Scene 7 – Levin's “Liberty Amendment” for Congress to Override the Supreme Court
Scene 7 – Levin's “Liberty Amendment” for Congress to Override the Supreme Court
Police Kill Free Speech in San Antonio Cops
To The Police: You Are NOT The Enemy (Unless You Choose to Be.) – KNOW YOUR RIGHTS – http://policecrimes.com/police.html – The Supreme Court recommends you D…
Here is the original post:
Police Kill Free Speech in San Antonio Cops – Video
A constitutional melee has erupted at Purdue University in Indiana, which is under fire from a donor for deleting religious language from an honorary plaque against his wishes.
Lawyers for Purdue alumnus Michael McCracken say the public university is violating his First Amendment rights by refusing his request that a reference to Gods physical laws be included on a plaque in a conference room named after his parents.
The university agreed to install the plaque located in a new research building with an inscription of his choosing after Mr. McCracken and his wife made a pledge of $12,500 to Purdues School of Mechanical Engineering, according to a letter sent by his attorneys to a university attorney last week.
Mr. McCracken, who earned a Ph.D. in mechanical engineering from Purdue, asked that the conference room be named after his parents and requested that the plaque state: To those who seek to better the world through the understanding of Gods physical laws and innovation of practical solutions. In honor of Dr. William Ed and Glenda McCracken, according to the letter, written by Robert Kelner, a partner at Covington & Burling LLP.
Purdue rejected the language, claiming that the generic and nonsectarian reference to Gods physical laws amounted to an impermissible government endorsement of religion, according to Mr. Kelner. The plaque that was installed mentioned only Mr. McCrackens parents, he said.
The Universitys current position violates the McCrackens First Amendment rights, wrote Mr. Kelner in his letter. Mr.McCracken is also represented by the Liberty Institute,a conservative legal group.
The university didnt respond to a request for comment Monday. Purdues legal counsel told the Indianapolis Star in a statement that while Purdue has a great deal of understanding and sympathy for the disappointment of the McCracken family, it doubts thatthe courts would find this private speech as the donors counsel argues.
The universitys lawyer also expressed concern that if Purdue were to grant Mr. McCrackens request, the university would face lengthy and expensive litigation that would wipe out the value of this donation many times over.
Citing a 1995 First Amendment ruling handed down by the Supreme Court, Mr. Kelner wrote in his letter: The Supreme Court has made clear that private religious speech, far from being a First Amendment orphan, is as fully protected under the Free Speech Clause as secular private expression. By refusing to allow the McCrackens to refer to God on the plaque, the University has impermissibly prohibited private religious speech while at the same time permitting secular private expression in other plaques and forums.
Mr. Kelner said that in late January he suggested a different wording that would make it clearer that the university isnt endorsing the religious language on the plaque. It would read instead:
See the original post:
University in First-Amendment Clash With Donor Over Reference to God on Plaque
Former Supreme Court Justice Stevens Wants To Re Write The Second Amendment
Former Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens wants to add wording to the second amendment. Wording that would drastically change its meaning. The big quest…
By: JmanPrepper Redux
Inside Key Supreme Court Decisions – First Amendment
Advocacy group 99Rise.org secretly records a protester interrupting the Supreme Court. This is a portion of their video. Supreme Court expert Sean Parnell re…
Monster Hunter Freedom Unite | Episode 101 | High Rank | Supreme Ruler Of The Swamp
The bulldrome is so annoying Next Episode: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AZpix_c0u0Y Previous Episode: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v_clKHG2r8A.
The publisher did what had to be done about Donigers book. Now lets make space for free expression
Ever since news broke of Penguin Indias agreement to withdraw The Hindus: An Alternative History by Wendy Doniger, writers, academics and readers have been crying foul and shooting the publisher. This reflexive round has succeeded in catapulting the issue of free speech to primetime news and page one. But continuing to target Penguin is unfair and undesirable.
In the battle for expanding free speech, it is now time for a round of review and reflection.
On rewinding the tape, we see that the publisher has been neither saint nor sinner. Penguin erred in publishing the Indian edition, but the vociferous criticism has been of its withdrawal.
The first argument is that the publisher should have waited for the court order and, if necessary, appealed to the higher courts. Indeed, if the author or publisher felt the book was legal, they should have done just that.
But what if they felt the book was illegal, which is what they seem to imply when blaming Section 295A of the Indian Penal Code?
When people say, The book might be legal. How did Penguin conclude it was illegal? they ignore the everyday publishing environment in which acquisitions editors routinely reject manuscripts they believe are illegal; they do not wait for court orders.
But just as officials take bribes in the hope that they will not get caught, editors occasionally cross the line and publish what they know to be illegal. Recall Donigers recent statement: Penguin India took this book on knowing that it would stir anger in the Hindutva ranks.
It thus appears that the publisher felt the book would offend the religious beliefs of a section of Hindus, and still published it, thereby arguably violating the letter of the law.
True, Penguins assessment is subjective. Another publisher who feels the book does not offend religious feelings can publish The Hindus and, if challenged, take the matter to the Supreme Court because legal battles are fought between parties who dispute whether a book is legal, not between those who agree that a book is illegal.
Dont shoot the penguin
This article appeared on The Blaze on February 21, 2014. Until the Supreme Court ruled in the 2008 case of District of Columbia v. Heller that the Second Amendment protects the right to armed self-defense, many lower courts gave this important provision short shrift.
Read the rest here:
The Second Amendment Case the Supreme Court Must Take
It has not been a good week for free speech in India. First, there was Penguin Indias decision to withdraw Wendy Donigers The Hindus from circulation, under legal pressure from fringe right-wing groupsmuch criticized in the media. Fresh on its heels followed Reporters Without Borders annual report, which placed India at a damning 140th place out of 180 countries in terms of press freedoms. Yet even as free speech liberals attempt to regroup, and take stock of a deteriorating situation, there is yet another lawsuit winding its way through the Calcutta High Court, which could have devastating consequences for the independent press in India.
In December, Sahara India initiated a libel lawsuit against Mint Journalist Tamal Bandyopadhyay for his yet to be released book, Sahara: The Untold Story. On December 10, the Calcutta High Court judge stayed the release of the book. Initial indications do not look good for Bandyopadhyay and his publishing house, which has also been made a party to the suit. After reproducing one impugned paragraph, the Judge observed, Prima facie, the impugned materials do show the plaintiffs in poor light.
It is interesting that the impugned paragraph in question specifically states that the allegations it makes are unverified: More such incredible tales abound about Sahara, none that could be substantiated, is the precise wording of the sentence. How the case for libel can be made out even after that express disclaimer is unclear. But what is truly staggering is the amount Sahara is claiming in damages: Rs. 200 crore! It is an amount that no journalist can afford to pay, and one that would drive most publishing houses out of business. (Although the facts are different, the amount is reminiscent of the Rs 100 crore a Pune Court ordered Times Now to pay in damages, for a fifteen-second clip wrongly showing Justice P.B. Sawants photograph in a story about a scam, back in 2011).
It would be bad enough if this was a one-off case. It is particularly alarming, however, because it fits into a larger pattern: the blatant abuse of libel and defamation laws by corporations and individuals in positions of power, to silence critical voices. Hamish McDonalds The Polyester Prince, chronicling the rise of Dhirubhai Ambani, was not published by HarperCollins in India, after legal pressure. Just last month, Bloomsbury agreed to withdraw Jitender Bhargavas The Descent of Air India, a book highly critical of then-aviation minister Praful Patels role in the downfall of the airline, and apologized to Patelagain, under threat of a defamation suit. And now this.
The trend is obvious, and its implications can hardly be understated. Not only do Indians lose access to important books examining the workings of power and capital in India, the nexus between politics and industry, and other similar issues of vital public interestbut the inevitable effect, as incidents such as these pile upwill be pervasive self-censorship by journalists. Who would want to risk a 200-crore lawsuit, to be contested against a corporation with unlimited resources? And if public debate on these matters is killed, we will be much poorer for it.
Is there a solution? Yes, there is. It lies with the Courts, and it is called the rule in New York Times v. Sullivan.
It is a rule that has been favourably referred to by the Supreme Court in some of its free speech cases, and in the last decade, by the Delhi High Court. Yet if there was ever a time to end the ambiguity, and incorporate it directly into Indian law, the time is now, when press freedoms stand at a critical crossroads.
In many respects, New York Times v. Sullivan presented a similar fact situation: the use of libel law by a powerful actor, in an attempt to stifle reporting on a critical issue of national importancethe American Civil Rights movement. On March 29, 1960, the New York Times carried an advertisement that described some of the actions of the Montgomery Police force against civil rights protesters. The advertisement carried some factual inaccuracies. For instance, it stated that Martin Luther King had been arrested seven times, whereas he had actually been arrested only four times. It mentioned an incident in which students had been padlocked into a hall to starve them into submission, which actually hadnt happened. And so on. On the basis of these factual inaccuracies, Sullivan, Montgomery Public Safety Commissioner sued for libel. The Alabama Court awarded him damages of 50,000 dollars. New York Times appealed to the Supreme Court. The stakes could not have been higher, because a victory for Sullivan would have led to a slew of similar lawsuits against the New York Times, that would probably have driven it out of business, and made it extremely difficult for other newspapers to report freely on the widespread suppression of civil rights protesters in the American South. Indeed, the respected American free speech scholar, Anthony Lewis, observed that libel laws were the Souths tool of choice to ensure that public opinion would not be swayed by aggressive investigative reporting of police brutality.
The American Supreme Court, in one of its most famous decisions of all time, held in favour of the New York Times. In words that have echoed in the annals of free speech history, Justice Brennan noted:
We consider this case against the background of a profound national commitment to the principle that debate on public issues should be uninhibited, robust, and wide-open, and that it may well include vehement, caustic, and sometimes unpleasantly sharp attacks on government and public officials.
See original here:
California Gun Case Sets Stage for Second Amendment Showdown at Supreme Court
California Gun Case Sets Stage for Second Amendment Showdown at Supreme Court.
By: 1 Rajshree
Second Amendment At Stake – Supreme Court Hearing Crucial Gun Right Case – Judge Andrew Napolitan
Second Amendment At Stake – Supreme Court Hearing Crucial Gun Right Case – Judge Andrew Napolitano===========================================**Please Cli…
Read more from the original source:
Second Amendment At Stake – Supreme Court Hearing Crucial Gun Right Case – Judge Andrew Napolitan – Video
Second Amendment At Stake – Supreme Court Hearing Crucial Gun Right Case – Judge Andrew Napolitano
Second Amendment At Stake – Supreme Court Hearing Crucial Gun Right Case – Judge Andrew Napolitano =========================================== **Please Cl…
By: Mass Tea Party
Schenck vs United States: US History Review
Do you have an absolute right to free speech? The Supreme Court gives it 1919 answer. Learn the basics about the must-know US History Supreme Court Case chal…
By: Keith Hughes
Originally posted here:
Schenck vs United States: US History Review – Video
How Supreme Court justices are leaning in abortion clinic free speech case
How Supreme Court justices are leaning in abortion clinic free speech case The U.S. Supreme Court heard arguments in a free-speech case involving how close p…
JUDY WOODRUFF: Free speech and abortion rights clashed today at the Supreme Court.
NewsHour correspondent Kwame Holman starts with some background.
KWAME HOLMAN: The case grew out of complaints by anti-abortion demonstrators at this Planned Parenthood clinic in downtown Boston.
MAN: If you look at that yellow line, it actually puts us out on the street, so we’re apt to get hit by a car or a bus or whatever.
KWAME HOLMAN: That painted yellow line marks a 35-foot buffer zone required by Massachusetts law since 2007 at sites where abortions are performed. Crossing it could mean two-and-a-half years in prison for a protester, although no one has been prosecuted under the law.
Seventy-six-year-old Eleanor McCullen leads the fight to overturn the law and attended today’s arguments. She says the restriction stifles the free speech rights of abortion opponents trying to dissuade women from going inside.
Supreme Court opens cases on campaign money, abortion
ELEANOR MCCULLEN, plaintiff: They want to stop, but they — they — they want to go in too. They have an appointment. And they’re mixed up, and if I just had another like two minutes or three minutes, that’s all I need, but when I’m cut off, it’s very, very frustrating.
KWAME HOLMAN: The Massachusetts attorney general, Martha Coakley, answers that the law lets protesters have their say, while protecting clinic clients and staff from harassment.
Chicago Police First Deputy Superintendent Alfonsa Wysinger, second from left, speaks at a news…
Since the death of communism in most of the places where it once prevailed, North Korea and Cuba function mainly as educational exhibits for an irrelevant and unsuccessful ideology. When it comes to the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms, the city of Chicago fills a similar role.
The city is famous for some of the strictest gun laws in the country. In 1982, it approved a near-total ban on handguns. In 1992, it outlawed “assault weapons.” Mayors and aldermen never tired of railing against firearms.
In 2008, when the Supreme Court struck down a handgun ban in Washington, D.C., it was clear that Chicago was on what liberals often refer to, in other contexts, as the wrong side of history. But the people in City Hall were either not smart enough or not honest enough to make peace with change. They preferred to emulate the cavalry troops in “The Charge of the Light Brigade,” who rallied to the call “Charge for the guns!” despite the certainty of defeat.
In the 2008 verdict, the justices said the Second Amendment upholds an individual right to possess firearms for self-defense. But the city fought a legal challenge to its handgun ban only to lose, predictably, in the Supreme Court.
Besides being a legal and policy setback, it was a loss for taxpayers, who had to pay not only the cost of defending the ordinance but the cost of challenging it. Chicago was obliged to pay $1.4 million to the National Rifle Association, which won the lawsuit.
Did this expensive indignity persuade Mayor Richard M. Daley to abandon the fight? Ha. He pushed through a new ordinance intended to demonize and discourage gun ownership as much as he could get away with which, as became apparent, was not very much.
The measure required gun owners to get at least five hours of training, including one hour at a shooting range. In a novel twist, though, it outlawed “shooting galleries, firearm ranges or any other place where firearms are discharged.” The city claimed proper training is vital while hindering residents from getting it.
This section prompted another lawsuit, which argued that the right to own a gun for protection was of limited value if owners had no chance to achieve and maintain proficiency in using one and that they shouldn’t have to leave the city to comply with the city’s very own rules. A federal appeals court agreed.
Judge Ilana Rovner said, “The ordinance admittedly was designed to make gun ownership as difficult as possible.” But she noted pointedly that the Supreme Court has upheld “the Second Amendment right to possess a gun in the home for self-defense and the City must come to terms with that reality.”
Go here to read the rest:
Chicago fights gun rights, and loses
The Second Amendment (Amendment II) to the United States Constitution protects the right of individual Americans to keep and bear arms regardless of service in a militia. The right is not unlimited and does not prohibit all regulation of firearms and similar devices.State and local governments are limited to the same extent as the federal government from infringing this right. The Second Amendment was adopted on December 15, 1791, as part of the first ten amendments comprising the Bill of Rights.
The Second Amendment was based partially on the right to keep and bear arms in English common-law and was influenced by the English Bill of Rights of 1689. Sir William Blackstone described this right as an auxiliary right, supporting the natural rights of self-defense, resistance to oppression, and the civic duty to act in concert in defense of the state.
In United States v. Cruikshank (1876), the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that, “The right to bear arms is not granted by the Constitution; neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence” and limited the applicability of the Second Amendment to the federal government. In United States v. Miller (1939), the Supreme Court ruled that the federal government and the states could limit any weapon types not having a reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia.
In the twenty-first century, the amendment has been subjected to renewed academic inquiry and judicial interest. In District of Columbia v. Heller (2008), the Supreme Court handed down a landmark decision, expressly holding that the amendment protects an individual right to possess and carry firearms. In McDonald v. Chicago (2010), the Court clarified its earlier decisions limiting the amendment’s impact to a restriction on the federal government, expressly holding that the Fourteenth Amendment applies the Second Amendment to state and local governments to the same extent that the Second Amendment applies to the federal government. Despite these decisions, the debate between the gun control and gun rights movements and related organizations continues.
There are several versions of the text of the Second Amendment, each with capitalization or punctuation differences. Differences exist between the drafted and ratified copies, the signed copies on display, and various published transcriptions. The importance (or lack thereof) of these differences has been the source of debate regarding the meaning and interpretation of the amendment, particularly regarding the importance of the prefatory clause.
One version was passed by the Congress,
As passed by the Congress and preserved in the National Archives:
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
As ratified by the States and authenticated by Thomas Jefferson, then-Secretary of State:
A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
Go here to see the original:
Second Amendment to the United States Constitution – Wikipedia …
1.7 How has the Supreme Court interpreted the First Amendment over time?
Got a minute? Take a second or two each day and listen to a quick tutorial from the 2 Teachers. Listen as they discuss every salient topic in American govern…
The Supreme Court violated the First Amendment this morning
Sign up below for the Prometheism / Designer Children Discussion Forum