
As Alan Gottlieb, founder of the Second Amendment Foundation, noted succinctly, “The right of self-preservation was understood as the right to defend oneself against attacks by lawless individuals, or, if absolutely necessary, to resist and throw off a tyrannical government.”
Read the rest of this entry »
Posted by Walt as Terrorism, U.S. Constitutional Issues at 9:37 PM EDT
1 Comment »
WASHINGTON, May 2, 2007 - Accuracy in Media editor Cliff Kincaid said today that the proposed federal media shield law, the so-called Free Flow of Information Act, is a Pandora's Box that would backfire on the media because of the inability to adequately define basic terms such as "journalist."
"The term is so loosely defined that an al Qaeda propaganda front could qualify as a legitimate news organization," the AIM editor said.
"The legislation is not in the interests of the media or the public," he said, adding that AIM would seek an opportunity to testify against the bill and would recommend a presidential veto if Congress passes it.
The bill, reintroduced in the House and Senate, purports to protect the media's use of confidential sources, Kincaid said, but would actually enable federal authorities, including members of Congress and judges, to decide who or what qualifies for special federal protection. As such, it amounts to a federal press licensing scheme, designating who should enjoy special rights from law enforcement authorities and who should not, Kincaid charged.
The AIM editor said that journalists should give up their attempts to protect questionable sources in extraordinary and rare national security cases and start acting like ordinary citizens with a duty and obligation to report evidence of criminal activity. "The media are not above the law that applies to the rest of us," the AIM editor declared.
Alluding to the involvement of some 40 media companies and other journalistic organizations at a Capitol Hill news conference to re-introduce the bill, Kincaid warned the public of a propaganda blitz designed to get the legislation through both Houses of Congress without serious scrutiny. When an issue like this is before Congress, involving the perceived self-interest of the media elite, Kincaid said the public can count on one-sided "news" coverage.
Accuracy in Media (AIM), founded by Reed Irvine in 1969, is America's original media watchdog organization. For more information, please visit www.aim.org.
Posted by Walt as U.S. Legal Issues, U.S. Constitutional Issues, U.S. Political Issues at 5:40 PM EDT
No Comments »
