The Supreme Court of the United States of America declined to hear a case the ACLU filed against the NSA. They declined to hear the case without comment.
Why is this important?
The details of the case are simple. The ACLU is challenging the legality of the warrantless wiretapping that is currently going on in this country.
The court will not hear the case.
If the court heard the case they would be forced to rule against the NSA. Warrantless searching in this country is a Constitutional violation.
The 4th Amendement says:
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.
It states unequivocally that the government can't look, listen to or seize anything without a warrant. No warrant can be issued without specific evidence of wrongdoing and the warrant itself must contain specific things to be seized. The language could not be more clear. Written in an age of tyranny, nothing was more important to the framers than personal liberty.
Now, in the name of expediency and fear, our government chooses to use the excuse that they are protecting us by abrogating our freedoms and liberties. Our Supreme Court is silent rather than speak the truth aloud. This simple truth. Ignoring civil liberty under the guise of protection is facism. To be a truly free society our government must take the more difficult path and protect its citizenry without forcing the sacrifice of liberty. Anything else was unacceptable to our founding fathers and should be unacceptable to the American people today.
To paraphrase Benjamin Franklin, "Those who would give up essential liberty for temporary safety or security, deserve neither safety or security."
The courts are the last line of defense of the people. They are empowered to stand up and say, "If the United States is governed by the rule of law, this is wrong and MUST cease." If the courts are silent and refuse to act when our organizing principles are ignored then we are no longer a nation governed by laws.
I am frightened for us all.
No 1 of Consequence
Showing posts with label The Constitution. Show all posts
Showing posts with label The Constitution. Show all posts
Wednesday, February 20, 2008
Tuesday, January 08, 2008
Further evidence Georgia, well, sucks
The Georgia Supreme Court is currently discussing the constitutionality of banishment. This is far more important of course than discussing the in effectual, illegal, and un-Constitutional teaching of abstinence only curriculums in the schools. Apparently crossing into Georgia immediately transports you back to the time of Napoleon I. I always wanted to visit Elba.
No 1 of Consequence
No 1 of Consequence
Tuesday, September 25, 2007
RAGE
It is a wonder my faithful few, that I have not snapped living here in red state hell. Atlanta is a multi cultural and diverse city. I don't exactly live in the city of Atlanta. I live just a bit outside in perhaps the whitest community in America. Lily white. Snow white. Even the black people are whiter than me. I am sick of living here. Almost everything that happens in this community irritates me.
Today my 13 year old son brings home a paper that states that abstinence only curriculum approved by local ministers is taught in his PUBLIC school. What's worse is that the program is funded by a FEDERAL abstinence only grant.
I am holding a piece of paper urging me to allow my son to participate in a program that has no hope of success. Not only does the program preach abstinence through adolescence but abstinence until marriage. Good luck!!
There are numerous studies which state that teaching abstinence is not only ineffective, but also irresponsible. Teaching abstinence without teaching proper contraception technique is reckless. Do you know why? Kids are going to have sex. They are going to have sex. THEY ARE GOING TO HAVE SEX!!!!
Why are ministers involved in the teaching curriculum? I am pretty sure that is a clear violation of The Constitution. Why is the federal government giving out absitnence grants. The GAO, the governments own oversight organization said that teaching abstinence without fully teaching contraception techniques (among other things) is a violation of federal law. After the GAO made this recommendation HHS (Health and Human Services Admin) changed the Federal Abstinence Grant guidelines to specifically preclude the teaching of contraception techniques. It is wonderful to see the Bush administration isn't just interested in breaking laws involving illegal search and seizure. They are violating the Constitutional rights of children and endangering their lives at the same time. Rock on.
No 1 of Consequence
Today my 13 year old son brings home a paper that states that abstinence only curriculum approved by local ministers is taught in his PUBLIC school. What's worse is that the program is funded by a FEDERAL abstinence only grant.
I am holding a piece of paper urging me to allow my son to participate in a program that has no hope of success. Not only does the program preach abstinence through adolescence but abstinence until marriage. Good luck!!
There are numerous studies which state that teaching abstinence is not only ineffective, but also irresponsible. Teaching abstinence without teaching proper contraception technique is reckless. Do you know why? Kids are going to have sex. They are going to have sex. THEY ARE GOING TO HAVE SEX!!!!
Why are ministers involved in the teaching curriculum? I am pretty sure that is a clear violation of The Constitution. Why is the federal government giving out absitnence grants. The GAO, the governments own oversight organization said that teaching abstinence without fully teaching contraception techniques (among other things) is a violation of federal law. After the GAO made this recommendation HHS (Health and Human Services Admin) changed the Federal Abstinence Grant guidelines to specifically preclude the teaching of contraception techniques. It is wonderful to see the Bush administration isn't just interested in breaking laws involving illegal search and seizure. They are violating the Constitutional rights of children and endangering their lives at the same time. Rock on.
No 1 of Consequence
Monday, August 20, 2007
No mas, I give up.
Back on August 6, I posted about a law that basically usurped the 4th Amendement rights from a lot of Americans. I intimated in this post that the democrats were asleep at the switch while this legislation was being pushed through.
No Best Man of Consequence sent me an e-mail last night quoting a New York Times article:
Congress accidentally gave President George Bush the power to conduct warrantless searches and seizures when it passed a wiretapping bill earlier this month. Democrats are embarrassed they voted without understanding language that would allow—among other things—some physical searches, and the collection of business records, without a court order.
Another quote from the Times:
“We did not cover ourselves in glory,” said one Democratic aide, referring to how the bill was compiled.
________________
This is sickening on a number of levels. How does one accidentally give broad powers in violation of The Constitution to the executive? How is a bill accidentally passed? I am certain I saw a Schoolhouse Rock episode once when I was a kid that detailed how tough it really is to get a law passed.
That YouTube video is 3 minutes long. Longer than anyone spent reading this pathetic piece of legislation. It also demonstrates that Congress doesn't actually debate laws anymore. They just sign them out of fear.
Scaredy cat signing quote from the times:
Though many Democratic leaders opposed the final version of the legislation, they did not work forcefully to block its passage, largely out of fear that they would be criticized by President Bush and Republican leaders during the August recess as being soft on terrorism.
Once again we have checkers playing politicians in a chess playing world. This isn't even hard folks. I bet if I asked my 13 year old son how he would handle this kind of criticism he could easily come up with a deflection strategy that would be viable.
How about this, and keep in mind I 've spent exactly 3 minutes thinking about it.
Hypothetical politician responding to hypothetical criticism that he is soft on terrorism when faced with passing legislation that significantly impacts the rights of American citizens.
"When taking my oath of office after the citizens of (insert state here) saw fit to elect me as their representative I swore to uphold The Constitution of the United States of America. This legislation, while it may be expedient, does not protect the bests interests of Americans because it impinges upon their civil liberties. Voting for legislation that oppresses law abiding citizens is a violation of my oath and I will not sign, EVER. This administration has refused to do what's hard, which is protect Americans from terrorism without infringing upon the freedoms that make this country what it is. Until President Bush and the republican party take freedom as seriously as I do, and are willing to do the hard work involved in protecting that freedom, we will not be safe from ourselves, much less terrorists."
Think that would send any critical right wing elements scrambling? I do. Imagine what someone who does political spinning professionally could come up with.
No 1 of Consequence
No Best Man of Consequence sent me an e-mail last night quoting a New York Times article:
Congress accidentally gave President George Bush the power to conduct warrantless searches and seizures when it passed a wiretapping bill earlier this month. Democrats are embarrassed they voted without understanding language that would allow—among other things—some physical searches, and the collection of business records, without a court order.
Another quote from the Times:
“We did not cover ourselves in glory,” said one Democratic aide, referring to how the bill was compiled.
________________
This is sickening on a number of levels. How does one accidentally give broad powers in violation of The Constitution to the executive? How is a bill accidentally passed? I am certain I saw a Schoolhouse Rock episode once when I was a kid that detailed how tough it really is to get a law passed.
That YouTube video is 3 minutes long. Longer than anyone spent reading this pathetic piece of legislation. It also demonstrates that Congress doesn't actually debate laws anymore. They just sign them out of fear.
Scaredy cat signing quote from the times:
Though many Democratic leaders opposed the final version of the legislation, they did not work forcefully to block its passage, largely out of fear that they would be criticized by President Bush and Republican leaders during the August recess as being soft on terrorism.
Once again we have checkers playing politicians in a chess playing world. This isn't even hard folks. I bet if I asked my 13 year old son how he would handle this kind of criticism he could easily come up with a deflection strategy that would be viable.
How about this, and keep in mind I 've spent exactly 3 minutes thinking about it.
Hypothetical politician responding to hypothetical criticism that he is soft on terrorism when faced with passing legislation that significantly impacts the rights of American citizens.
"When taking my oath of office after the citizens of (insert state here) saw fit to elect me as their representative I swore to uphold The Constitution of the United States of America. This legislation, while it may be expedient, does not protect the bests interests of Americans because it impinges upon their civil liberties. Voting for legislation that oppresses law abiding citizens is a violation of my oath and I will not sign, EVER. This administration has refused to do what's hard, which is protect Americans from terrorism without infringing upon the freedoms that make this country what it is. Until President Bush and the republican party take freedom as seriously as I do, and are willing to do the hard work involved in protecting that freedom, we will not be safe from ourselves, much less terrorists."
Think that would send any critical right wing elements scrambling? I do. Imagine what someone who does political spinning professionally could come up with.
No 1 of Consequence
Friday, August 17, 2007
Miracles do happen
The victories for liberty have been so few in this country lately I wanted to share this small one with you.
Read this and smile, for The Constitution still exists, if only for a moment.
No 1 of Consequence
Read this and smile, for The Constitution still exists, if only for a moment.
No 1 of Consequence
Monday, August 06, 2007
We have to protect you, by taking away your civil liberties.
Sometimes I don't even know what to say. It is a rare thing to find me speechless, but I am. You hope things would change since congress is now majority democrat.
The your government passes this law on a Sunday, while you weren't watching.
The Constitution becomes more and more a historical document every day.
I am going to go throw up now.
No 1 of Consequence
The your government passes this law on a Sunday, while you weren't watching.
The Constitution becomes more and more a historical document every day.
I am going to go throw up now.
No 1 of Consequence
Saturday, June 10, 2006
JFK teaches us, every day.
If this nation is to be wise as well as strong, if we are to achieve our destiny, then we need more new ideas for more wise men reading more good books in more public libraries. These libraries should be open to all-except the censor. We must know all the facts and hear all the alternatives and listen to all the criticisms. Let us welcome controversial books and controversial authors. For the Bill of Rights is the guardian of our security as well as our liberty.
- John Fitzgerald Kennedy
I just watched a compelling documentary called Unconstitutional: The War on our Civil Liberties.
I highly recommend it, whatever your political viewpoint.
No 1 of Consequence
- John Fitzgerald Kennedy
I just watched a compelling documentary called Unconstitutional: The War on our Civil Liberties.
I highly recommend it, whatever your political viewpoint.
No 1 of Consequence
Tuesday, December 20, 2005
Intelligent Design vs. Evolution
Intelligent Design vs. Evolution
aka
(Creationism) vs. Evolution
aka
The Constitution vs. The Christian Right
Or as Bill O’Reilly would have you believe;
The Secular Progressive Elitist Press vs. All good Reasonable Christian Peoples
Can I get an Oy Vey!
Today a judge in Pennsylvania ruled that teaching creationism would violate the Constitutional separation of church and State. Well duh! Of course it violates the separation of church and State. I am a person of faith. I believe in a higher power, G-d, something greater than ourselves. I also believe in an evolving global/universal ecology based on Einstein and Darwin’s theories. I believe scientific theories should be taught in schools. I believe that religious theories should be taught in the home or in church/synagogue/mosque etc. Or, if you want your children to be taught both sides in school, send them to private religious schools. I have no problem with both sides of coin being taught in religious schools, but religion has no place in democratic/representative government or public education.
They say, “No1!!! You can’t do that!! That’s not possible!!! How can you do that it goes against both theories?!? You heretic!!”
I say, “Bite me… Or, you can listen to what I have to say and either agree or disagree with me.”
Let’s briefly (extremely briefly) define both theories for the purposes of the hypothesis I lay before you.
Creationism, Judeo-Christian origin, as told in the Old Testament, Genesis, G-d created the heaven and the Earth and on the seventh day he rested.
Big Bang/Evolution, infinitely dense singularity in space explodes into an expanding universe. As our sun and earth cool organisms evolve out of some primordial ooze, leading to multi-celled organisms, leading to, leading to, leading to…
Clear? No? Well, me either, but let me try and reconcile the two for you without going into Talmudic commentary or the Vatican Archives.
You have to lose all presumption of the divine. What does this mean? It means you have to reject the possibility that you can understand G-d’s time table versus human perception. If you have a literal interpretation of the bible I just lost you. However, if you don’t, if you think that human understanding is greater now than it has ever been you have to accept the fact that biblical texts may not mean exactly what they did to those who lived when they were written. If the bible was revealed to Moses on Sinai is it reasonable to postulate that G-d, while giving an explanation of things, spoke generically and relatively simply to Moses? I think it is. Is reasonable to presume that we have a true understanding of time as G-d understands? I don’t think so. Therefore, the seven day creation period described in Genesis could very well have taken millions of years as humans understand them. That fits Big Bang/Evolution into Creationism.
Let me see if I can get the scientists to a place where they have to admit that some things are beyond scientific understanding. The Big Bang postulates that an infinitely dense singularity of space and matter exploded at a finite point in time to create our expanding universe as we know it today. My question to you is this; Where did that infinitely dense singularity come from? The answer, obviously, is you don’t know. I don’t know, no one knows where it came from. Therefore, you cannot reject the existence of G-d or a higher intelligence that created that singularity. That my friends, fits Creationism into Big Bang/Evolution.
For those who take the bible word for word literally. I give you the words of the great Aaron Sorkin, from an episode of the West Wing:
President Bartlet (sarcastically): I like how you call homosexuality an abombination.
Jenna Jacobs: I don't say homosexuality is an abomination, Mr. President, the Bible does.
President Bartlet: Yes, it does. Leviticus.
Jenna Jacobs: 18:22.
President Bartlet: Chapter and verse. I wanted to ask you a couple of questions while I have you here. I'm interested in selling my youngest daughter into slavery as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. She's a Georgetown sophmore, speaks fluent Italian, always cleared the table when it was her turn. What would a good price for her be? While thinking about that, can I ask another? My Chief of Staff Leo McGarry insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly says he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself or is it okay to call the police? Here's one that's really important because we've got a lot of sports fans in this town: touching the skin of a dead pig makes one unclean. Leviticus 11:7. If they promise to wear gloves, can the Washington Redskins still play football? Can Notre Dame? Can West Point? Does the whole town really have to be together to stone my brother John for planting different crops side by side? Can I burn my mother in a small family gathering for wearing garments made from two different threads? "Think about that, will you? Oh, and one last thing. You may have mistaken this for your meeting of the ignorant tight-asses club, but in this building when the President stands no one sits."
___________________________________________________
Can’t we agree at this point that literal interpretations of the bible lead to unreasonable behavior by today’s standards and it is only through reason and acceptance of more than one idea that we will have a comprehensive understanding of one another and further advance as a global society?
No matter what you believe though, The Constitution is clear that church and state shall be separate entities and no religious ideology shall be imposed by government institution. Debates like that belong in homes, in the news, in places of worship and here, in the blogosphere, where all minds can be free to express their ideas and be heard.
No1ofConsequence
aka
(Creationism) vs. Evolution
aka
The Constitution vs. The Christian Right
Or as Bill O’Reilly would have you believe;
The Secular Progressive Elitist Press vs. All good Reasonable Christian Peoples
Can I get an Oy Vey!
Today a judge in Pennsylvania ruled that teaching creationism would violate the Constitutional separation of church and State. Well duh! Of course it violates the separation of church and State. I am a person of faith. I believe in a higher power, G-d, something greater than ourselves. I also believe in an evolving global/universal ecology based on Einstein and Darwin’s theories. I believe scientific theories should be taught in schools. I believe that religious theories should be taught in the home or in church/synagogue/mosque etc. Or, if you want your children to be taught both sides in school, send them to private religious schools. I have no problem with both sides of coin being taught in religious schools, but religion has no place in democratic/representative government or public education.
They say, “No1!!! You can’t do that!! That’s not possible!!! How can you do that it goes against both theories?!? You heretic!!”
I say, “Bite me… Or, you can listen to what I have to say and either agree or disagree with me.”
Let’s briefly (extremely briefly) define both theories for the purposes of the hypothesis I lay before you.
Creationism, Judeo-Christian origin, as told in the Old Testament, Genesis, G-d created the heaven and the Earth and on the seventh day he rested.
Big Bang/Evolution, infinitely dense singularity in space explodes into an expanding universe. As our sun and earth cool organisms evolve out of some primordial ooze, leading to multi-celled organisms, leading to, leading to, leading to…
Clear? No? Well, me either, but let me try and reconcile the two for you without going into Talmudic commentary or the Vatican Archives.
You have to lose all presumption of the divine. What does this mean? It means you have to reject the possibility that you can understand G-d’s time table versus human perception. If you have a literal interpretation of the bible I just lost you. However, if you don’t, if you think that human understanding is greater now than it has ever been you have to accept the fact that biblical texts may not mean exactly what they did to those who lived when they were written. If the bible was revealed to Moses on Sinai is it reasonable to postulate that G-d, while giving an explanation of things, spoke generically and relatively simply to Moses? I think it is. Is reasonable to presume that we have a true understanding of time as G-d understands? I don’t think so. Therefore, the seven day creation period described in Genesis could very well have taken millions of years as humans understand them. That fits Big Bang/Evolution into Creationism.
Let me see if I can get the scientists to a place where they have to admit that some things are beyond scientific understanding. The Big Bang postulates that an infinitely dense singularity of space and matter exploded at a finite point in time to create our expanding universe as we know it today. My question to you is this; Where did that infinitely dense singularity come from? The answer, obviously, is you don’t know. I don’t know, no one knows where it came from. Therefore, you cannot reject the existence of G-d or a higher intelligence that created that singularity. That my friends, fits Creationism into Big Bang/Evolution.
For those who take the bible word for word literally. I give you the words of the great Aaron Sorkin, from an episode of the West Wing:
President Bartlet (sarcastically): I like how you call homosexuality an abombination.
Jenna Jacobs: I don't say homosexuality is an abomination, Mr. President, the Bible does.
President Bartlet: Yes, it does. Leviticus.
Jenna Jacobs: 18:22.
President Bartlet: Chapter and verse. I wanted to ask you a couple of questions while I have you here. I'm interested in selling my youngest daughter into slavery as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. She's a Georgetown sophmore, speaks fluent Italian, always cleared the table when it was her turn. What would a good price for her be? While thinking about that, can I ask another? My Chief of Staff Leo McGarry insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly says he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself or is it okay to call the police? Here's one that's really important because we've got a lot of sports fans in this town: touching the skin of a dead pig makes one unclean. Leviticus 11:7. If they promise to wear gloves, can the Washington Redskins still play football? Can Notre Dame? Can West Point? Does the whole town really have to be together to stone my brother John for planting different crops side by side? Can I burn my mother in a small family gathering for wearing garments made from two different threads? "Think about that, will you? Oh, and one last thing. You may have mistaken this for your meeting of the ignorant tight-asses club, but in this building when the President stands no one sits."
___________________________________________________
Can’t we agree at this point that literal interpretations of the bible lead to unreasonable behavior by today’s standards and it is only through reason and acceptance of more than one idea that we will have a comprehensive understanding of one another and further advance as a global society?
No matter what you believe though, The Constitution is clear that church and state shall be separate entities and no religious ideology shall be imposed by government institution. Debates like that belong in homes, in the news, in places of worship and here, in the blogosphere, where all minds can be free to express their ideas and be heard.
No1ofConsequence
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
