Archive for the ‘U.S. Constitutional Issues’ Category
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.
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.
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 »
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.”
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.
PHILADELPHIA – Repent America (RA) is urgently calling Christians not to exercise their "right to remain silent" as the federal "hate crimes" bill proposal, H.R. 1592, heads for a vote in the U.S. House of Representatives on Thursday, May 3, 2007.
"H.R. 1592 is an unnecessary, unconstitutional, and un-American bill, which, with the aid of homosexual-friendly prosecutors, will be used to criminalize Christians for their thoughts, beliefs, and speech," stated Repent America director Michael Marcavage. "The silence of the American church, together with the unrelenting rage of the ungodly, will soon result in the widespread incarceration of true believers," said Marcavage.
In October of 2004, eleven Christians with RA were arrested while ministering and preaching the Word of God and the Gospel message on the public streets and sidewalks of Philadelphia during a taxpayer-funded celebration of homosexuality. After spending 21 hours in jail, the District Attorney’s office charged the eleven under Pennsylvania’s hate crimes law, along with a host of other felony and misdemeanor charges. These charges were later dismissed, but if convicted, the Christians would have faced up to 47 years in prison and $90,000 in fines each.
Washington, DC – The so-called "media reform" movement, which wants to check and dilute the power of conservative media, especially talk radio, includes members of communist groups openly dedicated to America's destruction, Accuracy in Media's Cliff Kincaid discloses in a new column. Kincaid identifies them as members of the Communist Party USA, which was funded by the old Soviet Union, as well as the Revolutionary Communist Party, a group that follows the teachings of history's greatest mass murderer, Mao Tse-tung.
The Kincaid column is a follow-up to his exclusive report on the "National Conference on Media Reform," held in Memphis, Tennessee. The column, "The Communist-influenced 'Media Reform' Movement," and his January 15 special report, "The Plan to Silence Conservatives," are available at http://www.aim.org/.
Read the rest of this entry »
by Daniel Clark
"The words in the Constitution are 'cruel and unusual.' Those are the words. It doesn't talk about the death penalty. It's embodying certain values." So says Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer, explaining why he thinks capital punishment might be unconstitutional.
That these remarks have not become a national scandal is a testament to the success that Breyer, his liberal colleagues and their predecessors have had in deconstructing the Constitution. Anymore, a direct contradiction of what that document actually says is simply taken to be an alternative school of constitutional theory.
In fact, the Constitution references the death penalty no fewer than three times: twice in the Fifth Amendment, and once in the Fourteenth. Each of these amendments specifically allows for the option of capital punishment when it says that no person shall be deprived of life without due process of law. Since the Eighth Amendment, which forbids "cruel and unusual punishments," was ratified concurrently with the Fifth, it cannot reasonably be taken to prohibit the deprivation of life when due process has been given.
by Thomas E. Brewton
As noted frequently in past postings, the unavoidable tendency of socialism is concentration of political power in the hands of a ruling elite who decide for the masses what their living and working conditions are to be. This is called state-planning.
In ways that would have been inconceivable as recently as the 1920s, our everyday lives are circumscribed by unelected bureaucrats in Washington who make regulations, enforce them, and adjudicate them, too often without our access to the normal safeguards of the common law. Those bureaucrats think of the IRS, for example, issue rulings that most Federal courts will not contest, on the grounds that they lack the supposed expertise of the tens of thousands of Federal regulatory bureaus.
Republican Congressman Ron Paul of Texas wrote about the proposed NAFTA Superhighway in one of his weekly columns. Unfortunately, none of the mainstream liberal media made no mention of this illegal agreement made between Mexico, Canada and the united States. The following article is from Rep Ron Paul's weekly column and it shows how dastardly some of the components of our government are working to destroy our country by undermining our sovereignty and our constitution.
By now many Texans have heard about the proposed “NAFTA Superhighway,” which is also referred to as the trans-Texas corridor. What you may not know is the extent to which plans for such a superhighway are moving forward without congressional oversight or media attention.
This superhighway would connect Mexico, the United States, and Canada, cutting a wide swath through the middle of Texas and up through Kansas City. Offshoots would connect the main artery to the west coast, Florida, and northeast. Proponents envision a ten-lane colossus the width of several football fields, with freight and rail lines, fiber-optic cable lines, and oil and natural gas pipelines running alongside.