The Supreme Court: Home to America's Highest Court

http://supremecourt.c-span.org/Video/TVP...

Very well done.

First Amendment:

Supreme Court debates legality of cross memorial
First Amendment concerns take back seat to land swap in questioning

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/chi-t...

The above is a very interesting case that is being heard before the Supreme Court.

Here is an excerpt from the Chicago Tribune:

"A Supreme Court argument Wednesday over a cross within the Mojave National Preserve sparked a sharp dispute on whether it stands as a symbol of all fallen soldiers, including Jews and Muslims.

In a discussion whether the display within a public preserve violated the First Amendment ban on "establishment of religion," a Los Angeles lawyer for the American Civil Liberties Union said a cross "is the predominant symbol of Christianity.

"It signifies that Jesus is the son of God and died to redeem mankind for our sins," Peter Eliasberg told the justices. Because of its special religious significance, he said, it should not stand alone as a prominent symbol in a national park.

Justice Antonin Scalia sharply disagreed. "It's erected as a war memorial. I assume it is erected in honor of all the war dead," he said.

Elisasberg objected. "I have been in Jewish cemeteries. There is never a cross on a tombstone of a Jew," he said.

Scalia shot back, "I don't think you can leap from that to the conclusion that the only war dead that the cross honors are the Christian war dead. I think that's an outrageous conclusion."

The exchange highlighted an hourlong debate over whether the Mojave cross is unconstitutional or if Congress has resolved the problem by transferring the land under the cross to the Veterans of Foreign Wars."

I absolutely cannot believe that someone decided to make an issue of a cross for the dead which has been an icon since 1934. There are crosses to honor military dead of all religions around the world. What do you think?

This is an interesting link: SCOTUS (discussed the above at length)

http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/thursday-ro...

I this really belongs here versus Amendments:

You have got to love Franken!

Franken reads 4th Amendment to Justice Department official

http://minnesotaindependent.com/45495/fr...

The US 4th Amendment:

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

Mark Shields - Opposing View on Gun Regulations:

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/shields&gigo...

http://www.cnn.com/2005/ALLPOLITICS/01/3...

C-Span Classroom Video - Second Amendment and the Bill of Rights:

http://www.c-spanclassroom.org/VideoDeta...

Video Clip Description
University of Maryland Professor John Lott, author of "More Guns, Less Crime: the Bias Against Guns,” explains why he believes gun bans are ineffective.

Discussion Questions
What is the United States Bill of Rights? What is the Second Amendment?

What is a gun ban? According to Dr. Lott, what has happened in cities when gun bans go into effect? To what does he attribute that rise? Do you agree or disagree with this statement? Explain your answer.

Syndicated columnist Mark Shields discussed gun regulations. Click here to see a video clip of Mr. Shields. What is he advocating? Explain his argument.

Discuss both sides of the Second Amendment argument. What do you believe? Why?

This appears to also be a good site regarding the Supreme Court of the United States: C-Span

http://supremecourt.c-span.org/

What Happens During an Investiture?

In this case: Sotomayor

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/...

http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/The-Inves...

Here is some more on the same case:

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/...

Some points made:

"Solicitor General Elena Kagan, defending the disputed regulation and arguing her first case before the justices, emphasized that Congress' interest in curbing corporate money in elections stretched back a century. She said Congress has been rightly concerned through the years about the possible corruptive effect of corporate money — as opposed to money from individuals — on political races.

She urged the court not to overturn the pivotal 1990 case of Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce, in which Justice Thurgood Marshall wrote for the majority that "corporate wealth can unfairly influence elections." That a court majority noted that the state of Michigan had "identified as a serious danger the significant possibility that corporate political expenditures will undermine the integrity of the political process."

The state required corporations to make all independent political expenditures through a separate fund made up of money solicited expressly for political purposes, rather than through general treasury funds.

On Wednesday, Kagan noted that because corporations could spend on candidates through special political committees, they still had a voice in elections.

Justice Alito observed that more than half the states allow corporations to spend on elections without a restriction such as Michigan's.

Kagan said that fact should not override Congress's concern about the possible corruptive effect of corporate wealth.

The only saving grace was the point made by Attorney Seth Waxman (thank god for Waxman)

"The fourth lawyer arguing Wednesday was Seth Waxman, a former U.S. solicitor general under Bill Clinton. He appeared on behalf the lead senators who proposed the 2002 campaign finance overhaul, Arizona Republican John McCain and Wisconsin Democrat Russ Feingold.

Waxman urged the court not to rule broadly, and stressed that until the justices rewrote the question in the case, no corporation had challenged the restriction on expenditures."

THE FIRST AMENDMENT AGAIN

This is pretty scary: going on right now in the Supreme Court. All of a sudden this conservative Court is skeptical of limits on businesses, unions because it might violate their First Amendment Rights. Are we the land of the free or the land of the corporations. This all started with the case of the Citizens United tape regarding Hillary Clinton and whether this 90 minute diatribe should be treated as a campaign ad or not and somehow from what I can see the Supreme Court lost its way. I have to wonder what the First Amendments Right to Free Speech has to do with the larger picture; but it is clear that the Supreme Court has a larger agenda than the sorry Citizens United tape....and possibly a scary sinister one at that which could actually unravel 100 years of progress on corporate finance reform. McCain/Feingold bill and many others. I am not sure what folks feel one way or the other but here is the gist of the case:

For maintaining corporate finance reform and the status quo:

"Solicitor General Elena Kagan, making her first high court argument, and a former Solicitor General, Seth Waxman, representing McCain and Feingold, stressed the long history of federal laws that sought to rein in corporate and later union influence on elections, beginning with President Theodore Roosevelt's trust-busting push early in the 20th century."

For the opposition and Citizens United:

"Olson said Citizen United's status as a not-for-profit corporation should have no bearing on its freedom to speak because the court has repeatedly held that corporations are like people when it comes to the First Amendment. Lawyer Floyd Abrams, a longtime First Amendment advocate, argued on behalf of McConnell."

I have no idea what this court could possibly be thinking and it is worrisome. Corporations have a lot of money to sully the airwaves with nonsense that is only in their best interests and not the citizens. How many times have we heard about lobbyists and curtailing corporate money. This is a very sad day in our court if this is the way things seem to be going.

And please do not get me started discussing Clarence Thomas; I think he sits on the coat tails of Scalia all day; I have no idea why they do not share the same office; you never get any independent thinking from Clarence Thomas. I wish somebody could prove me wrong here so that I would think more highly of this Supreme Court Justice but I have seen no evidence of this. Does anybody think differently? It really does appear that Clarence Thomas ALWAYS votes exactly as Scalia. I think it is sad if 100 years of progress just disappears. What happened to not changing a court's precedents?

The only chance we have of not giving free rein to corporate spending, etc. is whether they will in fact abide by precedents.

"Both justices (Roberts and Alito) spoke at length in their Senate confirmation hearings about the importance of abiding by precedents — even if they would have voted the other way had they been involved in an earlier decision."

I think it is scary and does not help out the average citizen.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_supreme_co...

REGARDING SOTOMAYOR'S EXPLANATION ON THE SECOND AMENDMENT:

An interesting explanation of her interpretation: (Video)

http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/politic...

GREAT SITES ABOUT THE SUPREME COURT

This is a great resource about the Supreme Court; I recommend it highly. You will be able to read a review of the background of each Supreme Court Justice, read about the Court History, its terms and traditions, how it chooses and hears cases, and the decision process. There are also videos and audios about previous justices.

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/indepth_cove...

Source: PBS

TERRIFIC SITE ABOUT SUPREME COURT:

http://www.pbs.org/wnet/supremecourt/

PBS REVIEWS Supreme Court Rules School Strip Search Was Illegal:

Good Video and Reporting:

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/indepth_cove...

We did not have to wait too long for an interesting case related to the fourth amendment. As you recall, the fourth amendment is the Search and Seizure Amendment:

Amendment 4 - Search and Seizure

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Today the Supreme Court found that a school strip search violated a teen's rights. Though the court found that the search of a young 13 year old student named Savana Redding was unconstitutional; they still determined that the school officials were protected from liability.

Here is what another blogger wrote about this verdict (it gives a good synopsis of the decision):

"Today, the Supreme Court ruled 8-1 in Safford Unified School District #1 et al v. Redding that school officials violated the 4th Amendment when they strip-searched a 13-year-old girl. Savana Redding was subjected to a strip-search that included looking inside her underwear, after school officials received a tip that she might be in possession of prescription Ibuprofen. None was found.

By a strong majority, the Court declared the search unreasonable under the 4th Amendment, finding that a full strip search was unjustified based on the nature of the drugs and in question and the absence of specific evidence that contraband would be found in her underwear.

Unfortunately, despite upholding the 4th Amendment in this case, the Court left the door wide open for future violations of student rights. The justices agreed by a 7-2 vote that the school officials who carried out the illegal search should not be held liable because the caselaw was unclear at the time. Now that the central legal issues are settled, similar incidents could invoke liability in the future, but the ruling itself will fail to prohibit such searches in many instances. By placing heavy emphasis on the negligible threat posed by prescription Ibuprofen, the Court implies that a different outcome may have been reached depending on the type of contraband in question. It's possible, for example, that the search would have been upheld if it involved marijuana.

Thus, today's ruling fails to fully clarify the legality of drug searches in schools under many circumstances. It also fails to punish those responsible for degrading an innocent young woman based on flimsy and ultimately false evidence. Hopefully, however, it will at least serve as a reminder to educators that schools are not a 4th Amendment-free zone."

Here is a link to the Supreme Court case decision:

http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/0...

News Reports Regarding Case;

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/31544930/ns/...

ABC NEWS VIDEO: (Jan Crawford Greenberg)

http://abcnews.go.com/video/playerIndex?...

What troubles me about this decision among other things was that at no time did the school call the parent of this minor. Considering the circumstances, it appears to me that some punishment should have been received by the school system. The Supreme Court may have concluded that doing this might undermine the authority of all school systems across the nation in trying to maintain discipline as well as a drug free environment.

But even in your home, a warrant would be necessary. We are also talking about a minor here.

I have to agree with the blogger that school systems must have believed that they were a fourth amendment free zone. It was hard for me to believe that this kind of situation was actually going on in our schools. I have heard of lockers being searched; but never have I heard of school authorities deciding to strip search a minor.

I have to admit I was shocked. What are your thoughts about the 4th amendment and how it has been loosely interpretated? What do you think of the Supreme Court's finding as it relates to their interpretation of the fourth amendment and this case?

Bentley

We have completed the introduction of all of the ten Bill of Rights. There are always relevant news commentary and court decisions so we will keep this open to discuss them and their importance. Feel free to discuss any of the Bill of Rights at any time.

Bentley

This is Amendment 10:

Amendment 10 - Powers of the States and People

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.


Note regarding the above:

Amendment 10 - Powers of the States and People under Constitution

Anything not expressly granted to the Federal government is reserved for the States or the People. Although this amendment is very liberally interpreted, it is one of the tenets of the Constitution. This amendment is also known as the States' Rights Amendment.

There are some who feel that the federal government is encroaching on what should be considered states rights under the constitution.

Here is a link which discusses this amendment in detail from the viewpoint of those who want to keep sacred states rights:

http://www.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2009...

Some important historical details to consider when discussing state rights:

"The nullification crisis of the 1830s was a dispute over Northern-inspired tariffs that benefited Northern interests and were detrimental to Southern interests. The legal basis for the Southern call for nullification of the tariff laws was firmly rooted in states'-rights principles. Northern proposals to abolish or restrict slavery- an institution firmly protected by the Constitution- escalated the regional differences in the country and rallied the Southern states firmly behind the doctrine of states' rights and the sovereignty of the individual states. Southerners viewed the Constitution as a contractual agreement that was invalidated because its conditions had been breached. The Confederacy that was subsequently formed by the seceded states was patterned on the doctrine of states' rights. That doctrine, ironically, played a large role in the destruction of the country that it had caused to be created."

Source - The War for States Rights

Fascinating Fact: Wartime need for a centralized government that could impose conscription, as well as other measures necessary to win its freedom, conflicted sharply with states'-rights doctrine.

The South obviously felt the Federal government was meddling in their affairs. Do you agree or disagree?

For sure Chris; very good points.

Bentley

Bentley wrote: "AMENDMENT NINE

Construction of Constitution. Ratified 12/15/1791.

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people..."

Actually, Bentley, I've always interpreted this Amendment in the exact context you describe. That is, the enumeration of specific rights in the Bill of Rights doesn't mean that there aren't other rights the people possess. In fact, this issue was precisely one of the major reasons several of America's founders opposed the concept of a Bill of Rights. They feared that it could be used to restrict more rights than it protected.

AMENDMENT NINE

Construction of Constitution. Ratified 12/15/1791.

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

This is the amendment which seems to have a lot of people baffled. Nobody is too sure what James Madison was actually referring to. What others? I guess you could say that there are natural rights that we have like the right to eat and breathe and maybe there are so many of them that it would be impossible to list them all. Also would he want to start down that path by listing some and not listing others. Would the ones he did not list be assumed to be denied? This amendment seems to beg more questions than it answers.

Bentley wrote: "It seems that some groups are up and arms (no pun intended) about Sotomayor's nomination and her stance on everyone's Second Amendment rights to bear arms. They feel that she feels that your homet..."

Sotomayor's hearings are supposed to begin around July 13th I believe; the poor lady fractured her foot at the airport and went to Washington DC and the White House with a fractured foot and then went to the hospital. Now that is what I call determined.

It seems that some groups are up and arms (no pun intended) about Sotomayor's nomination and her stance on everyone's Second Amendment rights to bear arms. They feel that she feels that your hometown has a right to supppress your Second Amendment rights under the constitution. What do you think?

http://www.angus-reid.com/polls/view/335...

INITIAL LOOK AT SOTOMAYOR'S FIRST AND SECOND AMENDMENT RECORD:

http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/news...

http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/comm...

Source: First Amendment Center

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/05/...

Source: Fox News

http://lawprofessors.typepad.com/firstam...

Source: First Amendment Law Prof Blog

Supreme Court Nominee Sotomayor's Record in Labor and Employment Law Cases Reveals Balanced Approach

http://www.jacksonlewis.com/legalupdates...

Source: Jackson/Lewis

Amendment 8 - Cruel and Unusual Punishment. Ratified 12/15/1791.

Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

Any comments or thoughts about amendment eight?

For those of you interested in Washington Week in Review, podcasts, the Sotomayor discussion, etc.

http://www.pbs.org/weta/washingtonweek/

Yes, they do have too much time on their hands, and/or use the time they grab inappropriately. I wonder, too, if they are hiding behind the cloak of religion to use it as their reason for objecting to whatever bill or law they are supposed to be working on.
I feel I am a moderately religious person, but one has to live in this world, and this world often comes first, but you can maintain your religious base as you do your citizen duties and work for the majority and/or support a rightful minority. A real Christian, Jew, Muslim, etc., truly practices religion by the example of their behavior and life. Rev. Fred Phelps forgot that fact many many years ago, if he ever knew it: he's a clear example of the devil disguised as a religious.
But Phelps is a drastic example of what I mean; he's no example of good. Good examples of true followers of their religion: Billy Graham, Pope John Paul II, Mother Theresa (even then-Mayor Giuliani knew better than to argue with her, lol). There are more I know, but these names come to mind quickly.

I agree Kristen; some of the lawmakers have too much time on their hands.

As far as those folks who are religious; I have no arguments with them feeling the way they do; but on the other hand; those who do not feel similarly should be entitled to their own views even if those views might differ with my own or anybody else's beliefs. I am just very surprised that with everything else going on in the world; this is what Broun is focusing his time on.

Bentley

Meh . . . I'm not worried but I am rather disgusted. I know what I should be angry about is the clear endorsement of a sectarian view but honestly what actually makes me mad is that with all the problems we have in our country, THIS is what some politicians are wasting their time on? Of course it will fail anyway.

I wonder does Rep. Broun even realize just how offensive "a proclamation calling upon citizens of all faiths to rediscover and apply the priceless, timeless message of the Holy Scripture . . ." is to non-Christians? To me, that translates to "when are you filthy heathens going to stop denying Jesus?" 'Freedom of religion' should also means 'freedom from religion.' I am not a republican (big surprise there, ha-ha) but I still find it rather sad that this is what their party has been reduced to, religious nuts who's solution for every problem is 'god.'

WHAT DO YOU THINK OF THIS?

THE BIBLE BILL???


The Bible bill?

Victoria McGrane
Fri May 22, 5:40 am ET
When the clock strikes midnight on Dec. 31, 2009, Rep. Paul Broun (R-Ga.) hopes you’ll be ringing in “the Year of the Bible.”
It’s probably just wishful thinking.

Broun’s simple congressional resolution aimed at honoring the Good Book has produced a push-back of biblical proportion in the blogosphere, with critics dismissing it as either unconstitutional or a waste of time. Jews in Congress and atheist activists are dismissing the resolution, while none of the many Democrats in Congress who are Christian have bothered to sign on as co-sponsors.

According to GovTrak.us, the resolution is among the most-blogged-about pieces of legislation, with most posts less than complimentary in nature.
“Does that mean 2009 is not the year of the Bible?” mocked Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.), who is Jewish. “What is 2012 the year of? The Quran?”

“That’s an endorsement of religion by the federal government, and we shouldn’t be doing that,” said Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.), even though he has introduced his own legislation dealing with religion.

“Republican lawmakers with apparently too much time on their hands and no solutions to offer the country are pushing a resolution that will not address the nation’s problems or advance prosperity or even untangle their previous governing mistakes,” blogged the Progressive Puppy.

Broun rejects the critiques leveled at this effort.
“This doesn’t have anything to do with Christianity,” he said in an interview with POLITICO. Rather, he says, it seeks to recognize that the Bible played an integral role in the building of the United States, including providing the basis for our freedom of religion that allows Muslims, Hindus and even atheists to vocalize their own beliefs.

And even as Nadler criticized Broun, he has done his own share of mixing religion and legislation.

Last year, he introduced a bill that would overturn a federal appeals court ruling — an “idiot” decision, he says — that a condominium board in Chicago had the right to ban Jews from installing mezuzahs, which consist of a piece of parchment inscribed with a specific religious text put inside a case and hung on a door frame.

Condo boards shouldn’t be able to interfere in an individual’s right to practice his or her religion, Nadler said.

But he himself declined to install a mezuzah on his congressional office door when asked by a rabbi, even though he does so at home.

“That’s my religious symbol, and the office does not belong to me; it belongs to the people of the congressional district, and no one should feel uncomfortable walking into the office if it’s not their religion,” Nadler said, describing his feelings on religion and Congress.

“Same thing with the Bible. ... It’s not everybody’s religion. And the federal government should not be imposing religious viewpoints.”

Atheists, who might feel themselves a particular target with the declaration of a biblical year, aren’t even worried about Broun’s effort.

“Right now, we’re seeing atheism on such a rise,” said David Silverman, vice president and national spokesman of American Atheists, a group dedicated to fighting for the civil rights of atheists.

“We are seeing Christianity on such a dramatic decline that we’re not particularly worried about it. We’re thinking that this kind of old-style George W. Bush Republicanism is about to go away,” Silverman said, referring to the latest Pew Forum survey of American religious life, which showed nonreligious Americans as the fastest-growing group.

And it may be the best-selling book of all time, as Broun’s resolution points out, but the Bible isn’t such a popular legislative topic.

A search of Thomas, the online congressional database, for “Bible” yields just one other bill: a resolution to have the “Lincoln-Obama Bible” on permanent display in the Capitol Visitor Center.

The resolution specifically asks the president “to issue a proclamation calling upon citizens of all faiths to rediscover and apply the priceless, timeless message of the Holy Scripture which has profoundly influenced and shaped the United States and its great democratic form of government.”

As for the economy, health care, global warming and all the other issues on Congress’ plate?

“While we must focus on fiscal policies that provide relief to families during these tough economic times, an endeavor I have been working tirelessly towards in this Congress, we must also not forget to protect and celebrate our fundamental freedoms that the Bible has influenced,” Broun said.

Broun has gathered 15 co-sponsors, all Republicans, but says he’s looking for more and hopes Democrats will sign on, as well.

“This is not a partisan issue,” he said. “I want it to be bipartisan.”

Whether he’s successful or not — the same measure didn’t go anywhere last year — at least Broun and his fellow supporters can take heart in one fact: They already had a “year of the Bible.”

Ronald Reagan designated 1983 as one, with Congress’ blessing.

Copyright © 2009 Yahoo! Inc. All rights reserved.Questions or CommentsPrivacy PolicyTerms of ServiceCopyright/IP Policy

Amendment 7 - Trial by Jury in Civil Cases


In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.

The above is next week's discussion topic. Please feel free to discuss the above or any other of the previous mentioned amendments.

Thank you Kristen; appreciate your post; I personally had not followed the case in Dover, PA; have been more attuned to what the Supreme is doing or not. Great post.

Thanks for the review, maybe I'll check it out.

Nova had a very well done documentary on the far more recent case in Dover PA.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/id/program....

In that spirit I would like to discuss some of the earlier amendments and digress a bit.

As everyone knows the following is the first amendment which basically is the vessel which holds a bunch of our civil liberties which sometimes I think we take for granted here in the US.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
— The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution

Back in one of the previous posts, I suggested in preparation for the discussion of that amendment that you might want to view the great old film starring Spencer Tracy titled Inherit the Wind where he starred in this movie in the role of Henry Drummond.

Last night, I viewed that old movie with a Netflix rental. All I can say is wow!

The writeup on the movie sleeve stated as follows:

"Spencer Tracy (in one of his best roles) as lawyer Henry Drummond and Frederic March as Matthew Harrison Brady square off as opposing attorneys in this blistering courtroom drama about the famous 1930s "Scopes Monkey Trial" where a Tennessee teacher was taken to task for teaching Darwinism in the schoolroom. Song and dance man Gene Kelly co-stars as newspaper reporter H.L. Mencken."

However, the movie itself is a blend of fact and fiction. In the real Tennessee trial, the famous lawyer Clarence Darrow for the defense faced off against William Jennings Bryan. H.L. Mencken was covering the trial for the Baltimore Evening Sun. Scopes was actually a 24 year-old Dayton High School mathematics teacher and sports coach and sometimes science teacher. He was accused of violating state law (the 1925 Butler Act) by teaching the Darwin's theory of evolution in a state-funded school. I think even today this is a contested issue; one that even came up recently when Sarah Palin was on the campaign trail with John McCain. Some do not believe in evolution or Darwin; and everyone of course has the right and the freedom to their beliefs whatever they might be.

However, I think the key to the first amendment is that it tries to protect the individual no matter what he chooses to believe even if it is diametrically opposed to someone else's way of thinking.

I did post some youtube excerpts; but I would highly recommend renting the movie from Netflix who I rented from or from some other source. Possibly some of the libraries out there have a copy as well. I was also stunned by the unbelievable performances by Spencer Tracy, Frederic March and Gene Kelly. Tracy, in fact, won an Oscar for his performance. But the other two were brilliant and their acting was every bit as good.

There were so many brilliant lines from this movie; please check out this link which highlights some of them.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0053946/quot...

Other facts worth noting about the "real" Scopes trial:

Scopes actually agreed to being the guinea pig for testing what many considered to be an unfair law. I have attached an article which spells out the real history of this event:

http://archives.cnn.com/2000/LAW/07/13/s...

Additionally, in the above article, is a segment which deals with this issue and more recent Supreme Court decisions. Even up to the present day, this is a thorny debate.

As everyone should be aware; the discussions on this thread though they cover all of the amendments with a timeline can and should have postings which cover any of the amendments either currently under discussion or any of the previous ones.

Currently on this thread we have introduced Amendments 1 through 6 of the Bill of Rights; so discussion can take place "on any of these at any time"

Here is Amendment Six:

Amendment 6 - Right to Speedy Trial, Confrontation of Witnesses

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.

It seems we have hit the jackpot with these two; these two amendments are front and center in the news. Many do not want to have any of these detainees on American soil or in continental American jails. And most folks are questionning how both the security of the US can be protected while at the same time affording those rights inherent in our constitution so that these folks are granted due process.

Here is Amendment Five:

Amendment 5 - Trial and Punishment, Compensation for Takings

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

This seems to be another amendment which is in the news constantly lately with the rights of the detainees in Cuba being discussed. Feel free to chime in on this one.

The concept of search and seizure is so fluid- the headline stories about the abusive police practices in Tenaha, Texas. What a nightmare scenario. What is unbelievable is the cooperation of the DA in this town of 1,000 residents in confiscating over $3 million and refusing to return the funds (as required when no charges are filed or an acquittal is obtained).

Amendment 4 - Search and Seizure

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Getting back to this week's amendment.

I am going to post an important review done of the Fourth Amendment by the Stanford Law Review. It is important to note that there are four models used by the courts to evaluate Fourth Amendment protections. First here is a paragraph from a review done by Orin Kerr which lists the four and explains the court's dilemma.

The Fourth Amendment protects reasonable expectations of privacy, but the Supreme Court has refused to provide a consistent explanation for what makes an expectation of privacy reasonable. The Court's refusal has disappointed scholars and frustrated students for four decades.

This article explains why the Supreme Court cannot provide an answer: No one test can accurately and consistently distinguish less troublesome police practices that do not require Fourth Amendment oversight from more troublesome police practices that are reasonable only if the police have a warrant or compelling circumstances.

Instead of endorsing one single approach, the Supreme Court uses four different tests at the same time. There are four models of Fourth Amendment protection: a probabilistic model, a private facts model, a positive law model, and a policy model.

The use of multiple models has a major advantage over a singular approach, as it allows the courts to use different approaches in different contexts depending on which can most accurately and consistently identify practices that need Fourth Amendment regulation. Source - Orin Kerr - George Washington Law School (Professor)

Here is the Stanford Law Review article which goes into depth regarding each of the four models of protection under the Fourth Amendment:

a) Probabilistic
b) Private Facts
c) Positive Law
d) Policy

Four models of Fourth Amendment protection.

URL: http://www.accessmylibrary.com/coms2/sum...

To understand, the Fourth Amendment and what it means to us; we need to discuss these four models.

Bentley

I believe Virginia that their full pensions kick in after 10 years. They get full salary; I think that is a way to get the justices to consider retirement on their own; knowing that they will be taken care of and have other options. Souter stayed on for 19 years (I believe) so he gave it a real shot. I think their choosing when they leave is also a good thing; they can decide if the president who will be doing the nominating is sensitive to their views and stances. I think Souter stated that if Obama won that he would retire (meaning that someone would replace him that he would approve of). He loves NH but never was part of the Washington DC social circle (his choice).

I notice that more justices are leaving before death, wisely, while their faculties are still good. It will be interesting to see where Souter's replacement comes from.

Yes, the Phelps family seems to be deaf and blind to criticism from public opinion. I still wish there was a law to put an end to those funeral demonstrations; I know the law of demonstrations keeps them back a certain number of feet. There should be an addition to disturbing the peace and public nuisance for demonstrating like this at any funeral; in my and most people's book, this is NOT first amendment rights involved here. This is a gross invasion of privacy, at the very least.

I'm really surprised that other Christian religions haven't done something - not at a funeral but elsewhere - against Phelps. He gives all of evangelical Christianity a very bad name.

David Souter is resigning from the Supreme Court; Obama will be making his first nomination to the Supreme Court.

I understand Virginia, it is a shame what Matthew Shepard's parents have been put though as well. I do think that some of these so called reverends go way overboard, Reverend Wright was another example (white people) but what Phelps has done actually demonstrating in front of the funeral mass for Matthew Shepard was appalling and went beyond the pale.

I think that someone should state as Charles Dickens did in the Pickwick Papers: “I look upon you, sir, as a man who has placed himself beyond the pale of society, by his most audacious, disgraceful, and abominable public conduct”.

What is most interesting is that the Phelps family could care less about public opinion. Very sad.

Bentley

Kristen wrote: "On the others side of the argument shouldn't all crimes be judge equally? Is it fair to punish criminals based on their intent rather than solely on their actions?"

When a person is brought to trial for any crime, motive becomes an important part of the trial, and if convicted, what punishment the defendant gets. There is a big difference between someone who kills a guy because he was messing with his wife, vs. someone who kills a guy because that victim was gay or another race and the killer hated what the victim was. The Hate Crimes Bill adds extra punishment to someone who kills or injuries another person just because of what that person was/is, not for anything the victim had done. I believe they mean here intent = motive.
I wish that bill could bring to an end the hate crimes (IMO) that Rev. (?) Fred Phelps does every time he demonstrates/harasses the deceased's relatives at the funeral of a gay person - Matthew Shepard's funeral and the awful and outrageous demonstration against his parents as a glaring example of Phelp's hate. (This example is a sore point with me to this day.)

Amendment 4 - Search and Seizure

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

This is a big one; and this has been the subject of many court cases. This is really the amendment for next week's discussion; but I am posting it early in order to move along the discussion. At any time, feel free to post your thoughts about any of the previous amendments and/or any of the previous postings.

Bentley

Kristen wrote: "Bentley wrote: "THE HATE CRIMES BILL - PASSED HOUSE YESTERDAY:

Here is the write-up from Congress:

The House this afternoon passed an expanded hate crimes bill that would protect gay victims,..."

It appears that a lot of the criticism has come from the South or the Republican side; although some Democrats were against the bill and some Republicans crossed over to vote for it.

A lot of the controversy dealt with church leaders being able to criticize homosexuality, etc. as you correctly stated.

However, what if an unbalanced parishioner decided to take God in his or her own hands because of what he heard in a sermon (even though the sermon itself was not trying to be inciteful; but in essence ended up being the stimulus for the act). Then what do you do. Did the pastor's harmless speech incite the action?

The same thing could be said about the Catholic Church and their view on abortion; if the Catholic Church preaches against the pro life movement; could an unbalanced parishioner take it upon themselves to go after Planned Parenthood doctors as they have done in the past.

Would the pastor and the priest now be called into court under this bill as inciting these horrendous acts? They might be; and that would be troubling. I have not read the bill yet so I am unsure of the language; but these are just some troubling possibilities.

I think that the intent of the bill is terrific and I do support many of the elements of the bill.

You raise another good point; are different crimes going to be judged now on their intent and will the same crime be given different punishments.

This could be a slippery slope.

Bentley

Bentley wrote: "THE HATE CRIMES BILL - PASSED HOUSE YESTERDAY:

Here is the write-up from Congress:

The House this afternoon passed an expanded hate crimes bill that would protect gay victims, and its chief spons..."


I was talking about this hate crimes bill a while back and I think that some of the criticism is rather misleading. There was some concern that it would prevent church leaders from criticizing homosexuality when all it actually outlaws is speech that would instigate violence and I don't think that's a bad thing.

On the others side of the argument shouldn't all crimes be judge equally? Is it fair to punish criminals based on their intent rather than solely on their actions?

Hi Kristen,

I agree with what you have said; I was just pointing out that some folks (not you) had the opinion that God was not mentioned by our founding fathers and that they never mentioned God because they did not have any strong religious views.

I believe like you do that there should be a separation of church and state and we would certainly not want any church to be running the government or even to have an official church (like England had in the past).

If you get a chance take a look at the posting from the Library of Congress regarding religion and the founding fathers, there is quite a bit there that is very interesting regarding the controversy as to why God was not mentioned in the constitution. It had nothing to do with a lack of religious belief; it was simply to separate church from state and even that was controversial to many.
I think the LOC has the facts straight; with an unbiased narrative.

In moving forward the arguments (pro and con) there will always be posts that you might not agree with and maybe I don't either; everyone is invited to express their views openly (there are no right or wrong answers).

I am not sure that I agree with you regarding dissenting voices being marginalized. Maybe you could explain further.

In speaking about the constitution, I feel that everyone has the right to be heard and to petition to the court; but not necessarily does every minority group have the right to push through their own specialized agenda whatever that might be.

Yes, I agree with you that some were not as religious; while others were (re: the founding fathers).

A country needs to protect everyone and all of their civil liberties; but it doesn't need to embrace the minority point of view because they protest (MHO). I support the right to protest by all of the minority groups; but I certainly at the same time want to protect my rights as an individual (to enjoy what the majority endorses). We all cannot have things the way we personally want things to be.

I will continue to move things along as the moderator; and I welcome all sides of an issue or debate. Sometimes I am wearing two hats. (lol)

Kristen, your input has been terrific and has stimulated a lot of thinking and discussion. Keep posting your viewpoints; I do not think any of this is boring.

What did you think of the hate crimes bill just passed (by the House)?

Bentley

Perhaps you took my remark the wrong way Bentley. I was simply pointing out that during the drafting of the Constitution there was a debate as to whether the document should proclaim that men receive their rights from god or from themselves. In the end they decided that the right to govern comes from the consent of the people rather than a deity. Obviously I agree with this statement as I don't believe any democracy should declare their right to rule comes from god. At the time there was a bit of controversy over the fact the the Constitution made no references to god and some felt the document dismissed the importance of religion. You certainly don't need to remind me that most Americans are religious people and that religion has had a large impact on our country because that fact is inescapable. Because of that fact, I think that dissenting voices tend to be marginalized. I'm sure we could both argue the point back and forth indefinitely but I think we're boring everyone ;-) Yes most of the founders where religious men but some were also secularist. I think that the separate between church is state is one of the things that makes this such a great country. I also think secularism is something worth defending but no more so than the freedom of speech and the freedom to practice ones religion. I just think it is absolutely necessary in a country as diverse as ours that the government represent everyone. Beside you may not always find yourself in the majority.

THE HATE CRIMES BILL - PASSED HOUSE YESTERDAY:

Here is the write-up from Congress:

The House this afternoon passed an expanded hate crimes bill that would protect gay victims, and its chief sponsor in the Senate called for prompt final action.

The measure passed 249-175 over the objections of conservatives, the Associated Press reports.

The bill -- named for Matthew Shepard, the gay college student who was beaten to death in Wyoming in 1998 -- is a stronger version of a bill that died two years ago under a veto threat from President Bush.

By contrast, President Obama supports it. The chief sponsor in the Senate is Edward M. Kennedy of Massachusetts, who issued a statement this afternoon:

“I commend the House for its action to strengthen the inadequate existing federal law on hate crimes. No members of society – none – deserve to be victims of a violent crime because of their race, their religion, their ethnic background, their disability, their gender, their gender identity, or their sexual orientation. It’s long past time for Congress to do more to prevent hate crimes and insist that they be fully investigated and prosecuted when they occur. This important legislation is supported by a broad coalition of over 300 law enforcement, civic, religious and civil rights organizations and I look forward to prompt action by the Senate.”

http://uk.reuters.com/article/usTopNews/...

The Republicans stated:

Representative Lamar Smith, ranking Republican on the House Judiciary Committee, helped lead the charge against the bill, arguing it was misdirected and discriminatory.

"All violent crimes must be vigorously prosecuted," Smith said. "Unfortunately, this bill undermines one of the most basic principles of our criminal justice system -- 'equal justice for all.'"

"Justice will now depend on the race, gender, sexual orientation, disability or other protected status of the victim," Smith said. "It will allow different penalties to be imposed for the same crime."

The Republican Viewpoint:

http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2007/apr...

The Democratic Viewpoint and some Republicans who are for the bill:

Representatives Polis and Markey:

http://www.coloradopols.com/diary/9388/m...

This bill seemed to be quite polarizing. Some folks are saying that it will infringe on First Amendment rights of speech and religion. Some say that it violates the 14th Amendment by not giving equal protection for all. Some say that this is a victory for gay rights. Does anybody have any opinions on this (pro or con)

Another big topic here has been the Pledge of Allegiance: (This might give an historical timeline of sorts)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pledge_of_A...

Kristen wrote: "Chris wrote: "I apologize for speaking in regards to a previous subject, but I'd very much like to point out the following in regards to the church/state discussions from a while back. The line "u..."

Thank you Kristen for adding Jacoby's book.