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

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

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 …

The First Amendment…(Historically Speaking) – Episode #21 – Video

 Misc  Comments Off on The First Amendment…(Historically Speaking) – Episode #21 – Video
Apr 142015
 



The First Amendment…(Historically Speaking) – Episode #21
Curtis Kelly joins Frederick Douglass Dixon on this edition of “The First Amendment”.

By: UPTV6

Here is the original post:
The First Amendment…(Historically Speaking) – Episode #21 – Video

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

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

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

First Amendment and Technology – Professor Hillary Greene – Video

 Misc  Comments Off on First Amendment and Technology – Professor Hillary Greene – Video
Apr 112015
 



First Amendment and Technology – Professor Hillary Greene
Professor Hillary Greene of the University of Connecticut School of Law participates in panel 2 the 2015 JBTL Symposium, “The Impact of the First Amendment on American Businesses.” Panel 2…

By: Maryland Carey Law

Go here to read the rest:
First Amendment and Technology – Professor Hillary Greene – Video

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

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

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

Defensible Sign Regulations – Introduction – Video

 Misc  Comments Off on Defensible Sign Regulations – Introduction – Video
Apr 112015
 



Defensible Sign Regulations – Introduction
This course provides a brief overview of typical sign regulations, discusses how the First Amendment affects local sign ordinances, and, finally, recommends sign regulations that conform to…

By: Planetizen

Read this article:
Defensible Sign Regulations – Introduction – Video

Officer Denies First Amendment Rights – Video

 Misc  Comments Off on Officer Denies First Amendment Rights – Video
Apr 112015
 



Officer Denies First Amendment Rights
What the hell is the difference, it matters not what I give for a description, I will still be called every name in the book for posting this video. Hey, I have an idea, you all go to hell…

By: savemyrepublic

Originally posted here:
Officer Denies First Amendment Rights – Video

Student: University presidents should take stronger stances against racism

 Free Speech  Comments Off on Student: University presidents should take stronger stances against racism
Apr 082015
 

How should a university president balance the Constitutional right to free speech against the responsibility to ensure students feel safe on campus after finding something as shocking as a noose, for example, hung by an undergraduate at Duke University?

Many students have demanded a strong response to show the university will not tolerate bigotry, while others caution that the First Amendment protects even the most hateful of speech. In every recent case, university leaders have unequivocally condemned the speech in question. But their other actions have varied.

Riley Brands, the editor-in-chief ofThe Daily Texan, the student newspaper of the University of Texas at Austin, has this take:

Just this semester, several racially-charged incidents have shaken universities. These incidents have tested university leaders resolve to promote an inclusive learning environment on their campuses.

In at least one case, a university president has been bold and stated unequivocally his intolerance for intolerance.

In others, however, fear or weakness has held university presidents back.

Last week, University of Maryland President Wallace D. Loh announced that a vile e-mail sent by a fraternity member violated no university rules and was protected by the First Amendment. The e-mail contained racial slurs and dismissed the idea of sexual consent.

Read more about the e-mail here.

In early February, my paper,The Daily Texan, broke the story of a racially insensitive party at the Phi Gamma Delta, or Fiji, fraternity house just off campus. The theme party, which the president of the fraternity told us was western, saw attendees in hard hats with the names Jefe and Pablo Sanchez written on them as well as reflective vests and work gloves. Some at the party said the theme was border control.

The uproar online was swift and vigorous. Many called for severe action against the fraternity.

See more here:
Student: University presidents should take stronger stances against racism

Editorial: Political speech or corruption?

 Free Speech  Comments Off on Editorial: Political speech or corruption?
Apr 062015
 

By Editorial Board April 5 at 6:53 PM

IN THE Supreme Courts landmark 2010 case Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission , the court declared that corporate independent political expenditures are protected free speech under the First Amendment and cannot be constrained. The court wrestled with the possibility that unlimited spending might have a corrupting influence on politics, but in the end it decided that free speech was the overriding goal and that as long as the expenditures were independent of candidates, and transparent, they would not increase corruption. The campaign cycles since then have been increasingly awash in this spending, much of it going to super PACs.

Now comes a disturbing set of facts that call into question the courts logic and conclusions about corruption. The April 1 indictment of Sen. Robert Menendez (D-N.J.) on bribery charges alleges a chronology that should worry everyone who cares about integrity in national politics. According to the indictment, a wealthy Florida ophthalmologist, Salomon Melgen, who was seeking Mr. Menendezs support on matters before the U.S. government, wrote two checks for $300,000 each in 2012 to the Senate Majority PAC, a super PAC devoted to supporting the election of Senate Democrats.

The donations were earmarked for use in the senators state of New Jersey. The senator was the only Democrat running for the Senate then in New Jersey. The doctor handed over one of the checks to a close friend of Mr. Menendez at the senators annual fundraiser. Is this what the court envisioned as independent?

The super PAC has said it acted within the law. It will be up to a jury to decide whether the doctor and the senator engaged in corruption. But the facts asserted in the indictment are sufficient to call into question the courts underlying thinking in Citizens United. The court declared that independent expenditures, including those made by corporations, do not give rise to corruption or the appearance of corruption. The court added that there is only scant evidence that independent expenditures even ingratiate.

In this case, the money may have earned the doctor more than just gratitude. The indictment describes a flurry of e-mails, calls and requests for meetings by the senator on behalf of the Florida doctor. The senator aimed his efforts at cabinet members, regulators and fellow senators. There is no evidence of a direct quid pro quo, but the timing is suspicious. For example, on June 1, 2012, the doctor issued a $300,000 check, through his company, to the super PAC, earmarked for New Jersey politicking. On June 7, the senator met with the acting administrator of the U.S. Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services to advocate for a resolution of a Medicare billing dispute involving the doctor to the tune of nearly $9 million. Just coincidence?

Whats at stake here is more than just one case. The Supreme Court has created an environment pregnant with possibility for corruption. The principles of independent expenditure are being routinely subverted. The reality of corrupt politics money for favors is growing more evident by the day.

Continue reading 10 minutes left

See more here:
Editorial: Political speech or corruption?

ACLU accuses local school of violating students First Amendment rights – Video

 Misc  Comments Off on ACLU accuses local school of violating students First Amendment rights – Video
Apr 052015
 



ACLU accuses local school of violating students First Amendment rights
The Louisiana American Civil Liberties Union says the principal at Walnut Hill Elementary and Middle School violated students First Amendment rights when he sent a letter to parents urging…

By: World News

Read the original here:
ACLU accuses local school of violating students First Amendment rights – Video

First Amendment and Technology – Professor Neil Richards – Video

 Misc  Comments Off on First Amendment and Technology – Professor Neil Richards – Video
Apr 052015
 



First Amendment and Technology – Professor Neil Richards
Professor Neil Richards of Washington University's School of Law participates in panel 2 the 2015 JBTL Symposium, “The Impact of the First Amendment on American Businesses.” Panel 2 discussed…

By: Maryland Carey Law

Read more from the original source:
First Amendment and Technology – Professor Neil Richards – Video




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