Monday, November 02, 2009

So Much for That

I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.

-Presidential oath of office

When asked if there "is any concern at all about whether it is constitutional for Congress to impose a mandate [that individual Americans must obtain health insurance]," White House spokesman Robert Gibbs said, "no." He also said he had no reason to believe White House lawyers had ever considered the issue.

---

E-mail comments to info@nationalcenter.org. | Subscribe to feed. | Follow the National Center for Public Policy Research on Twitter. | Download Shattered Lives: 100 Victims of Government Health Care.

Labels: Constitutional Law, Government Health Care, Health Care, Retirement, White House

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 5:58 PM

Thursday, October 15, 2009

The Nobel Committee's Not-So Unanimous Selection of Obama

Image by Getty Images via Daylife

The Agence France Presse today reports that three of the Nobel Committee's five committee members had problems with awarding the Nobel Peace Prize to Barack Obama.

Nobel Committee Secretary Geir Lundestad, however, insists that the selection was unanimous.

This is doubtful, given that one of the members represents the free-market-oriented, unabashedly pro-Israel Progress Party. The party's leader, Siv Jensen, not only criticized the Nobel Committee's choice of Obama but called on its chairman, Thorbjoern Jaglund, to step down just one day after the committee's announcement. Although Jensen called for his resignation for a supposedly unrelated reason, the timing of her demand is interesting.

Lundestad wasn't being honest when he claimed "unanimous" vote as he neglected to mention that the Nobel Committee's selections are always "unanimous" -- even if such unanimity doesn't exist.

The Nobel Committee makes its decisions by "consensus" and the functionally-illiterate often use this interchangeably with "unanimous." Now you know why so many Norwegian parents are asking, "why can't Jens read?"

Just to make sure that no committee member challenges its "unanimous" claim, Nobel Committee rules prohibit them from speaking publicly about its proceedings.

Unanimous decision? It really depends on what your definition of "unamious" is.

Bill Clinton may not have received the Nobel Peace Prize, but it turns out the Nobel Committee has found another way to honor him.

Editor's note: We covered President Obama's Nobel Peace Prize previously here, here and here.

---

Labels: Constitutional Law, Foreign Policy, Media, White House

Posted by David A. Ridenour at 4:48 PM

Wednesday, October 14, 2009

On Nobel Funds, Talking Points Memo Misses the More Interesting Story

Christina Bellantoni of Talking Points Memo reported Tuesday afternoon that as of then, according to Robert Gibbs, President Obama was still planning to donate the cash prize accompanying the Nobel Peace Prize to charity.

Because Obama is President of the United States, it is unconstitutional for him to accept the money (which includes taking control of it long enough to direct that it be re-routed to a charity) unless Congress specifically gives him permission to do so.

As explained here, this is governed by Article 1, Section 9 of the Constitution.

Perhaps Talking Points Memo either doesn't realize the Nobel Committee is appointed by a foreign government, or it doesn't have a problem with foreign governments bestowing cash gifts on U.S. presidents (surely not), but either way, it missed a better story when it failed to ask Gibbs why the White House seems to be ignoring the Constitution on this.

---

Written by Amy Ridenour. E-mail comments to info@nationalcenter.org. | Subscribe to this blog's feed. | Follow the National Center for Public Policy Research on Twitter. | Download our book Shattered Lives: 100 Victims of Government Health Care.

Labels: Constitutional Law, Media, White House

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 12:18 AM

Tuesday, September 15, 2009

Reality Check

"Brevity is the soul of wit." It is also a purveyor of wisdom.

The original U.S. Constitution was 6 pages long, contained 4,400 words, and set the foundation for the freest, most prosperous nation in the world. Last week, Barack Obama spoke of his plans for a health care bill expected to exceed 1,000 pages.

Further compounding this departure from the beautiful simplicity of America's founding is the present day propensity to complicate legislative language. The Founders were careful to produce a document that all Americans could easily understand. The hotly debated health care legislation is too complicated apparently for even legislators to understand. As that staggering intellect, House Judiciary Chairman John Conyers (D-MI), said, "I love these members, they get up and say, 'Read the bill,' What good is reading the bill if it's a thousand pages and you don't have two days and two lawyers to find out what it means after you read the bill?"

My, how far we have come... but not for the better, I fear.

I comment on this abandonment of the ways of the past as it emphasizes a concern held by many: that this loss of legislative simplicity implies a complimentary loss of freedom. The eight year anniversary of the September 11 attacks is also a time to celebrate the liberty we, as Americans, have protected and maintained these many years. Though liberal activists have worked to marginalize the patriotic fervor of this most tragic anniversary, the majority of Americans not only remember those who were murdered, they also consider with reverence the strength and sustainability of America and her freedoms (so hated by our terrorist attackers). As we reflect on our liberty as Americans we should also remember the lurking legislative threats to our sacred freedoms, as signified by this rejection of simplicity.

---

Labels: Congress, Constitutional Law, Culture, Defense, Government Health Care, Health Care, White House

Posted by Caroline May at 11:15 PM

Wednesday, September 09, 2009

Possibly It Can Be Found in the Kiddie Sex Section of the Constitution?

Where do you suppose the federal government found the authority for it to do this in the Constitution?

---

E-mail comments to info@nationalcenter.org. | Subscribe to this blog's feed. | Follow the National Center for Public Policy Research on Twitter. | Download our book Shattered Lives: 100 Victims of Government Health Care.

Labels: Constitutional Law, Government Health Care, Government Power, Health Care, White House

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 6:11 PM

Friday, August 21, 2009

What's Happening Now

Is national health insurance Constitutional? No. Not convinced yet? Go here then.

"It's almost as if the president has no experience..." Ya think?

What planet is this guy on?

Independence Institute: Medical coverage is like a game show. (90 sec. video)

Write about the Fifth Amendment, get sued.

Death panels are real.

---

E-mail any comments to the National Center for Public Policy Research at info@nationalcenter.org. | Subscribe to this blog's feed. | Follow on Twitter.

Labels: Conservatives, Constitutional Law, Government Health Care, Health Care, Legal Reform, Liberals, Property Rights, Retirement, White House

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 3:46 PM

Thursday, July 23, 2009

What's Happening Now

A secret meeting. Others are not-so-secret anymore.

Opposed to government-run health care? Join the bus tour.

We need a special prosecutor.

Surprise! A letter to the Senate (pdf) on Sotomayor.

The House Democrats' health care bill and illegal aliens.

Bill Cosby is shocked at Barack Obama.

---

E-mail any comments to the National Center for Public Policy Research at info@nationalcenter.org.
Subscribe to this blog's feed. Follow on Twitter.

Labels: Business, Congress, Constitutional Law, Corruption, Courts, Crime, Culture, Government Health Care, Health Care, Immigration, Race, Scandals

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 4:32 PM

Thursday, July 16, 2009

Project 21's Borelli to Speak About Sotomayor Confirmation Hearing on Fox News Channel Monday

Project 21 Fellow Deneen Borelli is scheduled to appear on the Fox News Channel's online "Strategy Room" program on Monday, July 20 between 9:00 AM and 10:00 AM eastern.

Deneen expects to discuss the judicial confirmation hearings for Sonia Sotomayor. Deneen wrote about the nomination, and Sotomayor's opinion on racial preferences, in a recent New Visions Commentary from Project 21.

In the commentary "Special Treatment and Sotomayor," Deneen wrote:

After all of the significant strides that have been made for equal opportunity over the years, one would think that winners and losers today would no longer be decided based on skin color...

...But America changed.

From the White House to the worlds of sports, entertainment and corporate America, most blacks have moved on and are taking advantage of opportunities and leading successful, productive lives...

...Fortunately, the Court's ruling on the Ricci case won't allow the clock to continually be turned backward. But based on comments made by the nominee, Sonya Sotomayor could reinvigorate racial preferences.

This disturbing possibility puts change at a crossroads.

In light of the Court's ruling in the Ricci case, Sotomayor's opinions should be closely scrutinized to determine her judicial philosophy.

To access the live Internet broadcast, click here and then click the "STREAM THIS NOW" headline in the center or the page under the photo.

---

Labels: Constitutional Law, Courts, Project 21, Race

Posted by David W. Almasi at 11:30 AM

Tuesday, July 14, 2009

Did Sonia Sotomayor Lie Today?

John Hinderaker thinks she may have.

---

E-mail any comments to the National Center for Public Policy Research at info@nationalcenter.org.
Subscribe to this blog's feed.

Labels: Congress, Constitutional Law, Courts

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 5:34 PM

Monday, July 13, 2009

Honduras Situation Not a Coup

Miguel A. Estrada, a native of Honduras and a man far more qualified for the U.S. Supreme Court than the lady whose confirmation for it starts today, explains why what happened in Honduras is not a coup.

Hat tip: Jonathan Adler on The Volokh Conspiracy.

---

E-mail any comments to the National Center for Public Policy Research at info@nationalcenter.org.
Subscribe to this blog's feed.

Labels: Constitutional Law, Foreign Policy

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 12:09 AM

Monday, June 29, 2009

Black Activists Praise Supreme Court

Project 21 has issued a press release on the Supreme Court's affirmative action decision today:

Black Activists Praise Supreme Court's Affirmative Action Decision

Justices' Ruling Throws Sotomayor Nomination into Serious Question

For Release: June 29, 2009
Contact: David Almasi at 202/543-4110 x11 or Project21@nationalcenter.org

With the U.S. Supreme Court dealing a stinging blow to race-based employment practices, members of the Project 21 black leadership network are praising the Ricci v. DeStefano decision as a step toward removing the racial trappings of a by-gone era and putting all Americans on equal footing.

"It was clear to this Court that barring people from promotion because of the color of their skin is wrong. The only downside is that four justices still cling to an outmoded and discriminatory line of thought," said Project 21 chairman Mychal Massie. "True equality allows people to rise and fall on their merits. That's what this decision protects. How can one oppose such fairness?"

In a 5-4 decision, the Court reversed the lower court ruling, barring the use of race as the sole factor in promotions. In his majority opinion, Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote, "Fear of litigation alone cannot justify the City's reliance on race to the detriment of individuals who passed the examinations and qualified for promotions."

The decision also casts serious doubt on the Supreme Court nomination of Sonia Sotomayor. She was a member of the appeals court panel that issued the one-paragraph opinion overturned today. Now, she must explain to senators how she could be so much at odds with her potential future colleagues.

"Justice is supposed to be blind, but the opinion she joined in the Ricci case - now overturned by the Supreme Court - shows Sonia Sotomayor believes justice should be based on ethnicity," added Project 21's Massie. "Her ruling in Ricci is an unambiguous example of her placing her feelings and personal prejudices above what the law dictates or allows."

The Ricci case revolves around a 2003 promotions exam given to firefighters in New Haven, Connecticut. After the tests were scored, only two Hispanics and no blacks scored high enough to qualify for promotion. After black and Hispanic activists pushed to have the test results thrown out, the city's Civil Service Commission effectively did so by deadlocking 2-2 on the decision to certify the exam.

After the results of the exam were set aside by the city, 20 New Haven firefighters - one Hispanic and 19 white - sued based on the claim of reverse discrimination. The city was granted summary judgment at the district court level, and a panel of judges that included current U.S. Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor sided with the lower court in a eight-sentence opinion that called the previous opinion allowing the city to throw out the test scores based on race "thorough, thoughtful and well-reasoned."

In a concurring opinion, Justice Antonin Scalia wrote of the question of empathy for those passed over: "But 'sympathy' is not what petitioners have a right to demand. What they have a right to demand is evenhanded enforcement of the law... And that is what, until today's decision, has been denied them."

The release is online here.

---

E-mail any comments to the National Center for Public Policy Research at info@nationalcenter.org.
Subscribe to this blog's feed.

Labels: Conservatives, Constitutional Law, Project 21, Race

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 1:15 PM

Tuesday, June 23, 2009

Project 21 Critical of Voting Rights Decision; Slavery Apology

Project 21 isn't particularly thrilled by either the U.S. Supreme Court or the U.S. Senate just now.

In this press release, Project 21 Chairman Mychal Massie criticizes the Court for side-stepping the issue of the constitutionality of the Voting Rights Act despite noting "serious Constitutional concerns" with the law in the decision in Northwest Austin Municipal Utility District Number One v. Holder.

Project 21 had joined in an amicus brief on the Voting Rights Act case with the Pacific Legal Foundation and Center for Equal Opportunity.

When it comes to the Senate, Project 21 members Jerry Brooks, Jimmie L. Hollis and Bob Parks are concerned about the Senate's recent apology for slavery and segregation, fearing the apology will be used to advance the call for financial reparations for slavery.

As Jerry Brooks put it:

I'll accept the Senate's apology, but let's move on already. This apology is something that might have been more appropriate long ago, and now it's likely going to be misused by those with a political axe to grind. In particular and despite its intention to the contrary, it is already being used to promote reparations. Not only is this an idea without merit, but an extremely foolish one to be clinging to while our nation is trying to recover from its current economic distress.

---

E-mail any comments to the National Center for Public Policy Research at info@nationalcenter.org.
Subscribe to this blog's feed.

Labels: Constitutional Law, Project 21, Race

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 7:09 AM

Sunday, June 14, 2009

Clean Water Restoration Act Information Webpage Created

The National Center for Public Policy Research has created a webpage with links to resources about the Clean Water Restoration Act.

The page has links to resources about CWRA published not only by the National Center, but by a variety of other organizations as well. If you are a columnist, blogger, speaker or talk show host planning to address the issue, you will find plenty of useful information on the page.

As National Center Senior Fellow R.J. Smith noted below, the legislation is scheduled for a markup and vote in the U.S. Senate's Environment and Public Works Committee on June 18.

You can visit the page here.

---

E-mail any comments to the National Center for Public Policy Research at info@nationalcenter.org.
Subscribe to this blog's feed.

Labels: Congress, Constitutional Law, Environment, Government Power, Land, Property Rights, Regulatory Victims

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 1:05 AM

Friday, June 05, 2009

BeldarBlog: POTUS as the Great Defender of the Faith

Beldar said it well:

Has [President Obama] actually read his present job description, or the rest of the Constitution and its amendments?

If he thinks fighting "against negative sterotypes of Islam wherever they appear" is what a U.S. President is elected to do, I think a few of his countrymen might differ. (That is, his countrymen here in the good old USA, not the ones in whatever country he was talking about that has one of the largest Muslim populations in the world.)

Funny, the left always seems to be claiming or at least acting like "separation of church and state" is in the Constitution, and now this.

---

E-mail any comments to the National Center for Public Policy Research at info@nationalcenter.org.
Subscribe to this blog's feed.

Labels: Constitutional Law, Religion, White House

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 11:30 AM

Wednesday, June 03, 2009

On Sotomayor, Rumors of Conservative Hypocrisy are Overblown

ScienceBlogs, which, despite the neutral and academic-sounding name, apparently is a left-wing political blog, has a curious attack on "the Right" today on the nomination of Sonia Sotomayor. Since husband David and I are in it, mildly, and post author Ed Brayton appears to have a glaring blind spot that causes him to unfairly malign several of my fellow conservatives, I thought I'd take a minute to set the record straight.

Brayton claims there is "glaring hypocrisy" of which some conservatives are guilty. Specifically, Brayton charges, in 2005 (Brayton actually wrote "1995") quite a few conservatives signed a letter to Republican Senators opposing the use of the filibuster to obstruct up-or-down 50-percent-plus-one votes on judicial nominees. The hypocrisy comes in, Brayton charges, because some of those same conservatives also signed a letter dated June 2, 2009 calling on Republican Senators to consider using a filibuster to, if needed, make sure the Senate debate on Sotomayor is "appropriately long."

Brayton misses, either intentionally or because he did not understand one or both of the letters, the important common position in each letter: Opposition to the use of the filibuster to obstruct a straightforward up-or-down 50-percent-plus-one vote.

The 2009 letter spells out very clearly that the letter's signers are not trying to obstruct a majority vote on Sotomayor, but merely make certain a meaningful debate on the nomination occurs. Paragraphs are devoted to the explanation, as well as very clear phrases, such as "the traditional filibuster, not intended to obstruct [a vote]."

It seems so clear to me, I don't see how Brayton could have misunderstood it.

P.S. The Other McCain rebuts another ridiculous criticism of the June 2 letter. Really, why do certain people feel so threatened by a call for a mere debate?

---

E-mail any comments to the National Center for Public Policy Research at info@nationalcenter.org.
Subscribe to this blog's feed.

Labels: Conservatives, Constitutional Law, Courts, Liberals, Media

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 11:25 PM

Quote of Note: Obama on the Need for Justices to Have "Empathy"

"...while adherence to legal precedent and rules of statutory or constitutional construction will dispose of 95 percent of the cases that come before a court, so that both a Scalia and a Ginsburg will arrive at the same place most of the time on those 95 percent of the cases -- what matters on the Supreme Court is those 5 percent of cases that are truly difficult. In those cases, adherence to precedent and rules of construction and interpretation will only get you through the 25th mile of the marathon. That last mile can only be determined on the basis of one's deepest values, one's core concerns, one's broader perspectives on how the world works, and the depth and breadth of one's empathy.

"In those 5 percent of hard cases, the constitutional text will not be directly on point. The language of the statute will not be perfectly clear. Legal process alone will not lead you to a rule of decision. In those circumstances, your decisions about whether affirmative action is an appropriate response to the history of discrimination in this country or whether a general right of privacy encompasses a more specific right of women to control their reproductive decisions or whether the commerce clause empowers Congress to speak on those issues of broad national concern that may be only tangentially related to what is easily defined as interstate commerce, whether a person who is disabled has the right to be accommodated so they can work alongside those who are nondisabled -- in those difficult cases, the critical ingredient is supplied by what is in the judge's heart."

-Barack Obama, Senate Floor Speech on the Confirmation of Judge John Roberts, September 2005

---

E-mail any comments to the National Center for Public Policy Research at info@nationalcenter.org.
Subscribe to this blog's feed.

Labels: Congress, Constitutional Law, Courts, Quotes, White House

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 6:16 AM

Quote of Note: Obama on the Senate's Advise and Consent Role

"As we all know, there's been a lot of discussion in the country about how the Senate should approach this confirmation process. There are some who believe that the President, having won the election, should have the complete authority to appoint his nominee, and the Senate should only examine whether or not the Justice is intellectually capable and an all-around nice guy. That once you get beyond intellect and personal character, there should be no further question whether the judge should be confirmed.

"I disagree with this view. I believe firmly that the Constitution calls for the Senate to advise and consent. I believe that it calls for meaningful advice and consent that includes an examination of a judge's philosophy, ideology, and record..."

-Barack Obama, Floor Statement on the Confirmation of Judge Samuel Alito, Jr., January 26, 2006

---

E-mail any comments to the National Center for Public Policy Research at info@nationalcenter.org.
Subscribe to this blog's feed.

Labels: Congress, Constitutional Law, Courts, Quotes, White House

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 12:02 AM

Wednesday, May 27, 2009

Black Leader Says Sotomayor Nomination Perfect Catalyst for Debate About Judicial Activism

Project 21's Mychal Massie has thoughts on the Sonia Sotomayor Supreme Court nomination.

Among other things, he says the Sotomayor nomination is the perfect catalyst to begin a national debate on the appropriateness of "judicial activism," when judges essentially cut lawmakers out of the legislative process and try to rule from the bench.

More here.

---

E-mail any comments to the National Center for Public Policy Research at info@nationalcenter.org.
Subscribe to this blog's feed.

Labels: Congress, Constitutional Law, Courts, Project 21, Race

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 2:12 PM

Sunday, April 26, 2009

Randy Barnett's Constitutional Convention Proposal

Randy E. Barnett makes a surprisingly compelling argument for organizing states into calling for a Constitutional convention.

I'm not saying I'm ready to endorse his proposal, but there's food for thought there.

Hat tip: Alamo City Pundit.

---

E-mail any comments to info@nationalcenter.org.
Subscribe to this blog's feed.

Labels: Constitutional Law, Government Power

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 7:04 AM

Wednesday, March 25, 2009

Diverse Coalition Appeals to Congress Regarding Unjust Provisions of Omnibus Land Management Act

Readers with an interest in property rights, civil rights or simply staying out of jail for doing something one has no idea is illegal will want to review the coalition letter sent to the Congressional leadership, the Attorney General and to President Barack Obama by the American Civil Liberties Union, the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, the Competitive Enterprise Institute, the Association of Applied Paleontological Sciences and the National Center for Public Policy Research during the last 24 hours.

The letter was organized by John Berlau of the Competitive Enterprise Institute.

Dear Speaker Pelosi and Minority Leader Boehner,

Our respective organizations have diverse viewpoints, but we share a deep and abiding belief in due process under the law. We believe that that Congress should perform careful diligence before adding violations to the criminal codes, that federal crimes should be narrowly defined and show clear criminal intent, and that the use of asset forfeiture must be narrowly tailored so that it does not unduly punish the accused before a trial has proven their guilt. As such we have grave concerns about sections of the pending Omnibus Land Management Act of 2009, which passed the Senate last week as H.R. 146, regarding "paleontological resources preservation."

These sections, now contained in the bill under Subtitle Dof Title VI, seek to empower the Departments of Agriculture and the Interior to"protect paleontological resources on Federal land using scientific principles and expertise." We understand that preventing theft of and harm to important fossils on federal land is a serious objective. However, we are concerned that the bill creates many new federal crimes using language that is so broad that the provisions could cover innocent human error. There is also, in defining the crimes, a troubling lack of words such as "knowingly" that clearly establish criminal intent as a prerequisite for prosecution. As Georgetown University legal ethicist John Hasnas has written, to serve the greater goal of justice, all criminal laws must require the government to establish that "one had to knowingly or at least recklessly act in a morally blameworthy way to be subject of criminal punishment."

H.R. 146 would make it illegal to excavate, remove, damage, or otherwise alter or deface or attempt to excavate, remove, damage, or otherwise alter or deface any paleontological resources located on Federal land" without special permission from the government. Penalties for violations include up to five years imprisonment. "Paleontological resources" are loosely defined as all "fossilized remains ... that are of paleontological interest and that provide information about the history of life on earth." We are troubled by this definition that paleontological organizations say could cover many common rocks that adults and children collect. The Association of Applied Paleontological Sciences has warned that with this wording, it is easy to visualize "a group of students unknowingly crossing over an invisible line."

We are also concerned about the bill's prohibition against "false labeling" of fossil specimens, an offense that also carries criminal penalties. The bill makes it a crime to "make or submit any false record, account or label for, or any false identification of, any paleontological resource excavated or removed from federal land." This broad language could criminalize innocent misidentifications, limit scientific inquiry, and infringe on the First Amendment's protection of freedom of speech. Fossil labeling is a complex process, and even the top museums of the world have been known to revise labeling in their exhibits upon scholarly review or new facts being discovered ..Thus, the fear of making an honest mistake in fossil labeling or even having fossil identifications proven "false" in light of new scientific discoveries could have a chilling effect on new research in paleontology.

We are pleased that the Senate recently improved provisions regarding forfeiture. Language in earlier versions of the legislation would have allowed government officials to engage in the pretrial seizure of "all vehicles and equipment of any person" accused of theft or harm to a "paleontological resource." Forfeiting a person's property without a conviction undermines the bedrock principle of our legal system: that a person is innocent until proven guilty. Past abuses of forfeiture led to bipartisan passage of the Civil Asset Forfeiture Reform Act of 2000, and we had feared that these provisions would go against the spirit of these reforms. The Senate heeded our concerns with an amendment, and as passed on March 20, "vehicles and equipment" were removed from the forfeiture language, so that the forfeiture provisions apply only to the "paleontological resources" taken from federal land. This is a marked improvement, and we would oppose any attempts to reinsert forfeiture of personal property in a revised bill.

Above all, we are concerned that a bill containing new federal crimes, fines and imprisonment, and forfeiture provisions may come to the House floor without first being marked up in the House Judiciary Committee. That committee is tasked with providing centralized oversight of criminal legislation, thereby enhancing the fairness and consistency of those enactments. As such we strongly urge that the criminal provisions of the Omnibus Public Land Management Act be stripped from any final legislation until they are subject to Judiciary Committee review and amendment."

Representatives of the signatory organizations of this letter would be happy to meet with you or members of your staff to address these concerns.

Sincerely,

Caroline Fredrickson
Director
American Civil Liberties Union
Washington Legislative Office

Tracie Bennitt
President
Association of Applied Paleontological Sciences

John Berlau
Director, Center for Investors and Entrepreneurs
Competitive Enterprise Institute

Kyle O'Dowd
Assoc. Executive Director for Policy
National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers

David A. Ridenour
Vice President
The National Center for Public Policy Research

Cc: House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer
House Majority Whip James Clyburn
House Minority Whip Eric Cantor
House Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers
House Judiciary Committee Ranking Member Lamar Smith
President Barack Obama
Attorney General Eric Holder

For more information on this issue, see this blog's previous coverage of this here and here.
________________________________

Labels: Congress, Conservatives, Constitutional Law, Endangered Species, Environment, Government Power, Legal Reform, Liberals, Property Rights, White House

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 2:40 PM

Saturday, March 21, 2009

New Tax Betrays the Founders, Borelli Charges

Project 21's Deneen Borelli says it's not just the issue of the ban on bills of attainder that make Congress' anti-AIG tax constitutionally suspect.

It's also unconstitutional to interfere this way in contracts:

Legislation to specifically target AIG employees with a 90 percent tax on retention bonuses directly conflicts with the founding principles of the United States, Project 21 Fellow Deneen Borelli charged today on the Fox News program "Strategy Room."

Saying Article I, Section 10 of the U.S. Constitution prohibits the government from passing laws "impairing the obligation of contracts," Borelli says the AIG bonus controversy is a creation of the lawmakers who rushed bailout legislation earlier this year without due consideration.  These are the same lawmakers who now seek to hide their mistakes by pushing this new and selective tax.

"Politicians need to be reminded that we are a nation of laws.  To impose a hastily-concocted tax as a means of rectifying a problem that the government itself created and mismanaged calls their ability to lead into question," says Borelli.  "To suddenly enact a new tax to punish a few dozen people for something that was legal at the time is ludicrous, and it smacks of the British treatment of the colonists that provoked the revolt that created the United States.  Have we come full circle already?"

Read the rest here.
_____________________________

Labels: Business, Congress, Constitutional Law, Government Power, Project 21, Race

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 7:25 AM

Tuesday, March 10, 2009

Project 21 Hails Supreme Court Decision Against Racial Gerrymandering

Project 21 issued a press release Monday evening on the new Supreme Court decision:

Supreme Court Decision Against Racial Gerrymandering Hailed

For Release: Immediate
Contact: David Almasi at (202) 543-4110 x11 or dalmasi@nationalcenter.org

Washington, D.C.: Project 21 Chairman Mychal Massie today hailed a new U.S. Supreme Court decision prohibiting the use of the Voting Rights Act to supercede other laws to create predominantly black voting districts, saying the decision is a new protection against the abuse of civil rights laws for potential partisan gain.

"It continues to confound me that those whose party is responsible for preventing blacks from voting until 1964 now want to illegally redefine voting districts because it serves their best interest," said Massie. "It should go without saying that creating special black voting districts - for partisan gain or otherwise - is against the spirit of civil rights."

In the case of Bartlett v. Strickland, a 5-4 decision by the Court struck down the redistricting of District 18 in North Carolina. The prevailing concern among lawmakers involved in the redistricting process after the last census was adherence to Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act. This requires the political process to be "open equally" to minority voters. In doing so, a state law prohibiting the division of counties to create voting districts was violated to raise the percentage of blacks of voting age in the new District 18 from 35 percent to over 39 percent. One of the affected counties challenged the North Carolina General Assembly's process.

This decision is important because it can prevent the political manipulation of voting district boundaries based on race. In his majority opinion, Associate Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote: "Section 2 does not guarantee minority voters an electoral advantage."

District 18, as previously drawn, gave Democrats a 59 percent to 41 percent electoral advantage among registered voters. Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy (D-VT), however, criticized the decision as a "cramped reading" of the Voting Rights Act and a "serious blow" to civil rights.

"The only cramped reading is on the part of Leahy and his ilk. Even if his rhetoric is spoken without intended malice, his comments aid the nefarious work of partisans who seek to preserve ill-gotten political gains under the guise of promoting civil rights," added Project 21's Massie. "It's amazing the things that liberals can say with a straight face."

Project 21 is a black leadership network dedicated to promoting free-market ideals and the diversity of opinion among black Americans.

Project 21, a nonprofit and nonpartisan organization, has been a leading voice of the African-American community since 1992. For more information, contact David Almasi at (202) 543-4110 x11 or Project21@nationalcenter.org, or visit Project 21's website at http://www.project21.org/P21Index.html.

-30-

___________________

Labels: Conservatives, Constitutional Law, Project 21, Race, Social Welfare

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 12:05 AM

Tuesday, August 26, 2008

Ron Bailey on CWRA

Ron Bailey of Reason magazine takes a look at Congress' flawed Clean Water Restoration Act, quoting from this National Center paper by Peyton Knight.
____

Labels: Constitutional Law, Environment, Government Power, Guns

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 10:45 AM

Wednesday, July 09, 2008

Congress Investigates EPA for Following the Rules on Clean Water Act Enforcement

Nick Loris has it right in this Foundry post.

Do Representatives Henry Waxman (D-CA) and James Oberstar (D-MN) really want the EPA to ignore a Supreme Court decision?

I believe acting outside of proper channels is the kind of thing that could get EPA administrators hauled before Waxman's committee.

Oops. They have been.

Next time, EPA, don't stick to the rules.

Congress is watching.
____

Labels: Congress, Constitutional Law, Environment, Regulation

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 6:17 AM

Friday, July 04, 2008

Washington Post & Other Papers Lose 27th Amendment to the Constitution

Nearly two years ago on Newsbusters, I floated a proposal that newspapers require their editorial and other writers to police themselves for accuracy by requiring them to turn in footnotes with their copy. The process would force writers to check information they think they know that isn't so.

Had editors at the Washington Post, Hartford Courant, Sacramento Bee and Raleigh News & Observer taken my advice, they could have prevented a howler of an error from appearing on their opinion pages this week, in which a writer and fact-checking editors at all four papers apparently forgot the existence of the 27th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

In an op-ed titled (in the Washington Post version) "Three Cheers for July 2," writer Andrew Trees writes:

The Bill of Rights as we know it also is not what was initially proposed. The original first two amendments, one of which concerned the number of constituents each member of Congress had and one regarding congressmen's salaries, were never ratified by the states. [Emphasis added] What we think of today as our First Amendment freedoms were actually third on the list.

Mr. Trees and his editors apparently have never heard of the 27th Amendment, proposed by Congress on September 25, 1789 as the second of Congress's first twelve proposed amendments, and ratified 202 years later, on May 7, 1992, when Michigan became the 38th state to ratify it.

The amendment, for those who may be curious, states:

No law, varying the compensation for the services of the Senators and Representatives, shall take effect, until an election of representatives shall have intervened.

The Washington Post has an extra helping of egg on its face, as it covered the lead up to, adoption, and text of "the first Second Amendment" on February 1, 1987; July 28, 1991; May 14, 1992; May 17, 1992; May 19, 1992; September 12, 1999; January 1, 2001 and April 6, 2008. Had Mr. Trees been required by the Post to footnote his piece before submitting it, he might very well have found it was a Post story that set the record straight for him.

I realize writers don't like bothering with footnotes, but -- as I showed in my original post on this topic in Newsbusters when I noted major errors in a Margaret Carlson column that would easily have been caught by a footnoting process -- accuracy would be improved by requiring them.

(A footnote of my own: I noticed when researching this post that when the first Second Amendment was ratified on May 7, 1992, both the Washington Post and New York Times turned to law professor Walter E. Dellinger III for expert opinion. On May 8, 1992 Richard L. Berke of the Times quoted Mr. Dellinger saying the first second amendment would not automatically take effect, because it had "simply withered and died" after it "failed to be ratified long ago." Ten days later, U.S. Archivist Don W. Wilson formally certified the amendment. Mr. Dellinger is something of an expert on the second Second Amendment, too: He argued for the District of Columbia in the just-decided District of Columbia v. Heller gun-rights case, telling the court in oral arguments that "the Second Amendment... is expressly about the security of the State..." No luck that time, either. His client lost.)

Cross-posted at NewsBusters.
_____

Labels: Constitutional Law, History, Media

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 1:09 AM

Thursday, June 26, 2008

Horace Cooper on Ruling Against the D.C. Gun Ban - Listen Live

From David Almasi:

Project 21 member Horace Cooper, a former constitutional law professor at George Mason University in Arlington, Virginia, will discuss the U.S. Supreme Court's Thursday ruling overturning the Washington, D.C. ban on handgun ownership live with Scott Sloan on WLW in Cincinnati on Friday, June 27 at 10:00 am eastern.

You can listen live over the Internet.

To listen, click here and look for the listen live tab at the top left of the page under the station logo.

_____

Labels: Constitutional Law, Media, Project 21

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 7:28 PM

Court Continues Welcome Trend of Reigning in Excessive Punitive Awards

From Research Associate Justin Danhof comes this look at the decision in Exxon Shipping Co. v. Baker, handed down June 25:

In 1989, the Exxon Valdez supertanker grounded on a reef off Alaska's coast, spilling millions of gallons of oil. Since that time, Exxon has spent $2.1 billion in clean-up efforts, $900 million to settle a civil lawsuit and $303 million in voluntary payments to private parties.

Today, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled, in the case of Exxon Shipping Co. v. Baker, that that is enough... almost.

The Supreme Court did rule that punitive damages are allowed under maritime law. In a 5-3 decision, however, the majority directed the lower court to reduce the punitive award from $2.5 billion to no more than $507.5 million.

The Court took a commonsense approach by aligning punitive damages with compensatory damages. Associate Justice David Souter, writing for the majority, rejected a hard cap for punitive damages and instead affixed the maximum punitive award to the compensatory award: a one-to-one ratio. Although these studies were not dispositive, the Court cited empirical studies showing that a one-to-one ratio is consistent with America's average punitive award.

The decision was made under maritime common law, not the due process clause under which most punitive challenges are brought. Justice Souter explained:

[t]oday's enquiry differs from due process review because the case arises under federal maritime jurisdiction, and we are reviewing a jury award for conformity with maritime law rather than the outer limit allowed by due process.

Although the decision did not set direct precedent for future constitutional claims, it offered guidance to lower courts and was instructive of the Court's position towards punitive awards generally.

The Court was mindful that punitive awards are often criticized for their unpredictability. This unpredictability runs counter to a main goal of punitive awards: to provide an example. The Court explained that,

...a penalty should be reasonably predictable in its severity so that even Justice Holmes's 'bad man' can look ahead with some ability to know what the stakes are when choosing one course of action or another.

This decision goes a long way towards achieving this goal.

The Court's decision continues a welcome trend of the court reigning in excessive punitive awards. In State Farm v. Campbell (2003), the Court held that a single-digit maximum (i.e., no greater than a nine-to-one punitive to compensatory ratio) is appropriate in all but the most exceptional cases. Indeed, the Exxon decision follows State Farm's guidance which suggested that,

[w]hen compensatory damages are substantial, then a lesser ratio, perhaps only equal to compensatory damages, can reach the outermost limit of the due process guarantee.

Justice Souter's majority opinion was joined by Justices Kennedy, Scalia, Thomas and Chief Justice Roberts. Justices Breyer, Ginsberg and Stevens dissented, arguing that the Court went too far in limiting punitive awards. Justice Alito, a holder of Exxon stock, took no part in the decision.

Excessive punitive awards are a scourge on the business community; reducing innovation, investment and economic growth. Today's decision sends an appropriate message that companies will be held accountable for their mistakes, but not bankrupt by untenable punitive award figures.

_____

Labels: Business, Constitutional Law, Legal Reform

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 7:14 PM

Black Group on Gun Decision: A Great Day for Law-Abiding Citizens

The Project 21 black conservative leadership group  comments on the Supreme Court's gun rights decision:

District of Columbia v. Heller Supreme Court Second Amendment Decision Hailed by Black Activists

For Release: June 24, 2008
Contact: David Almasi at (202) 543-4110 x11 or dalmasi@nationalcenter.org

Today's U.S. Supreme Court ruling guaranteeing the Constitution's individual right to own firearms and overturning the ban on most gun ownership in the nation's capital in the first major Second Amendment case in almost 70 years is being hailed by black activists of the Project 21 leadership network.

Project 21 Fellow Deneen Borelli says the decision supporting an individual right to use firearms is a loud and clear declaration that the government cannot pick and choose what constitutional protections are honored and enforced.

"This is a great day for law-abiding citizens of the nation's capital who have unjustly been denied their full right to protect themselves and families for over 30 years," said Borelli. "The Second Amendment guarantees the individual right of citizens to arm themselves for self-defense and not become easy prey. Perhaps the government should find a better way to keep illegal guns away from criminals and not law-abiding citizens."

The case of District of Columbia v. Heller is an appeal of the decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit in Parker v. District of Columbia. In Parker v. District of Columbia, the DC Circuit ruled the District of Columbia's Firearms Control Regulations Act of 1975, which bars handgun ownership by most D.C. residents, is unconstitutional.

The specific question being answered in District of Columbia v. Heller today was, as phrased by the Court: "Whether... provisions [in the District of Columbia code] violate the Second Amendment rights of individuals who are not affiliated with any state-regulated militia, but who wish to keep handguns and other firearms for private use in their homes."

The District of Columbia, defending the constitutionality of the firearm ban before the Court in oral arguments March 18, argued the Second Amendment's right to "bear arms" refers not to an individual right to use firearms, but rather to a "right to participate in the common defense" and a restriction of "the authority of the federal government to interfere with the arming" of state militias. The District of Columbia argued to the Court that "the Second Amendment... is expressly about the security of the State; it's about well-regulated militias, not unregulated individual license."

Opponents of the ban, however, said the Founders considered self-defense a right and one they intended the Second Amendment to protect, telling the Court "the framers knew exactly how to condition a right on militia service... and they didn't do it with respect to the Second Amendment."

"There are countless instances in which individuals are on their own when it comes to protecting themselves and their property. A majority of the Justices recognized this and upheld the Second Amendment's specific protection of an individual right to self-defense. Now that D.C.'s citizens have had this constitutional right restored, criminals will have good reason to think twice before trying to plunder another's property," added Project 21's Borelli.

In 2007, in a newspaper column published in Philadelphia, Chicago, Pittsburgh and elsewhere, Borelli addressed some of the public policy aspects of the case:

Besides violating the Second Amendment, D.C.'s gun ban is a violation of the fundamental rationale of law. In The Law, noted political theorist Frederic Bastiat wrote: 'It is evident, then, that the proper purpose of law is to use the power of its collective force to stop this fatal tendency to plunder instead of to work. All the measures of the law should protect property and punish plunder.' D.C. promotes the opposite, effectively protecting the plunderer and punishing the property owner.

Borelli also pointed out:

Research shows that law-abiding citizens using firearms for protection can save lives and deter crimes. In 'Armed: New Perspectives on Gun Control,' co-authors Gary Kleck and Don Kates note that 'as many as 2.5 million victims use guns to defend against crime each year' and 'handguns are actually used by victims to repel crime far more often than they are by criminals in committing crimes - as much as three times more.'

Borelli believes that in addition to it being unconstitutional, it is immoral to deny law-abiding citizens the right to legally possess a firearm, especially within crime-infested neighborhoods.

Borelli's column is available at www.nationalcenter.org/P21NVBorelliGuns90507.html.

Project 21, a nonprofit and nonpartisan organization, has been a leading voice of the African-American community since 1992. For more information, contact David Almasi at (202) 543-4110 x11 or Project21@nationalcenter.org, or visit Project 21's website at http://www.nationalcenter.org/P21Index.html.

- 30 -

Labels: Constitutional Law, Government Power, Guns, Project 21

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 2:20 PM

Thursday, June 12, 2008

Boumediene v. Bush Ruling Will Cost Lives

Project 21's Kevin Martin and four members of the U.S. Supreme Court fear the Supreme Court's ruling in Boumediene v. Bush (pdf) -- the Guantanamo Bay/enemy combatant decision -- will cost lives:

Supreme Court Gitmo Ruling Called "Chilling"; Will Cost American Lives

For Release: June 12, 2008
Contact: David Almasi at (202) 543-4110 x11 or dalmasi@nationalcenter.org

Washington, D.C. - Responding to today's U.S. Supreme Court ruling in Boumediene v. Bush that allows suspected terrorists to challenge their incarceration, Project 21 member Kevin Martin is criticizing the Court, saying this decision puts national security at risk and sends a confusing signal to the military.

"As a Navy veteran who supported and defended our Constitution at home and abroad, today's Supreme Court ruling benefiting suspected terrorists is deeply disappointing," said Martin. "To grant suspected terrorists the same rights as those fighting to protect our nation is wrong. I consider this one of the most chilling legal rulings in my lifetime. Giving alleged foreign combatants the same rights as any American provides potential ammunition to those with political agendas running counter to the commander-in-chief. Our nation's enemies will now have the ability to gum up our federal courts with baseless legal challenges and further hinder the pursuit of justice."

In the razor-thin 5-4 ruling, the Supreme Court decision allows suspected terrorists such as those currently held at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba the right to challenge their incarceration in federal courts. It overturns a law passed in 2006 that limited judicial jurisdiction and affects 270 suspected terrorists currently being held by the U.S. military - including 14 suspects al Qaeda members.

Writing in dissent, and joined by Justices Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito, Chief Justice John Roberts wrote that the 2006 law struck down today was "the most generous set of procedural protections ever afforded aliens detained by this country as enemy combatants. The political branches crafted these procedures amidst an ongoing military conflict, after much careful investigation and thorough debate. The Court rejects them today out of hand, without bothering to say what due process rights the detainees possess, without explaining how the statute fails to vindicate those rights, and before a single petitioner has even attempted to avail himself of the law's operation... One cannot help but think... think, after surveying the modest practical results of the majority's ambitious opinion, that this decision is not really about the detainees at all, but about control of federal policy regarding enemy combatants."

In another scathing dissent, joined by Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Thomas and Alito, Justice Antonin Scalia wrote that the majority decision "warps the Constitution" and that "[our] nation will live to regret what the Court has done today." Scalia further warned the ruling "will almost certainly cause more Americans to be killed... that consequence would be tolerable if necessary to preserve a time-honored legal principle vital to our constitutional Republic. But it is this Court's blatant abandonment of such a principle that produces the decision today." Scalia also wrote a practical affect of the decision will likely be harm to enemy combatants, as the decision is likely to result in enemy combatants being turned over to other nations by the United States following capture.

Martin added: "This sends a confounding message to our men and women in uniform, within our intelligence community and to our allies. Their hard-fought efforts to capture terrorist suspects maybe for naught because they could simply be released back on the battlefield on a legal technicality."

For more information, I recommend reading the decision.
_____

Labels: Constitutional Law, Courts, Defense, Foreign Policy, Government Power, Human Rights, Project 21

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 6:33 PM

Wednesday, April 30, 2008

Flaws in Clean Water Restoration Act Exposed in Congressional Hearings

From Mike Hardiman comes this roundup of information about recent Congressional hearings on the Clear Water Restoration Act:

Both the United States Senate and House of Representatives recently held hearings on the Oberstar/Feingold Clean Water Restoration Act. These hearings are a clear sign that the environmental community intends to push this controversial legislation to a vote in both houses of Congress sooner rather than later.

The Senate hearing was held on April 9 under the direction of bill co-sponsor Senator Barbara Boxer of California, and the House followed on April 16 with a hearing chaired by the legislation's House sponsor, Representative James Oberstar from Minnesota.

Contrary to the sponsors’ wishes, the two hearings exposed numerous flaws and very strong opposition to HR2421/S1870, the proposal to dramatically expand the federal government's role in land use regulation.

Senate Hearing

The Senate hearing, held by the Environment and Public Works Committee, unveiled several issues to which bill sponsors had difficulty responding.

Senator James Inhofe of Oklahoma spoke at length regarding the bill's removal of the phrase "navigable" from the term "navigable waters." He claimed it would lead to a dramatic expansion of federal authority over wetlands from navigable waters to nearly anything that is wet.

Both witnesses and Senators supporting the bill denied that it would be an expansion of power, despite the removal of the key modifying word "navigable." Meanwhile, a witness opposing the bill, rancher Randall Smith, said of removing the word navigable, "it is a dream for litigators" and "it opens up a whole can of worms."

Supporters stated that the bill's purpose is only to clear up confusion generated by a recent Supreme Court decision, known as the Rapanos case, while opponents showed that it was actually a considerable expansion of authority.

Bill supporter Senator Sheldon Whitehouse of Rhode Island, a former federal prosecutor and state attorney general, lectured at length witness David Brand, a county engineer from Ohio opposed to the legislation. Whitehouse insisted repeatedly that "we are just picking up where we left off (before the Rapanos decision)."

Brand replied, "No, and repeating that doesn't make it true."

An exasperated Whitehouse responded, "Yes, it does make it true."

Senator David Vitter of Louisiana was opposed to the bill, and stated that he could not think of any kind of water that was not covered by the bill.

Attempting to contradict him, Clinton-era EPA Administrator Carol Browner said puddles were exempt. Vitter asked for a definition of a puddle, and Browner was unable to directly answer the question. Senator Whitehouse unconvincingly chipped in, insisting that "EPA has no interest in chasing puddles."

Senator John Barrasso of Wyoming asked witnesses how the proposed bill benefits ranchers and farmers. Bill supporters did not address the question, while opponents said it would be harmful.

House Hearing

Representative James Oberstar is both the bill sponsor and chairman of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, which held its own hearing April 15. This marathon session featured twenty-three witnesses and forty-four congressmen questioning them, resulting in an eleven hour hearing that stretched into late evening.

Oberstar accused the Supreme Court of "legislating from the bench" and said his bill only sought to repeal two court rulings on wetlands from recent years which protected private property, the SWANCC and Rapanos decisions.

This was challenged by congressman John Mica of Florida, who said the Oberstar bill would "fundamentally alter the course of water regulation" and produced a display featuring several hundred organizations opposed to the legislation and a pile of petitions several feet high opposing the bill.

Oberstar said his bill would clear up ambiguity that had been created by the Supreme Court. Mica agreed that there would be no ambiguity under the bill, because there would be no restriction on federal control of all water, since any non-federal or private rights would be overridden.

Congressman John Boozman from Arkansas pointed out that the bill proposes to regulate all "activities" near waters, instead of current law, which says only "discharges" into waters are regulated.

Some members were undecided. Congressman Nick Rahall from West Virginia did not take a position for or against the bill, but said "whiskey is for drinking, water is for fighting." After several witnesses complained about both current law and the proposed legislation, Congressman John Salazar from Colorado told them there must be more than complaints, and asked how to make the bill better.

Witness Virginia Albrecht pointed out another major change proposed in the bill, that federal agencies be given the power to regulate "to the limit of constitutional authority." Congresswoman Thelma Drake from Virginia agreed that these are "absolute words" which could fundamentally change federal-state relationships.

Attorney Robert Trout testified that "if this bill passes, it will put my kids through college" because of all the new litigation that will be generated.
Witness Linda Runbeck, a former Minnesota state legislator, said the bill negatively impacts private property rights and hurts families because most of their net worth is tied up in the land they own, which may be sharply devalued by the bill. She also brought up the poll commissioned by the National Center for Public Policy Research, which shows that when the bill is described to them, most Americans stating an opinion do not support it.

Overall, a very thorough airing of opinion was had in the two hearings, and the legislation's many weaknesses were displayed out in the open and for the record. However, the bill's supporters remain determined first to wipe out gains made by property owners in the Supreme Court, and, second, to expand federal authority beyond current law.

_____

Labels: Congress, Constitutional Law, Environment, Government Power, Property Rights, Regulation

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 12:55 AM

Sunday, April 20, 2008

It's Not History, It's HBO

From David Almasi:

The Washington Post's Al Kamen poked fun at the ACLU and National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers in his April 16 column:

The American Civil Liberties Union and the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers are heading an effort to provide legal representation for alleged terrorist detainees at Guantanamo Bay. The groups say they've gotten involved in defending the detainees charged under the 2006 Military Commissions Act to ensure that constitutional rights are respected.

They've named their efforts the "John Adams Project," after the second president, who "defended the British soldiers charged with killing Americans in the Boston Massacre, and said that the case was 'one of the best pieces of service I ever rendered my country.'"

Wait a minute. John Adams? Wasn't he also the guy who signed the infamous Alien and Sedition Acts, which were intended to suppress opposition to an undeclared naval war with France and provided for fines and imprisonment for publication of "any false, scandalous and malicious writings against the government"? The law that led to imprisonment of a couple of dozen newspaper editors and the closing of their publications?

The mistake is understandable. When the John Adams Project was introduced on April 3, the John Adams miniseries on HBO had only progressed through Adam's inauguration as vice president in 1789. He didn't sign the Alien and Sedition Acts until 1798. That episode didn't air until April 13 (full disclosure: I still need to watch that episode as well!).

_____

Labels: Constitutional Law, Defense, Government Power, History

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 11:45 AM

Thursday, March 20, 2008

Citizens Must Be Able to Defend Their Property

From David Almasi:

Tuesday, the U.S. Supreme Court heard arguments on the first major case dealing with the 2nd Amendment right for citizens to own a firearm in almost 70 years. Wednesday, readers of the Examiner newspaper chain were able to read Project 21 Fellow Deneen Borelli's comments on the case and gun rights in general.

Wrote Deneen, in part:

...Besides violating the Second Amendment, D.C.'s gun ban is a violation of the fundamental rationale of law.

In "The Law," noted political theorist Frederic Bastiat wrote: "It is evident, then, that the proper purpose of law is to use the power of its collective force to stop this fatal tendency to plunder instead of to work.

All the measures of the law should protect property and punish plunder." [But] D.C. promotes the opposite, effectively protecting the plunderer and punishing the property owner.

Looters, for example, know it's easier to steal another man's property than to earn their own.

When government can't perform a basic function like protection, it's naturally up to the citizens to defend their property.

The duty becomes harder when the property owner is hobbled by things like Washington's ban on gun ownership.

To read the Examiner piece, click here. To read all of Deneen's commentary, click here. Project 21's press release on Tuesday's arguments can be found here.

_____

Labels: Constitutional Law, Guns, Project 21

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 5:01 PM

Tuesday, March 18, 2008

On Eve of D.C. Gun Ban Supreme Court Case, Black Activist Says No Rights are Secure Unless All of Them Are

The U.S. Supreme Court will hear arguments today on the constitutionality of the nearly 32-year-old District of Columbia handgun ban. Project 21 Fellow Deneen Borelli, a gun owner, says the court must respect all the protections in the U.S. Constitution, or none of them are truly safe:

Black Activist Asks: If Courts Can Gut Second Amendment, How Can We Assume 13th Amendment Ban on Slavery is Safe?

For Release: March 18, 2008
Contact: David Almasi at (202) 543-4110 x11 or project21@nationalcenter.org

As the U.S. Supreme Court considers its first major case involving the definition of the 2nd Amendment's protection of gun rights in almost 70 years, black activists with the Project 21 leadership network assert that government should not be allowed to pick and choose what constitutional protections are honored and enforced.

"As a black American, I would be horrified to hear a state or local government enacted legislation or regulation that gutted the 13th Amendment's prohibit on slavery or the 15th Amendment's guarantee that all races could vote. Why aren't more people outraged when the 2nd Amendment's guarantee that individuals can protect themselves is infringed?" asks Project 21 fellow Deneen Borelli. "Besides violating the 2nd Amendment, this case involving the District of Columbia's gun ban is a violation of the fundamental rationale of law as well as immorally denying citizens the right to protect themselves."

In the case of District of Columbia v. Heller, to be heard at 10:00 am Eastern on March 18, the justices will consider arguments about a ruling by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit last spring that struck down the 1976 law that banned most gun ownership in the nation's capital. This particular case is important from other recent gun rights cases heard by the Court because the nature of the case touches the core 2nd Amendment protection of an individual's right to own a firearm.

"In Washington, criminals know that an unarmed citizen is easy prey. Right now, the criminals are winning because the city's gun ban is effectively protecting the plunderer and punishing the property owner," added Project 21's Borelli. "The lower court verdict to restore power to the people to legally possess a suitable firearm will make criminals think twice about their actions, and it is something the Supreme Court should affirm."

Borelli's column on the case is available at http://www.nationalcenter.org/P21NVBorelliGuns90507.html

Project 21, a nonprofit and nonpartisan organization, has been a leading voice of the African-American community since 1992. For more information, contact David Almasi at (202) 543-4110 x11 or project21@nationalcenter.org, or visit Project 21's website at http://www.project21.org/P21Index.html.

- 30 -

_____

Labels: Constitutional Law, Courts, Government Power, Guns, Project 21, Social Welfare

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 12:22 AM

Tuesday, February 26, 2008

DarkStar's "Race Hustling" Response

DarkStar has responded to my comments about the letters in the Washington Post by four presidents of historically-black colleges and universities and by Project 21's Mychal Massie, and the Wall Street Journal op-ed by Abigail Thernstrom and Stephan Thernstrom.

You can read what DarkStar said here.

My response:

1) There does not appear to be a consensus on the definition of the term "race hustling." Based on comments I'm getting, some folks think "exploiting racial divisions" is enough to qualify the term; others think the person doing it must do so with a profit motive of some sort. Possibly, the term simply needs to evolve until a consensus forms. With luck, by the time it does, the word "archiac" will apply.

2) If I read him correctly, DarkStar still believes the Thernstroms were attacking historically-black colleges and universities (HBCUs) because they began their Wall Street Journal op-ed with questions including: "Half a century after Brown v. Board of Education, should we still support an institution of higher education that is less than 1% white?" and "If all educational doors are so wide open to black students and professors, should we really hope that schools such as Fisk survive?" I still contend that asking those questions, but resolving by the end of their op-ed that HBCUs are valuable, means the Thernstroms' piece was not an attack on HCBUs. People can decide for themselves here.

3) DarkStar wishes Mychal Massie had addressed more issues in his letter to the Post. For what it is worth, the letter the Post published from the four HCBU presidents was 579 words as published. The Post told Mychal his letter in response would have to be 200 words or less to be considered.

4) DarkStar finds "revolting" my reference to all-male universities historically being the first examples of institutions of higher learning to practice inequity. Of this, he said:

I find the total lack of taking history into account to be revolting. Why must Black history be destroyed at the expense of integration? Especially since this part of "Black History" is actually American history? Let's keep the HBCUs around and remove the HWCUs.

I had in mind the 1636 founding of Harvard and its early successors when I wrote that; these schools not only were all-male, but had other restrictions. I don't believe referring to this "destroys black history"; more provocatively (though it does not seem to be hard to provoke DarkStar), I don't think the admission of females destroyed male history, or that closing HCBUs (not that I've seen anyone quoted in any of these posts and articles call for that) would "destroy black history."

Finally, DarkStar seems (to me) to be offended by expressions of support for the integration of HBCUs. I remind him that integration has for some generations now been taught in our schools and throughout our society as a positive value at the very center of our civil moral code. As such, no one should be surprised to find members of the integration generations puzzled at continued support for institutions that appear on the surface to reject this value. It would be more surprising if it were not so.
____

Labels: Constitutional Law, Education, Project 21, Social Issues

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 1:24 AM

Saturday, February 23, 2008

Project 21’s Massie Responds to Black College Presidents in Washington Post

From David Almasi:

Last Sunday, the Washington Post published a letter to the editor from four presidents of historically black colleges and universities (HBCUs) in Maryland, who took issue with Manhattan Institute Senior Fellow and U.S. Commission on Civil Rights Commissioner Abigail Thernstrom asking, in a Wall Street Journal essay, "are historically-black colleges good for blacks?"

Why they chose the Washington Post to air their grievances and not the Journal is unknown, but here is a portion of what the four contended:

Such mistaken interpretations of the 1954 Brown v. Board of Education decision, the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the landmark 1992 Fordice Supreme Court case do a great injustice to historically black institutions and the students they serve. Most unfortunately, they threaten to open old wounds related to race and poverty.

In a rebuttal published in today’s Post, Project 21 Chairman Mychal Massie responded:

Asserting that U.S. Civil Rights Commissioner Abigail Thernstrom failed "to understand that a main object of the civil rights movement was to enhance educational opportunities for [blacks] by eliminating the vestiges of segregation and enhancing their educational institutions" is nothing short of revisionism.

The 1992 Supreme Court decision in United States v. Fordice did not hurt historically black colleges and universities. It upheld Title IV, on desegregation of public education, in the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

There is no debate that historically black institutions have been permitted to escape adherence to Title IV specifically because they are black. What's more, they have escaped penalty while their proponents viciously castigate other institutions for lacking diversity.

To read all of Mychal’s letter, click here.

Addendum from Amy: The DarkStar Spouts Off blog has published a long critique (attack?) on Mychal's letter. I found it odd in a couple of respects:

1) DarkStar/Ed Brown refers to Mychal's "race hustling ways." I've been unable to find a definition anywhere for the slang term "race hustling," but I thought it referred to the exploitation of racial divisions for personal profit. If I am right (I invite readers to write to tell me they disagree), I don't think the term applies to someone who advocates the elimination of racial divisions in an uncompensated letter to the Washington Post written on his free time.

2) DarkStar castigates Mychal for not addressing a litany of other, related issues, but letters to major newspapers intended for publication nearly always must be short and succinct to have any hope of being published. Writers can't address everything they might wish to.

3) DarkStar ends with:

Here is the bottom line to all of this, besides the disgust I'm feeling towards Massie's letter. Why is it that people like [Abigail] Thernstrom and Massie say close down HBCUs because of their segregated history, instead of saying close down HWCUs, because of THEIR segregated history?

Close down the HWCUs, transfer the money and facilities to the HBCUs, and then let's see what happens.

Mychal's letter didn't call for closing down historically-black colleges; he exposed the hypocrisy inherent in calling for integration while promoting segregation.

In their letter's lead sentence, the four HCBU presidents called for "eliminating the vestiges of segregation and enhancing [black] educational institutions..."

The four HBCU presidents opposed and supported segregation in the same sentence.

As to Thernstrom: Although you'd be hard-pressed to tell from the college presidents' and DarkStar's attack on her views, she expressed support for the continuation of historically-black institutions. Her essay concludes:

"[Historically-black colleges and universities] do seem to meet a real need, serving their students well in important respects. In a free society, many private and public institutions will have a distinctive profile. Group clustering is not necessarily unhealthy; indeed, it's an inescapable feature of a multiethnic nation. No one worries that there are 'too many' Jews at Yeshiva and Brandeis, 'too many' Catholics at Notre Dame and Holy Cross, 'too many' Mormons at Brigham Young. And so it should be with Howard, Fisk and Mississippi Valley State. That's what democratic pluralism means."

Hardly a call for the "closing down" of HBCUs, as DarkStar alleges.

4) The college presidents and DarkStar attacked Abigail Thernstrom, yet Abigail Thernstrom's essay was jointly written with her husband, Stephan Thernstrom. Isn't the man's input as worthy of note as the female's?

Possibly this anti-male inequity could be addressed by establishing and supporting all-male universities...

...or perhaps it is that kind of thinking that got all this higher education inequity started in the first place.

_____

Labels: Constitutional Law, Education, Project 21, Social Issues

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 10:13 PM

Friday, February 22, 2008

Connerly Reprints Borelli

From Deneen Borelli:

Following last year's U.S. Supreme Court rejection of racial preferences in public school admissions, I wrote a New Visions Commentary for Project 21 titled "Diversity Doesn't Need To Be Forced." Ward Connerly, President of the American Civil Rights Institute - a national civil rights organization created to educate the public on the harms of racial and gender preferences - published the commentary on the cover of his newsletter The Egalitarian. Here is a portion:

In American classrooms, however, the outdated quest for proportional diversity distracts the public and educators from providing our children with the best education available. Denying a child the school he needs in order to meet a quota or forcing him to travel long distances to supplement a school's diversity is a betrayal of our commitment to our kids. Color-coded classrooms and preferential treatment doesn't teach children about the importance of confidence, hard work, perseverance or self-esteem. An educated child taught to appreciate the differences of the cultural backgrounds of others is a sound way to diminish racial bias.

You can read the commentary in its entirety on ACRI's website.

_____

Labels: Congress, Constitutional Law, Project 21

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 7:20 PM

Friday, November 16, 2007

U.S. Bridge Federation Has Constitutional Right to Eject Bush-Bashing Bridge Players

Kudos to the United States Bridge Federation, which is showing spine in response to the self-centered actions of the team of women who used the world bridge championships as a platform to express their anti-Bush political opinions.

While "representing" the United States in communist China, the team held up a sign saying "We did not vote for Bush.”

The New York Times' Stephanie Strom reports on the Bridge Federation's response:

Three players— Hansa Narasimhan, JoAnna Stansby and Jill Meyers — have expressed regret that the action offended some people. The federation has proposed a settlement to [team captain Gail] Greenberg and the three other players, Jill Levin, Irina Levitina and [team member Debbie]. Rosenberg, who have not made any mollifying statements.

It calls for a one-year suspension from federation events, including the World Bridge Olympiad next year in Beijing; a one-year probation after that suspension; 200 hours of community service “that furthers the interests of organized bridge”; and an apology drafted by the federation’s lawyer.

It would also require them to write a statement telling “who broached the idea of displaying the sign, when the idea was adopted, etc.”

Alan Falk, a lawyer for the federation, wrote the four team members on Nov. 6, “I am instructed to press for greater sanction against anyone who rejects this compromise offer.”

The Times quotes a Danny Kleinman, said to be a "professional bridge player, teacher and columnist," telling the Times by e-mail that "if the U.S.B.F. wants to impose conditions of membership that involve curtailment of free speech, then it cannot claim to represent our country in international competition."

What an airhead Danny Kleinman must be. The First Amendment begins: "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..." and it continues "...or the right of the people peaceably to assemble..."

If the U.S. Bridge Federation membership does not wish to associate itself with players who do not believe in the maxim "politics stops at the water's edge," they have a Constitutional right not to do so.

This is a freedom of assembly, not a freedom of speech, issue. The right of the Bridge Federation to associate freely is being questioned by many, but no grand jury is sitting to consider an indictment against the bridge players.

A handful of the liberal bloggers who are defending the bridge players (for example, here, here and here) don't seem to understand what the First Amendment says and means.

What a wonderful country we might have if all the liberals who use their freedom of speech rights read the Constitution carefully and with intelligence once in a while. (Right, Amy, dream on.)

Capping the idiocy of the story, the French delegation reportedly tried to make the whole kerfluffle a sexism issue (believe it or not). The delegation wrote in an e-mail to the U.S. team, "you were doing only what women of the world have always tried to do when opposing the folly of men who have lost their perspective of reality." Good grief, girls, look up "projection" in the dictionary sometime.

No word on whether the French chicks held up a sign saying "We did not vote for Sarkozy."

I checked the blog of Peg Kaplan, my favorite bridge-playing blogger; her posts on this are here and here.

Joe Hicks of Project 21 comes down hard on the team here.

Addendum: Jeremy Lott disagrees, but doesn't say why.

Addendum, 11/17/07: I missed this link, and shouldn't have, from Peg Kaplan's blog. I agree entirely.

Addendum II, 11/17/07: Jeremy Lott says why. Sort of.
_____

Labels: Constitutional Law, Liberals

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 12:37 AM