The History Book Club discussion

This is an open discussion regarding The Bill of Rights. This is not a non spoiler thread and all members are invited to participate and post on any aspect of this document. I have attached the full document below:

http://www.usconstitution.net/xconst....

http://www.billofrights.com/bill_of_r...

http://www.post-gazette.com/nation/20...

The Constitution of the United States of America, with the Bill of Rights and all of the Amendments; The Declaration of Independence; and the Articles of Confederation




MAKING OF THE CHARTERS:

http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/char...

The US Bill of Rights:

Twenty-seven amendments have been added to the Constitution since 1789. The first ten amendments, known as the Bill of Rights, were adopted as a unit in 1791.

Here we will discuss The Bill of Rights (the preamble) and the first 10 amendments. These were adopted as a unit in 1791.

Here is the syllabus:

Preamble to the Bill of Rights and Amendment One - April 12 - April 18th (2009)

Amendment Two - April 19th - April 25th

Amendment Three - April 26th - May 2nd

Amendment Four - May 3rd - May 9th

Amendment Five - May 10th - May 16th

Amendment Six - May 17th - May 23rd

Amendment Seven - May 24th - May 30th

Amendment Eight - May 31st - June 6th

Amendment Nine - June 7th - June 13th

Amendment Ten - June 14th - June 20th

For those of you who would like to get ahead and start preparing for the discussion on the First Amendment which begins April 12th, may I suggest that you start by looking at the site which is dedicated to Amendment One:

http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/a...

Amendment One is chock full of our five basic freedoms: press, assembly, petition, religion, speech. A lot of which we sometimes take for granted; and ones which our founding fathers thought were the most important and obviously prioritized them at the top of the list. It really does embody our political rights and civil liberties.

It states as follows:

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

Also, may I suggest in preparation for the discussion that you might want to view the great old film starring Spencer Tracey titled Inherit the Wind where he starred in this movie in the role of Henry Drummond.

Here are some clips to pique your interest:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S_DQUA...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vtNdYs...

Also: Evolution version Creationism:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bV4_lV... (a discussion)

Creationism debate on CNN's Anderson Cooper 360:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=40Q8p3...

The Scopes Trial would also be interesting; here are some videos regarding it:

The famous 1925 trial of John Scopes in Dayton Tennessee became known as the "Monkey Trial". John Scopes was arrested for teaching evolution. This breached the Tennessee anti-evolution law known as the Butler Act. The trial itself received national attention as it was not only one of the first ever court cases which was broadcast live on radio but pitted famous lawyer, Clarence Darrow against past presidential candidate William Jennings Bryan.

Scopes Trial Youtubes - number one:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xOgI0b...

Number Two:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o4RGE-...

Number Three:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qimbUl...

Number Four:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=URszl5...

Number Five:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jqnAHE...

Number Six:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ST-jRd...

Number Seven:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DatUQW...

Number Eight:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SA5vsV...

Bentley

Some other things to consider before April 12th:

C-Span video (Judge Janice Rogers Brown) - First Amendment Issues and connections to the Fifth Amendment:

http://www.c-spanarchives.org/library...

C-Span: First Amendment in Schools (with young people and the First Amendment Organization:

http://www.c-spanarchives.org/library...

This one is rather humorous in parts - also a C-Span Video:

Western Democracy and Islamic Fundamentalism (First Amendment Issues)
C-Span Video

http://www.c-spanarchives.org/library...

Another video on the Freedom of Expression (First Amendment):

This one is titled: After Words with Anthony Lewis (Freedom for the Thought that We Hate) - This reflects the biography of the First Amendment and the Freedom of Expression:

http://www.c-spanarchives.org/library...

This one is pretty good and includes a panel of distinquished lawyers discussing: Supreme Court Cases on First Amendment Issues.

http://www.c-spanarchives.org/library...

This one is about: Civil Liberties and Combating Terrorism

http://www.c-spanarchives.org/library...


The First Amendment:

http://www.c-spanarchives.org/library...

Flag Burning and the First Amendment;

http://www.c-spanarchives.org/library...

First Amendment Rights Moot Court (Scalia at Harvard)

http://www.c-spanarchives.org/library...

Personal Information on the Internet:

http://www.c-spanarchives.org/library...

First Amendent Issues:

http://www.c-spanarchives.org/library...

Music and the First Amendment:

http://www.c-spanarchives.org/library...

Future of the First Amendment:

http://www.c-spanarchives.org/library...

First Amendment: Freedom of Religion:

http://www.c-spanarchives.org/library...

First Amendment: Freedom of the Press

http://www.c-spanarchives.org/library...

Freedom of Assembly:

http://www.c-spanarchives.org/library...

First Amendment Issues:

http://www.c-spanarchives.org/library...


Freedom to Petition and Freedom to Assemble:

http://www.c-spanarchives.org/library...

40th Anniversary on Supreme Court Decision on Student Speech:

http://www.c-spanarchives.org/library...

Speaking Freely: Trials of the First Amendment:

http://www.c-spanarchives.org/library...

Separation of Church and State:

http://www.c-spanarchives.org/library...

National Security and the First Amendment:

http://www.c-spanarchives.org/library...


Free Speech during War:

http://www.c-spanarchives.org/library...

Supreme Court Decision on Detainees:

http://www.c-spanarchives.org/library...

Civil Liberties in Wartime (Patriots Act)

http://www.c-spanarchives.org/library...

First Amendment Programs:

http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/a...

Civil Rights and the First Amendment:

http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/a...

Freedoms of speech and religion seem to be the most in debate nowadays. There is still debate when someone demonstrates concerning a hated or dangerous topic (neo-Naziis for example); religion has now become so strict (?) that i.e. nativity scenes and menorrahs are becoming prohibited except in one's own yard.

I find it very interesting the way that the simple sentence: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" Has been interpreted and reinterpreted over the years. It is hard to look at this and see that there is a legal foundation for outlawing religious expression in anyway. I'm not saying that I disagree with the concept of the seperation of Church and State, It's just interesting to me that the concept was extracted from a sentence that seems to me to say that the government should stay out of citizens religious lives.

Over the years, religious expression has changed mightily. When I was a kid, we had prayer in school, and said 'under God' without flinching in the Pledge of Allegance. Non-Christians understood what was going on, and were not forced to say anything; just maintain a respectful silence. No one objected back then; all was peaceful. Nativity scenes were prevalent during the holidays, with occasional menorrahs. I've always been sensitive to other's rights, but where all was peaceful and accepting back in the 50's, 60's, 70's, I find it hard to see so many being what I feel is a bit overreactive now.

Andy, I agree with you and I think that is what the separation of Church and State is supposed to mean (not allowing our religion to be governed in any way). I think what has happened is what Virginia alludes to in message 8; everyone was very tolerant back then and somehow of late it seems few are; it is almost like religion is something to be locked away in Church and is not to be mentioned except in private life. Also, as hard as it is to stomach, even the most hated speech shouldn't be outlawed as long as these demonstrations are peacefully held and are not being inciteful. It seems now that just saying certain words can get folks fired or worse (even though I have to admit some of these utterances were in poor taste).

For example, do you think that Imus's civil liberties were violated when he was fired for what he and his other compadres said on the air; one could say if you did not like listening to his rhetoric do not tune in?

Was his right to freedom of speech violated even though what he said was in very very poor taste and hurtful to others? I am curious as to what our founding fathers had in mind about freedom of speech considering some of the things that were stated about the English monarch and others. Hard to tell in this day and age where the framers of the constitution would have drawn the line or not? Would they have been more like Scalia or Ginsburg?

Hello Kristin,

I can see your point regarding the nativity scene discussion; but still feel that if let us say some children in a class somewhere in the USA want to bring in their own symbols in terms of celebrating their holiday season; that in of itself does not seem to be something that as a community we should not be able to tolerate. But again, this is just MHO and I would love to hear what others feel about the different interpretations of our basic charters.

I know growing up that in school we would eagerly have grab bags and exchange gifts at Christmas and there were all faiths in my classroom; we would have a little fake tree set up and even some plastic candles were brought in by our Jewish classmates. None of this seemed tacky to us; we loved the celebrations and we even loved the decorations as kids; making additional ones out of brightly colored construction paper; what fun we had.

It seems we tolerate Christmas decorations everywhere in all of our stores starting earlier and earlier each year; I am wondering why we are spoiling it for our children in their schools, etc. I have to admit that I love to see the lights in the windows and remember as a child visiting the store windows with my parents to see all of the beautiful decorations.

As far as tackiness; I have to agree about the blow up snowmen, etc. (lol); but for children I think some of these things make them happy no matter how tacky they may seem to us.

I disagree about the 50s and 60s regarding certain areas of our country; at least in the region where I lived, it appeared to me to be tolerant of others no matter what their race or ethnic denomination. Maybe I was just not cognizant of what you are describing.

Thinking back though; for African Americans and probably some other minority groups; this was certainly not the case; especially in the South.

I think you raise an important point about feeling secure enough to voice dissent. However, our founding fathers stated that we had all of the civil rights to do that at any time as well as to have freedom of speech and religion.

It just seems to me that even by today's standards that even though some groups feel that they can be and are able to be more vocal; that this in of itself should not in some way inhibit other groups or individuals from doing what they had always done if it is in support of their own beliefs or happiness.

You are correct of course about the insertion of the phrase "under god" in the pledge of allegiance; and my way of thinking is that those folks who do not want to say that phrase should just be allowed not to say it without any embarrassment on their part.

Why do these changes one way or the other have to involve everyone? We do have the right of freedom of speech and religion so we can politely just refrain from saying those two words. But I do agree that maybe we should have just left the pledge of allegiance alone. I would hate for our country to end up being a one size fits all country where every single group gets to dissect and rob others of their rights just because they complained that something does not suit them. I think things have gone too far in terms of private interest groups and making every small issue become blown up and politically motivated. I think these actions could possibly undermine all of the basic fundamental freedoms we hold dear. I would be interested to hear what others think.

Kristen, you made some very interesting comments and observations. I think the founding fathers meant to keep things simple; I wonder what they would think of all of the various laws that have been enacted and all of the debates from all sides.

Bentley

Regarding the Preamble:

Here it is:

Preamble

Congress OF THE United States
begun and held at the City of New York, on Wednesday
the Fourth of March, one thousand seven hundred and eighty nine.

THE Conventions of a number of the States having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best insure the beneficent ends of its institution

RESOLVED by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, two thirds of both Houses concurring, that the following Articles be proposed to the Legislatures of the several States, as Amendments to the Constitution of the United States, all or any of which Articles, when ratified by three fourths of the said Legislatures, to be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of the said Constitution; viz.:

ARTICLES in addition to, and Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America, proposed by Congress, and ratified by the Legislatures of the several States, pursuant to the fifth Article of the original Constitution.

I have to at least partly agree with the premise of people in the minority being fearful of protesting. Befor the Civil Rights law went into effect, the Blacks of the South in particular (and North, too, though not in as much danger) didn't dare protest anything in order to stay alive and below the radar of KKK notice.
I had forgotten about the 'under God' being put in during the 50's; I had always heard it said in school, so always had assumed it had been there all along.
In my town growing up, there were 3 religions: Protestant, Catholic and Jewish. We Christians I guess assumed that the Jews did the respectful silence during prayer and/or Christian references done in assembly wherever they were. I never felt any anti-Semitism myself, but I realize now that I heard an undercurrent of it here and there. The overall idea was that God was recognized and honored, and it didn't really matter how he was worshipped. Madeleine Murray O'Hare really raised hell with that whole deal; I think her protest started the ball rolling which results in the way things are now. Obviously silent respect wasn't considered in her vocabulary. I've known a number of agnostics and atheists in my time, and all that I have personally met respect what is going on, and either stay respectfully silent, or leave the area.
Bentley: "I think things have gone too far in terms of private interest groups and making every small issue become blown up and politically motivated. I think these actions could possibly undermine all of the basic fundamental freedoms we hold dear." You said it all right here.
I have a problem with freedom of speech. I don't care much for Mr. Imus, and think his getting kicked off the radio for a time was deserved punishment at least for the very poor taste he exercised. I agree that peaceful protest is necessary and should be allowed, but it is hard to deal with when the Nazis/hate groups are going full tilt. And there has GOT to be something to silence someone like Rev. Fred Phelps who led that ugly demonstration at Matthew Shepard's funeral against Matthew's family...I'm still furious...absolutely livid... about that, and there has to be more of a law that keeps something like that away from similar scenes.

I know in later years, and maybe even now, a lot of schools changed the prayer part to silent reflection or moment of silence time, with no reference to prayers or religion. Students were told they could do whatever during that time - pray, think, reflect, etc., as long as they were silent for the length of time. I thought when I first heard about this new development that this was a great way of getting around the religion debate without eliminating reflective moments.

Oldesq, I see your point; but I know for years that prayer was acceptable in schools and I do not feel it is unacceptable now (just MHO); in fact, I think the minorities are ruling the majority in many, many situations; just because someone doesn't like something or doesn't want to do something shouldn't mean that everyone has to NOT do it or lose out on the practice, ritual, celebration, etc.

I also do not think that you should have felt embarrassed at all; you were simply exercising your civil rights; I am posing a question here which of course you do not have to answer...but were you embarrassed because you wanted to fit into your neighborhood in every way and did not want others to know what your views were. I think sometimes that many of us do that in many aspects of our lives.

Regarding the preamble, it seems to me that the founding fathers after drafting the constitution obviously felt that there was a lot of wiggle room for their ideals to be purposely misinterpreted or misapplied or abused. So along came the Bill of Rights in order to better define the scope and the restrictions. It is obvious from the language used that this was a young country and there were many skeptics regarding its survival.

Also what was interesting to me was that 2/3rds of both the Senate and the House of Representatives had to pass these amendments and then they had to be ratified by 3/4ths of each state's legislature; that is quite a hurdle to overcome and quite an accomplishment on the part of this young country at the time.

Folks, we really have not discussed all aspects of the First Amendment yet; however I will also introduce this week the second amendment for discussion.

At any time, please feel free to post regarding either the current Amendment under discussion or any previous one which has already been scheduled. There are so many interesting discussions that we can have regarding our charters and how they relate to current events as we move along.

The timeline is simply a guide to keep the discussion flowing.

Bentley

I was reading this article and thought how in a weird way this was pertinent to our conversation. An idea or in this case a font catches the fancy of the populace; and then someone decides to come along and start a movement against it (just because they decide they don't like it or it doesn't fit their purist view of typography). I guess I have to say if you don't like it just use one of the other hundred choices available to you; why try to ban for everyone else what you do not care for (even it is not a typographer's dream font). It sort of shows how the dissent movement has gotten out of hand in a rather humorous way.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB12399...

Amendment II

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

The above is Amendment II of the Bill of Rights (Right to Bear Arms) and probably no other amendment has been more hotly contested. I will post other supplementary material on the second amendment as we move along. However, in the mean time, what is your take on this amendment and why do you think it has been so controversial? It is even in the news now as we speak.

The 10th Anniversary of Columbine certainly brings it to the forefront again.
As this was written back in the early days of our country, it was necessary then - one had to defend themselves against Indians (another whole subject), etc., and hunt for your food. If you were threatened, you had to defend yourself. Guns were necessary at home then, especially in rural and newly settled areas.
But today with police departments, etc., the necessity behind this amendment does not exist. Hunters for deer, moose, bear, rabbits, etc., don't need Uzis and 357 Magnums, etc.; they have specific rifles for woods hunting. The sales of guns, especially at shows, are too loose; this is mostly how the psychos get their weapons - the sale slips through the cracks. The NRA, in their attempt to ensure that hunters have the ability and equipment to hunt, are going way too much the other way and are against regulating any guns. Something has to be done to end the free sale and possession of weapons. I know this might risk a Prohibition like the liquor Prohibition of long ago. But something needs to be done. We have plenty of defense - four branches I can think of; that is our well-regulated militia. But people don't need to 'bear arms'. But how to specifically solve this huge problem...

Virginia wrote: "The 10th Anniversary of Columbine certainly brings it to the forefront again.
As this was written back in the early days of our country, it was necessary then - one had to defend themselves agai..."

You raise some interesting points Virginia; it is the what to do which still seems to escape us. I have to run to an appt. but will get back to the discussion later.

Kristen wrote: "What an interesting debate.

In response to your comment that you don't see a problem with prayer in school Bentley: Just as an example of how messy that could get, I live a few miles down the road..."

I am not Muslim but I believe they recognize god as god even though there are many names for god in the various religions of the world.

I can fully understand the issues you raise; but a generic prayer to god should not offend; but then again Kristen you raised the issue and I know it is a very real one for some folks. I understand that in this discussion there will be some differences of opinion and that is OK. Even the supreme court has split decisions on most of these issues.

As far as sharia courts; many in England view them as a good thing; there seems to be two sides to every story and perspective.

As we discuss the amendments and other scenarios; there will always be folks who feel differently; all opinions are welcome.

I am not so sure that we need to get rid of all of the guns; maybe the process has to be dealt with differently plugging up the loopholes. Organized crime, terrorists and others will always find a way to gain firearms and they most likely will not need gun shows to get them; it is very sad but true. However, that should not deter us from doing something to curtail Uzis and paramilitary weapons. Ordinary citizens are not in need of these. I am sure that the founding fathers did not have any of these in mind.

I remember several year ago, when I worked in retail, a young lady, 24 or 25 years old, came in to the store where I worked and bought a stereo system for her car. We scheduled a date for her to return to have her stereo installed. When the date arrived for her stereo to be installed, she did not show up. I called the number that she had provided several times over the next few weeks and finally received a return call from her brother, he said he could bring her car in the next day to have the stereo installed.

When he came in, I asked him why she had not shown up for her appointment. He told me an amazing story.

His sister had been out at a club dancing, she was being bothered by a guy who would not leave her alone, after a while, she decided just to leave and go home and just chalk it up to a bad night. When she got out of her car, in her apartment parking lot, the guy from the club was pulling in to the space next to hers. She ran to the door of her apartment screaming for help and unlocked the door. She ran inside, but before she could close the door, he blocked it with his foot and began cursing at her. She ran in to her bedroom and locked her door. He had not entered her apartment but was yelling loudly at her from just outside her door. She called 911 and told the operator what was happening. The operator said that police had been dispatched, and did she have a gun? She did, the operator told her to get it and make sure that it was loaded. At about this time the guy from the club started banging on the bedroom door.

The 911 operator said to tell the guy that the police were on the way and that she had a gun and would shoot him if he did not leave. She told him this. He stopped banging on the door and for a moment, and then suddenly he kicked the door open. Hearing the loud crash, the 911 operator said, "Shoot him!" She shot him three times; one time in the leg, twice in the chest. About three minutes later the police arrived, (a less that five minute response time). Amazingly the guy survived his gunshot wounds, I don't know if he was ever sent to prison, but I bet he would hesitate to run in to someone's apartment again.

Her brother told me that she had only lived in her apartment for a month, that prior to moving in, her father had bought her a gun and enrolled her in classes to learn how to use it. His sister had resisted her father's suggestions but had attended the classes to appease him. It's a good thing she did. Even though the police arrived very quickly, a lot could have happened in that three minute period.

I own a handgun, I know how to use it, and I hope I never have to use it to defend myself, but I makes me feel safer knowing I can if I have to.

All that being said, I can think of no reason that an individual needs to be able to purchase an assault weapon. In my opinion, reasonable restrictions(including waiting periods and background checks)should be the norm. Sorry for the longwinded response, but this is a very messy issue.

Kristen, in response to,

"Most students in the Dearborn school system are Muslim, so my question to you is: if the school were to allow teachers start class with a prayer, should we force those Muslim students pray to a Christian god or should the children be allowed to pray in Arabic to their own god? I assume you wouldn't force Muslim children to pray to Jesus, correct? So if we allow the class to pray to Allah, then what about the handful of Christian students, should they be force to declare "Allah is the only true god" simply because they are now in the minority?"

I am not a proponent of prayer in school. In my opinion, religion is a personal/family matter and does not have a place in public school. I don't think that, however, that there is any reasonable person who has put forth the option of everyone praying to the religion of the majority. I think that a moment of silence or quite reflection, during which, a student may say a prayer (or not) as they so desire, has been proposed.

So, in the Dearborn schools, Muslim students would silently pray in compliance with the Muslim faith, Christians would say a Christian prayer, and those who chose not to pray, would not pray (they could silently study the lace on the exposed bra strap of the girl in front of them, for instance). It all seems so harmless, and yet so complicated and divisive.

Andy wrote: " Kristen, in response to,

"Most students in the Dearborn school system are Muslim, so my question to you is: if the school were to allow teachers start class with a prayer, should we force thos..."

Andy, I agree with you and your proposition; why throw out the baby with the bath water. I laughed aloud over the option for those who would not pray (lol).

I agree with what you stated: "It all seems so harmless, and yet so complicated and divisive" Very much the case.

Kristen wrote: "Wow! What a scary story Andy!



Bentley, just a quick rebuttal before we move on:

I don't think nearly as simply as you claim. Even if you could come up with a prayer generic enough to encompa..."

Kristen, I tend to agree with what Andy stated; let me state upfront that for purposes of initiating discussion I will often play devil's advocate and possibly introduce a side of an argument to probe and get folks to think and/or debate an issue or in this case the amendments and the bill of rights. There are no right or wrong answers; just different sides of the issues. I do not think the majority should rule the minority; nor do I think the minority should ruin it for the majority either.

Kristen, let me briefly put on my co-moderator's hat and say that all opinions and feelings are welcome and no opinion of anybody's is shocking because it is simply a side of an argument that possibly you and/or I may or may not share. I think it is good to see and try to understand all opposing viewpoints; even though we may not or others might not agree.

As far as sharia courts; I do not believe that the folks in England who agreed to sharia courts are extremists either. I think there are many issues which are best solved in the communities and need not reach the courts of any land. However, if someone's fundamental and civil rights are being violated there are few who would not feel that these are issues that should be brought forth in the UK judicial system. The example which you cite is of course one of them.

We are discussing the amendments and what the interpretation of the amendments happens to be and the various views.

Regarding sharia courts in England; here are some urls which discuss some of the pros and cons:

http://www.coventrytelegraph.net/news...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/72...

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknew...

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/artic...

Also, I want everyone to be aware that we do have Muslim members in our group and we should be respectful of what they consider to be in their own interests. Even the Archbishop of Canterbury felt that it was inevitable that some issues would end up being handled by sharia courts. Muslim groups pointed out in the UK that Jewish Beth Din courts have handled civil legal cases for more than 100 years in Britain on a similar basis, and now operate under the 1996 Arbitration Act.

So as we can see some things are not so simple. My personal opinion is that there should be just one set of courts in the UK (Beth Din and the sharia courts should not be allowed to operate as they do); I think it undermines the judicial system of the country it is operating in. However, right now the UK has five "official" sharia courts; not sure of the unofficial count.

Each country has to decide what is in its best interests and obviously this was given a great deal of thought (at least I hope it was).

Our discussion here is on the US amendments.

Bentley

On Lou Dobbs, there was a discussion about the state of Illinois; it appears that the state of Illinois is interested in banning guns by zip code (Automatic Weapons Safe Zone Act of 2009) .

Once again, the "Second Amendment" is front and center.

After viewing this youtube recording of Lou Dobbs and his report, please comment on this legislation.

Do you feel it is a violation of the Second Amendment and/or do you feel it violates any other part of the constitution? Do you feel it discriminates against minorities? Are you in favor of it? State your
rationale whether for or against.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=af3hdh...

This is an interesting Supreme Court case regarding handguns and restrictions that DC tried to enforce. This is a Second Amendment case: DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA ET AL. v. HELLER - March 2008
Supreme Court ruled against the District of Columbia.


http://www.usnews.com/blogs/barone/20...

http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/wp-conte...

Interesting Article on the above:

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/0...

Interesting Video Debate of this case:

http://www.acslaw.org/node/6397

A key debating point on the Second Amendment appears to be whether the Second Amendment protects only militia-related rights or the rights of private individuals. Who do you think it applies to?

Another interesting Supreme Court case: United States v. Hayes:

http://legaltimes.typepad.com/blt/200...

Andy's story is frightening, and also a good point to a person having a gun who was taught how to use it, and was practically told by someone in authority to use it to save herself. This is the good side of owning a non-hunting handgun.
But again, strictness in licenses and purchases, and keeping the Uzis and other such guns out of circulation - as Bentley said, no private citizen needs guns like that.
Yes, the Mob and gangs and others get their heavy artillary outside of shows; in fact, illegally. As I said, it will be difficult to figure a way to restrict the availability of these guns without having another lawless time like the liquor Prohibition long ago.
Private individuals had guns during the time of the writing of the Bil of Rights; you had to have guns in order to survive, and hunt for food. Part of a child's right of passage was learning how to shoot and handle a rifle. So I believe the 2nd Amendment was for the militia.
I fail to see what can be accomplished in Illinois by banning guns in certain zip codes. It doesn't make sense; it would be too easy to move around in another zip code and store guns at a friend's, or in storage in an 'open' zip code. It makes more sense to ban guns in certain areas, like airports for example, which security now catches when a passenger goes through security checks.
Silent meditation in the classroom is, especially nowadays, the wisest way of doing a moment of silence. As stated, one can pray, or think, or stare at revealing fashion, lol.
As to the 'under God' in the flag salute: the Pilgrims at least came over here for religious freedom, and the survivors were the original families in the New England area. In the end, the American flag came about because most of the settlers came over for religious reasons, and started up a new country of freedom. Of course, the way they treated the Indians was far from Christian, but as I said before, that's another subject.

Virginia, thank you for your post; you hit on so many areas; I think what happened to the Indians is also not a proud story either. The Second Amendment appears to talk about the militia in the first part; but in the second part it refers to the right of the people (individuals); so therein lies the problem. It appears to many to reference two areas: the ability to maintain a well regulated militia and secondly it appears to refer to the rights of the people to keep and bear arms (obviously so they would be able to protect themselves against would be oppressors or the like).

If you have an opportunity to check out the Supreme Court decision in the DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA ET AL. v. HELLER - March 2008 case that I posted; the Supreme Court appears to explain it quite well ; two clauses (one prefatory and one operative). Of course, it does not mean that we have to agree with their interpretation; I personally think the founding fathers were "also" referring to individuals having the right to keep and bear arms in order to appeal to the Anti-Federalists who would never have signed on to the Constitution without these amendments/Bill of Rights as promised documents. The Federalists were comfortable with the wiggle room and the anti-federalists were not.

http://library.thinkquest.org/11572/c...

http://www.usconstitution.net/constto...

http://law.jrank.org/pages/5603/Const...

Would you have been a Federalist or an Anti-Federalist? Play this game and it might give you an inkling.

http://www.texaslre.org/federalists.html

An interesting video lesson:

AP US History: Lesson 17 - Federalists versus Anti-Federalists

http://www.ucopenaccess.org/courses/A...

Video Lesson on the Bill of Rights:

http://www.ucopenaccess.org/courses/A...

Timeline:

http://www.ucopenaccess.org/courses/A...

INCORPORATION:

This is a pretty good video on unalienable rights and incorporation (explains much of the terminology very, very well:

http://www.ucopenaccess.org/courses/A...

FREEDOM OF SPEECH AND THE FIRST AMENDMENT:
Justices to Rule on Law Banning the Depiction of Cruelty to Animals: United States v. Stevens, No. 08-769

There is a case that is being brought forth before the Supreme Court which may be of interest because it deals with videos of animals. An extract from the article is cited here because it explains additionally those areas of alleged free speech which ARE NOT covered by the first amendment. The appeals court did not feel that animal rights should be added to those rights protected by the first amendment; but we will see what the Supreme Court does.

Here is an extract from the article:

"The Supreme Court has placed only a few kinds of speech beyond the protections of the First Amendment, among them obscenity, incitement, threats, fighting words and, in 1982, child pornography.

In a supporting brief urging the court to hear the case, United States v. Stevens, No. 08-769, the Humane Society of the United States said that “gruesome depictions of animal mutilation targeted” by the law should join the list because they “simply do not merit the dignity of First Amendment protections.”

Writing for the majority in the Third Circuit’s decision, Judge D. Brooks Smith said animals were not affected by videos showing cruelty to them in the same way minors were affected by child pornography.

“While animals are sentient creatures worthy of human kindness and human care,” Judge Smith wrote, “one cannot seriously contend that the animals themselves suffer continuing harms by having their images out in the marketplace.”

Here is the complete article: (in the New York Times recently)

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/21/us/...

Do you think that animal images should be expanded to be outside the protection of the first amendment? As much as I love animals and believe that these films are cruel; I think I agree with Judge Brooks Smith. What do you think about this case?

Judge Brooks Smith is right in that the animals don't suffer from "having their images out in the marketplace" compared to children being photographed as child porn. But these videos and pics are so horrible that I think we the people should not have to see them, AND the pics could very well give ideas to others in methods with which to harm animals. But the question is whether the First Amendment can cover this is the deal here.

Virginia, that is the way I was thinking about this case. I do not think that laws or the constitution can cure all of the ills of society.

I wonder after another 200 years how many more laws and bills we are going to have. I think that in the past 10 - 15 years that I have seen a big increase in police presence and more structured regulations as well as fines and additional tolls and taxes. I wonder when or how this will all end. Are we giving up some of our freedoms in lieu of enforcement of this or that.

I do not think that we can fix everything with a bill, a fine or another law or a ticket. For example, I was thinking that ethics is not something that can be remedied that way or even better treatment of our wonderful animal companions who mean so much to us.

Are we expecting that the constitution can fix and enforce all things?

I would never want to see even one animal hurt or harmed in any way; but their images like you stated cannot hurt these particular animals further. Giving ideas to others is of course something else; and you are correct Virginia that this might be something that could occur. That would really be too bad.

I still do not see this as a first amendment issue in spite of the above.

I am sure that there are many who feel differently; and of course, being a lover of animals, I can certainly understand and empathize.

Bentley

Amendment III

No soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.

Not too many issues with this one.

Andy wrote: "Not too many issues with this one."

I agree with you on this Andy; the only case that was well known that I found recently of any merit was Engbloom versus Carey (1982)

"The Third Amendment prohibits, in time of peace, the quartering of soldiers in "any house without the consent of the owner." This amendment was a reaction to pre-Revolution British quartering laws that were enormously unpopular among Americans. Not surprisingly, the Third Amendment has produced little litigation, although it was the basis for an interesting Second Circuit decision, Engblom v Carey (1982), that found the right to be made applicable to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment and potentially violated by New York's decision to temporarily house National Guard soldiers in prison guards' onsite housing during a prison staff strike. (Judge Kaufman, dissenting, concluded that the state-owned housing units involved in the case were not "houses" for constitutional purposes: "Although a man's home is his castle under the Third Amendment, it is not the case, as Gertrude Stein might say, that a house is a house is a house.")"

Source:
http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/proje...

I have decided that there is a group for everyone and anybody!

http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/proje...

BILL OF RIGHTS INSTITUTE:

http://www.billofrightsinstitute.org/...

The first thing I think of with the 3rd Amendment is the scene in "Gone With The Wind" when the Union soldiers invade Tara. There was nothing lawful about their invasion.

Virginia, I guess you are talking about the Civil War. I guess the phrase: "nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law," has a broad meaning.

Regarding Amendment III:

Looks like ban on assault weapons might have uphill battle:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/30389664/

Was Madelyn Murray O'Hare allowed to request and use the alternate oath? I believe she had a few court sessions in her life.

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 "under God" was ..."

Yes, Chris we discussed in one of the threads possibly this one that the words under God were added later. We will be jumping back and forth in the discussion so there is no need to apologize. I am not sure Virginia what Madelyn Murray O'Hare did or did not do regarding oaths. Interesting question though.

Bentley

Madelyn Murray O'Hare (I wondered what had happened to her):

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

After reading about her life, I can honestly say that I do not understand how anyone could give any credibility to any of her statements. From this article she seemed to be one horrible human being. I think part of her atheism and angst against any prayer in school comes from Murray not wanting to marry her (and the fact that he was a Roman Catholic). What a sad life and ending.

Of course, this article could be just one side of the story. Does anybody else have any additional information regarding O'Hare? My own feeling about her is that she was one example of a minority who caused unbelievable angst for a majority of folks who felt differently; however, there is no question that nobody deserved her end. Her eldest son (the one she had out of wedlock with Murray) stated that his mother liked to hire convicts or folks who had even murdered others; I think her life ended because of the kinds of choices she had made; including the hiring of Waters.

I am so amazed at the impact that this woman had on government and our schools. Mind boggling in a way.

Bentley

I thought I would poke around to see if I could hear Madalyn Murray O'Hare speak and I found a bonanza on youtube. There were some short films that possibly her group made with her that were very introspective and quite revealing. I actually enjoyed listening to her. I was shocked at that too.

I disagree with basically everything coming out of her mouth; although in some ways she was extremely honest about herself and I think the women's movement. She had some real sensitive areas about religion especially the Roman Catholic church, the religious order, the church's tax exemptions, marriage and her mother. But I have to say she was extremely witty, very funny, extremely intelligent and well spoken (although she mispronounced some words oddly) and was quite industrious and very driven. I could not dislike her in these films though I feel that I am diametrically opposed to her radical thought and I do not feel her thinking about religion is correct.

However, she seems to admit that she is guilty of being very driven and single minded and a radical thinker similar to Paine and others like him. Here are the short films that I watched; I will let others decide for themselves; but here you will see an outside force which literally pushed a majority around and they did not know what hit them. She was a very powerful woman in her own right, seemed extremely domineering but had lasting and enormous influence on some of our amendments.

You will see in the films that she was a real bulldozer and had no respect for any authority which she admitted in a somewhat endearing way; she must have been one pig in the poke. One can see how she got herself into trouble; thinking I feel that there was nothing she could not handle; almost an invincible air about herself.

Part One:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vo6uYC...

Part Two:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CqLd8X...

Part Three:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m_EmVk...

Part Four:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PySSzD...

Part Five:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R9mi9U...

Part Six:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fECcid...

Part Seven:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f-LCTp...

Supreme Court Ruling - Amendment One Focused:

Supreme Court rules against networks on indecent speech
April 28th, 2009

The Supreme Court ruled on Tuesday federal regulators have the authority to clamp down on the broadcast TV networks that air isolated cases of profanity, known as "fleeting expletives."

Here is an article regarding this ruling:

http://www.cnn.com/2009/US/04/28/supr...

Any comments on this ruling?