Our Awful Situation

Archive for the ‘Constitutional Rights’ Category

For Your Forth of July Enjoyment…Stories of Gun Confiscation After Hurricane Katrina

Posted by Charlie Kilo on July 3rd, 2008

Land of the free…

Supreme Court says Americans have right to own guns

Posted by Charlie Kilo on June 26th, 2008

I publicly want to thank the Supreme Court for giving me the right to bear arms - a right I have actually been afforded by the Constitution since the second amendment was ratified in 1791:

The Supreme Court ruled Thursday that Americans have a right to own guns for self-defense in their homes, the justices’ first major pronouncement on gun rights in U.S. history.

The court’s 5-4 ruling struck down the District of Columbia’s 32-year-old ban on handguns as incompatible with gun rights under the Second Amendment.

And get this line:

The decision went further than even the Bush administration wanted, but probably leaves most firearms restrictions intact.

Translation: Even the right wing freaks in the Bush administration think this went too far. At least we still have most of the other unconstitutional gun laws on the books!

I would look at this ruling as a win in the battle but certainly not the end of the war.

Oklahoma sticks it to the Fed

Posted by patriot on June 18th, 2008

Oklahoma tells the Feds to mind their own business:

The Oklahoma House passed an unprecedented joint house resolution declaring its sovereignty over matters not “enumerated” to the U.S. government under the text of the Constitution. It also sent a “Notice and Demand” to the federals to cease and desist unconstitutional activity. The resolution numbered HJR 1089 passed by a vote of 92 Yeahs, 3 Nays, and 6 abstentions. Presently, it appears hung up in a rules committee in the Oklahoma Senate.

I’d love to talk to one of the Nay votes… what do these people think?

Supreme Court restores habeas corpus, strikes down key part of Military Commissions Act

Posted by Charlie Kilo on June 13th, 2008

Glenn Greenwald’s commentary on yesterday’s Supreme Court victory:

In a major rebuke to the Bush administration’s theories of presidential power — and in an equally stinging rebuke to the bipartisan political class which has supported the Bush detention policies — the U.S. Supreme Court today, in a 5-4 decision (.pdf), declared Section 7 of the Military Commissions Act of 2006 unconstitutional. The Court struck down that section of the MCA because it purported to abolish the writ of habeas corpus — the means by which a detainee challenges his detention in a court — despite the fact that the Constitution permits suspension of that writ only “in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion.”

Hate speech or free speech? What much of West bans is protected in U.S.

Posted by Charlie Kilo on June 11th, 2008

The following article on freedom of speech is interesting but wrong on several fronts:

A couple of years ago, a Canadian magazine published an article arguing that the rise of Islam threatened Western values. The article’s tone was mocking and biting, but it said nothing that conservative magazines and blogs in the United States did not say every day without fear of legal reprisal.

Things are different here. The magazine is on trial.

Under Canadian law, there is a serious argument that the article contained hate speech and that its publisher, Maclean’s magazine, the nation’s leading newsweekly, should be forbidden from saying similar things, forced to publish a rebuttal and made to compensate Muslims for injuring their “dignity, feelings and self respect.”

The British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal, which held five days of hearings on those questions in Vancouver last week, will soon rule on whether Maclean’s violated a provincial hate speech law by stirring up animosity toward Muslims.

As spectators lined up for the afternoon session last week, an argument broke out.

“It’s hate speech!” yelled one man.

“It’s free speech!” yelled another.

In the United States, that debate has been settled. Under the First Amendment, newspapers and magazines can say what they like about minority groups and religions - even false, provocative or hateful things - without legal consequence.

The author is incorrect. A publication may be protected by the constitution but slander or libelous statements that are false will land you in court. In America you can sue for anything.

McCain: I’d Spy on Americans Secretly, Too

Posted by Charlie Kilo on June 4th, 2008

This shouldn’t surprise anyone:

If elected president, Senator John McCain would reserve the right to run his own warrantless wiretapping program against Americans, based on the theory that the president’s wartime powers trump federal criminal statutes and court oversight, according to a statement released by his campaign Monday.

It is definitely fascism when it happens to you

Posted by Charlie Kilo on May 15th, 2008

This editor visited the USSR and draconian nations such as Paul Kagame’s Rwanda, Yoweri Museveni’s Uganda, Hun Sen’s Cambodia, the former military junta’s Thailand, surveillance society Singapore, and Muslim monarchy Brunei Darussalam. Nothing compares to what occurred at Washington National Airport. It is yet another sign of the fact that the United States has entered a phase of fascist control. There’s only one question that remains: Is the slide reversible?

In Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff’s world of an “Israelized” America, the terms SPOT (Screening Passengers by Observation Technique) and BDO (Behavior Detection Officer) are the new acronyms of Stasi-like control of the American citizenry by a government that treats anyone as a suspicious person in the same manner that Israel mistreats its own Arab citizens and Palestinians.

Sunday, this editor and his colleague faced the Chertoffian menace at Washington’s Reagan National Airport while heading to the gate to board a flight to Houston.

It is now clear from a review of the events that unfolded that I was pre-selected for an intensive search and battery of questions even before arriving in line for the security screening. A Transportation Security Administration (TSA) screener was overheard saying, “the guy with the beard.” Since I was the only person in line who also had a beard, it was evident that a red flag had earlier been raised.

What followed, was worse than anything I had previously encountered while leaving Tel Aviv’s Ben Gurion Airport, itself a revolting display of ingratitude to citizens of the country that bankrolls Israel, or the Israeli-run screening process at Amsterdam’s Schipol Airport.

First, I was instructed to enter a glass isolation chamber and point out my belongings that were exiting the X-ray machine. Anyone with claustrophobia would really enjoy being placed in such a chamber and have to speak to the screener through small holes in the glass.

I was then led to an area where all my carry-on bags were emptied. I was also forced to empty my pockets of everything. A bevy of screeners then proceeded to go through my wallet examining everything: cash, credit cards, VA medical benefits card, National Press Club card, voter’s registration card, and driver’s license. Then came an examination of my press credentials and related IDs: Investigative Reporters and Editors (IRE) card, Society of Professional Journalists card, National Archives research card, Library of Congress card, three press credentials, and membership card in Association for Intelligence Officers (AFIO).

In a blatant violation of the First and Fourth Amendments, my reporter’s notebooks, containing names of contacts in Houston and around the world were paged through by the screeners. Another screener asked if I minded being probed in “certain private areas.” He then asked if I’d like the examination to be conducted in private. I replied, “No, let everyone see this.” He then proceeded to examine my groin area.

Then came the battery of questions.

ACLU weighs in on FLDS raid

Posted by Charlie Kilo on May 7th, 2008

What! I’m shocked, shocked that it took the ACLU this long to weigh in:

The American Civil Liberties Union said it has “serious concerns” about the way the government is handling the massive child custody case over the Fundamentalist LDS Church’s YFZ Ranch.

“The ACLU has serious concerns that the state’s actions so far have not adequately protected the fundamental rights at stake,” the national organization said in a statement recently posted on its Web site.

The ACLU said children have a right not to be abused or forced into marriages by their parents or anyone else, parents have a constitutionally protected right to free exercise of religion and to raise their children in their faith, as well as a fundamental right to due process of the law.

“Children may not be separated from their parents based solely on the state’s disagreement with a group’s thoughts or beliefs, religious or otherwise,” the ACLU said.

The civil rights group said it is concerned about Texas authorities’ justification for placing 464 children in foster care, by saying that all children at the ranch were at risk because they were exposed to FLDS beliefs on underage marriage.

“Religion is never an excuse for abuse,” the ACLU said. “But, exposure to a religion’s beliefs, however unorthodox, is not itself abuse and may not constitutionally be labeled abuse.”

MSNBC: Legal questions follow polygamist raid

Posted by Charlie Kilo on April 26th, 2008

Broad sweep of FLDS children raises constitutional questions; critics cry foul.

Interesting to see questions about the legality of the FLDS raid finally hitting the mainstream media:

The state of Texas made a damning accusation when it rounded up 462 children at a polygamous sect’s ranch: The adults are forcing teenage girls into marriage and sex, creating a culture so poisonous that none should be allowed to keep their children.

But the broad sweep — from nursing infants to teenagers — is raising constitutional questions, even in a state where authorities have wide latitude for taking a family’s children.

The move has the appearance of “a class-action child removal,” said Jessica Dixon, director of the child advocacy center at Southern Methodist University’s law school in Dallas.

“I’ve never heard of anything like that,” she said.

Rod Parker, a spokesman for the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, contends that the state has essentially said, “If you’re a member of this religious group, then you’re not allowed to have children.”

Attorneys for the families and civil-liberties groups also are crying foul. They say the state should not have taken children away from all church members living at the Yearning For Zion Ranch in Eldorado.

Here’s some additional analysis from Joel Skousen of World Affairs Brief:

I waited a week to comment on the Texas case, separating 437 children from their FLDS parents, to see if any substantive evidence of abuse would emerge. It hasn’t. Even if it had, those could have been handled individually. But no, Texas plans instead to make every member of the group pay the supreme price: to strip away their beloved children. This case is about group punishment. In spite of a search warrant tainted by a false witness (the “Sarah” who doesn’t exist), no actual specific evidence of abuse, or any unwilling participants in this polygamous compound, a self-righteous Texas judge had decreed that all 400 + children will not be returned to the custody of their parents. Texas has gone too far to rid itself of this awkward religious sect that built the “Yearning for Zion” (YFZ) ranch in order to evade persecution in Utah and Arizona. As this tyrannical order clearly meant separating even nursing children from their mothers, a wave of outrage began to sweep the nation. The media-sensitive judge immediately changed her order (allowing children under 1 year of age to be nursed) in order to keep the tide of public relations on the side of the authorities. But this should not deter the nation from realizing the danger of the tenuous legal proposition that mere membership in a group (that may have isolated examples of marrying underage girls) makes all unworthy of possessing any children at all—ever. That is wrong, especially when legal remedies exist to prosecute specific wrongdoers.

Judge Orders FLDS Prayer Monitored

Posted by Charlie Kilo on April 22nd, 2008

Where do I even start with this?

A judge wants to see if local LDS Church members would be willing to help supervise prayer services at the makeshift shelter where Fundamentalist LDS women and children are being housed.

In response, a local official of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints said he was baffled by the judge’s suggestion.

During a hearing Monday to address issues brought up by lawyers for the mothers and children taken off of the FLDS Church’s YFZ Ranch, 51st District Judge Barbara Walther made the suggestion to address concerns of privacy when the FLDS gather twice a day to pray.

“The way our clients pray is sacred to them. It becomes less sacred when people not of their faith are monitoring them and their conversations,” said Andrea Sloan, an attorney representing four FLDS women who sought a temporary restraining order for the right to pray in private, have phone access to their attorneys, and to stop breast-feeding mothers from being removed from their children.

It is one of a stack of legal motions that Judge Walther has to deal with as the massive custody case involving women and children from the polygamous sect lurches forward. She tackled only three issues during a hearing Monday afternoon here. The judge is the one who made the decision to keep all 437 FLDS children in state custody after allegations surfaced of child abuse on the “Yearning for Zion” Ranch near Eldorado.

Addressing the concerns about prayer privacy, Walther noted that there is a community of Mormons in San Angelo. The judge noted The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is not the same group but appeared to be seeking a reasonable compromise to resolving the issue.

“Would it be insensitive to have someone from that church monitor … ?” she said, asking the guardians ad litem in the courtroom to contact local LDS leaders to see if they would be willing to provide a “buffer.”

Child protective services workers denied that they were eavesdropping on the FLDS women involved, but attorneys for Texas child protective services expressed concerns about improper communications between mothers and children that could occur in private prayer times, which could affect pending investigations.

“If they cross the line or coach the child or make any kind of comment on litigation — all bets are off,” Walther said.

The president of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints’ stake in Abilene, Texas, which oversees San Angelo, was surprised by the judge’s request.

“They think we’re the same ones because we use the Book of Mormon,” Charles L. Webb told the Deseret News. “I’m dumbfounded they would suggest that.”

Webb said he plans to contact LDS Church headquarters in Salt Lake City for guidance before responding to the court’s request. The judge did say in court that if that fails, she would consider other options.

The temporary restraining order was requested by attorneys for Charlotte Johnson, Suzanne Johnson, Sarah Johnson, Angela Harker and other mothers of children taken from the YFZ Ranch near Eldorado.

“Some of Respondent Mothers are currently parenting children under … 2 years of age and are still breast-feeding,” the motion said.

Attorneys are pushing to keep a group of nursing mothers from being separated from their children, pending the results of DNA sampling under way in San Angelo. The judge declined to rule on it, saying it was something that the attorneys should be working out with Texas child protective services workers.

The women face a deadline of when the DNA samples are collected and the children are placed in foster care. They will likely be separated.

On the issue of the FLDS women and children being allowed contact with attorneys, the judge ordered eight phone lines to be set up in the shelter — six for the children and two for the mothers — with 24-hour access to their attorneys. Lawyers for the Texas Department of Family and Protective Services said the phone lines were already set up.

The women’s attorneys said that when cell phones were taken from the women, they lost the ability to communicate effectively with their clients.

The cell phones were taken after members of the FLDS Church inside Fort Concho spoke to the Deseret News, complaining of cramped conditions. The women provided the Deseret News with photographs taken by a cell phone to show the conditions. Shortly afterward, they were moved to the San Angelo Coliseum, where some of the children have remained. Many of the women have been sent back to the YFZ Ranch.

In another sign that the legal fight for custody of the FLDS children is just beginning, the judge indicated that she had 35 writs of habeas corpus, challenging the state’s decision to remove the children. She also said she had a large stack of legal motions to go over.

As the hearing concluded, Julia Balovich, an attorney representing another group of FLDS women, tried to bring up a motion for a restraining order that she had filed. Walther said she hadn’t seen it, but Balovich pressed her to consider the issue. It was then the judge stood up and announced: “Ladies and gentlemen, this hearing is concluded,” and abruptly left the bench.

Balovich told reporters outside the courthouse that she wants to stop the separation of the mothers from the children expected later this week. She complained that child protective services workers aren’t telling them when — or how — the children will be removed.

“I don’t think it’s in the children’s best interests to be separated from their mothers, especially when they’re under 5 years old,” she said

{

}