Cyborg | Designer-Babies | Futurism | Futurist | Immortality | Longevity | Nanotechnology | Post-Human | Singularity | Transhuman

First Amendment Activities | United States Courts

 Misc  Comments Off on First Amendment Activities | United States Courts
Jan 312016
 

Apply landmark Supreme Court cases to contemporary scenarios related to the five pillars of the First Amendment and your rights to freedom of religion, speech, press, assembly, and petition.

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for redress of grievances.”First Amendment, U.S. Constitution

Cox v. New Hampshire Protests and freedom to assemble

Elonis v. U.S. Facebook and free speech

Engel v. Vitale Prayer in schools and freedom of religion

Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier Student newspapers and free speech

Morse v. Frederick School-sponsored events and free speech

Snyder v. Phelps Public concerns, private matters, and free speech

Texas v. Johnson Flag burning and free speech

U.S. v. Alvarez Lies and free speech

Read this article:
First Amendment Activities | United States Courts

 Posted by at 8:41 pm  Tagged with:

First Amendment Law (U. S. Constitution: The First Amendment)

 Misc  Comments Off on First Amendment Law (U. S. Constitution: The First Amendment)
Jan 312016
 

This site explores the history and interpretation of the First Amendment of the U. S. Constitution, including the Free Speech Clause, the Establishment Clause, and the Free Exercise Clause. For materials on other topics related to the Constitution, visit Exploring Constitutional Law.

THE FREE SPEECH CLAUSE

Introduction to the Free Speech Clause

What is “Speech”?

The “Clear & Present Danger” Test for Subversive Advocacy

Advocacy of Unlawful Action and the “Incitement Test”

Substantial Overbreadth Doctrine

Prior Restraints

The Press & Fair Trial Issues

Four-Letter Words and Other Indecent Speech

A Free Speech History Lesson: The Trial of Lenny Bruce

Regulation of Hate Speech

Desecrating Flags and Other Attacks on American Symbols

First Amendment Limitations on Civil Law Liability

Does the First Amendment Protect Lies?

Different Tests for Different Media?

Permits and Fees for Marches, Parades, Rallies

Speech Restrictions in the Traditional Public Forum

Time, Place, and Manner Regulations

Speech Restrictions in the Limited Public Forum

Speech Restrictions in the Non-Public Forum

Student Speech Rights

Government-Compelled Speech

Gov’t Speech & Conditions on Speech Attached to Gov’t Spending

Free Speech Rights of Public Employees

The First Amendment and News Gathering: Access to (and Protection of) Sources

Regulation of Commercial Speech

Campaign Finance Regulation

The Right Not to Associate

What is Obscene?

Regulation of Child Pornography

Adult-Oriented Businesses and the “Secondary Effects” Test

Free Speech and the State Action Requirement

THE RELIGION CLAUSES

Introduction to the Establishment Clause

Prayer in the Public Schools

Vouchers & Other Aid to Religious Schools

The Evolution/Creationism Controversy

Theocracy Issues: Looking for Secular Purposes

Religious Symbols in Public Places

Student-Initiated Religious Speech

The Free Exercise Clause: Rise of the Compelling State Interest Test

The Free Exercise Clause: Narrowing of the Test

To see a course syllabus, jump to: FIRST AMENDMENT LAW SYLLABUS.

SAMPLE EXAM PROBLEMS

(All teachers are welcome to adopt this material for their own courses. DL) THEME SONG

Visit link:
First Amendment Law (U. S. Constitution: The First Amendment)

 Posted by at 8:41 pm  Tagged with:

Agency fees, the First Amendment and Rauners executive …

 Misc  Comments Off on Agency fees, the First Amendment and Rauners executive …
Dec 182015
 

Gov. Bruce Rauner issued an executive order on Feb. 9 directing state agencies to stop taking fair share union fees, also known as agency fees, from state employees who have chosen not to join the union.

The executive order builds on the logic of the U.S. Supreme Court case Harris v. Quinn, which held that the First Amendment prohibits the state from forcing people who receive a government subsidy, but who are not actual government employees, to pay union fees. The reasoning of this case should apply to nonunion government employees as well. All speech by public-sector unions, including collective bargaining, is political because it affects public policy. Forcing nonunion employees to support a union means forcing them to pay for such political speech, and therefore violates the First Amendment.

Unions and their supporters, however, argue that agency fees are justified because they prevent nonunion employees from free riding, a term unions use to imply that agency-fee payers are unfairly benefiting from union services. They claim these fees provide for nonunion employees share of the cost of collective bargaining, contract administration, and the pursuance of matters affecting wages, hours and conditions of employment.

There are two big problems with this argument: First, attempts to prevent free riding cannot justify forcing a person to pay for union lobbying or political speech, even if it might benefit that person, because doing so violates that persons rights to free speech and free association under the First Amendment. Second, many nonunion employees might not want the services the union provides or find them beneficial.

Individuals have different circumstances, needs and wants not every state worker necessarily favors greater spending and bigger government. Some workers may object to the unions services because they believe it leads to unnecessary government spending, which is unsustainable in the states current financial situation. Others may prefer 401(k)-style retirement plans because they dont want their retirement plans being mismanaged by the government.

Employees also might not like the way the union manages its money. For example, AFSCME spent only 51 cents of every dollar in union dues on representation of workers in 2013, while most of the rest of the money went to administration, overhead, and political and lobbying activities. Also in 2013, the Service Employees International Union Healthcare Illinois-Indiana spent $1.5 million out of its $46.2 million budget on hotels, air travel, rental cars, restaurants and catering. And the Illinois Education Association, the states biggest teachers union, devoted just 26 percent of its budget to representation in 2014, with nearly 70 percent going to administration and overhead and 3 percent to political activities.

State law allows, but does not require, unions to deduct agency fees. The 196-page collective-bargaining agreement for the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees contains provisions that require the deduction of agency fees from nonunion employees. Its not hard to imagine why a nonunion employee might object to unions obtaining the power to collect agency fees via the collective-bargaining process, while justifying such fees from nonunion employees as the cost of collective bargaining.

Further, there is no reason to believe agency fees are being used for purely nonpolitical activities. Unions get to decide for themselves which expenses are chargeable to nonmembers, and often categorize purely political activities as representational. In some cases, unions have categorized contributions to groups whose activities consist of running issue campaigns as representational activities. Nonmember employees generally cant afford to spend the time and money required to challenge these determinations, so they are in effect forced to pay for union politics even if they choose to opt out.

Agency fees are wrong because they force people to pay for services they may not want or find beneficial, and compel people to pay for union political speech, in violation of their First Amendment rights. While some government employees may find union representation beneficial, nonunion employees dont have a choice. The unions could avoid these First Amendment issues by simply allowing these employees to opt out of the unions representation, and not receive union services, under one or none policies.

If they dont, the U.S. Supreme Court should take up a case involving agency fees, and issue an opinion protecting nonunion employees First Amendment rights. When it comes to collecting fair share fees, abolishing the practice would be the only outcome thats truly fair to workers across the country.

See more here:
Agency fees, the First Amendment and Rauners executive …

First Amendment – constitution | Laws.com

 Misc  Comments Off on First Amendment – constitution | Laws.com
Oct 282015
 

The First Amendment of the United States Constitution is contained in the Bill of Rights. The First Amendment has proven to be one of the most fundamental and important in respects to the rights attributed to the populace of the United States. Originally, the First Amendment was implemented and applied solely to Congress. However, by the beginning of the twentieth century, it was upheld that the First Amendment is to apply to all forms of government, including state and local levels. The Supreme Court decided that the Fourteenth Amendment Due Process Clause would apply to the 1st Amendment, and thus rendering such a decision.

As stated in the United States Constitution, Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, of of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. Though a relatively short and concise assertion, the text provides for quite an encompassing set of rights that protect the citizens of the United States, and some of the most important and basic human rights. The First Amendment has many clauses that relate to each of the concepts that it sets out to protect. Religion is discussed in two clauses, one regarding the establishment of religion, and the other the free exercise of religion.

This proves to be one of the most important rights to secure by the Fathers of the Constitution, for so many people of European descent immigrated to the American Colonies to avoid religious persecution, and to find a safe haven to practice their religion of choice without any dire consequences. The First Amendment prohibits the government to establish a formal or national religion for the nation. It also addresses that there will be no preference of any particular religion, including the practice of no religion, or non religion.

The 1st Amendment guarantees the people of the United States the free exercise of religion, without interference from governmental factions. This right would also extend to any organization or individual infringing on such right, and would be deemed as unconstitutional.

One of the most commonly referred to clauses under the 1st Amendment is the freedom of speech. This clause has proven to be of great importance, particularly in the twentieth century and continues on with such regard in our lifetime. Under the text of the First Amendment, many issues are addressed regarding Freedom of Speech, and restrictions to exist in which such a practice may prove to be harmful to the general population or public. An example is the concept of sedition, and how this conduct can lead to insurrection against the government.

Other concepts also addressed include commercial speech, political speech, obscenity, libel, slander, and symbolic speech, such as the desecration of the American Flag. Under the First Amendment, there have been important and key court cases that have established a form precedence in how to apply the Amendment to these kinds of circumstances. The Freedom of the press is also included, and subject to similar restrictions as the freedom of speech.

The rights to petition and assembly often seem to be overlooked, for freedom of religion and speech are most commonly associated with the 1st Amendment. The right to petition is important because it gives citizens the opportunity to address their government in issues that have relevance and importance to the commonwealth. The formulation of an assembly, under the First Amendment, can be interpreted as citizens gathering and unifying for the purpose of communicating views or opinions on national issues, and for the relaying of pertinent information. The right to assembly is often related to that of petition, in such a way where citizens may assemble in the process of petitioning the government.

comments

Originally posted here:
First Amendment – constitution | Laws.com

Amazon.com: Free Speech: A Very Short Introduction (Very …

 Free Speech  Comments Off on Amazon.com: Free Speech: A Very Short Introduction (Very …
Oct 262015
 

Warburton writes, “John Stuart Mill was explicit that incitement to violence was the point at which intervention to curb free speech was appropriate. Mere offensiveness wasn’t sufficient grounds for intervention and should not be prevented by law, by threats, or by social pressure.” “A spirit of toleration should not include a prohibition on causing offence.” Times columnist Oliver Kamm agreed, “Free speech does indeed cause hurt – but there is nothing wrong in this.”

As US Justice Brennan said in Texas v. Johnson, which upheld the right of dissenters to burn the US flag as a protest, “If there is a bedrock principle underlying the First Amendment, it is that the Government may not prohibit the expression of an idea simply because society finds the idea itself offensive or disagreeable.”

Virtually anything can be seen as offensive, and something that is both true and important is bound to offend somebody.

But in Britain today, it seems that we have the right to have free speech, as long as we don’t use it. So members of the English Defence League are arrested and the group Muslims against Crusades is disbanded for saying things that some find offensive. But it is legitimate, if unjust and idiotic, to call for Sharia law here, and it is also legitimate, and just, to oppose Sharia law.

This government is trying to suppress dissent. It is expanding its police powers to control and limit expression, narrowing our rights of democratic participation.

The meanings of symbols like the poppy are in the realm of opinion and argument, so the state must not impose a politically correct interpretation on us.

See the original post:
Amazon.com: Free Speech: A Very Short Introduction (Very …

Hate Speech, Sex Speech, Free Speech: Nicholas Wolfson …

 Free Speech  Comments Off on Hate Speech, Sex Speech, Free Speech: Nicholas Wolfson …
Oct 032015
 

A powerful indictment of contemporary attacks on free speech, this book argues for a vigorous First Amendment jurisprudence protecting even offensive types of speech. In recent years, political activists, academics, and legal specialists have attacked traditional notions of free speech protection as they concern hate speech, obscenity, and pornography. They have called for changes in Supreme Court doctrine in defining the First Amendment and have argued that the traditional view of free speech actually creates and perpetuates a society in which the weakwomen, minorities, the poorhave no voice. While recognizing their fears, Nicholas Wolfson argues that it is impossible to separate bad speech from good speech without fatally compromising the uniquely American concept of free speech, and that efforts to modify our concept of free speech for a greater egalitarian good can only result in undue state influence over private speech. In a keenly argued analysis, he finds that, in the end, the preservation of free and vigorous speech requires a strong First Amendment protection for even the most hateful of speech.

Go here to read the rest:
Hate Speech, Sex Speech, Free Speech: Nicholas Wolfson …

First Amendment At Fillmor in Colorado Springs, CO | 220 E …

 First Amendment  Comments Off on First Amendment At Fillmor in Colorado Springs, CO | 220 E …
Sep 152015
 

Fantasy is the key.

The First Amendment at Fillmore is a store for the discerning adult.

We buy, sell and take trade-ins on all magazines and DVD’s. We have over 3000 DVD’s for sale and rental. We also have a large selection of adult m…Read more

The First Amendment at Fillmore is a store for the discerning adult.

We buy, sell and take trade-ins on all magazines and DVD’s. We have over 3000 DVD’s for sale and rental. We also have a large selection of adult magazines, marital games and aids including Doc Johnson products. Less

The First Amendment at Fillmore is a store for the discerning adult.

We buy, sell and take trade-ins on all magazines and DVD’s. We have over 3000 DVD’s for sale and rental. We also have a large selection of adult magazines, marital games and aids including Doc Johnson products.

Social:

Categories:

American Express, Cash, Check, Discover, MasterCard, Visa”

Payment Options:

American Express, Cash, Check, Discover, MasterCard, Visa

Claim your free business listing on Superpages.com and add important information about your business online. The more reviews and additional information you provide about your business, the easier it will be for customers to find you online.

Go here to read the rest:
First Amendment At Fillmor in Colorado Springs, CO | 220 E …

 Posted by at 11:43 am  Tagged with:

First Amendment – Kids | Laws.com

 Misc  Comments Off on First Amendment – Kids | Laws.com
Sep 102015
 

A Guide to the First Amendment

The First Amendment, sometimes called Amendment 1, is the first amendment to the United States Constitution and is also one out of ten amendments in the Bill of Rights. The First Amendment makes it illegal to make a law that establishes a religion, stops the freedom of speech, stops people from practicing their religion, stops the press from printing what they want, and stops people from exercising their right to assemble peacefully or demonstrating against the government.

Text of the First Amendment

The text of the First Amendment of the United States Constitution is the following:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

What Does the First Amendment Mean?

There are many key phrases in the first Amendment. Here are some explanations on what exactly they mean.

Freedom of religion: The First Amendment of the United States Constitution prevents the government from setting up or establishing an official religion of the country. American Citizens have the freedom to attend a church, mosque, synagogue, temple, or other house of worship of their choice. They can also choose to not be involved in any religion as well. Because of the First Amendment, we can practice our religion however we want to.

Freedom of speech: The First Amendment of the United States Constitution stops the government from making any laws that may stop us from saying what we feel or think. The American people have the right to share their opinions with other people or criticize the government.

Freedom of the press: Freedom of the press means we have the right to get information from many different sources of information. The government does not have the power to control what is broadcasted on radio or TV, what is printed in books or newspapers, or what is offered online. American citizens can request time on TV to respond to any views that they disagree with. They can also write letters to newspapers, which might be printed for others readers to see. Americans can also pass out leaflets that state their opinions. They may also their own online web pages that have their opinions.

Freedom of assembly: American citizens have the right to come together in private and public gatherings. Citizens can join groups for religious, social, recreational, or political reasons. By organizing in order to act on a common idea and accomplish a common goal, American citizens can more easily spread their ideas to others.

Right to petition: The right to petition the government means that American citizens can ask for adjustments or changes in the government. Citizens can do this by collecting signatures for petitions and sending them to elected representatives. They can also call, e-mail, or write to their elected representatives as well. Another way they can petition the government is by creating support groups that try to cause change by lobbying the government.

comments

Excerpt from:
First Amendment – Kids | Laws.com

Latest Updates | Young Americans for Liberty

 Liberty  Comments Off on Latest Updates | Young Americans for Liberty
Aug 182015
 

Too often I see newly forming YAL chapters struggle to achieve official school recognition. Although being officially recognized by your school is not a requirement for creating an awesome YAL chapter, it definitely helps when it comes time to reserve space for meetings or events, request school funding, and ultimately add more legitimacy. The First Amendment legally binds public colleges and universities, therefore if you attend a school that accepts tax-payer money in order to function, then your school is legally not allowed to deny the recognition of your YAL chapter based off of ideology alone.

Each school is different, but most institutions will require that a student organization have a faculty advisor and a certain number of members in order to achieve official recognition. To be clear, you must adhere to your school’s requirements to be officially recognized. However, sometimes schools won’t even give you the opportunity to meet those requirements, but instead deny you official recognition before you have a chance to play by their rules.

If you apply for official recognition from your school, and the administration denies your request, it is essential that you ask the administration to supply you with a copy of the specific policy that they are referencing which gives them ‘legitimacy’ to deny official recognition of your YAL chapter.If your school’s administration is unable to point you to a specific policy, then politely remind them that there are not reasonable grounds for denying official recognition. Make sure all exchanges with your school’s administration are done through email so you can have concrete evidence of all communications.

Commonly, I see schools deny YAL chapters official recognition because they believe the student organization will be ‘politically affiliated’. If this is the case, it is important to remind the administration that YAL is a non-partisan student organization that aims to identify, educate, train, and mobilize student activists dedicated to winning on principle. As a 501(c)3 non-profit, YAL does not endorse any candidates, political parties, or specific legislation.

Other times, a school will try to claim that there are ‘too many existing political groups on campus’ or that YAL’s views align too closely with another student organization with an already established presence. This is considered viewpoint discrimination, and is completely unconstitutional.

It is important to remember that private colleges and universities do not necessarily have to adhere toConstitution(although, I think we can all agree that they absolutely should), unless they make an explicit promise to freedom of speech or freedom of expression within their policies.

If you attend a public college or university and have gone through the necessary steps to get officially recognized, but your school stillrefuses to give your YAL chapter official recognition, then contact YAL’s Free Speech Director at elizabeth.hayes@yaliberty.org for further assistance.

Also, be sure to check out YAL’s handy resource on obtaining school recognition!

View original post here:
Latest Updates | Young Americans for Liberty

 Posted by at 6:42 pm  Tagged with:

First Amendment to the United States Constitution …

 First Amendment  Comments Off on First Amendment to the United States Constitution …
Jul 022015
 

Thomas Jefferson wrote with respect to the First Amendment and its restriction on the legislative branch of the federal government in an 1802 letter to the Danbury Baptists (a religious minority concerned about the dominant position of the Congregationalist church in Connecticut):

Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should “make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,” thus building a wall of separation between Church & State. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties.[9]

In Reynolds v. United States (1878) the Supreme Court used these words to declare that “it may be accepted almost as an authoritative declaration of the scope and effect of the amendment thus secured. Congress was deprived of all legislative power over mere [religious] opinion, but was left free to reach [only those religious] actions which were in violation of social duties or subversive of good order.” Quoting from Jefferson’s Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom the court stated further in Reynolds:

In the preamble of this act […] religious freedom is defined; and after a recital ‘that to suffer the civil magistrate to intrude his powers into the field of opinion, and to restrain the profession or propagation of principles on supposition of their ill tendency, is a dangerous fallacy which at once destroys all religious liberty,’ it is declared ‘that it is time enough for the rightful purposes of civil government for its officers to interfere [only] when [religious] principles break out into overt acts against peace and good order.’ In these two sentences is found the true distinction between what properly belongs to the church and what to the State.

Originally, the First Amendment applied only to the federal government, and some states continued official state religions after ratification. Massachusetts, for example, was officially Congregationalist until the 1830s.[10] In Everson v. Board of Education (1947), the U.S. Supreme Court incorporated the Establishment Clause (i.e., made it apply against the states). In the majority decision, Justice Hugo Black wrote:

The “establishment of religion” clause of the First Amendment means at least this: Neither a state nor the Federal Government can set up a church. Neither can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer one religion to another … in the words of Jefferson, the [First Amendment] clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect ‘a wall of separation between church and State’ … That wall must be kept high and impregnable. We could not approve the slightest breach.[11]

In Torcaso v. Watkins (1961), the Supreme Court ruled that the Constitution prohibits states and the federal government from requiring any kind of religious test for public office. In the Board of Education of Kiryas Joel Village School District v. Grumet (1994),[12] Justice David Souter, writing for the majority, concluded that “government should not prefer one religion to another, or religion to irreligion.”[13] In a series of cases in the first decade of the 2000sVan Orden v. Perry (2005), McCreary County v. ACLU (2005), and Salazar v. Buono (2010)the Court considered the issue of religious monuments on federal lands without reaching a majority reasoning on the subject.[14]

Everson used the metaphor of a wall of separation between church and state, derived from the correspondence of President Thomas Jefferson. It had been long established in the decisions of the Supreme Court, beginning with Reynolds v. United States in 1879, when the Court reviewed the history of the early Republic in deciding the extent of the liberties of Mormons. Chief Justice Morrison Waite, who consulted the historian George Bancroft, also discussed at some length the Memorial and Remonstrance against Religious Assessments by James Madison, who drafted the First Amendment; Madison used the metaphor of a “great barrier.”[15]

Justice Hugo Black adopted Jefferson’s words in the voice of the Court.[16] The Court has affirmed it often, with majority, but not unanimous, support. Warren Nord, in Does God Make a Difference?, characterized the general tendency of the dissents as a weaker reading of the First Amendment; the dissents tend to be “less concerned about the dangers of establishment and less concerned to protect free exercise rights, particularly of religious minorities.”[17]

Beginning with Everson, which permitted New Jersey school boards to pay for transportation to parochial schools, the Court has used various tests to determine when the wall of separation has been breached. Everson laid down the test that establishment existed when aid was given to religion, but that the transportation was justifiable because the benefit to the children was more important. In the school prayer cases of the early 1960s, (Engel v. Vitale and Abington School District v. Schempp), aid seemed irrelevant; the Court ruled on the basis that a legitimate action both served a secular purpose and did not primarily assist religion. In Walz v. Tax Commission (1970), the Court ruled that a legitimate action could not entangle government with religion; in Lemon v. Kurtzman (1971), these points were combined into the Lemon test, declaring that an action was an establishment if:[18]

Continue reading here:
First Amendment to the United States Constitution …

9 ways in which Nehru was a bad pioneer

 Misc  Comments Off on 9 ways in which Nehru was a bad pioneer
Apr 132015
 

1. The first snooper: So Indias first Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru is also the allegedmastermind for Indias first #Snoopgate when it appears that the family of Netaji SubhasChandra Bose was spied upon for the whole of his term as PM.

Information was also exchanged with British intelligence about Netaji and it is clear that Nehrufeared that Netaji was his rival and also may have known that Netaji did not die in a plane crashin 1945. This is an ongoing case and the results are eagerly awaited.

2. The first to suppress dissent: Nehrus rivals like Sardar Vallabhai Patel and CRajagopalachari were suppressed by Mahatma Gandhi before Independence. However after 1947the attitude continued.

Nehru introduced the First Amendment curbing free speech and saw more than half of hisCabinet quit on him. He suppressed regional leaders at the State level too.

3. The first to lose land: After Independence Kashmir was in limbo land and Field MarshallSam Manekshaw has gone on record saying that while Nehru dithered, it was only Patel whoforced the situation for India to take control of Kashmir.

We failed to get the land that is now called Pakistan Occupied Kashmir.

4. The first to lose a war: You can defend Nehru for the above saying that in 1947-48 we hadjust won our Independence or that our defence forces were led by British or that the Mahatmawent on a fast unto death to release Pakistani funds which would have been a great bargainingchip.

However 1962 was nothing but disaster. The Chinese first officially asked to buy Aksai Chin andwhen we refused they made moves to take it forcefully. Nehru ignored the plans and woreblinkers even when the Chinese invaded our territory.

Finally at that time the Indian Air Force was far superior to the Chinese Air Force and still Nehrurefused to use it!

5. The first scams: Its not that we have suddenly become corrupt today or after liberalization.Nehrus Licence Raj festered corruption right from Day 1. Nehru and VK Krishna Menon werebest friends.

View original post here:
9 ways in which Nehru was a bad pioneer

The Impact of the First Amendment on American Businesses – Opening Remarks – Video

 Misc  Comments Off on The Impact of the First Amendment on American Businesses – Opening Remarks – Video
Apr 122015
 



The Impact of the First Amendment on American Businesses – Opening Remarks
Dean Donald Tobin delivers the opening remarks at Maryland Carey Law's 2015 JBTL Symposium, “The Impact of the First Amendment on American Businesses.” The symposium facilitated a …

By: Maryland Carey Law

Continue reading here:
The Impact of the First Amendment on American Businesses – Opening Remarks – Video

 Posted by at 6:41 pm  Tagged with:

Elbert P. Tuttle Federal Courthouse, First Amendment Audit – Video

 Misc  Comments Off on Elbert P. Tuttle Federal Courthouse, First Amendment Audit – Video
Apr 122015
 



Elbert P. Tuttle Federal Courthouse, First Amendment Audit
Stay cool, Be polite, Assert Your Rights, and Always Film The Police. I am not an attorney. Please seek legal advice from a licensed attorney. The views expressed in the comments section are…

By: HONORYOUROATH

Read more here:
Elbert P. Tuttle Federal Courthouse, First Amendment Audit – Video

GOP hopefuls flock to NRA cattle call

 Second Amendment  Comments Off on GOP hopefuls flock to NRA cattle call
Apr 112015
 

Updated at 6:15 p.m.

Nearly all of the 2016 GOP presidential hopefuls wereonstage Friday attheNational Rifle Association’s annual leadership conference in Nashville, a GOP cattle-call of sortsthat gavethepotential candidates a chance to trumpet their Second Amendment bona fides.

Attendees heardfrom a majority of the GOP’s first- and second-tier presidential primary contenders, former Florida governor Jeb Bush, Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker, Florida Sen. Marco Rubio, Texas Sen. Ted Cruz, Indiana Governor Mike Pence, South Carolina Sen. Lindsey Graham, former Texas governor Rick Perry, former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee, former Pennsylvania senator Rick Santorum, Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal, retired neurosurgeon Ben Carson and businessman Donald Trump.

Notable absences? Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul and New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie, both of whom have a prickly relationship with the NRA and were not invited to attend — Paul because of his affiliation with another gun-rights group and Christie who scores low on the NRA’s scorecard. Paul told Bloomberg that it was the group’s loss, not his: “To not be invited, probably, will serve more to cast aspersions on their group than it would on me. Because my record’s pretty clear. It probably looks a little bit petty for them not to invite a major candidate because I raised money for other Second Amendment groups.”

For those candidates who made the cut, today wasa critical campaign stop. The Post’s David A. Fahrenthold reported on the role of gun rights in the GOP last month:

Even for those who dont own [guns],they are a bellwether of individual liberty, a symbol of what big government wants and shouldnt have. … As the 2016 campaign gets going, guns and hunting will inevitably be part of its political theater. That may offer a chance for longtime gun-owning candidates to stand out….Already, on the campaign trail, several contenders have used their support for guns as a way to signal broader conservative bona fides. In a party full of internal arguments, this is one thing few will argue with.

Find the speech highlights below.

Bobby Jindal

Biggest applause line: “You sometimes get the idea that president Obama and Hillary Clinton believe that these are just crazy right-wing ideas…But these are not the ideas of a right wing conspiracy. These are the pillars of our nation. And thats why I was glad to write the law in Congress after Hurricane Katrina ensuring that never again can the government seize your firearms after a disaster.”

Biggest flop: “I remember the days when Hollywood actually liked the First Amendment. Well maybe they havent read the First Amendment lately. Theyre too busy dealing with record-low movie attendance.”

Read more here:
GOP hopefuls flock to NRA cattle call

 Posted by at 6:42 am  Tagged with:

The Impact of the First Amendment on American Businesses – Closing Remarks – Video

 Misc  Comments Off on The Impact of the First Amendment on American Businesses – Closing Remarks – Video
Apr 112015
 



The Impact of the First Amendment on American Businesses – Closing Remarks
Maryland Carey Law Professor Danielle Citron delivers the closing remarks at the 2015 JBTL Symposium, “The Impact of the First Amendment on American Businesses.” The symposium facilitated a…

By: Maryland Carey Law

Visit link:
The Impact of the First Amendment on American Businesses – Closing Remarks – Video

 Posted by at 6:42 am  Tagged with:

RFRA and the First Amendment Explained for Small Business Owners – Can you turn away business? – Video

 Misc  Comments Off on RFRA and the First Amendment Explained for Small Business Owners – Can you turn away business? – Video
Apr 112015
 



RFRA and the First Amendment Explained for Small Business Owners – Can you turn away business?
http://businessinbluejeans.com http://samventola.com In this informative webinar, small business expert and marketing consultant, Susan Baroncini-Moe, and attorney at law and First Amendment…

By: Susan Baroncini-Moe

See the article here:
RFRA and the First Amendment Explained for Small Business Owners – Can you turn away business? – Video

 Posted by at 6:42 am  Tagged with:

UMd. Investigation Concludes Offensive Email Protected By First Amendment / University of Maryland – Video

 Misc  Comments Off on UMd. Investigation Concludes Offensive Email Protected By First Amendment / University of Maryland – Video
Apr 112015
 



UMd. Investigation Concludes Offensive Email Protected By First Amendment / University of Maryland
A racist, sexist email sent by a fraternity member on the University of Maryland campus was protected under the First Amendment, the university concluded in a recent investigation. Breaking…

By: CBS News 24

Read more from the original source:
UMd. Investigation Concludes Offensive Email Protected By First Amendment / University of Maryland – Video

 Posted by at 6:42 am  Tagged with:

Xxplosive – First Amendment Ft. Von Aizen & Metaphaurus – Video

 Misc  Comments Off on Xxplosive – First Amendment Ft. Von Aizen & Metaphaurus – Video
Apr 112015
 



Xxplosive – First Amendment Ft. Von Aizen Metaphaurus
The bro First Amendment rappin over a classic West Coast beat (No Copyright Infringement intended) Follow dude on his social media https://soundcloud.com/firstamendmenthiphop https://twitter.com/1

By: CSUN Hip Hop Culture Club

The rest is here:
Xxplosive – First Amendment Ft. Von Aizen & Metaphaurus – Video

 Posted by at 6:41 am  Tagged with:



Pierre Teilhard De Chardin | Designer Children | Prometheism | Euvolution | Transhumanism