Supreme Court & First Amendment

A supreme court is the highest court within the hierarchy of many legal jurisdictions. The First Amendment (Amendment I) to the United States Constitution is part of the Bill of Rights. 5.0/5

Supreme Court First Amendment Citizens United United States Barack Obama Stolen Valor Act Chief Justice John Federal Election Commission United States Constitution President Obama North St New York Establishment Clause Stolen Valor Hobby Lobby New York Times

The 1989 Supreme Court case of Texas v. Johnson disagrees with you sir, as well as the First Amendment
27 years ago, the Supreme Court ruled that burning the flag is protected by the First Amendment. Scalia agreed. https:…
A 1989 Supreme Court decision, Texas v. Johnson, said burning the flag is a protest protected by the First Amendment
Without the doctrine of fair use, copyright law would run afoul of the First Amendment. That's what the Supreme Court says…
Supreme Court to decide if Gov't Censorship of Hateful trademarks violates the First Amendment. It does.
"Shame on the U.S. Supreme Court for Making a Mockery of the First Amendment" by John W. Whitehead. Shame on the... ht…
Struck down by the Supreme Court - First Amendment protection. Liberty means freedom to act like low class scum.
In Roth v. United States, the Supreme Court ruled that obscenity is not protected by the First Amendment - know for the exam.
there is a Supreme Court case ruling that it is protected under the first amen…
What if the Supreme Court had decided Roe V. Wade in terms of the First Amendment, as a matter of Religious Freedom?
Supreme Court turns down high school rapper’s First Amendment case. Background:
.and will appear before the Supreme Court to defend hip-hop:
Supreme Court revokes First Amendment rights of Center for Medical Progress.
Protest ban on plaza in front of Supreme Court doesn't violate First Amendment freedom of speech, appeals court says.
Supreme Court renders decisions on First Amendment: Watch Video | Listen to the AudioJUDY WOODRUFF: Today at t...
Supreme Court to determine whether denial of Confederate flag logo on Texas license plate violates First Amendment
 border=
Supreme Court takes another dump on the First Amendment. Source:
Citizens United was a great Supreme Court decision. It protected the First Amendment.
When the Supreme Court decided the Citizens United case, there was a great hue and cry from both Democratic politicians and the public. The Court had ruled that corporations are persons within the meaning of the First Amendment, and that they have the right to political free speech. Political free speech, in America, means the freedom to bribe candidates for office and elected public officials. Political bribery is the means special interests and Big Business employ to ensure that legislators vote their way. That they get special tax treatment. That their industries aren't too regulated. That they get sweetheart contracts from government. That consumers and employees do not gain enough power to impact business. Political bribery is what makes the US a fascist country. Fascism isn't stiff-arm salutes and goose-stepping troops. It is the merger of corporate and government power. And it is no more in evidence anywhere on Earth than in the halls of the US government. So long as Congressional limitations on po ...
Youngest Appointed Supreme Court Justice: “The Real Object of the First Amendment was…” - Sons of Liberty Media
BREAKING: Senate moves forward on Constitutional Amendment to overturn Citizens United(!) Moments ago, the Senate voted to move forward on a measure overturning Citizens United. We can hardly believe it! Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, 558 U.S. ___ (2010), (Docket No. 08-205), is a U.S. Constitutional Law case dealing with the regulation of campaign spending by corporations. The United States Supreme Court held that the First Amendment prohibits the government from restricting independent political expenditures by corporations. The principles articulated by the Supreme Court in the case have also been extended to labor unions and other associations.
Wall Street is one of the biggest sources of funding for presidential campaigns, and many of the Republican Party's potential 2016 contenders are governors, from Chris Christie of New Jersey and Rick Perry of Texas to Bobby Jindal of Louisiana and Scott Walker of Wisconsin. And so, last week, the GOP filed a federal lawsuit aimed at overturning the pay-to-play law that bars those governors from raising campaign money from Wall Street executives who manage their states' pension funds. In the case, New York and Tennessee's Republican parties are represented by two former Bush administration officials, one of whose firms just won the Supreme Court case invalidating campaign contribution limits on large donors. In their complaint, the parties argue that people managing state pension money have a First Amendment right to make large donations to state officials who award those lucrative money management contracts. With the $3 trillion public pension system controlled by elected officials now generating billions ...
The tempest over Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker's alleged illegal campaign uses of dark money -- money solicited by shadow political front groups that don't have to report their real donors -- is the tip of an iceberg of political corruption across American politics that will only become worse unless and until we have: (1) legislation requiring full disclosure of all political donations; (2) a Constitutional Amendment specifying money is not speech and corporations are not people under the First Amendment; and (3) public financing ($2 of public money for every $1raised from small donors) of all general elections. It would be bad enough if 400 billionaires didn't now receive more income than the bottom half of the entire American population each year, and the typical American weren't on a downward economic escalator. But the combination of this increasingly savage inequality with a Republican-dominated Supreme Court and the tide of dark money now engulfing politics is ushering in an era of oligarchy such ...
Former Pennsylvania senator Rick Santorum has a First Amendment lesson for Senate Democrats who want to undo the Supreme Court's Hobby Lobby ruling.
Tuesday, the Supreme Court announced it will take another major Religious Liberty case, this one for its next term, which begins on October 6th. Reed v. Town of Gilbert is a case brought by Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF), a First Amendment challenge to the town’s ordinance denying churches the rig…
Happy 4th to everyone, Military past and present, and the founder of Penthouse. He defended First Amendment rights when the Supreme Court wouldn't, fought tirelessly for Veterans during the Vietnam War when many Americans hated and spat on their own countrymen in uniform, and he put Helen Miren in a soft core period piece. Bob Guccione was a great American.
PARTING SHOT... I think the ACLU got it best in its reaction to yesterday’s Supreme Court decision on contraception: “A Win for Hobby Lobby is a Loss for Everyone Else.” This is, in fact, one of the worst decisions in the history of the court, a total affront to the Constitution, and a slap in the face to our Founding Fathers. Think about it. The court said a corporation can break the law – and deny access to certain kinds of Health Care coverage to its employees – if its owners say it’s against their religion. There’s so much wrong with that, it’s hard to know where to start. Never before have Americans been allowed to use their faith as an excuse for breaking the law. What if their religion thinks speed limits are wrong? And just because the boss believes something – doesn’t mean he can force his religious views on all of his employees. What’s most shameful about this decision is that those justices – Scalia, Thomas, and company - who say we have to be true to the Constitution ...
The long-awaited ruling by the Supreme Court dealing with Hobby Lobby came down. I did not find any surprises in this ruling. I agree that they ruled correctly, but it doesn’t solve many of our problems. The biggest problem is that government is more than an instrument of issuing mandates. As they do this, of course, they diminish liberty. There was a time when governments were supposed to protect liberty, and minimize any of the mandates on the people. Unfortunately, the majority of the American people actually agree with the Supreme Court. They think that women have a right to free birth control. I strongly disagree with that. The Supreme Court ruling actually ignored the whole principle of rights. They did not use the First Amendment to justify what they’re saying. They used the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1990. Indirectly it was related to the First Amendment, but I don’t even agree that this is a religious issue as much as a property rights issue and a contract issue. Some of the techn ...
President Obama has said h will bypass Congress again and use his exertive power to give Amnesty to illegal immigrants. this in spite of the fact that in the last 10 days the Supreme Court "He was found to be in violation of the Fourth Amendment on privacy, then another case found him in violation of separation of powers. Now he's been found in violation of religious rights in the First Amendment" in the Hobby Lobby case, said Jonathan Turley Professor Jonathan Turley is a nationally recognized legal scholar who has written extensively in areas ranging from Constitutional Law to legal theory to tort law. He has written over three dozen academic articles that have appeared in a variety of leading law journals at Cornell, Duke, Georgetown, Harvard, Northwestern, and other schools Turley, who teaches at George Washington University, agrees with much of President Barack Obama's political positions, but fears Obama is moving the United States toward a system in which the president's power is unchecked by Congr ...
CALL, CALL, CALL, AND SHARE EVERYWHERE Slowly making its way through the Senate without too much notice is a joint resolution (S.J.Res. 19), sponsored by Tom Udall and enjoying the vocal support of Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, that would rewrite the founding document of our country in ways never before imagined. The bill is short, only one page, but the few words printed there are devastating. Udall’s resolution proposes an amendment to the U.S. Constitution that would give Congress the authority to regulate political speech, in direct contradiction to the First Amendment. Despite the fact that Supreme Court has repeatedly ruled that spending on political campaigns is classified as protected speech, Democrats in Congress continue to regard money in politics as a great threat to our Democracy—at least when it comes from individuals and non-profit groups rather than labor unions and lobbyists. Still, this bill goes farther than previous efforts to restrict spending, in that it does not target only ...
Texas v. Johnson, 491 U.S. 397 (1989), was a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States that invalidated prohibitions on desecrating the American Flag enforced in 48 of the 50 states. Justice William Brennan wrote for a five-justice majority in holding that the defendant Gregory Lee Johnson's act of flag burning was protected speech under the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. Johnson was represented by attorneys David D. Cole and William Kunstler. Gregory Lee "Joey" Johnson, then a member of the Revolutionary Communist Youth Brigade, participated in a political demonstration during the 1984 Republican National Convention in Dallas, Texas. The demonstrators were protesting the policies of the Reagan Administration and of certain companies based in Dallas. They marched through the streets, shouted chants, and held signs outside the offices of several companies. At one point, another demonstrator handed Johnson an American Flag stolen from a flagpole outside one of the targeted buil ...
 border=
In a Blow to Freedom of the Press, U.S. Supreme Court Refuses to Protect Reporter from Obama Administration Prosecution Over Refusal to Reveal Sources June 05, 2014 WASHINGTON, D.C. — In a severe blow to the First Amendment guarantee of freedom of the press, the U.S. Supreme Court declined earlier this week to hear the case of New York Times reporter James Risen, a Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist who writes about national security issues and is being targeted by the Obama Administration for refusing to reveal a confidential source. By refusing without explanation to hear Risen’s case, the Supreme Court leaves the field open for the Obama Administration to pursue contempt charges against Risen, including potential jail time. Despite repeated declarations championing the importance of a free press and “investigative journalism that holds government accountable,” President Obama’s administration has been unrelenting in its pursuit and persecution of journalists to such an extent that Risen called ...
WASHINGTON, DC – This morning the U.S. Supreme Court, in a unanimous decision, ruled that the national pro-life group Susan B. Anthony List (SBA List) has standing to continue its First Amendment challenge to Ohio’s “false statement” law. SBA List President Marjorie Dannenfelser and attorneys in cas…
CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS The U.S. Supreme Court could rule any day on the decade's most significant Religious Liberty case -- but that doesn't mean conservatives are just twiddling their thumbs waiting for it. Instead, House Republicans are moving forward with a debate of their own -- working to protect the First Freedom of everyone from cake bakers to company owners. Thanks to Judiciary Subcommittee Chairman Bob Goodlatte (R-Va.), the issue finally took a turn in the legislative spotlight in a special Tuesday hearing of the Subcommittee on the Constitution and Civil Justices. Conservative stalwarts like Reps. Louie Gohmert (R-Texas), Randy Forbes (R-Va.), and Steve King (R-Iowa) tried to rebuff this modern (and misguided) take on the "wall of separation" and its place and meaning in history. "In America," Rep. Trent Franks (R-Ariz.) explained, "every individual has the right to Religious Freedom and First Amendment expression so long as they do not deny the constitutional rights of another. True tolerance d ...
By T̶e̶d̶ ̶C̶r̶u̶z̶   Jeremy Lett For two centuries there has been bipartisan agreement that American democracy depends on free speech. Alas, more and more, the modern Democratic Party has abandoned that commitment and has instead been trying to regulate the speech of the citizenry. We have seen President Obama publicly rebuke the Supreme Court for protecting free speech in Citizens United v. FEC; the Obama IRS inquire of citizens what books they are reading and what is the content of their prayers; the Federal Communications Commission proposing to put government monitors in newsrooms; and Sen. Harry Reid regularly slandering private citizens on the Senate floor for their political speech. But just when you thought it couldn't get any worse, it does. Senate Democrats have promised a vote this year on a Constitutional Amendment to expressly repeal the free-speech protections of the First Amendment. You read that correctly. Forty-one Democrats have signed on to co-sponsor New Mexico Sen. Tom Udal ...
In its ruling yesterday in Town of Greece v. Galloway, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the right of Americans to pray in the public square, including legislative prayer. The chaplain of the United States Senate opens each legislative day with a prayer, usually appealing for wisdom and clarity. I think we all agree that Washington needs more of both, and this long-standing tradition of opening in prayer traces back to America’s earliest days. I agree with Justice Kennedy, who said that the tradition of public prayer exists to unite, not divide. As a nation that cherishes the First Amendment, we must not sacrifice the Constitutional right to practice faith in the public square in the name of Political Correctness. Religious Liberty is a core American principle, and efforts to constrain and restrict the exercise of religion and freedom of speech must be opposed.
Radio Show: Tue, May 6th, 6-9a PT/9-noon ET, Call-in 888-77-JESSE (5-3773) Hard times for the Christians and the whites: Do we get what we deserve for timidity and silence? HOUR 1: First Amendment lessons needed for public school teachers in Florida and Texas who banned 2nd and 5th graders from reading Bible during “free reading” time. HOUR 2: GUEST: Robin Abcarian of Los Angeles Times: Pasadena City College re-invites Oscar-winning radical homosexual Dustin Lance Black after dis-inviting local anti *** church pastor. HOUR 3: BEHIND THE HEADLINES: Update: Russia on verge of invading Ukraine? Supreme Court pro-prayer. Obama “weaponizing comedy” at WH Correspondents Dinner. Do “African Americans” care more about punishing white Americans than saving black Africans?
In cases raising First Amendment claims, a new study found, Justice Scalia voted to uphold the free speech rights of conservative speakers at more than triple the rate of liberal ones. So what are we supposed to do with a Supreme Court that is as infallible as the Pope? In an era of complete data on everything, shouldn't there be some sort of measurement of justices like Scalia that disciplines them, or even removes them? Check this out:
In recent years, the U.S. Supreme Court has waged a war on the First Amendment of the United States Constitution...
It’s time to applaud the Supreme Court! The Supreme Court has decided to uphold voluntary prayers at government meetings, overturning a previous Federal Court decision that struck down prayers as an unconstitutional mixing of church and state. Ralph Reed hails the decision as “a victory for the First Amendment and for the Religious Liberty of all Americans.” Read how the Faith & Freedom Coalition will use this to amplify their efforts:
I applaud today’s 5-4 Supreme Court decision in favor of the Town of Greece, which will allow our nation to continue to be a place where people from around the world can come to escape religious persecution and pray within their communities as they see fit. It has been clear from the beginning that the Town of Greece did not violate the United States Constitution, which is why I signed an Amicus Curiae brief in support of the Town of Greece last August. The Town of Greece welcomed prayer from people of all backgrounds and beliefs. That practice embodied one of the core principles our nation was founded on — the freedom of religious expression without fear of government action. Today's decision is a victory for First Amendment advocates throughout our country.
The Supreme Court just ruled in a 5-4 decision that the town of Greece, New York did not violate the First Amendment's Establishment Clause by holding a prayer at monthly town board meetings.
Senate Democrats said Wednesday that the Supreme Court has stretched the First Amendment too far when it comes to campaign finances, and vowed to hold a vote to amend the Constitution and undo a number of landmark decisions.
Alabama Supreme Court Chief Justice Roy Moore told a crowd at Pastor for Life Luncheon recently that the First Amendment should be properly understood to apply to Christians, as the Founders understood it as referring to a creator god, which eliminates Buddhism and Islam.
Appointed to the Supreme Court by James Madison, the person who introduced the First Amendment, Justice Joseph Story commented on it in his Familiar Exposition of the Constitution of the United States, 1840: "The real object of the First Amendment was not to countenance, much less to advance Mohammedanism (Islam), or Judaism, or infidelity, by prostrating Christianity, but to exclude all rivalry among Christian sects and to prevent any national ecclesiastical establishment which should give to a hierarchy the exclusive patronage of the national government."
1st Amendment Festival/College Civics Week! • Monday, May 5, 12-1:30, SURC 137a-b: Congressman Dave Reichert speaks at the Showcase of Action, sponsored by the Center for Leadership & Community Engagement, highlighting the vast array of civic projects students have participated in over the past year. • Tuesday, May 6, SURC 137a-b, 5:30-7, Your Government, Your Records, Your Meetings. This Open Government forum, led by the Washington Coalition for Open Government, is an important primer for students, faculty, community members and Local Government officials to understand their rights and responsibilities under Washington’s sunshine laws. • Wednesday, May 7: 5:30-7, SURC Theatre: Mary Beth Tinker, who was expelled from junior high for wearing a black armband to protest the Viet Nam War, will tell the story of her landmark Supreme Court case, which set the high water mark by which most other student First Amendment cases are judged, and will urge students to use their rights to speak out on today’s ...
Chaparral Motorsports OEM Parts Up To 25% off
“Once again, the U.S. Supreme Court has shown itself to be an advocate for the government, no matter how illegal its action, rather than a champion of the Constitution and, by extension, the American people. No matter what the Obama Administration may say to the contrary, actions speak louder than words, and history shows that the U.S. government is not averse to locking up its own citizens for its own purposes. What the NDAA does is open the door for the government to detain as a threat to national security anyone viewed as a troublemaker. According to government guidelines for identifying domestic extremists—a word used interchangeably with terrorists, that technically applies to anyone exercising their First Amendment rights in order to criticize the government.”--John W. Whitehead, president of The Rutherford Institute and author of "A Government of Wolves: The Emerging American Police State," on the US Supreme Court's refusal to hear a legal challenge to the indefinite detention provision of th ...
Chris O'Mahoney discusses how the Supreme Court recently declined to review Delaware Coalition for Open Government, Inc. v. Strine, which held that the Court of Chancery’s private business dispute arbitration program was unconstitutional as it violated the First Amendment right of public access
There is a valid and constitutional argument to be made that the president may refrain from defending and enforcing laws that he believes are palpably and demonstrably unconstitutional. These arguments go back to Thomas Jefferson, who refused to defend or enforce the Alien and Sedition Acts because, by punishing speech, they directly contradicted the First Amendment. Jefferson argued that when a law contradicts the Constitution, the law must give way because the Constitution is the supreme law of the land and all other laws are inferior and must conform to it.This argument is itself now universally accepted jurisprudence -- except by President Obama, who recently and inexplicably questioned the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court to invalidate the Affordable Health Care Act on the basis that it is unconstitutional.
The Ayatollahs of the Supreme Court appear to be highly skeptical of laws that try to police false statements during political campaigns. They expressed such concerns many times Tuesday during the arguments in a case that challenges an Ohio law that bars people from making reckless and false statements about candidates seeking office. "What's the harm?" asks Justice Stephen Breyer. "There's a serious First amendment issue with a state law that requires you to justify what you are going to say", says Ayatollah Anthony Kennedy. Magic. Money is people and all statements are true and false simultaneously. What's the harm indeed little Stevie. ((this story comes from this mornings issue of the Press Democrat and was picked up from the Associated Press. ...but they could be lyin' too))
Today the Supreme Court restored slavery. Writing for the majority, Chief Justice Roberts noted that buying slaves was a form of free speech protected by the First Amendment.
Auctions instead of Elections Projo Editorial THE LATEST RULING by the U.S. Supreme Court, striking down “aggregate limits” relating to political campaign funding has led to a complete reversal of contribution laws, enacted in the aftermath of Watergate to prevent rich Americans from buying votes. The Supreme Court in McCutcheon v. Federal Election Commission struck down the overall limits on campaign contributions, though it did not touch the limit (of $2,600 per election) on individual contributions to presidential or congressional candidates. Led by Chief Justice John Roberts and four other conservative justices, the court said the overall limits intrude on a citizen’s ability to exercise the most fundamental First Amendment activity. Justice Clarence Thomas, the most conservative member of the court, said he would have gone further and removed all restrictions on political contributions. Critics have, however, slammed the judgment, arguing that this would encourage political corruption on an unh ...
(This article was featured in the April 10th edition of the Long Island Herald)   Is your freedom of speech your freedom to spend your own money? It is according to the Supreme Court. Last Wednesday, by a vote of 5-4, the court threw out the aggregate limit, currently $123,200, on what any individual can give to all federal candidates and political committees over a two-year election cycle. The vote was split, with the conservative justices in the majority. “Those caps infringe on First Amendment free-speech rights,” Chief Justice John Roberts stated, “and aren’t justified by the public interest in fighting political corruption.” In the 2012 election, both President Obama and Mitt Romney collected well over $1 billion in campaign contributions. Here in New York, on both the federal and state level, we are seeing millions of dollars being raised by individuals and interest groups to ensure political victories. While the Supreme Court tossed out the aggregate limit on what one person ...
With McCutcheon decision before the Supreme Court, the Left signals fascist, collectivist and utilitarian standards for evaluating First Amendment freedoms, completely abandoning libertarian liberty standards. Josh Blackman, for instance, notices Justice Breyer's "reasoning" which included a citation of Rousseau, the French thinker barely registering upon the Constitution's framers: "I wonder, and fear, that Breyer’s opinion may signal a shifting trend in broader thought on free speech on the left. With respect to speech, modern-day liberalism seems to be drifting away from protecting free speech, and more towards state-imposed equality" in speech.
The failure of the "Great Society." About the same time LBJ was pushing expansion of the Welfare State, "Roe" decided the preborn no longer had human rights. Nothing in politics happens by accident. Why do you think nothing ever seems to change for the better in DC? Because the Middle Class is the target. Because the Middle Class are Christian. And our government is shot through and through with Communists who hate Capitalism for its successes in the past. Capitalists can't compete when the Middle Class is robbed of dignity, robbed of life. So Capitalists become crooks just to keep their corporations moving at all. Like a drug, corruption needs more corruption to get a "hit." Once the system is on a downward spiral, the Communist vultures land for a feast. It's no accident that Christian corporations are right now standing before the US Supreme Court asking that their First Amendment rights be upheld. How many Middle Class jobs are at stake if these Christian corporations, these Christian PEOPLE lose thei ...
Back to the Swift Boat. The Supreme Court today rendered its decision in McCutcheon v Federal Elections Commission, and held that some caps on contributions to political campaigns violate the First Amendment right to free speech, and in so doing effectively allow the rich to spend more on campaigns than had been allowed. While this is only an expansion of the holding in Citizens United, it presents yet another incursion on the honesty of the election process. John Kerry, the current Secretary of State, ran for president in 2004, and used his military record as the commander of a Swift Boat in the Viet Nam war as part of his experience which would qualify him for the position. A group of Swift Boat veterans came out against Kerry, and disparaged his record in an advertising campaign, by making up "facts" which were simply not true. But the damage was done through these false ads, and it is believed that these Swift Boat ads contributed to his defeat. With today's McCutcheon decision, as with Citizens U ...
Paula Priesse 19 hours ago March 25th – “Sebelius v. Hobby Lobby,” the case argued in front of the Supreme Court today, asks this question: Regarding Religious Freedom, does a corporation have the same First Amendment right as an individual? Hobby Lobby thinks it does, as owners David & Barbara Green are strongly opposed to being forced to provide Health Care coverage that offers certain methods of contraception. But Marcia Greenberger of the National Women's Law Center disagrees, saying there's a “clear government interest” in providing women full contraception coverage. Ms. Greenberger, there’s a “clear government interest” in preventing Americans from going hungry. That’s why there’s EBT cards. But private companies are not federally mandated (yet) to provide groceries for their employees. Hobby Lobby is not restricting a woman’s access to birth control, as all legal forms of contraception will still be readily available. But Obamacare should never compel a private business to vio ...
We have got to smack down the evil Obama Administration for violating our First Amendment rights. If the Supreme Court won't do it, then we have to come up with other ways. Today's Democrat Party is nothing more than a criminal front organization masquerading as a political party.
Please PRAY for our Supreme Court. Today they are hearing a landmark case that will affect every American. Below is my editorial published by the Washington Post yesterday. Please read it, like it, and share it with everyone today. This is a critical day for your freedom. Religious Freedom IS AMERICA’S FIRST FREEDOM Does our Constitution guarantee the freedom of religion, or does it merely allow a more limited freedom to worship? The difference is profound. Worship is an event. Religion is a way of life. Specifically, does the First Amendment guarantee believers of all faiths the freedom to practice their ethics, educate their children and operate family businesses based on their religious beliefs, moral convictions and freedom of conscience? Do Americans have the freedom to place our beliefs and ethics at the center of our business practices — or must we ignore them when we form a company? These questions will be brought before the Supreme Court on Tuesday. The outcome of Sebelius v. Hobby Lobby will ...
The End of Religious Liberty? Newt Gingrich is right to warn us of the threat to Religious Freedom in America. A coming Supreme Court case will test our dedication to the free exercise of religion. By Peter Roff March 21, 2014 Comments SHARE Never one to mince words, former U.S. House Speaker Newt Gingrich said recently that Americans may soon find their ability to exercise the religious liberties they have long enjoyed severely curtailed. “I think we’re in grave danger of losing our liberty and losing our Religious Liberty,” the former speaker of the House told The Foundry, published by The Heritage Foundation. “I think it’s inconceivable that you could argue that the First Amendment doesn’t mean what the First Amendment says." His remarks are tied at least in part to the coming date on which the United States Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in cases where the doctrine of Religious Liberty is being tested against the abortion mandates in the new Health Care law championed by President ...
When the Supreme Court hears two landmark cases about birth control on Tuesday, few observers doubt that Justice Antonin Scalia's sympathies will be the Catholic business owners who charge that the mandate violates their religious liberties. The Reagan-appointed jurist is a devout Catholic who has extolled "traditional Christian virtues" and insists the devil is "a real person." He even has a son who's a Catholic priest. He voted in 2012 to wipe out Obamacare in its entirety and has been President Barack Obama's most outspoken foe on the Supreme Court. And yet, Scalia's past jurisprudence stands contradictory to the argument for striking down the Obamacare rule in question, which requires for-profit employers' insurance plans to cover contraceptives (like Plan B, Ella and intrauterine devices) for female employees without co-pays. In 1990, Scalia wrote the majority opinion in Employment Division v. Smith, concluding that the First Amendment "does not require" the government to grant "religious exemptions" ...
Save up to 45% 0ff MSRP On Harley Tires
Separation of Church and State? Yes, Indeed! “Congress shall make no law regarding an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” First Amendment of the Bill of Rights, United States Constitution. For nearly 200 years this Amendment was recognized for what it is, a PROHIBITION against the government’s meddling in religion in any way. It was NEVER intended to restrict citizen’s Rights. However, in 1962 (Engel v Vitale), the US Supreme Court ruled that this Amendment called for the “separation of church and state.” This has led to a rash of harsh regulations on how Christians can live in America. In public schools children have been punished for saying words such as “Jesus” and “God,” or saying grace before eating in the cafeteria. Bibles are banned. Christmas songs are forbidden, etc. Christians are attacked in movies, on TV and in books in ways that would never be tolerated against African-Americans, Moslems or Homosexuals. How any honest or decent person co . ...
The Supreme Court of the United States this morning denied the Easton School District's petition for certiorari and thus let stand the Third Circuit's en banc ruling that two middle-school girls had the First Amendment right to wear "I ♥ Boobies!" bracelets at school to promote breast cancer awarene...
People lying about military service face new peril By Kate Irby , McClatchy Washington Bureau WASHINGTON — Pretend military heroes could face up to a year in prison under the latest version of the "Stolen Valor Act," which President Barack Obama signed into law Monday. It’s a bill similar to one the Supreme Court deemed unconstitutional last year. Congress passed the original version in 2005, making it illegal to claim falsely certain military awards or honors, such as the Congressional Medal of Honor, in any setting. The U.S. Supreme Court struck it down on First Amendment grounds, saying lies were a protected form of free speech. The Stolen Valor Act of 2013, however, has one key difference that sets it apart from the 2005 version: It likens the lie to fraud and makes it illegal to claim falsely military honors for the purpose of obtaining “money, property or other tangible benefit.” “I’m pleased that the valor and integrity of our military awards, along with the men and women who have ear . ...
A federal appeals court on Tuesday ruled that North Carolina’s attempt to offer a “Choose Life” license plate and not provide an abortion-rights alternative was unconstitutional. The ruling is the third time one of the Republican-led General Assembly’s abortion laws has been struck down over the past three years. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit ruled in a 3-0 opinion written by Judge James Wynn of North Carolina. “Chief amongst the evils the First Amendment prohibits are government ‘restrictions distinguishing among different speakers, allowing speech by some but not others,’ ” Wynn wrote, quoting the U.S. Supreme Court decision on campaign financing known as Citizens United. “In this case, North Carolina seeks to do just that: privilege speech on one side of the hotly debated issue – reproductive choice – while silencing opposing voices.” The ruling came in a lawsuit filed against the state by the American Civil Liberties Union of North Carolina Legal Foundation. ...
Sen. Chuck Schumer has had a bee in his bonnet ever since 2010, when the Supreme Court ruled in its Citizens United decision that independent campaign expenditures by third- party groups are protected under the First Amendment. In a recent speech, the New York Democrat came out swinging against the…
Today is the fourth anniversary of the Supreme Court decision known as Citizens United, the most misunderstood and outright lied about court decision in ages. Contrary to what some would have us believe, the CU decision NEVER said "corporations are people" and never said "money is speech". In fact, it didn't say anything close to those things. What happened is that a non profit called Citizens United produced a film critical of Hillary Clinton.under the then-new McCain Feingold Act, the Federal Government attempted to BAN that film. The Supreme Court ruled that banning a political film, speech, book, website or blog would be a violation of the first amendment. That's what the CU decision was about, that's it. Those who call to "reverse" or "overturn" CU are purposely vague about their proposed amendment because doing so would require a change in our Constitution modifying nothing less than our First Amendment. They make this sound like a simple wonderful plan to "get money out of politics" even though CU ...
Union apologists go apoplectic: "In June of 2012, however, the five conservative justices indicated that they are ready to blow up this arrangement, at least with respect to public sector unions. Writing for himself and his fellow conservatives in Knox v. SEIU, Justice Samuel Alito labeled the agency fees "a 'significant impingement on First Amendment rights.'" Though the conservative justices decided not to revise the Court’s past decisions permitting agency fees in Knox, it is not hard to guess how they will decide Harris now that this issue is directly before them. A major purpose of agency fees is to prevent non-members from free-riding off of a union. Because non-members typically receive wage increases from the collective bargaining process regardless of whether they join the union or not, past Supreme Court decisions have recognized that it is fundamentally unfair to require a union to pay for benefits provided to non-members who don’t pay a dime into the system. Worse, blowing up the agency fe ...
KEY FACTS On April 05, 1976, the Supreme Court issued a 6-2 decision stating that the case of Kelley, Commissioner, Suffolk County Police Department v. Johnson (docket no. 74-1269) should be reversed and upholding the law in question [First Amendment (Speech, Press, And Assembly)] as constitutional. The judgment rested on the Court's authority over judicial review at the state level. It was decided by an opinion of the court (orally argued) and was conservative in nature. The Court undertook review of the case via cert, citing the desire to resolve the question presented as its reason for taking up the case, and heard the case on December 08, 1975. The case originated in the New York Eastern U.S. District Court and was reviewed by the U.S. Court of Appeals, Second Circuit before reaching the U.S. Supreme Court. Justice William Hubbs Rehnquist authored the majority opinion.*...
Here's a transcript of my morning radio commentary: When the Supreme Court struck down the Defense of Marriage Act, I had grave concerns that the justices were opening a Pandora's Box. Those fears have now been realized. A federal judge struck down key parts of Utah's polygamy laws. Judge Clark Waddoup says a provision in the law forbidding cohabitation with another person violates the First Amendment right of freedom of religion. And before you folks start hollering about activist judges appointed by Democrats you might want to know that the judge was a nominee of President Bush. I tried to warn you - once marriage gets redefined - who's to say it can't get redefined again? So as Polygamist Joe exchanges I do's with Sally, Jolene, Betty Sue and Irene -- somewhere in America is a cat named Fluffy -- who's getting just a little bit uneasy.
A Message from the Reporters Committee: Dear Friend: As 2013 draws to a close, we are reminded that in the most open democracies in the world, the public and the news media must remain watchful against government efforts to control the flow of official information. The Reporters Committee has been on this beat for over 40 years, and we hope that you will think about helping out with a donation by the end of the month. Thanks to your ongoing support, the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press remains vigilant in its protection of the First Amendment, whether it is threatened by secret surveillance of phone records and email messages, by the intimidation of reporters in leaks investigations to reveal confidential sources, or simply by strategic strangleholds on the release of information. As the year ended, we were pleased to see a serious threat to press freedoms stopped by the New York Court of Appeals as it quashed a subpoena seeking the confidential sources of Fox News reporter Jana Winter. The Re ...
Howard Dean & give their takes on the First Amendment, HHS Mandate
Prominent legal challenges in the 1950s were brought by the Jehovah's Witnesses, a group whose beliefs preclude swearing loyalty to any power other than God,[28] and who objected to policies in public schools requiring students to swear an oath to the flag. They objected on the grounds that their rights to freedom of religion as guaranteed by the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment were being violated by such requirements. In a 2002 case brought by atheist Michael Newdow, whose daughter was being taught the Pledge in school, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled the phrase "Under God" an unconstitutional endorsement of monotheism when the Pledge was promoted in public school. In 2004, the Supreme Court heard Elk Grove Unified School District v. Newdow, an appeal of the ruling, and rejected Newdow's claim on the grounds that he was not the custodial parent, and therefore lacked standing, thus avoiding ruling on the merits of whether the phrase was constitutional in a school-sponsored recitation. ...
Brad Smith of "It’s time to reassert the primacy of political speech in the First Amendment."
A supportive reminder to all of my friends who are educators or part of the education system in another manner - whether you are a Believer in Christ or have chosen a different path - Public School teachers ARE permitted to participate in events such as next Wednesday's See You at The Pole, without violating the law OR your contract. Here is the "legaleze" for you if you need it: Teacher or Administrator Participation. As a general principle, teachers retain their First Amendment rights in public schools. The Supreme Court has held that “teachers [do not] shed their constitutional rights . . . at the school house gate.”16 However, public schools have broad authority to safeguard against Establishment Clause violations. Generally speaking, teachers represent the school when in the classroom or at school-sponsored events and, therefore, should take care to avoid Establishment Clause violations. [17] Supreme Court precedent interpreting the Establishment Clause prohibits a state entity like a public scho ...
South Florida,  – Miguel Bravo, President and CEO of the Film, Recording and Entertainment Council, Inc., (FREC) announced today the organization's decision to honor Luther Campbell with the FREC 's Lifetime Achievement Award at the 10th Star Gala the highest honor for a career in the entertainment industry in South Florida.     The Star Gala will be held at Magic City Casino on Saturday, December 14, 2013 in Miami, FL. The gala will celebrate Luther Campbell's extraordinary life and all his endeavors. Campbell made national headlines in the early 1990s as a part of The 2 Live Crew when he led one of Hip-Hop's most noted victories in society -- the right of Freedom of Speech in our music. His highly publicized obscenity trials and Supreme Court parody cases were First Amendment victories upon which the entertainment industry still benefits.   He is Hip-hop's original bad boy, pop culture icon, and consummate businessman, Luther "Uncle Luke" Campbell, is one of the few American celebrities who has h ...
In June 2008, the Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit in Heller v. District of Columbia, ruling that the Second Amendment protects an individual’s right to keep and bear arms and that the Firearms Control Regulations Act of 1975 is unconstitutional. However, authorities in DC have largely ignored the ruling and still impose draconian measures on anyone who wants to own a firearm. Kokesh’s protest stems out of his call for a “new American Revolution” that would have involved a march on all 50 state capitols. The former Iraq vet had previously planned to lead an armed march on Washington DC on Independence Day. Kokesh later revised the plan after he was arrested in May for little more than exercising his First Amendment. “When it comes to this event being executed properly,” Kokesh told the Alex Jones Show, “when the government has already escalated the violent tactics against me personally as an organizer, I can’t in good conscience go forward with a plan that i ...
In a few weeks the nation will celebrate the anniversary of Martin Luther King's "I Have a Dream" speech, but the Supreme Court has already dealt it a major setback by overturning Congress's decision as recently as 2006 to require historically discriminatory states to meet certain requirements before changing their voting laws. Make no mistake: "Shelby County v. Holder" is a clear signal to regressives to continue to use voter ID laws, gerrymandering against minorities, and targeting of minorities for removal from voting rolls, to try to hold back the demographic tide of minority voting in America. The Republican-appointed majority on the Court is on the wrong side of history. Like its disgraceful "Citizens United" decision, giving corporations the rights of citizens under the First Amendment, this one also makes a mockery of the true meaning of citizenship in our democracy.
The year I was born.  After spending the morning remembering Stonewall, I decided to look up some other noteworthy events from the year of my birth.  Here is a partial list: Led Zeppelin released their first album Nixon was took office as President Elvis started recording the album to stage his comeback A blow-out on Union Oil's Platform spills 80,000 to 100,000 barrels of crude oil into a channel and onto the beaches of Santa Barbara County in Southern California inspiring Wisconsin Senator *** Nelson to organize the first Earth Day in 1970. The Beatles gave their last public performance The Boeing 747 made its maiden flight Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District: The U.S. Supreme Court rules that the First Amendment applies to public schools. In Toulouse, France the first Concorde test flight is conducted. In a Los Angeles, California court, Sirhan Sirhan admits that he killed presidential candidate Robert F. Kennedy. In Memphis, Tennessee, James Earl Ray pleads guilty to assas ...
Nat Hentoff is one of the foremost authorities on the First Amendment. While his books and articles regularly defend the rights of Americans to think and speak freely, he also explores our freedoms under the rest of the Bill of Rights and the 14th Amendment by showing how Supreme Court and local leg...
On June 7 in history, crusaders begin the Siege of Jerusalem (1099), Spain and Portugal divide the New World between them (1494), Richard Henry Lee offers a resolution of independence in the Second Continental Congress (1776), Homer Plessy is arrested in a case that will result in the Supreme Court decision Plessy v. Ferguson (1892), Gandhi commits his first act of civil disobedience (1893), Carrie Nation vandalizes her first saloon (1899), Norway dissolves its union with Sweden (1905), Mary Pickford makes her screen debut (1909), the Battle of Midway ends (1942), the Supreme Court legalizes contraception by married couples (1965) and rules that the First Amendment protects vulgar writing (1971), Israel destroys Iraq's Osiraq reactor (1981), Graceland opens to the public (1982), Mount Pinatubo explodes (1991), and white supremacists murder James Byrd Jr. (1998). It's the birthday of fashion icon Beau Brummell, painter Paul Gauguin, actress Jessica Tandy, singers Dean Martin and Tom Jones, Libyan strongman ...
Origin The roots of IRS go back to the Civil War when President Lincoln and Congress, in 1862, created the position of commissioner of Internal Revenue and enacted an income tax to pay war expenses. The income tax was repealed 10 years later. Congress revived the income tax in 1894, but the Supreme Court ruled it unconstitutional the following year. 16th Amendment In 1913, Wyoming ratified the 16th Amendment, providing the three-quarter majority of states necessary to amend the Constitution. The 16th Amendment gave Congress the authority to enact an income tax. That same year, the first Form 1040 appeared after Congress levied a 1 percent tax on net personal incomes above $3,000 with a 6 percent surtax on incomes of more than $500,000. In 1918, during World War I, the top rate of the income tax rose to 77 percent to help finance the war effort. It dropped sharply in the post-war years, down to 24 percent in 1929, and rose again during the Depression. During World War II, Congress introduced payroll withho ...
It's been nearly 40 years since Ralph Nader convinced the Supreme Court to protect commercial speech, but from campaign finance restrictions to smoking labels, corporations are now using the First Amendment to take down regulations they don't like.
Happy Birthday Barney Rossett!!! My love of books and reading really started with the stuff Rossett published during the early years at Grove Press and I still have all my copies of The Evergreen Reader. Barnet Lee "Barney" Rosset, Jr. (May 28, 1922 – February 21, 2012) was the former owner of the publishing house Grove Press, and publisher and Editor-in-Chief of the magazine Evergreen Review. He led a successful legal battle to publish the uncensored version of D. H. Lawrence's novel Lady Chatterley's Lover, and later was the American publisher of Henry Miller's controversial novel Tropic of Cancer. The right to publish and distribute Miller's novel in the United States was affirmed by the Supreme Court of the United States in 1964, in a landmark ruling for free speech and the First Amendment. Rosset introduced American readers to numerous significant writers, including Samuel Beckett (Nobel Prize in Literature 1969), Pablo Neruda (Nobel Prize 1971), Octavio Paz (Nobel Prize 1990), Kenzaburō Ōe (Nobe ...
During the Cold War, what was the main concern of the United States? Communism What is one reason colonists came to America? freedom What is the name of the President of the United States now? Barack Obama  When was the Declaration of Independence adopted? July 4, 1776  What is the "rule of law"? Everyone must follow the law. When was the Constitution written? 1787  Who did the United States fight in World War II? Japan, Germany, and Italy What ocean is on the East Coast of the United States? Atlantic Ocean Name one American Indian tribe in the United States. Cherokee How many amendments does the Constitution have? twenty-seven (27) In what month do we vote for President? November What is freedom of religion? You can practice any religion, or not practice a religion.  How many justices are on the Supreme Court? nine (9)  What does the judicial branch do? all of these answers  What is one right or freedom from the First Amendment? speech What is one responsibility that is only for United States citiz ...
"They [supreme court] didn't even think the First Amendment applied when copyright was an issue." - Aaron Swartz,
Mary Beth Tinker will be my guest this afternoon in my graduate School Law class that I teach for Saint Xavier University. She will join us via a SKYPE VIDEO link from her home in Washington, DC. I am also proud and honored to call Mary Beth my friend. Her U.S. Supreme Court case decided back in 1969, "Tinker v. Des Moines", remains even today, the most important First Amendment student rights case ever decided by the Court.
WASHINGTON -- Feisty ad tactics from Florida-based Spirit Airlines won't become a First Amendment test for the Supreme Court, after all...
Singing of Mexican National Anthem required in Texas High School class. So, the girl was supposed to say the Mexican pledge, and sing the Mexican National Anthem. She didn't, and failed. She has now filed suit, and I will address that below, but about the pledge and anthem, there are two things that deserve note. Regarding the pledge, it is interesting to note that had this girl been required to salute the US Flag and do the pledge, this would have been unquestionably unconstitutional. In fact, the Supreme Court ruled in West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette, 319 U.S. 624(1943) that compulsory requirements to pledge to the flag by school children violated the First Amendment. It's astonishing to me that this School District somehow thought that a compulsory pledge to another flag would somehow be just fine. Further, as my friend Dr. John Fonte noted in a November 2005 piece titled "Dual Allegiance: A Challenge to Immigration Reform and Patriotic Assimilation": Dual allegiance is incompat ...
We are celebrating a historic moment: This week Move to Amend's WE THE PEOPLE AMENDMENT was introduced in Congress! Our Congressional partners are Rick Nolan (MN) and Mark Pocan (WI). Representatives Nolan and Pocan are the first Congresspeople to stand up for the only solution that will return government control to “we the people.” We thank them for supporting Move to Amend’s effort and for their commitment to American democracy. The We the People Amendment is neither the first amendment which addresses Citizens United, nor will it be the last to be introduced in this session of Congress. However, it is the only amendment that deals with myriad Supreme Court decisions granting constitutional rights to corporations and defining money as speech. The introduction of the We the People Amendment is a momentous opportunity to shine a spotlight on corporate rule and bring others to the Move to Amend cause. Welcome to all of the thousands of new people who have signed up this week to participate in the ...
Just RSVP a seat for Wednesday, February 6, 2013 at The Master's College, EHC 100 from 6:30-8:30pm where Dr. Mark Hall and Dr. Gregg Frazer will debate the topic “Did America Have a Christian Founding?”. This will be the first debate I have seen live, and I can't wait! They will be discussing these questions and more: 1. What was the religious basis for the American Revolution? 2. To what extent was there Christian influence on America’s founding documents? 3. Were they based on the Bible and/or Christian principles? Who were the most influential founders and what were their religious beliefs? 4. Did America’s founders intend to create a Christian nation, a secular nation with a wall of separation between church and state, or neither of these? 5. Has the Supreme Court applied the First Amendment correctly where religion is concerned? Seats are free, and anyone wanting to attend needs to RSVP Pam Swengel at pswengelwith the number who plan to attend.
Following the most expensive presidential election in history, Los Angeles voters are set to become the largest electorate to vote whether to support a Constitutional Amendment to overturn the Supreme Court's Citizens United ruling. The LA City Council voted Wednesday to draft ballot language for vo...
I have decided to jump on the conspiracy theory bandwagon, like all of my friends. I am not prone to conspiracy theories, but the recent appeal for government action in the wake of the Sandy Hook tradgedy leads me to believe that gamers are being set-up for regulation and taxation. President Obama's Executive Action 14 reads: Issue a Presidential Memorandum directing the Centers for Disease Control to research the causes and prevention of gun violence. From his January 16th speech introducing these actions: And Congress should fund research into the effects that violent video games have on young minds. Why is Obama calling on Congress to fund research into the affects of video games on behavior when the accepted science is that there is no causal relationship? The existing scientific conclusions were validated by the Supreme Court in its 2011 ruling granting video games First Amendment protection. This is why video games are being targeted: video games are a $100 billion industry worldwide. This not only ...
A man whose act of protest at a Des Moines school helped lead to a historic U.S. Supreme Court decision about the First Amendment has died in Florida. Christopher Paul Eckhardt died of cancer on Thursday, according to a Tampa Bay Times obituary.
Now, a fresh Supreme Court decision has declared this to be a violation of the First Amendment, refusing to hear an appeal from Cook County officials to allow prosecution of those recording cops, and instead upholding a lower court decision that resulted from an ACLU lawsuit.
Justice Alito, Citizens United and the press Last week, Justice Samuel Alito speciously defended the Supreme Court's disastrous ruling in the 2010 Citizens United case by arguing that the ruling, which allowed unlimited independent campaign spending by corporations and unions, was not really groundbreaking at all. In fact, he said, all it did was reaffirm that corporations have free speech rights and that, without such rights, newspapers would have lost the major press freedom rulings that allowed the publication of the Pentagon Papers and made it easier for newspapers to defend themselves against libel suits in New York Times v. Sullivan. "The question is whether speech that goes to the very heart of government should be limited to certain preferred corporations; namely, media corporations," he said in a speech to the Federalist Society, a conservative group. "Surely the idea that the First Amendment protects only certain privileged voices should be disturbing to anybody who believes in free speech." B . ...
Nuanced and important article by Michael Sean Winters on the Democratic Party and Catholicism The pro-life consequences of Democratic policies are real, but they do not earn the Democrats a pass. There is still a fundamental, underlying fact that under current law, our nation allows one group of persons to decide the ultimate fate of another group of persons. I fear, and fear greatly, that history will judge us as it has judged the liberals of the 1920s who championed eugenics. When CNN reported the story earlier this year, even Anderson Cooper acknowledged the story was “shocking” and “almost unbelievable” and the “shameful truth.” The Nazis sent aides to California to learn their methodology. All of it was defended at the time by leading scientists and the U.S. Supreme Court. All of it was seen as “progress.” All of it was also evil and only Pope Pius XI had the courage to say so. His encyclical, Casti conubii, published the year before Quadragesimo Ano, denounced eugenics at a time when ...
Are you tired of all the political commercials on TV and radio. Now I am getting about three recorded polictical calls an hour from the Republican Party. Well you can blame all of the propaganda in part on our Supreme Court. Two years ago, the Suprem Court ruled that giant corporations like Exxon Moble, Bank of America,cigna have the First Amendment right to spend unlimited sums of money to support or oppose political candidates (Citizens United V.Federal Election). Karl Rove and his Crossroads front plan to raise over $300 million dollars and that is just one of many Super PACs. Spending by Super PACs and other groups is up 1200% compared to 2008. Election 2012 is not an election, it is an auction to buy our government. The only power you have is your vote, don't let the wealthy buy it.
To my Republican friends--you can't possibly think that the conservative-led Supreme Court's siding with Citizen's United (versus the Federal Election Commission) was a good thing. Money is speech? Corporations are people, my friend? Therefore, under the First Amendment, the government can't stop corporations from spending money on politics however they choose. And then right-wingers continue their efforts to undermine and eliminate unions as well? It was that decision that caused scores of people to take to the streets in protest as they began the Occupy Wall Street movement. Did you forget that we bailed out Wall Street, too? Are you happy with all the Leveraged Buy Outs? Heck, even Justice Stevens was appalled at what Justice Roberts had concocted when he said the Court was opening "the floodgates for special interests--including foreign corporations--to spend without limit in our elections." The elections are truly being bought, people. Romney reminds me of Al Checchi, the former CEO of Nort ...
As usual, I'm posting my not-so-secret ballot, with a brief explanation of each decision. U.S. President and Vice-President: Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan. This is the easiest decision of all. Romney has proven to be an excellent businessman capable of turning around troubled companies, many of which were in even worse shape than the U.S. economy is right now. Obama, by contrast, has proven to be an unmitigated disaster. He campaigned against President Bush's obscene deficits, only to double them under an ill-conceived "stimulus" bill that stimulated nothing. He abandoned the good guys first in Iran, then across the Middle East, including our own embassies, and lied for weeks to cover it up. If that wasn't bad enough, he has preserved the fragile 5-4 balance on the Supreme Court that came within one vote of gutting the First Amendment in Citizens United and American Tradition Partnership, and of abolishing the Second Amendment outright by judicial fiat in Heller and McDonald. Romney is a strong candid ...
Open Letter requesting a Coalition against Proselytizing I would like to address a growing awareness and concern about "proselytizing,". . . .the practice of promoting, or soliciting converts to, the proselytizer's religion. In our home state of Texas, this is a growing threat to Americans' freedoms as enumerated in the Constitution and Bill of Rights Amendment. Recently, the First Amendment has been upheld by the Federal District court here (Western District of Texas, San Antonio Division) in the Medina Valley Independent School District case. The School District's administration, teachers and personnel, were promoting their Christian faith and belief upon a "captive" body of students. The First Amendment protects any and all U.S. citizens from "Congress . establishment of, or prohibiting .of (religion)." U.S. Supreme Court rulings since, have upheld that no State or Local Government can violate the First Amendment. However, the Republican Party of Texas platform, and incumbent (Republican) candidates w ...
"Corporations are just people, my friend." -- Mitt Romney, 2011. Sorry Mitt, you are wrong. Corporations are NOT human--they are legal constructs designed to limit liability for wrong-doing. That is why they are called Ltd. in Britain. Corporations have no First Amendment rights as individual citizens do. The U.S. Supreme Court in January 2010 got it dead wrong. The only way to fix this wrong is to pass a Constitutional Amendment spelling out the rights of corporations versus the rights of individual citizens. I like Sen. Bernie Sanders language. Read it here:
'Religion, the Supreme Court, and the 2012 Election: What is at stake?' - First Amendment Center
From Liberty Counsel: On Monday, the U.S. Supreme Court opened its new term and immediately directed the Department of Justice to respond to the question of why Liberty Counsel’s case against ObamaCare should not be reheard by a federal appeals court. The High Court directed the Federal Government to respond to our Petition for Rehearing within 30 days. You may have noticed that the news was broadcast by Fox News, the Drudge Report, Politico, and other leading news outlets with headlines like, “Supreme Court opens door to another challenge to ObamaCare.” If you recall, the Federal Court of Appeals in Richmond, VA, ruled that the Anti-Injunction Act (AIA) barred them from addressing the merits in our Liberty University v. Geithner case, which challenged the individual mandate and the employer insurance mandate of ObamaCare, among other key components of the law like its unconstitutional violation of the Free Exercise of Religion under the First Amendment. Then, as you probably know, the Supreme Court ...
If you are a Republican and you didn't watch the debate you should download it. It will only heighten the joy that is spreading amongst R's from coast to coast. For my part, anyone that owes me money, pay up now! I have ammunition to buy. Next email is to the White House: no more solicitations for funds, ain't gonna defend you the way I have for 4 years, I am too embarrassed. Your bumper sticker is coming off the GT 500 as soon as I get my heat gun out. Replacing it with a "Gas, Grass, or *** sticker. Robert Bork is going to be recommending Supreme Court nominations. He says the First Amendment doesn't protect science, art, or literature. I always thought of the creative branch of lit. as an art form, but now, no need to quibble. I want them to come after my bumper sticker. That's how to continue the fight since we don't have a champion. Politically themed bumper stickers will be protected as political speech, but it won't matter because Mitt's repealing the estate tax and establishing the final triumph ...
Pro-life pregnancy centers are actually pro-choice Search for the truth in all things. Unfortunately truth is distorted by those who portray those of us who oppose abortion, birth control pills, drugs and devices, at taxpayer expense as being anti-women and anti-choice. Rather it is those who promote these harmful things that are anti-women and anti-choice. The Health and Human Services mandate in Obamacare goes even further in being anti-choice; forcing us to comply or be heavily fined (or as redefined by the Supreme Court, taxed). This intrudes upon Religious Liberty, our First Amendment right. The birth control pill is anti-women because of many damaging risks to women's health. Some of the risks are: breast cancer risk is increased by 40 percent. There is twice the risk of stroke, twice the risk of heart attack and increased risk of dangerous blood clots. There is a 60 percent increased risk of HIV. The pill can also cause early abortions by causing a hostile environment in the uterus preventing impla ...
Meet Black Singles 300x250
Grimes on the Supreme Court & Judicial Activism Warren S. Grimes (Southwestern Law School) has posted Can the Supreme Court Be Fixed? Lessons from Judicial Activism in First Amendment and Sherman Act Jurisprudence on SSRN. Here is the abstract: The paper addresses Judicial Activism in Supreme Court decisions. It defines Judicial Activism as decisions that use statutory or constitutional provisions to reach broad decisions that make it difficult or impossible for democratically elected officials in local, state or Federal Government to implement a desired policy. It offers six content-neutral tests for measuring Judicial Activism and applies them to key Supreme Court decisions involving First Amendment election law and the Sherman Antitrust Act. A final section of the paper reviews possible reform options aimed at restoring the Court to a role as a traditional judicial tribunal that decides cases or controversies narrowly. It urges a public discussion aimed at refining and implementing reform.
With all the attention on June 28 focused on the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling on the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, another decision that day, United States v. Alvarez, largely escaped notice. In Alvarez, the court declared unconstitutional the federal Stolen Valor Act as violating the F...
"Our political system is pervasively corrupt due to our Supreme Court taking away campaign-contribution restrictions on the basis of the First Amendment,” - Quote by Richard Posner, a Circuit Court of Appeals judge, referring to the Citizens United case in a speech he gave at the University of Chicago Law School on July 12, 2012
In a recent New York Times' opinion piece written by Benjamin Sachs, a professor at the Harvard Law School, he made the argument that with the Supreme Court's decision of Citizens United, the nation's defined pension plans are now funding corporate political donations in violation of the First Amend...
Legal scholar and First Amendment hero Allen Loughry is running for WV Supreme Court and is on with now.
A bill signed into law - The new law will have strong implications for the Westboro Baptist Church, a Kansas-based organization which the Southern Poverty Law Center and the Anti-Defamation League have labeled a hate group. Westboro Baptist Church has drawn media attention for its brand of protest, which frequently links the deaths of soldiers to America's growing acceptance of *** Under the new legislation, protests must be held at least 300 feet from military funerals and are prohibited two hours before or after a service. The law counters a 2011 Supreme Court ruling, which found that displays such as Westboro's were protected under the First Amendment.
"It is offensive, not only to the values protected by the First Amendment, but to the very notion of a free society, that in the context of everyday public discourse a citizen must first inform the government of her desire to speak to her neighbors and then obtain a permit to do so." - Justice John Paul Stevens, U.S. Supreme Court
Many of the US Supreme Court's most important decisions upholding free speech involve the most hateful speech imaginable, testing our national commitment to the First Amendment. Five years ago, in their hometown of Westminster, Maryland, Albert Snyder attended the funeral of his son Lance Cpl. Matth...
"Political candidates have a legal right to lie to voters just about as much as they want" The Annenberg Public Policy Center, summarizing the position of the US Federal Trade Commission and the US Federal Communications Commission in regulating TV ads, and the US Supreme Court in upholding the First Amendment. So if you want to run a political television commercial, you don't have to tell the truth, you can broadcast anything you want, in your favor and agaisnt your opponents. And most Americans believe TV commercials are regulated.
Mitch McConnell fundamentally mischaracterizes the relationship between the Supreme Court and other branches of our government. By intimating that it is illegitimate for the legislative and executive branches to develop policy in response to Supreme Court decisions, the Senate leader displays ignorance of the basic hydraulics in the founders’ system of separated powers. “The First Amendment protects political speech,” Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote for the majority, “and disclosure permits citizens and shareholders to react to the speech of corporate entities in a proper way.” McConnell, by arguing that disclosure undermines the First Amendment, is in fact turning Citizens United on its head. Read more:
Another Crushing Blow to Unions Although the Supreme Court did not issue rulings today on the ObamaCare and Arizona immigration law cases, they did make a decision on a case that will have a profound effect on Big Labor. In a 7-2 decision, the court ruled against the SEIU. At issue in this case was whether SEIU could mandate that its employees pay a special union fee that would be spent on political activities without providing them with information about the fee and opportunity to object to it. The Court decided that this practice violated its members First Amendment rights and reversed the liberal Ninth Circuit decision that ruled in favor of the SEIU. This decision marks yet another huge loss for unions in this country, showing that they are no longer the invincible political powerhouses that they used to be. Not only did this ruling limit their ability to unilaterally use union dues to fund political campaigns, but it also reflected that Big Labor in this country can no longer rely on Democrats to alw ...
"Citizens United" is a Political Action Committee run by Haley Barbour. Don't know him? He is a racist from Mississippi, used to run the White Citizen's Council (renamed to Citizens United). That group stood against integration in Mississippi and may have funded the MLK assassination (per some historians of that event). He eventually became the most powerful lobbyist in Congress, representing the tobacco companies and others; worked for Nixon and Bush, and then became head of the RNC, and Governor of Mississippi. He combined forces with Karl Rove to bypass the RNC to raise amazing millions of dollars to take over our Democracy with money. His group, using the name Citizens United, got the Supreme Court to declare that the First Amendment (Free Speech) applies to money. We must overturn that decision or we will lose our Democracy. THAT's who Haley Barbour is; HE is the reason there are racist overtones and hate in our discourse again. HE is stuck in the 1960s and wants to bring us all back there... where f ...
FAYETTEVILLE, N.C. — Jack Jacobs can proudly – and truthfully – say he was awarded the Medal of Honor for his valor in Vietnam. After a recent Supreme Court ruling, anyone else is free under the First Amendment to make the same claim, whether it's true or not.
I saw this in the comments section on an article talking about 4th of July celebrations in years gone past. It gives what I think of as 13 easy steps to lose your freedom. While it may be oversimplified in some ways, I think this guy nails it down pretty well. Read on... 1) First, although fought for years in the 19th Century, the Congress, made a private bank a National Bank. 2) Then the Supreme Court, in 1867, for the first time, invaded Religious Liberty in violation of the First Amendment. 3) Then a bunch of psychology professors joined with psychiatrists in deciding that, since we were all animals, no one could get smarter than he already is, and began to teach this doctrine in the schools, and in teacher's training, starting at Columbia Teacher's College in NYC. 4) Then by Amendment they started an income tax, which had been barred by the Constitution. 5) Then they allowed complete and utter sway to worker's unions, which artificially divided America's companies into "workers" and "managemen ...
In the fourteen years that I practiced as a media defense lawyer before joining the Berkman Center, there was one sentence from one Supreme Court opinion that I learned to loathe above all others. It appears in Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc., 418 U.S. 323 (1974), and reads as follows: "But there is no ...
"If the Supreme Court decision lacks clarity, the Catholic response will be anything but ambiguous: the battle lines between the bishops and the Obama Administration are now brighter than ever. Fortunately, not only do practicing Catholics overwhelmingly support the bishops, tens of millions of non-Catholics also do. ObamaCare may have survived, but it is by no means a lock that the HHS mandate will. It is one thing to levy a tax, quite another to level the First Amendment." - Catholic League
Let's recap shall we? Supreme Court votes to uphold the Federal Government's right to force us to buy a product(aka Obamacare), and votes against Stolen Valor(and before you go all First Amendment rights on me, it's illegal to claim to be a doctor if you're not and this I feel, is MUCH worse). Well, they're 0 for 2. On the plus side, Holder's being held. So that's something.
"Only a weak society needs government protection or intervention before it pursues its resolve to preserve the truth. Truth needs neither handcuffs nor a badge for its vindication." - From the US Supreme Court opinion striking down the Stolen Valor statute as unconstitutional under the First Amendment ("The American people do not need the assistance of a government prosecution to express their high regard for the special place that military heroes hold in our tradition").
In today's OTHER Supreme Court decision the Court strikes down the Stolen Valor Act on First Amendment grounds.
So, the Supreme Court upholds Obamacare, yet overturns Stolen Valor on First Amendment grounds, what has happened to this country?
Regarding today's Supreme Court decision on the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare)... “The court’s opinion today did not decide the issues in our cases,” said Hannah Smith, Senior Counsel at the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty. “We are challenging the Health and Human Services (HHS) mandate on Religious Liberty GROUNDS WHICH ARE NOT PART OF TODAY'S DECISION. We will move forward seeking vindication of our client’s First Amendment rights.”
Reading about the Supreme Court's decisions on healthcare and the Stolen Valor Act? Well if you want to learn about some of the First Amendment legal issues and Supreme Court cases in Lincoln's time, look no further than our newsletter article from last summer:
A FRIEND PASSED THIS TO ME: (E-mail from ATP) U.S. Supreme Court sides with ATP, expands free speech rights in Montana ATP maintains perfect legal streak, defeats rogue politicians using 1st Amendment regulations to hide their record Helena, Mont - American Tradition Partnership (ATP) maintained its perfect record in its First Amendment litigation today, as the nation’s High Court sided with the free-market environmental group by expanding free speech rights in Montana. “We didn’t pick these free speech fights, they were brought to our door by the irretrievably corrupt Political Practices Commissioner and Attorney General Steve Bullock. After 2008 ATP was rewarded by its compliance with applicable law with a three-year political witch hunt by Brian Schweitzer and Steve Bullock,” declared ATP’s National Executive Director Donald Ferguson, following the ruling. “We are again vindicated, and again ATP’s work has expanded the rights of Montana citizens to speak truth to power.” ATP-Montana St ...
Chuck Schumer on Montana Citizens United ruling: "the Supreme Court persists with its anything-goes interpretation of the First Amendment."
What happened in History: 1981 Raiders of the Lost Ark opened in theaters 1982 John Hinckley was found not guilty of the attempted murder of President Reagan by reason of insanity 1989 The US Supreme Court decided that burning the US Flag was protected under the First Amendment . wow dare I type that one. 2001 Carroll O Connor died at age 76 2003 Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix was released 5 million copies were sold on the first day 2005 Tom Cruise got doused with water at teh London premier of War of the Worlds 2007 restaurant owner Bob Evans died at age 89 2011 People magazine reported that Glen Campbell had been diagnosed with Alzheimer's Disease
Message flagged Tuesday, June 19, 2012 9:49 AM PRESS RELEASE June 19, 2012 For immediate release From: John Foley--Co-coordinator-South Palm Beach/North Broward MoveOn 561-523-2739 What: MoveOn presents U.S. Constitutional Amendment proposal to Senator Nelson When: Wednesday, June 20, 2012 at 5 p.m. Where: The Plaza at West Palm Beach City Hall, West Palm Beach, FL Support a Constitutional Amendment: Corporations Are Not People On Wednesday, June 20th at 5 p.m., at City Hall Plaza in West Palm Beach, MoveOn will present a petition to U.S. Senator Nelson(D-FL). In last year's Citizens United decision, the Supreme Court gave corporations the same First Amendment rights as people. And in the last election, we saw what this corporate takeover of our democracy looks like. We're asking every state legislator in the country to support the most direct remedy we have left to correct the Supreme Court's awful Citizens United decision: a Constitutional Amendment clarifying that corporations are not people. Amending ...
I will believe corporations are "individuals" when Texas starts executing 'em. - Scott Miller, musician/writer. Regarding the U.S. Supreme Court ruling allowing unlimited contributions by corporations based on First Amendment rights.
Jay Sekulow is among America’s foremost free speech and Religious Liberty litigators, having argued 12 times before the U.S. Supreme Court in some of the most groundbreaking First Amendment cases of the past quarter century. A reporter described his oral argument style as “rude, aggressive and obno...
Mature Content Video Games supreme court ruling on june 27th 2011 In a ringing endorsement of free speech and new technology, the U.S. Supreme Court this morning struck down a law that restricts the sale or rental of violent video games to minors. "Even where the protection of children is the object, the constitutional limits on governmental action apply," Justice Antonin Scalia wrote in the majority opinion (PDF). The ruling was 7-2. The Supreme Court's ruling unambiguously reaffirms that video games, which have become increasingly complex and in some cases more expensive to produce than movies, also qualify for full First Amendment protection. Therefore it is against the law to refuse the sale of fictional gaming material to anyone regardless of age. I guess someone forgot to tell gamestop about this because they still refuse to sell anyone under 17 a mateur content video game I see somebody getting rich off a lawsuit in the future.
In this week's New Yorker, Jeffrey Toobin criticizes the Supreme Court's handling of Citizens United v. FEC, which affirmed a corporation's First Amendment right to spend money on independent speech on political issues, even when that speech criticizes candidates for office.
 border=
Jeffrey Toobin on how the Supreme Court defended the First Amendment in
Nice debate at Reach Out Wisconsin Tuesday night on the Citizens United, Supreme Court free speech decision. Libs tried to make the case that court was unduly "activist." Here is what Justice Kennedy wrote for the majority: "The Court cannot resolve this case on a narrower ground without chilling political speech, speech that is central to the meaning and purpose of the First Amendment. It is not judicial restraint to accept an unsound, narrow argument just so the Court can avoid another argument with broader implications. ... When the Government holds out the possibility of ruling for Citizens United on a narrow ground yet refrains from adopting that position, the added uncertainty demonstrates the necessity to address the question of statutory validity. "When the FEC issues advisory opinions that prohibit speech, “[m]any persons, rather than undertake the considerable burden (and sometimes risk) of vindicating their rights through case-by-case litigation, will choose simply to abstain from protected ...
"We are engaged in a war of ideas. But if it were just ideas, based on reason and reality, we'd win hands down. The regressive right is armed with money from the richest people and corporations in America, and it has no compunction about telling big lies repeatedly until the public starts to believe them. The regressives on the Supreme Court have aided and abetted by calling money speech and corporations people under the First Amendment. But the regressives' biggest weapon by far is cynicism. Don't fall prey." - Robert Reich
DICTATOR OBAMA. “No president in modern times has questioned [the Supreme Court's] authority. They have questioned the way the authority has been exercised,” he said. “Not their right to make the decision. “This is an extreme view of the Supreme Court and the Constitution, one that has not been articulated since Andrew Jackson was in the White House,” he said. Napolitano is the youngest life-tenured Superior Court judge in the history of the state of New Jersey. He tried more than 150 jury trials during his time on the bench from 1987 to 1995, including criminal, civil, equity and family cases. For 11 years, he served as an adjunct professor of Constitutional Law at Seton Hall Law School, where he provided instruction in Constitutional Law and jurisprudence. Napolitano returned to private law practice in 1995 and began television broadcasting in the same year. Other warnings that have been issued: •Erik Rush, a columnist and author of sociopolitical fare, including “Negrophilia: From Slave B ...
Justice Alito's double standard for the First Amendment.: Since joining the Supreme Court in 2006, Justice Samuel ...
Snoop Dogg White House Donald Trump President Trump Ben Affleck Steve King New Zealand President Donald Trump Rachel Maddow North Korea Orson Welles Cheltenham Festival South Korea Federal Reserve Theresa May America First Justice Department Jose Mourinho Paul Pogba Champions League Samuel L. Jackson Geert Wilders Air Force Kellyanne Conway Rex Tillerson Park Geun David Cay Johnston National Insurance Ed Sheeran St Patrick Justice Dept President Barack Obama Jeremy Corbyn Philip Hammond March Madness Ian Bremmer John Legend Nick Viall Daily News Guinness Storehouse Rogue One Chrissy Teigen Melania Trump Mad Men Mutual Fund Middle East Beach Boys Dakota Access Paul Ryan Maisie Williams Northern Ireland South Africa Europa League Queen Mother Champion Chase Manchester United Gianluigi Buffon London School Great British Bake Off Nintendo Switch Romelu Lukaku Austrian Alps Prue Leith Prince Harry Mark Rutte Arron Banks Health Plan Chinese President Xi Jinping State Rex Tillerson Sean Spicer Ivanka Trump Barack Obama United Kingdom Artem Anisimov White Sox Death Spiral Trump Tower Lake Forest Corey Crawford Planned Parenthood Public Health Mount St Milo Ventimiglia Emma Watson Richard Spencer House Republicans Bernie Sanders Kansas State Josh Gad Michael Brown Las Vegas Australian Open Ewan Mcgregor Supreme Court Music Box British Gas Mona Lisa Marc Quinn Hugh Jackman Malcolm Mclaren Gulf Coast
© 2017