The Supreme Court: The Evolution of Free Speech
Michelle Lu Karn Dalal Sohyun Lee Helena Xie.
By: Michelle Lu
See the original post:
The Supreme Court: The Evolution of Free Speech – Video
The Supreme Court: The Evolution of Free Speech
Michelle Lu Karn Dalal Sohyun Lee Helena Xie.
By: Michelle Lu
See the original post:
The Supreme Court: The Evolution of Free Speech – Video
Morons Cheer Bill Maher: Fourth and Second Amendment 'Obsolete'
PROOF OF THE DUMBING DOWN OF AMERICA!!! Bill Maher Panel On Supreme Court Ruling On DNA.6/7/2013 Real Time.
By: StandUpFor FreedomLiberty
By Martin Finucane, Globe Staff
The states highest court has upheld a law that bars a person from getting a license to carry a gun if they have ever been adjudicated a juvenile delinquent because of committing a felony.
The Supreme Judicial Court rejected a claim by a man who has since become a minister, head of a Cambridge school, and a business owner, that the state law infringed on his Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms as outlined in two new US Supreme Court decisions.
We conclude that [the state law] does not burden conduct that falls with the scope of the Second Amendment, the Massachusetts court wrote.
To the contrary, the statute embodies a long-standing and well-recognized prohibition on the possession of firearms by a particular group of individuals those who have committed a felony and is clearly encompassed within the presumptively lawful regulatory measures that the US Supreme Court ruled in the recent decisions are allowable, the Massachusetts court said.
Chardins challenge to the statute is unavailing, and Massachusetts may continue to enforce its provisions to protect the health, safety, and welfare of its citizens, the Massachusetts court said.
The unanimous 25-page opinion in the case of Mirko Chardin v. Police Commissioner of Boston was written by Justice Francis X. Spina.
Go here to read the rest:
Mass. high court rejects Second Amendment challenge to state gun licensing law
ACLU commemorates anniversary of US Supreme Court decision on student free speech
The WikiPlays article ACLU commemorates anniversary of US Supreme Court decision on student free speech is composed of Creative Common Content. The Original Article can be location at en.wikinews…
The First Amendment broadly protects political speech and the use of resources (printing presses, the internet, money) to facilitate that speech. Yet when someone wants to engage in the most obvious kind of political speech supporting election campaigns the government is allowed to restrict this important constitutional right. In a new case coming to the Supreme Court, Shaun McCutcheon, a wealthy political donor, and the Republican National Committee contend that the limits on political donations are unconstitutionally low and not supported by a sufficient governmental interest.
Currently, an individual may contribute up to $2,500 per election to federal candidates, up to $30,800 per year to a national party committee, and up to $5,000 per year to any non-party political committee. The Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971, as amended most recently by McCain-Feingold in 2002, also imposes an overall limit on the aggregate amount one may contribute in a two-year period. For 2011-2012, an individual could contribute up to $46,200 to all federal candidates combined, and $70,800 to political action committees and political party committeesa total of $117,000.
Of course, this isnt the first time that the Supreme Court has dealt with contribution limits. In the seminal 1976 case ofBuckley v. Valeo, the Court held that while contribution limits implicate fundamental First Amendment rights, such limits are justified if theyre closely tied to an important governmental interest, such as preventingquid pro quocorruption or the appearance thereof.
But the Court also decided that restrictions on campaignspendingput a heavier burden on political expression, one which the government couldnt justify. One of the plaintiffs arguments here is that the biennial contribution limits are simultaneously a limit on expendituresa position which Cato elaborated in a newamicusbrief.
We argue thatBuckleys distinction between contributions and expenditures, with limits on the former but not the latter being constitutional, is problematic. Not only does it allow infringements on the freedom of speech, but it has led to an unbalanced and unworkable campaign finance system.
Various justices over the years, some even inBuckleyitself, have questioned the Courts logic on this point. Justice Thomas in particular has assailed the distinction, pointing out that both contributions and expenditures implicate First Amendment values because they both support political debate. Moreover, candidates must spend an inordinate amount of time fundraising instead of legislating because they face an unlimited demand for campaign funds but a tapered supply. At the same time, money has been pushed away from politically accountable parties and candidates and towards unelected advocacy groups, leading to a warping of and decrease in political competition.
The special three-judge district court that first heard this case was legally bound to the framework the Supreme Court laid out inBuckleyand restated that contribution limits are constitutional as such, dismissing the lawsuit. Still, Judge Janice Rogers Brown wrote that the constitutional line between political speech and political contributions grows increasingly difficult to discern.
In a truly free society, people should be able to give whatever they want to whomever they choose, including candidates for public office. We urge the Supreme Court to strike down the biennial contribution limits and give those who contribute money to candidates and parties as much freedom as those who spend money independently to promote campaigns and causes.
The Supreme Court will hear argument inMcCutcheon v. FEC this fall.
MONTGOMERY, AL (WSFA) –
Freedom Riders for Voting Rights will arrive in Montgomery Wednesday afternoon, ending a two-day pilgrimage across Mississippi and Alabama. Their journey will culminate on the steps of the Alabama State Capitol, where they say they’ll hold a news conference to discuss the continuing struggle for voting rights. Since Tuesday, they have beentraveling by bus to ten sites where someone fighting for the Voting Rights Act of 1964 was killed.
The pilgrimage is called “Never Again, Never Forget”. It was planned in response to the current US Supreme Court caseShelby County, Alabama v. Holder, et al., an Alabama case that seeks to strike down Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act. It’s a provision that requires states with a history of discrimination at the polls to get federal permission before making any changes in how they conduct elections, no matter how small. Shelby County attorneys argue that times have changed and the law is outdated, so this provision should be taken out. The Freedom Rider’s want to keep Section 5 in place. They are making this Pilgrimage to make their voices heard.
“We wantto send a message to the Supreme Court that we want section 5 of the Voting Rights Act kept alive. We want it kept because it is the pre-clearance section. We need to send a message to the President, to the Congress, and to the Supreme Court that we will not be silent when they are trying to take away voting rights.” said Mayor Johnny Ford of Tuskegee.
The Supreme Court ‘s decision is expected sometime in May or June. The bus rides were organized by member organizations of the National Coalition of Leaders to Save Section 5. Their news conference is expected at 4:00 Wednesday afternoon.
Copyright 2013 WSFA 12 News. All rights reserved.
Follow this link:
Freedom Riders send Voting Rights message to US Supreme Court
WASHINGTON – The Supreme Court is wrestling with the First Amendment implications of a policy that forces private health organizations to denounce prostitution as a condition to get AIDS funding.
Here is the original post:
Supreme Court takes up First Amendment dispute over anti-prostitution pledge for AIDS funding
The Supreme Court said on Monday that it wont consider a case that would clarify the right to own a firearm outside the home for lawful purposes such as self-defense.
The petition in the case of Kachalsky v. Cacace asked the Supreme Court to rule on two questions: Does the Second Amendment permit handguns for self-defense outside the home? And, do state officials violate the Second Amendment by denying handgun carry licenses in certain cases?
The writ of certiorari petition for the case was backed by the Second Amendment Foundation. The justices, as the process works at the court, didnt disclose why they declined to hear the case.
Five New Yorkers brought the case to court after they were denied permits to carry their handguns in public. That states law requires people who want to carry a concealed handgun to prove they have a special reason before getting a license.
Alan Gura, an attorney involved with two other gun-related cases that were heard by the court, was on the legal team seeking a date in front of the nine justices. He had publicly said before the courts decision on Monday that the case was a threat to the Second Amendment.
The New York law is in complete conflict with the idea that people enjoy a Second Amendment right to bear arms, Gura said in a pre-decision story from USA Today.
Gura was part of the team that argued the landmark District of Columbia v. Heller case in 2008.
The Heller ruling established that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.
That right, however, was not found by the court to be absolute.
In 2010, the court ruled in McDonald v. Chicago that those rights extended to individual states through the 14th Amendment.
See more here:
Supreme Court passes on Second Amendment test case
With gun control in the news, Lyle Denniston looks at the argument that a new constitutional amendment would be the only way to satisfy groups on both sides of the issue.
Opinion polls suggest that a majority recognize a right to bear arms, subject to reasonable regulations protecting public safety. This strong dual commitment, if clarified and entrenched in our Constitution, could reassure most, though not all, of us. Before you mock the idea of a constitutional amendment, consider that hardly anyone is happy with our unstable status quo: gun enthusiasts fear their rights are under constant threat; gun control advocates point to the danger of illegal guns and easy access to firearms. A new gun-rights amendment would need to articulate a basic consensus that would let both sides claim victory.
Zachary Elkins, a government professor at the University of Texas, in an op-ed column April 5 in The New York Times, Rewrite The Second Amendment: The fight over gun rights can be settled with a constitutional change.
checkIn the 222 years since the Bill of Rights was added to the Constitution, Americans in every generation have toyed with the idea of adding more amendments. At any given point, at least a handful of proposed changes circulate in the body politic. And yet, only 17 additional amendments have actually made it into the Constitution.
There are a couple of lessons in this history. One of them, in fact, can be found in a phrase that Professor Elkins wrote at the end of his column: the need for a basic consensus before an amendment can succeed. Another is that, since 1803 and the Supreme Court decision in Marbury v. Madison, Americans have more or less trusted the Supreme Court to provide change when it was deemed truly necessary.
And, if the Supreme Court got it wrong, contradicting some basic consensus prevailing across the country, the formal process of amendment under Article V has been available to make the correction. Indeed, six of the 17 amendments since 1791just about a thirdwere added for just that purpose.
It is important to note, though, that only two of those were quick in coming: the 11th Amendment, reinforcing state sovereignty, came just two years after a ruling by the justices in 1793, and the 26th Amendment, guaranteeing 18 as the minimum age for voting in all elections, came within about a year after a 1970 decision.
The other four responses to the court had to simmer for some timeone might say until a basic consensus had formed. Those were the three post-Civil War amendments (the 13th, 14th, and 15th), not added until at least eight years after the courts decision in Dred Scott v. Sandford, and the 16th Amendment, allowing an income tax, 18 years following the courts decision in Pollock v. Farmers Loan and Trust Co..
Judicial reviewthe notion that the job of interpreting the Constitutions formal meaning is better performed as a judicial than a political functionis now widely accepted in America, although not universally. One thing clearly to its credit is that it has prevented the Constitution from ballooning into a huge document that reflects every passing fancy in politics, without any sense of lasting value. Free people need to know what the constitutional rules are, and frequent changes in the basic rules add too much uncertainty.
Professor Elkins plea for a clarifying amendment for the Second Amendments guarantee of a right to keep and bear arms is based largely on his argument that the Supreme Court has not yet adopted fixed doctrine on what the Second Amendment means. That is his view of the justices 2008 decision in District of Columbia v. Heller. Its unsettled nature, he suggests, was due to the 5-4 vote in that case.
Wiz Khalifa Type Beat – Beaches (Prod. by @sosupremebeats)
twitter: @sosupremebeats Email me: email@example.com Prod. by So Supreme Beats -Ignore- Chris Brown, Ludacris, Lil Wayne and Kanye Mr. Carter Feat. Ja…
By: So SupremeBeats
By Erin McClam, Staff Writer, NBC News
Republican lawmakers in North Carolina have introduced a bill declaring that the state has the power to establish an official religion a direct challenge to the First Amendment.
One professor of politics called the measure the verge of being neo-secessionist, and another said it was reminiscent of how Southern states objected to the Supreme Courts 1954 integration of public schools.
The bill says that federal courts do not have the power to decide what is constitutional, and says the state does not recognize federal court rulings that prohibit North Carolina and its schools from favoring a religion.
The bill was introduced Monday by two Republican representatives from Rowan County, north of Charlotte, and sponsored by seven other Republicans. The party controls both chambers of the North Carolina Legislature.
The two lawmakers who filed the bill, state Reps. Harry Warren and Carl Ford, did not immediately return calls Wednesday from NBC News.
The American Civil Liberties Union sued last month to stop the Rowan County Commission from opening meetings with Christian prayers. One of those prayers declared that there is only one way to salvation, and that is Jesus Christ, the ACLU said.
The bill does not specify a religion.
The North Carolina ACLU chapter said in a statement Tuesday that the sponsors of the bill fundamentally misunderstand constitutional law and the principle of the separation of powers that dates back to the founding of this country.
North Carolina scholars also cast doubt on the bill.
Newswise A group of some of the countrys top scholars in First Amendment law recently gathered at Washington University in St. Louis to discuss pressing challenges being faced by the first of our Bill of Rights. Three issues rose to the top of the list for Washington Universitys first amendment experts: free expression in a digital age; impaired political debate; and weakened rights of groups.
John Inazu, Greg Magarian and Neil Richards, professors of law at Washington University in St. Louis, comment:
John Inazu Breakdown of the rights of expressive groups
One of the most important recent issues is the Supreme Courts unwillingness to recognize the distinctive rights of the First Amendment and the ways in which those rights complement and reinforce one another, he says.
In a troubling trend, the Court increasingly collapses the rights enumerated in the First Amendment into a framework that emphasizes the moment of expression to the detriment of the background contexts from which expression emerges.
For example, the Courts doctrine of expressive association focuses on whether groups further some other First Amendment purpose like speech or political or religious activity. Butmany associations exist for other than expressive purposes: dinner groups, bowling leagues, sororities, intramural spots teams, chess clubs. These groups may not appear to be explicitly expressive, but they create a space where relationships foster, ideas form, and thoughts emerge.
Gregory Magarian Impaired political debate
First Amendment law plays a large role in enabling robust public political discussion, he says.
In particular, expressive freedom can help to generate dynamic political change. Current First Amendment doctrine, however, has many features that flatten political debate and impair dynamic change.
The Supreme Courts campaign finance and government speech doctrines, for example, constrain participation in political discussions while narrowing the range of ideas that those discussions take into account. Meanwhile, the Court ignores important threats to political dissent, such as law enforcement crackdowns on political activists and suppression of speech by nominally private authorities. In an age when our political discourse has grown both more acrimonious and less informative, we sorely need for the Court to reconsider its priorities and revise some essential doctrines.
Read the rest here:
Three Challenges for the First Amendment
Italian Supreme Court Hears Challenge to Amanda Knox's Freedom
Knox faces appeals court for overturned conviction in 2007 murder of roommate Meredith Kercher.
BELLINGHAM In 1965, three teenage students in Des Moines, Iowa, walked into school wearing black armbands to mourn those killed on both sides of the Vietnam War and support Sen. Bobby Kennedys call for a Christmas truce.
They were suspended from school.
The students sued the school district, saying it had violated their First Amendment rights to free speech. The case made its way to the Supreme Court, which ruled 7-2 that students and teachers do not shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate.
One of the students in that case is Mary Beth Tinker, who is currently touring schools around the country to tell her story.
I made a difference with just an armband. Can you imagine what a shy 13 year-old-girl could do today with all of the extraordinary speech tools available? Tinker writes on her tour website after recounting the school board meetings, death threats and legal appeals leading up to the Supreme Court decision. We look forward to reminding her and sharing real-life stories about how students are keeping the First Amendment alive.
Tinker will be at Western Washington University at 2 p.m. Thursday in room 125 of the Communications Facility. Her presentation is open to the public.
While in Washington, Tinker also will visit Ferndale High School and the Washington Journalism Education Associations state conference.
This is an important moment in the history of our country, especially for youths, who are naturally creative and hopeful, but too often feel discouraged, Tinker writes. They need to hear stories of young people throughout history and today who bring the Constitution to life and make a difference. And we need to hear from them as well.
Reporter Gina Cole: 360-416-2148, firstname.lastname@example.org, Twitter: @Gina_SVH, facebook.com/byGinaCole
Read the original here:
First Amendment advocate to speak at WWU
Canadas highest court has upheld the nations hate-speech laws as a reasonable limit on freedom of expression.
In a 6-0 decision, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled that some flyers distributed by Bill Whatcott, a resident of Weyburn, Sask., promoted hatred against gays and lesbians a decision that reaffirms existing laws as a debate rages over the right to free speech and the rights of minorities to be free of discrimination and hatred.
But the court also reined in the ruling that was under appeal. The Saskatchewan Human Rights Tribunal had ordered Mr. Whatcott to pay $17,500 to people who complained about four flyers he distributed in the province in 2001 and 2002 and banned him from distributing similar material. It declared that the first two flyers promoted hatred but that the remaining two did not rise to that level, although it still deemed them offensive.
The ruling follows high-profile controversies in recent years over complaints to human-rights tribunals, which critics call a chill on free speech. Some argue that people with views society finds repugnant should be ignored, or countered through free debate, not prosecuted. Groups opposing racism and homophobia say hate speech does real harm to vulnerable groups.
Civil liberties groups and Mr. Whatcotts lawyer had also asked the court to strike down a key ruling from 1990 that legally defined hatred and affirmed the right of provincial human-rights tribunals to penalize people for hate speech, a move that would likely have forced tribunals in Saskatchewan, Alberta and B.C. and for the federal government to stop policing hate speech. The Supreme Court declined to do so.
The tribunals conclusions with respect to the first two flyers were reasonable. Passages of these flyers combine many of the hallmarks of hatred identified in the case law, the court said in its ruling. The expression portrays the targeted group as a menace that threatens the safety and well-being of others, makes reference to respected sources in an effort to lend credibility to the negative generalizations, and uses vilifying and derogatory representations to create a tone of hatred.
The Supreme Court also ruled that vague wording in Saskatchewans hate law, which bans speech that ridicules, belittles or otherwise affronts the dignity of, was constitutionally invalid. It said that the provinces law should apply only to the Supreme Courts previous definition of hate: strong and deep-felt emotions of detestation, calumny and vilification. This echoes previous Saskatchewan court rulings.
The court, however, decided to strike calumny from its definition, saying it was unnecessary because hate speech need not be false, and that the word is rare in everyday vocabulary.
Reached at his home in Weyburn on Wednesday, Mr. Whatcott, a born-again Christian who says he found religion after an early adulthood of drugs, crime and homosexuality, vowed to produce more pamphlets taking issue with the Supreme Courts ruling and spreading his other views. And he offered no apology for the pamphlets at the centre of the case, one of which warned that homosexuals were aiming to spread filth in public schools.
Certainly in the court of heaven, which is where I am looking now, that stands, he said. The fact that this court has said that its illegal to say that stuff, theyre wrong.
See the original post here:
Supreme Court ruling upholds limits on free speech in case involving anti-gay proselytizer
TV9 Breaking: SC Extends Stay on Veerappan Aides' Hanging by Six Weeks
TV9 Breaking: Supreme Court Extends Stay on Veerappan Aides' Hanging by Six Weeks…., Hanging of four aides of sandalwood smuggler Veerappan has been further delayed with the Supreme Court today extending its interim order staying the execution of death sentence imposed on them for killing 22 police personnel in a landmine blast in Karnataka in 1993. A Bench headed by Chief Justice of India Altamas Kabir said it was keeping the matter pending since another Bench, which has heard an identical plea, has reserved its judgement. “In our view, the proper course of action is to adjourn the matter until another bench renders its judgement on similar matters. Therefore, accordingly we adjourn the hearing of this matter for six months to enable another Bench to deliver the judgement in another pending matter. “As a consequence, the interim order staying the execution of petitioners (Veerappan aides) passed on February 18 shall continue” until further orders, the bench also comprising justices AR Dave and Vikramajit Sen said. The Bench noted that the subject matter of the petition was relating to the right of the death row convicts to get their sentence commuted to life imprisonment on account of delay of execution of their death sentence. “This is the main question involved when this matter was taken by us. It was brought to our notice that other writ petitions involving the same issue were heard by a bench of two judges in which senior advocates Ram Jethmalani and TR …
The Vishwaroopam episode is a case of hecklers veto, or use of law to muzzle free expression.
The use of law to bully people into silence, called hecklers veto, is not unique to India.
Freedom of expression in India is under threat. This year we have the Tamil Nadu governments ban on Vishwaroopam, the Ashis Nandy FIR, the smothering of Kashmirs first all girls rock bands music, and the removal of semi-nude paintings of Hindu deities from an art gallery upon the polices suggestion. Another Rushdie-banning controversy is upon us, and yet another Facebook users arrest has made the news.
Clearly, our right to freedom of expression is under an ongoing siege. The onslaught comes in varied forms: bullying by members of society, informal government action with the overhanging threat of the law, and direct use of the law (and of a variety of legislations within it). Each form is encouraged, exacerbated even, by our problematic interpretation of freedom of expression principles. Our law allows a group of intolerant people to silence a speaker by creating a threat to public order or by threatening the speaker directly, and our state is proving utterly ineffectual in protecting speech from intolerance.
Indias first Kashmiri all-girls band is tragic proof of horizontal attacks on speech their music was silenced by the grandmuftis declaring it un-Islamic, and the attendant social pressure that tends to follow. They were not protected from this horizontal attack. The Palghar incident also had echoes of horizontal pressure, which was used to directly bully Shaheen Dhada, via friends advising her to apologise and strangers slapping her, before the instrument of the law was used to bully her further.
The instrument of the law can be used in invisible, informal ways, as Bangalores Chitrakala Parishath incident illustrates. Here, the pressure of police suggestion, carrying the implied threat of the force of the law, was used to ensure that semi-nude paintings of Hindu deities were removed from an exhibition. It appears that this police suggestion was motivated by the fear that those paintings could trigger law and order problems.
Vishwaroopam was banned using the law, specifically section 144 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which empowers the government to issue orders in urgent cases of nuisance or apprehended danger. However, orders issued under section 144 would still need to observe the boundaries drawn for it in Article 19(2) of the Constitution.
Some may argue that controversial or offensive speech can legitimately be restricted since public order is one of the grounds for which our Constitution permits the restriction of the freedom of expression. However the original text of the Constitution did not include public order among its permissible grounds for restriction. This was inserted in the First Amendment of the Constitution, but was fortunately accompanied by the word reasonable before restriction, thus ensuring that the freedom of expression can only be reasonably restricted under the exceptional circumstances listed in the Constitution.
This insertion of public order came after the Supreme Courts invalidation of government pre-censorship of speech on public order grounds in Romesh Thapar v. State of Madras (1950), declaring that the Constitution required that nothing less than endangering the foundations of the State or threatening its overthrow could justify curtailment of the rights to freedom of speech and expression. Therefore, Parliament amended the Constitution to expand the grounds on which the state could restrict speech, and included public order among the expanded grounds. The trouble with this is that the intolerant are now able to create a public order problem to silence speakers.
The Supreme Court of India, in Babulal Parate vs State Of Maharashtra (1961) found that public order must be maintained in advance in order to ensure it, and ruled that restriction of Article 19 freedoms of expression and assembly in the interests of public order is permissible. However, all such restrictions must continue to satisfy the reasonability test laid down in the Constitution, providing our judiciary with the opportunity to ensure that intolerance does not continue to oppress speech.
Here is the original post:
Freedom of expression gagged
Devegowda Undertakes Padhyatra For Cauvery Water
Former Prime Minister HD Devegowda on Tuesday undertook a padhyatra in the city demanding drinking water to the metropolis, which depends on Cauvery river. Hundreds of women with empty plastic buckets joined him in his march from Banappa Park to Freedom Park, highlighting the drinking water problems being faced by people. Gowda voiced displeasure over release of Cauvery water to Tamil Nadu when there is scarcity to meet drinking water needs. “At least two-third of Bangalore depends on Cauvery for drinking water requirements. Drinking water has always got priority from all tribunals,” Gowda said. Gowda, accompanied by Anita Kumaraswamy, MLA, also his daughter-in-law,later submitted a memorandum to Chief Minister Jagadish Shettar to ensure drinking water to the city. Last week the Supreme Court had ordered Karnataka to release 2.44 tmc ft of water to Tamil Nadu, despite the distress situation and the state complied with it.
See the rest here:
Devegowda Undertakes Padhyatra For Cauvery Water – Video
House Gun Violence Prevention Task Force Chair Rep. Mike Thompson on Tuesday released documents from constitutional experts and groups seeking to prevent gun violence that highlight that laws aimed at reducing gun violence and respect for the Second Amendment are not mutually exclusive.
The documents were released in advance of Tuesdays Senate Judiciary Subcommittee hearing on the constitutionality of gun violence prevention legislation.
They include a letter signed by more than 50 constitutional law experts written and organized by leading members of the American Constitution Society and a memo commissioned by the Center for American Progress and the Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence.
As a hunter and gun owner, I believe that we should protect the Second Amendment right of law-abiding individuals to own firearms. I will never give up my guns and I will never ask law-abiding individuals without a history of dangerous mental illness to give up theirs. Not only am I personally against this, but the Constitution wouldn’t allow it, said Thompson (D-St. Helena).
Thompson said that in District of Columbia v. Heller, the Supreme Court affirmed once and for all that Americans have an individual right to keep and bear arms. As a dad and grandfather, I also believe that we have a responsibility to make our schools, streets and communities safe. Constitutional experts agree: we can do both.
Justice Scalias opinion in the Heller case makes clear that Americans have a constitutional right to have a handgun in their homes for self-defense. And, the case makes equally clear that reasonable laws designed to keep military-style weapons off our streets and keep all guns from felons, domestic abusers, and the seriously mentally ill are constitutional, said Arkadi Gerney, a Senior Fellow at the Center for American Progress.
The courts opinion reflects the view of the vast majority of the American people, who agree that supporting the rights of responsible, law-abiding Americans goes hand-in-hand with doing more to fight gun crime, Gerney added.
American Constitution Society President Caroline Fredrickson lauded the statement as a succinct, but significant, contribution to the discussion over measures to curb gun violence.
Regardless of some of the overwrought claims emanating from those opposing any new gun regulations, this letter clearly explains why sensible and limited regulations to curb gun violence do not violate the individual right to bear arms, Fredrickson said. There is no effort afoot to shred the Second Amendment, only discussion of ways to address gun violence without violating constitutional rights.
Said Robyn Thomas, executive director of the Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence, The Supreme Court made it clear in Heller that, while the Second Amendment protects the right of law-abiding individuals to possess firearms for self-defense in the home, that right does not interfere with the ability of Congress, states and cities to enact smart gun laws. Because there is no constitutional impediment to common sense proposals aimed at reducing gun violence, such as universal background checks, banning dangerous assault weapons and high-capacity magazines, and cracking down on gun traffickers, Congress has an important opportunity right now to enact new laws that we know will save lives.
SELF TALK PT. 2 WITH DR.NEB HERU trade; SUPREME NUNOLOGIST trade; @ THE ETERNAL TEMPLE OF NUN trade;
Listen to Supreme Nunologist Dr. Neb Heru speak about the “Power of Self Talk”! Visit The Eternal Temple of Nun trade; for more information about “Nunology trade;” (www.nupu-nun.com) Nunology trade; – Transforming Your Life from “inside out”! Law of Attraction, Dr Oz, the secret, amazing things, inspiration, confidence, the power of, thinking positive, Illuminati exposed, hot 97, jay z, tupac, biggy, kayne west, beyonce, power of word, motivation, malachi york, dr blair, nuwaubians, lil wayne, rick ross, drake, abraham, ester hicks, wake up, motivational speech, positive, brain tracey, occult, freemason, AMORC, Melchizdek, Obama, ATL
By: DrNeb Heru
See the original post here:
SELF TALK PT. 2 WITH DR.NEB HERUâ„¢ SUPREME NUNOLOGISTâ„¢ @ THE ETERNAL TEMPLE OF NUNâ„¢ – Video
Sign up below for the Prometheism / Designer Children Discussion Forum