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

Burt Neuborne – Recovering Madison’s Music: Toward a Democracy-Friendly First Amendment – Video

 Misc  Comments Off on Burt Neuborne – Recovering Madison’s Music: Toward a Democracy-Friendly First Amendment – Video
Mar 312015
 



Burt Neuborne – Recovering Madison's Music: Toward a Democracy-Friendly First Amendment
The current Supreme Court majority reads the First Amendment as if James Madison threw a pot of ink at the wall and allowed the splatter to dictate the order and placement of the provisions…

By: Berkeley Law

Go here to see the original:
Burt Neuborne – Recovering Madison’s Music: Toward a Democracy-Friendly First Amendment – Video

Fourth Amendment Police Potty Program – Video

 Fourth Amendment  Comments Off on Fourth Amendment Police Potty Program – Video
Mar 062015
 



Fourth Amendment Police Potty Program
Retired Maryland state police officer Captain Jack McCauley speaking to a group of second amendment activists in Maryland.

By: James Madison

Follow this link:
Fourth Amendment Police Potty Program – Video

Maryland’s List of Gun Owners – Video

 Second Amendment  Comments Off on Maryland’s List of Gun Owners – Video
Feb 202015
 



Maryland's List of Gun Owners
Retired Maryland state police officer Captain Jack McCauley speaking to a group of second amendment activists in Maryland.

By: James Madison

See the rest here:
Maryland’s List of Gun Owners – Video

NPR ombudsman: Beware First Amendment fundamentalists

 Misc  Comments Off on NPR ombudsman: Beware First Amendment fundamentalists
Feb 132015
 

Edward Schumacher Matos last day as the listeners representative at NPR gave him one last opportunity to poke his bosses in the eyes, and he did so taking on a couple of sacred cows: the assertion of bias and the reach of the First Amendment.

In his final post last week before vacating the job, Schumacher-Matos warned of fundamentalism, but not the kind involving religion the kind involving journalists and ethics.

And he acknowledged that NPR has a bias. But not the one you might think.

As a public media that receives some 11 percent of its funding indirectly from the government, it cannot be partisan or have a declared bias. With multiple streams of other incomefoundations, corporations and individualsit also is not under the same pressure as the commercial news media to do so.

But lets be honest: NPR has a bias of sorts. It is the bias of its college-educated audienceyou and meto pick and frame stories in ways that represent our interests. This is not a liberal basis, as the far right likes to claim. It is a center-right to center-left bias interested in fact-based analysis and policy on matters such as the environment, health care, gay rights and fiscal issues, as opposed to ideology or belief.

Over my four years I received more complaints from the left than the right, and not because Republicans arent listening. Audience polls show a pretty even Republican-Democrat breakdown, with even more listeners self-identifying as independent. It is that the political debate today and coverage is between the centrists and the far right; the far left feels ignored.

You will decide for yourself whether this is a good bias for NPR to have. I like it. As the news media fractures along narrow, advocacy lines, I think the NPR breadth and framing is valuable for the nation. With its strong storytelling voice, moreover, NPR is a peculiar institution in a way that perhaps only radio and podcasts can be. It is intimate with us, and has become part of our lives.

Schumacher-Matos also criticized fundamentalism among journalists who insist on broad First Amendment protections.

The French news media may have their ethical standards, but they are not American or sacred universal ones, and they shouldnt be French ones either. The United States has never had absolute freedom of the press. And the framers of the Constitution I once held the James Madison Visiting Professor Chair on First Amendment Issues at Columbia University never intended it to. You wouldnt know this, however, from listening to the First Amendment fundamentalists piping up from Washington to Silicon Valley.

Its an odd thing for a journalist to write, attorney Eugene Volokh writes today on his Washington Post blog

Read more:
NPR ombudsman: Beware First Amendment fundamentalists

What would James Madison say to today’s Supreme Court? Burt Neuborne weighs in – Video

 Misc  Comments Off on What would James Madison say to today’s Supreme Court? Burt Neuborne weighs in – Video
Feb 112015
 



What would James Madison say to today's Supreme Court? Burt Neuborne weighs in
In “Madison's Music,” author Burt Neuborne argues that judges must consider the full text and structure of the First Amendment in order to issue rulings in accordance with James Madison's…

By: NYU School of Law

Follow this link:
What would James Madison say to today’s Supreme Court? Burt Neuborne weighs in – Video

Judicial Elections and the First Amendment: Williams-Yulee v. The Florida Bar

 Misc  Comments Off on Judicial Elections and the First Amendment: Williams-Yulee v. The Florida Bar
Jan 092015
 

On January 20, the U.S. Supreme Court will be hearing oral arguments in Lanell Williams-Yulee v. The Florida Bar. At issue is whether a ban on solicitation of campaign donations by judicial candidates in state elections in Florida violates the First Amendment rights of the candidates. Does Florida have a compelling interest in imposing such a ban to preserve the appearance of impartiality of its judges? Is it necessary to ensure judicial independence and maintain public confidence in the judicial system? Does this ban on solicitation violate the First Amendment rights of candidates to engage in political speech and political activity? Does the soliciting of campaign donations involve core political speech? In a post-argument briefing, two First Amendment experts who filed amicus briefs in the case, along with the former Chief Justice of the Indiana Supreme Court, will discuss these issues as well as the oral arguments conducted that morning before the Supreme Court. Moderating the panel will be a former FEC commissioner.

James Bopp, Jr. General Counsel, The James Madison Center for Free Speech

Robert Corn-Revere Partner, Davis Wright Tremaine

Justice Randall T. Shepard Former Chief Justice, Indiana Supreme Court

Manager, Election Law Reform Initiative and Senior Legal Fellow Read More

Read more from the original source:
Judicial Elections and the First Amendment: Williams-Yulee v. The Florida Bar

Robertson leads 'Nova in playoff opener vs. Liberty

 Liberty  Comments Off on Robertson leads 'Nova in playoff opener vs. Liberty
Dec 062014
 

Liberty coach Turner Gill knows all about quarterback play and he is the latest to show his appreciation for Villanova’s John Robertson after studying him on film all week.

After a first-round bye, Villanova (10-2) will host Liberty (9-4) in a Football Championship Subdivision playoffs at 4:30 p.m. Saturday.

Gill was a Heisman finalist and three-time all-Big Eight quarterback at Nebraska. His Liberty team earned the trip to Villanova Stadium after last week’s 26-21 win over yet another Colonial Athletic Association team, James Madison. That was the first FCS playoff game in Liberty history.

When asked to compare Robertson to himself, Gill didn’t hesitate.

Robertson, among three finalists for the Walter Payton Award, presented to the top FCS player, has thrown 34 touchdown passes and just three interceptions, while completing 67 percent of his passes for 2,629 yards. He has rushed for 978 yards (4.7 avg.) and nine touchdowns.

“He makes everybody around him better,” Gill said. “And it carries all the way over to the defensive side of the ball.”

Robertson is making his second playoff appearance. As a redshirt freshman, Villanova lost a first-round game at Stony Brook, 20-10.. Robertson feels his second time in the postseason will be different, especially after earning the bye.

“Two years ago we didn’t have a week off and the other team did and they seemed well rested and we didn’t,” he said.

Read more:
Robertson leads 'Nova in playoff opener vs. Liberty

Liberty vs James Madison Live Stream Watch Free HD HQ Online – Video

 Liberty  Comments Off on Liberty vs James Madison Live Stream Watch Free HD HQ Online – Video
Nov 302014
 



Liberty vs James Madison Live Stream Watch Free HD HQ Online
http://footballstreaming.pe.hu/

By: Clint Jones

Original post:
Liberty vs James Madison Live Stream Watch Free HD HQ Online – Video

.:.Now!James Madison vs Liberty Live Stream.Watch Online NCAAF Football – Video

 Liberty  Comments Off on .:.Now!James Madison vs Liberty Live Stream.Watch Online NCAAF Football – Video
Nov 302014
 



.:.Now!James Madison vs Liberty Live Stream.Watch Online NCAAF Football
http://bit.ly/1HDHzH5.

By: Donald Clint

Excerpt from:
.:.Now!James Madison vs Liberty Live Stream.Watch Online NCAAF Football – Video

Liberty wins playoff debut at James Madison

 Liberty  Comments Off on Liberty wins playoff debut at James Madison
Nov 302014
 

Harrisonburg, VA (SportsNetwork.com) – Liberty aspires to move up to the FBS level, but the Flames have taken a quick liking to the FCS playoffs.

In the first postseason game in program history, the Flames went across state to stun James Madison, 26-21, in the first round.

Big South co-champion Liberty (9-4) will visit another CAA Football team, sixth-seeded Villanova (10-2), in the second round next Saturday.

Coach Turner Gill’s program, which has sought a move to the FBS, won a strange playoff debut by jumping to a 10-0 lead in the second quarter, falling behind 21-10 by halftime and then scoring 16 unanswered points in the second half.

The winning points capped a 17-play, 85-yard, 11-minute drive in the fourth quarter. Fullback Nicky Fualaau scored on a 1-yard run to lift Liberty from a 21-20 deficit with 2:53 remaining.

James Madison (9-4) drove the ball to the Liberty 27, but on a fourth-down play, quarterback Vad Lee’s intended pass to Daniel Brown was broken up by Flames cornerback Kenny Scott.

Liberty committed four turnovers to JMU’s one, but held the ball for 39 minutes, 1 second. D.J. Abnar rushed for 69 yards and two touchdowns, and place-kicker John Lunsford had a 56-yarder among his two field goals. He has the three longest field goals in the FCS this season (60, 57 and 56).

Lee threw for 139 yards and one touchdown with an interception, adding 57 yards and a touchdown on the ground. Jauan Latney finished with 119 yards and a touchdown on 15 carries.

Safety Dean Marlowe added two interceptions for James Madison, which entered the matchup on a seven-game winning streak.

Read the original here:
Liberty wins playoff debut at James Madison

Liberty football team to face JMU in first round of FCS playoffs

 Liberty  Comments Off on Liberty football team to face JMU in first round of FCS playoffs
Nov 232014
 

LYNCHBURG, Va. –

The Liberty University football team will make its first-ever FCS playoff appearance on Saturday against James Madison University.

The game will be played at 4 p.m. at Bridgeforth Stadium in Harrisonburg. The game will be broadcast on ESPN3.

The winner of Saturdays Liberty-JMU game will travel to Villanova on Dec. 6 to take on the sixth-seeded Wildcats. The playoff field was announced Sunday morning.

Liberty (8-4) is making its first-ever NCAA FCS Playoffs appearance after upsetting No. 2/1 Coastal Carolina on Saturday in Conway, S.C.

JMU (9-3) has won seven-straight games and was an at-large selection. This is the Dukes first playoff appearance since 2011.

North Dakota State will begin its quest for its fourth straight FCS national championship as the No. 2 overall seed in the playoffs.

New Hampshire (10-1) earned the top seed in the 24-team tournament pairings released Sunday. The top eight seeds receive first-round byes.

The field includes 11 conference champions who automatically qualified and 13 teams with at-large bids. All games will be played at home sites starting Saturday, except the Jan. 10 championship game in Frisco, Texas.

North Dakota State (11-1) will play its first game Dec. 6 against the winner of South Dakota State and Montana State.

Read more:
Liberty football team to face JMU in first round of FCS playoffs

Chief Judge Wood and Judge Jordan on Madison and Money in Politics – Video

 Free Speech  Comments Off on Chief Judge Wood and Judge Jordan on Madison and Money in Politics – Video
Nov 132014
 



Chief Judge Wood and Judge Jordan on Madison and Money in Politics
How did James Madison think of free speech? What would he think of the amount of money in politics today? Chief Judge Diane Wood of the Seventh Circuit and Judge Kent Jordan of the Third Circuit…

By: NCC Video

See original here:
Chief Judge Wood and Judge Jordan on Madison and Money in Politics – Video

Repugnance: Stop Obeying Them if You Want to Win for Liberty (TAC006) – Video

 Liberty  Comments Off on Repugnance: Stop Obeying Them if You Want to Win for Liberty (TAC006) – Video
Oct 262014
 



Repugnance: Stop Obeying Them if You Want to Win for Liberty (TAC006)
According to James Madison, repugnance, in the form of disobedience that is, is essential for stopping the federal government. So if your response to federal overreach is voting bums…

By: Tenth Amendment Center

Originally posted here:
Repugnance: Stop Obeying Them if You Want to Win for Liberty (TAC006) – Video

Plain Talk: Robin Vos gets First Amendment religion

 Misc  Comments Off on Plain Talk: Robin Vos gets First Amendment religion
Oct 152014
 

Assembly Speaker Robin Vos insists he’s a big fan of the First Amendment.

That’s what the Republican legislator from Racine County said to justify his belief that corporations, businesses, labor unions or anyone else should be able to spend as much money as they want on political campaigns.

The Supreme Court’s controversial Citizens United decision, the one that declared that corporations have the same First Amendment rights as individual citizens, was spot on, the speaker declared as he and Assembly Minority Leader Peter Barca engaged in a debate before a packed WisPolitics.com luncheon last week.

Barca had just declared that the biggest threat to American democracy was the court’s decision that money equals speech. The Kenosha Democrat added that it’s critically important to overturn the decision that opened the floodgates to unlimited spending in political races.

But a smug and confident Vos, cocksure that Scott Walker would be re-elected governor and the Republicans would continue to control the Legislature after Nov. 4, was having none of it. He also declared that not only should corporations be able to give, the so-called independent issue groups should be able to collaborate with a candidate’s campaign as well. (That’s currently illegal under Wisconsin law and its alleged violation by Walker backers is behind the controversial John Doe investigation.)

I’m a huge believer in the First Amendment, he declared, as if there’s no question that the Founding Fathers intended to include corporations in the Bill of Rights.

It was interesting to learn that Vos suddenly had such respect for the constitutional amendment authored by James Madison to protect minority views from “the tyranny of the majority.” (It’s apparently hard for Vos and the 5-4 majority on the Supreme Court to admit that the Founding Fathers only mentioned individual American citizens in their deliberations.)

Vos is the same guy, after all, who has been a consistent defender of secret legislative caucuses and was behind the move to forbid the Governmental Accountability Board from allowing online access to campaign contribution disclosure forms filed by legislators.

He was also one of the instigators of tough rules to limit demonstrations in the State Capitol during and after the protests in 2011, including prohibiting cameras and other recording devices in the Assembly balconies.

But when it comes to corporations-as-citizens, he’s suddenly a firm believer in that First Amendment.

Original post:
Plain Talk: Robin Vos gets First Amendment religion

Extremism in defense of re-election

 Misc  Comments Off on Extremism in defense of re-election
Sep 112014
 

The point of this “improvement” of James Madison’s First Amendment is to reverse the Supreme Court’s 2010 Citizens United decision. It left in place the ban on corporate contributions to candidates. It said only that Americans do not forfeit their speech rights when they band together to express themselves on political issues through corporations, which they generally do through nonprofit advocacy corporations.

Shutterstock.com

Enlarge photo

WASHINGTON Since Barry Goldwater, accepting the Republicans’ 1964 presidential nomination, said “extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice,” Democrats have been decrying Republican “extremism.” Actually, although there is abundant foolishness and unseemliness in American politics, real extremism measures or movements that menace the Constitution’s architecture of ordered liberty is rare. This week, however, extremism stained the Senate.

Forty-eight members of the Democratic caucus attempted to do something never previously done amend the Bill of Rights. They tried to radically shrink First Amendment protection of political speech. They evidently think extremism in defense of the political class’s convenience is no vice.

The First Amendment as the First Congress passed it, and the states ratified it 223 years ago, says: “Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech.” The 48 senators understand that this is incompatible by its plain text, and in light of numerous Supreme Court rulings with their desire to empower Congress and state legislatures to determine the permissible quantity, content and timing of political speech. Including, of course, speech by and about members of Congress and their challengers as well as persons seeking the presidency or state offices.

The 48 senators proposing to give legislators speech-regulating powers describe their amendment in anodyne language, as “relating to contributions and expenditures intended to affect elections.” But what affects elections is speech, and the vast majority of contributions and expenditures are made to disseminate speech. The Democrats’ amendment says: “Congress and the states may regulate and set reasonable limits on the raising and spending of money by candidates and others to influence elections,” and may “prohibit” corporations including nonprofit issue advocacy corporations (such as the Sierra Club, NARAL Pro-Choice America and thousands of others across the political spectrum) from spending any money “to influence elections,” which is what most of them exist to do.

Because all limits will be set by incumbent legislators, the limits deemed “reasonable” will surely serve incumbents’ interests. The lower the limits, the more valuable will be the myriad (and unregulated) advantages of officeholders.

The point of this “improvement” of James Madison’s First Amendment is to reverse the Supreme Court’s 2010 Citizens United decision. It left in place the ban on corporate contributions to candidates. It said only that Americans do not forfeit their speech rights when they band together to express themselves on political issues through corporations, which they generally do through nonprofit advocacy corporations.

Floyd Abrams, among the First Amendment’s most distinguished defenders, notes that the proposed amendment deals only with political money that funds speech. That it would leave political speech less protected than pornography, political protests at funerals, and Nazi parades. That by aiming to equalize the political influence of persons and groups, it would reverse the 1976 Buckley decision joined by such champions of free expression as Justices William Brennan, Thurgood Marshall and Potter Stewart. The one reason President Harry Truman vetoed the 1947 Taft-Hartley Act was that he considered its ban on corporations and unions making independent expenditures to affect federal elections a “dangerous intrusion on free speech.” And that no Fortune 100 corporation “appears to have contributed even a cent to any of the 10 highest-grossing super PACs in either the 2010, 2012 or 2014 election cycles.”

Read the original here:
Extremism in defense of re-election

Second Amendment in real time boils down to politics

 Second Amendment  Comments Off on Second Amendment in real time boils down to politics
May 082014
 

Originally published May 7, 2014 at 7:05 PM | Page modified May 8, 2014 at 12:02 AM

History, politics and law are all tangled up in contemporary court interpretations and public understanding of the Second Amendment, and politics is the greater part of the mix these days.

Last week, I wrote that weve so misread the amendment that maybe we ought to get rid of it. Thats certainly not on the horizon, but the idea drew a strong response and suggested to me that a review of the amendments history might be helpful. (Some of the responses also reinforced my belief there are many people who should not be allowed anywhere near a gun. What does racist name calling have to do with gun rights anyway?)

One theme that ran through comments supportive of unrestricted gun-ownership rights was that it is necessary for individuals to own guns to protect themselves against both crime and the U.S. government, and that the framers of the Constitution intended for the amendment to protect that individual right.

Thats a new way of reading the amendment.

I heard from Michael Schein, an attorney who handles appeals and who taught American legal history for 15 years at the University of Puget Sound and Seattle University.

Dont blame the framers, he wrote. For 217 years, the law under the 2nd Amendment was that it only protected possession or use of a firearm by well-regulated militia forces. … It contained no right of personal self-defense until 2008, when the Supreme Court in a 5-4 vote brought that interpretation to its ruling in District of Columbia v. Heller, which limited the Districts gun-regulation law.

Wednesday I called Schein, and we talked about the amendments history and current interpretation. Its heavily politicized and wrapped up in peoples emotions, so its difficult to get to the facts underlying it in any objective way, he said.

The Constitution was written to create a more effective federal government, but some people worried the government would trample on the rights of states and individuals. The Bill of Rights was intended to mollify them and make ratification of the Constitution possible. Some were particularly concerned that the federal government would form a standing army, and they wanted assurances that state militias would be in a position to fight against such an army if it came to that.

James Madison was tasked with drafting the amendments. Some of the states had asked for a personal right in one amendment, but he didnt include that. Instead he used a version of Virginia law that dealt with militias.

See original here:
Second Amendment in real time boils down to politics

Weighing The Risks Of Warrantless Phone Searches During Arrests

 Fourth Amendment  Comments Off on Weighing The Risks Of Warrantless Phone Searches During Arrests
Apr 292014
 

hide captionThe Supreme Court is hearing arguments in two cases over whether law enforcement can search cellphones obtained at an arrest without a warrant.

The Supreme Court is hearing arguments in two cases over whether law enforcement can search cellphones obtained at an arrest without a warrant.

The U.S. Supreme Court hears arguments Tuesday in two cases testing whether police can search cellphones without a warrant at the time of an arrest, be it for a traffic violation or for a felony.

The Supreme Court has interpreted the Fourth Amendment ban on unreasonable searches to require that police obtain a search warrant from a neutral judge upon a showing that there is probable cause to believe a crime has been committed. The warrant is to specify where the search will be conducted and the evidence being sought.

There are, however, exceptions to the warrant requirement.

The court has long allowed police to search people without a warrant at the time of their arrest. But as privacy advocate Andrew Pincus points out, until very recently, those searches were self-limiting, meaning they were limited by the amount of information an individual could carry on his person.

Now, however, because cellphones can store so much information, a person can carry more than any one of the Founding Fathers had amassed in a lifetime.

“The Library of Congress’ entire collection of James Madison’s papers is 72,000 pages,” Pincus observes, adding, “he couldn’t have carried them. They would have weighed 675 pounds.” And, says Pincus, today’s cellphones carry 100 times that much information.

Indeed, the iPhone 5 in its smallest storage version keeps 800 million words of text, Pincus says. That’s enough to fill more than a football field’s length of books, or over 8,000 photos, 260,000 private voice mails and hundreds of home videos.

“It’s misleading to even think of them as phones,” says George Washington University professor Orin Kerr, an expert on technology and the law. They are “general purpose computers” that have a bunch of apps, one of which is the telephone function.

Here is the original post:

Weighing The Risks Of Warrantless Phone Searches During Arrests

February 4th Second Amendment Rally Announcement – Video

 Second Amendment  Comments Off on February 4th Second Amendment Rally Announcement – Video
Jan 272014
 



February 4th Second Amendment Rally Announcement
Delegate Smigiel Announces a pro-gun rally on February 4th at 11am on Lawyers Mall in front of the state capitol.

By: James Madison

See original here:
February 4th Second Amendment Rally Announcement – Video

SHOT Show 2014 – Niger Innis on the Second Amendment – Video

 Second Amendment  Comments Off on SHOT Show 2014 – Niger Innis on the Second Amendment – Video
Jan 232014
 



SHOT Show 2014 – Niger Innis on the Second Amendment
Niger Innis explains the importance of the second amendment.

By: James Madison

Excerpt from:
SHOT Show 2014 – Niger Innis on the Second Amendment – Video

NRA Testimony Exposes State Profiting Off Exercising the Second Amendment – Video

 Second Amendment  Comments Off on NRA Testimony Exposes State Profiting Off Exercising the Second Amendment – Video
Sep 282013
 



NRA Testimony Exposes State Profiting Off Exercising the Second Amendment
This AELR Committee Hearing took place 9-23-13.

By: James Madison

Go here to see the original:
NRA Testimony Exposes State Profiting Off Exercising the Second Amendment – Video




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