Social Justice Shorts

Social Justice Shorts: Cops, Pink Slips & the 1st Amendment

first-amendment-area.gif

NOTE: I PUT THIS UP EARLY THIS MORNING, BUT THEN MANAGED TO DISAPPEAR IT. (SIGH.) OH WELL.
IT’S BACK NOW.
********************************************************************************************************

BOOK BANNING AND THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION: OH, NO, THEY DIDN’T!

It is a very sad day when I find myself agreeing wholeheartedly with the often icky conservative columnist Jonah Goldberg, but I’m afraid that’s what we have here.

In an Op Ed in yesterday’s LA Times (and today’s NRO), Goldberg talked about the absolutely idiotic thing that Obama administration lawyer, deputy solicitor general Malcolm Stewart, said when arguing in front of the Supreme Court the other day.

It occurred in the midst of arguments about a case
that questions whether the McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform act may restrict corporations and other special interest groups from putting out a blatantly political and partisan movie close to an election. At issue was a 90-minute anti-Hillary Clinton screed called Hillary: the Movie.

Here’s how the Boston Globe explains it:

The act says such groups cannot use money from their general treasuries for “any broadcast, cable or satellite communications” that refer to a candidate for federal office within a certain time frame before an election.

In the past, that has meant 30-second to one-minute campaign ads
. But a lower court said the same rule applied to the conservative Citizens United’s production of a 90-minute movie on Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton as she pursued the Democratic presidential nomination.

Then Stewart found himself pulled into a conversation as to whether corporate-backed political books could be banned under MCCain Feingold.

If the federal government could treat a movie like a political advertisement
, then can it do the same with books? the justices asked.

In can, answered Stewart, “if the book contained the functional equivalent
of express advocacy,” the test used in regulating broadcast, cable or satellite communication released 60 days before a general election or 30 days before a presidential primary or convention.

In other words, he cheerily said that, yes, the statute he was defending
could, in certain circumstances be used to ban books.

Eeeek! First Amendment alert!!!!
No, Malcolm! Bad lawyer! Bad! Very bad!

Good lord.

Anyway, it went downhill from there.

Look for the Supremes to rightly make trims in McCain Feingold.

**********************************************************************************************************
PASADENA POLICE CHIEF CALLS IN THE FEDS TO INVESTIGATE

Police Chief Bernard Melekian is a good guy handling a very bad situation. So he did the right thing, yesterday, in calling in the FBI and the Los Angeles County Office of Independent Review to conduct an outside investigation the February 19 shooting of Leroy Barnes by Pasadena police officers.

Barnes was shot 11 times, according to the coroner’s report, seven of those bullets in the back. The Pasadena PD’s investigation of the shooting concluded that the shooting was justified, that Barnes pulled a pistol and pointed it a officers in the course of a traffic stop.

Community members who witnessed the incident have repeatedly disputed the police version of events.

There are many troubling aspects to this shooting, so let us hope that independent investigators can and will get to the truth of the matter.

Kudos to Bernie Melekian for inviting them in.

Here’s the report from the Pasadena Star-News.

****************************************************************************************************


LAUSD BOARD PUTS OFF TEACHER PINK SLIP VOTE

After one more go-round of impassioned protests from teachers, students and parents about the massive lay offs planned in order to balance the district’s budget, the LAUSD board has put off the vote as board members complained they didn’t know enough to make such a big decision.

If the layoffs eventually do go though, they will affect
approximately 8,540 employees, 3,500 of them teachers.

Board member Tamar Galatzan complained several weeks ago in her newsletter that board members had not been included in the earlier stages of budget cutting process or told the reasoning behind certain cuts (other than the obvious, that $700 million has to come out of the district budget).

“I still have just a page here of unanswered questions,” she said at yesterday’s meeting “… I don’t feel comfortable making these decisions in a vacuum.”

Good for Galatzan and others for refusing to simply rubber stamp the superintendent’s massive layoffs.

Superintendent Ray Cortines district has gotten a great deal of criticism for his teacher cutting plan, especially in light of recent stories about what appears to be piles of wasted cash on such line items as high-priced consultants and school construction cost overages.

********************************************************************************************************

36 Comments

  • The point you make is correct, but Goldberg’s column is mostly a disingenuous piece of crap that has little to do with the issue of McCain Feingold and everything to do with his usual partisan hectoring, raving about “liberal fascism.” The guy doesn’t have an honest bone in his body. What the hell is the LA Times doing employing that nerd ? Is it part of their apparent death wish ?

  • McCain-Feingold has been a disaster from the start. It was one reason conservatives were hesitant to back McCain.

    Reg, your psychoses are showing.

  • The McCain-Feingold bill was always an affront to the 1st amendment and hopefully will be held unconstitutional by the Supreme Court. This bill was only opposed by 2 Democrats (and also opposed by 38 Republicans), which give you an idea who really supports the first amendment in the Senate.

    Also when eventually get the courts ruling on this, who do you think will vote to uphold book banning? I doubt that any of the conservative justices who reacted with incredulity to a series of answers from Obama’s lawyer about the scope of Congressional authority to limit political speech will vote to uphold McCain-Feingold.

    My guess is the same liberal fools on the court who argued/voted that the Second amendments right to bear arms didn’t apply to American citizens will be the ones trying to re-write the constitution as a “living document” by banning books and free speech.

  • Moore – when you apologize for blogging in your “Useless Idiots” website that American journalists should have been hung, you can yammer about other people’s “psychoses.” Meanwhile, kiss my ass you fascist nerd.

  • reg,

    If you read the 5-4 ruling on the 2nd amendment – DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA ET AL. v. HELLER, you might also be horrified by the convoluted logic used to try and invalidate the 2nd amendment by the 4 liberal judges who I now deem as absolute fools. Prior to reading their pathetic arguments, I at least respected them.

    http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf

  • Unless you believe that citizens should have the right to own grenade launchers and machine guns, you’re treating the Constitution like a “living document” and only differing with those 4 justices on degree, not principle. I have a nasty feeling John Moore probably lives in that ozone layer of “constitutional rights.”

  • STEVENS, SOUTER, GINSBURG, and BREYER all appear to believe that Citizens have NO RIGHT to keep and bear arms of any type.

    They are not talking about limiting our right to keep and bear arms, as we do to “Free Speech”, by limiting the shouting of FIRE in a theater, they do not believe we have ANY RIGHTS AT ALL to bear and keep arms.

    These justices came to the conclusion that to keep and bear arms means only military service.

  • STEVENS, SOUTER, GINSBURG, and BREYER all appear to believe that Citizens have NO RIGHT to keep and bear arms of any type.

    Proof?

    John Moore, if Reg disagreeing with you is evidence of psychosis in your opinion, then it appears youu suffer from delusions of grandeur.

  • Randy Paul – Needs Proof?

    JUSTICE STEVENS suggests that “keep and bear Arms” was some sort of term of art, presumably akin to “hue and cry” or “cease and desist.”

    Faced with this clear historical usage, JUSTICE STEVENS resorted to the bizarre argument that because the word “to” is not included before “bear” (whereas it is included before “petition” in the First Amendment), the unitary meaning of “to keep and bear” is established.

    STEVENS whent on for 30 pages parsing words to prove we have NO RIGHT to keep and bear arms an that this was a states right. –

    IF YOU READ THE OPINION you will have have your proof!!!
    http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf

  • Since 1939, it’s been accepted interpretation of the Second Amendment has been that the right to bear arms is a collective right, in that the context of the 2nd Amendment is explicitly about ensuring that states can form militias. The language isn’t nearly as opaque as many argue and no gun advocates – except those who are clearly crackpost – are willing to take this “invdividual right”to it’s logical conclusion if it actually existed. We can argue gun control – I happen to think it’s wildly overstated in its effectiveness and believe that even in urban areas the law should allow registered gun ownership, but the constitutional law on this had been accepted for many decades and isn’t some crazy notion that these Ford-Bush-Clinton judges dreamed up a few months ago to steal your rights. The majority is merely flexing their muscles, largely for political purposes. They’re the group that threw out the Constitution in the 2000 elections, so why should I see them as anything other than partisan hacks. In any event, the issue of handguns is pretty marginal for self-defense in the home – and anyone who advocates a general right to carry concealed weapons in urban areas is pretty much off-the-charts nuts IMHO. For the record, I am not a prohibitionist when it comes to guns,I grew up with them, still have some skills on a shooting range and often find myself at odds with extreme anti-gun advocates on the issue of effectiveness more than abstract “rights.” I am pretty much “regionalist” when it comes to degrees of gun-control that make sense. But the facts are that no sane person is willing to advocate an unrestricted right to individual ownership of firearms, so there’s a lot of hypocrisy involved when this is argued as a constitutional principle. It’s not. You won’t even go there – unless you assert I should be able to carry a sawed-off shotgun under the seat of my car and keep an arsenal of automatic weapons in my garage. If you think that’s extreme it means – contra to what you appear to believe it says in the consitution – you’re treating it like a “living document” with implied meanings that you can parse to suit your version of “common sense” or social expediency centuries after it was penned.

  • That One: Unless you believe that citizens should have the right to own grenade launchers and machine guns….

    I do. Citizens should be able to own arms sufficient to overcome a despotic government.

    The Declaration of Independence: That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.

    U.S. Constitution: Amendment II – A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

    I’m reminded of a bumper sticker: Only dictators, criminals, and Democrats fear armed citizens.

  • Note – defense of one’s home isn’t mentioned in the 2nd Amendment. Well-regulated militias are. What do you think was the founder’s original intent, given that? Frankly, if self-defense was mentioned explicitly, it would be a lot easier to determine a reasonable “constitutional” range of gun laws. But I, for one, don’t see the point of “well-regulated militias” that don’t have access to weapons with selective fire capablities, to grenade launchers, etc. etc. Your logic would necessarily extend access to such artillery as an “individual right” rather than “the people” of a “free state” maintaining a “well-regulated militia.” Actually, it’s hard to look at the 2nd amendment and not see a clear collective intent.

  • In reference to Troll’s comment #12, my point about “clearly crackpot” was made for me…

  • In reference to Tweedledum’s comment #13, my last sentence in #12 was made for me….

    Canada – New federal bill would end long-gun registry

    The federal government introduced a bill in the Senate on Wednesday to abolish the long-gun registry.

    “It’s totally inefficient and ineffective against crime,” Public Safety Minister Peter Van Loan, told reporters on Parliament Hill.

    “We believe the long-gun registry as a device simply does not work … It’s a misdirection of resources,” he said.

  • Reg,

    English history is full of gun confiscation, which is precisely what the 2nd amendment was about. Specifically, the Catholic James II confiscated Protestant guns in the 1760’s which was fresh in the minds of our fore-fathers.

    Do you really believe that our fore-fathers were just out to protect the rights of the individual states to have armies? Look at the context of the bill of rights. Do you really think that the second amendment was not to protect the peoples rights when ALL the other amendmendments were protecting PEOPLES RIGHTS.

    First – Protects peoples right to press, speech, religion, assembly from the government.
    Second – Protects peoples right to keep and bear arms and shall not be infringed by the government.
    Third – Protects peoples right to their home from the government/soldiers use.
    Fourth – Protects peoples right against unreasonable search and seizures.
    Fifth – Protects people from being tried twice or deprived of property by the government
    Sixth – Protects peoples right to s speedy trial…
    Seventh – Protects people from corrupt government judges, requiring jury trials.
    Eighth – Protects people cruel punishment by the government.

    If the first amendment read –

    “A well informed press, being necessary for the security of a free Sate, the right of the people to freedom of speech, shall not be infringed”

    Reg, would you argue that that only newspapers have the right of free speech and that people have no rights to speech?

  • What reg said, Pokey. All you did was spit back Scalia’s points.

    I might add the issue at hand was handguns, not all firearms. Absent any evidence that Justice Stevens opposes hunting with rifles or shotguns your comment that he believs that citizens have “NO RIGHT to keep and bear arms of any type” is just hysterical hyperbole.

    Take a deep breath next time.

  • The left-wing never gives up in parsing words and denying the truth about our rights–if it threatens in any way their power over individuals.

    Our Declaration of Independence and our Constitution tie together to reveal our founders’ intent on gun ownership.

  • Randy Paul,

    JUSTICE STEVENS, with whom JUSTICE SOUTER, JUSTICE GINSBURG, and JUSTICE BREYER join, dissenting.

    The question presented by this case is whether the second amendment protects the right to possess and use guns for nonmilitary purposes like hunting and personal self-defense.

    The Second Amendment was adopted to protect the right of the people of each of the several States to maintain a well-regulated militia.

    Neither the text of the Amendment nor the arguments advanced by its proponents evidenced the slightest interest in limiting any legislature’s authority to regulate private civilian uses of firearms. Specifically, there is no indication that the Framers of the Amendment intended to enshrine the common-law right of self-defense in the Constitution.

    The Court (meaning the majority) stakes its holding on a strained and unpersuasive reading of the Amendment’s text; significantly different provisions in the 1689 English Bill of Rights, and in various 19th-century State Constitutions; post enactment commentary.

    It seems pretty clear that these four justices do not believe that individuals have a constitutional right to own a gun. This includes all guns of any type for any use but military.

  • “there is no indication that the Framers of the Amendment intended to enshrine the common-law right of self-defense in the Constitution.”

    This is a clear assertion of a common-law right of individual self-defense, which given the explicit language of the Second amendment was likely simply assumed on the part of the founders. Gun ownership by individuals is historically a matter of common law and tradition. The weaponry we’re talking about when gun control is discussed today didn’t even exist when the constitution was written and individuals did indeed routinely carry the same weapons as those used by the miitary. No sane person advocates this today – so all of this “individual unabridged right to bear arms” is hypocritical spin.. This doesn’t mean Stevens is against any right to individual gun ownership. There is no right of the individual to marry protected by the constitution. Does my assertion of this fact mean I want to ban marriage or don’t recognize a right to marry in common law ? Obviously not.

  • Pokey,

    Only if you are itching to read that into it.

    I think Reg’s comment regarding marriage is an appropriate analogy.

    I’m not against gun ownership. I do believe in background checks and waiting periods. In a world in which competency is required to be demonstrated to operate motor vehicles, I hardly consider that to be unreasonable and restrictive.

  • The founders were aware that there would be new weapon developments in the future as there had been in the past, and they did not choose to limit individual ownership to muskets and bayonets.

    If government became despotic and the population is forced to overthrow it to insure their freedom and rights, per the Declaration of Independence, the general population must have access and the right to own weapons equivalent to those that the army supporting the depots would use against the population.

    Thus, proof that sane people advocates that today.

    What we should be worried about are the insane who go berzerk if a kid draws a picture of a gun in school and insists on expelling him, which has happened.

  • There is also no right for the unrestricted ownership of guns. The mentally ill and convicted felons can’t own them. In most jurisdictions you can’t conceal them on your person.

    the general population must have access and the right to own weapons equivalent to those that the army supporting the depots would use against the population.

    So we all should have tanks, mortars, bazookas, rpg’s, Blackhawk helicopters, etc?

    Wingnut logic at its best.

  • reg: thank God for General Sherman !!!!

    We’ve discussed it before. reg has nothing but praise for a war criminal who targeted civilians in states which had legally withdrawn from the Union.

    – – –

    Man has God-given rights that government cannot take away. If this be treason, then make the most of it.

    Patrick Henry’s “Treason” Speech”

    “No man thinks more highly than I do of the patriotism, as well as abilities, of the very worthy gentlemen who have just addressed the House. But different men often see the same subject in different lights; and, therefore, I hope it will not be thought disrespectful to those gentlemen if, entertaining as I do opinions of a character very opposite to theirs, I shall speak forth my sentiments freely and without reserve. This is no time for ceremony. The questing before the House is one of awful moment to this country. For my own part, I consider it as nothing less than a question of freedom or slavery; and in proportion to the magnitude of the subject ought to be the freedom of the debate. It is only in this way that we can hope to arrive at truth, and fulfill the great responsibility which we hold to God and our country. Should I keep back my opinions at such a time, through fear of giving offense, I should consider myself as guilty of treason towards my country, and of an act of disloyalty toward the Majesty of Heaven, which I revere above all earthly kings.”

    “Mr. President, it is natural to man to indulge in the illusions of hope. We are apt to shut our eyes against a painful truth, and listen to the song of that siren till she transforms us into beasts. Is this the part of wise men, engaged in a great and arduous struggle for liberty? Are we disposed to be of the number of those who, having eyes, see not, and, having ears, hear not, the things which so nearly concern their temporal salvation? For my part, whatever anguish of spirit it may cost, I am willing to know the whole truth; to know the worst, and to provide for it.”

    “I have but one lamp by which my feet are guided, and that is the lamp of experience. I know of no way of judging of the future but by the past. And judging by the past, I wish to know what there has been in the conduct of the British ministry for the last ten years to justify those hopes with which gentlemen have been pleased to solace themselves and the House. Is it that insidious smile with which our petition has been lately received? Trust it not, sir; it will prove a snare to your feet. Suffer not yourselves to be betrayed with a kiss. Ask yourselves how this gracious reception of our petition comports with those warlike preparations which cover our waters and darken our land. Are fleets and armies necessary to a work of love and reconciliation? Have we shown ourselves so unwilling to be reconciled that force must be called in to win back our love? Let us not deceive ourselves, sir. These are the implements of war and subjugation; the last arguments to which kings resort.”

    ” I ask gentlemen, sir, what means this martial array, if its purpose be not to force us to submission? Can gentlemen assign any other possible motive for it? Has Great Britain any enemy, in this quarter of the world, to call for all this accumulation of navies and armies? No, sir, she has none. They are meant for us: they can be meant for no other. They are sent over to bind and rivet upon us those chains which the British ministry have been so long forging. And what have we to oppose to them? Shall we try argument? Sir, we have been trying that for the last ten years. Have we anything new to offer upon the subject? Nothing. We have held the subject up in every light of which it is capable; but it has been all in vain. Shall we resort to entreaty and humble supplication? What terms shall we find which have not been already exhausted? Let us not, I beseech you, sir, deceive ourselves.”

    “Sir, we have done everything that could be done to avert the storm which is now coming on. We have petitioned; we have remonstrated; we have supplicated; we have prostrated ourselves before the throne, and have implored its interposition to arrest the tyrannical hands of the ministry and Parliament. Our petitions have been slighted; our remonstrances have produced additional violence and insult; our supplications have been disregarded; and we have been spurned, with contempt, from the foot of the throne! In vain, after these things, may we indulge the fond hope of peace and reconciliation. There is no longer any room for hope. If we wish to be free– if we mean to preserve inviolate those inestimable privileges for which we have been so long contending–if we mean not basely to abandon the noble struggle in which we have been so long engaged, and which we have pledged ourselves never to abandon until the glorious object of our contest shall be obtained–we must fight! I repeat it, sir, we must fight! An appeal to arms and to the God of hosts is all that is left us!”

    “They tell us, sir, that we are weak; unable to cope with so formidable an adversary. But when shall we be stronger? Will it be the next week, or the next year? Will it be when we are totally disarmed, and when a British guard shall be stationed in every house? Shall we gather strength by irresolution and inaction? Shall we acquire the means of effectual resistance by lying supinely on our backs and hugging the delusive phantom of hope, until our enemies shall have bound us hand and foot? Sir, we are not weak if we make a proper use of those means which the God of nature hath placed in our power. The millions of people, armed in the holy cause of liberty, and in such a country as that which we possess, are invincible by any force which our enemy can send against us. Besides, sir, we shall not fight our battles alone. There is a just God who presides over the destinies of nations, and who will raise up friends to fight our battles for us. The battle, sir, is not to the strong alone; it is to the vigilant, the active, the brave. Besides, sir, we have no election. If we were base enough to desire it, it is now too late to retire from the contest. There is no retreat but in submission and slavery! Our chains are forged! Their clanking may be heard on the plains of Boston! The war is inevitable–and let it come! I repeat it, sir, let it come.”

    “It is in vain, sir, to extenuate the matter. Gentlemen may cry, Peace, Peace– but there is no peace. The war is actually begun! The next gale that sweeps from the north will bring to our ears the clash of resounding arms! Our brethren are already in the field! Why stand we here idle? What is it that gentlemen wish? What would they have? Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!”

    You can thank brave patriots, whom you call traitors, for your freedom today.

  • Randy: So we all should have tanks, mortars, bazookas, rpg’s, Blackhawk helicopters, etc?

    I’m looking forward to your next post demanding that the Palestinians give up their weapons and be limited to throwing rocks.

  • By my account, btw, we’ve had 54 successful presidential elections. I really don’t think we have to fear tyrants and despots, except if you dwell in the wingnut fever swamp.

  • “states which had legally withdrawn from the Union”

    Leaving aside the violent attack on American forces at Fort Sumter, there’s no point in discussing the “legality” of a social system founded on human slavery. I’m not surprised this racist troll defends the legitimacy of a renegade slave empire bent on spreading its poison across the continent. John Brown foresaw that this sin could only be purged with blood and the tragedy of the Civil War ensued. Unfortunately, remnants of this sickness persist today, as evidenced here.

  • Okay, so once again reg attacks me when he previously said that he would quit responding to my comments.

    Look, I’m not like the nuts from the Sons of Confederate Veterans who think that the war isn’t over until they say it’s over, and I’ve never defended slavery. I am simply bringing up what I consider to be the legal and historicaly correct aspects of the War Between the States. You guys fail to recognize that the U.S. is formed by states rather than people.

    So, in response to your responses, Fort Sumpter was within the state boundaries of a state that had seceded, and the federal forces there refused to acknowledge the right of a state to withdraw from the union and leave.

    Slavery was not an issue that started the war and only became an issue when northern support for the war was dropping and a new and moral cause was needed to stay with it. At one point, northerners felt that the price of war, in terms of lives and money, was not justified and to simply allow the southern states to leave the union.

    Anyway, reg, you should be upset with Gen. Sherman and the northern armies. They effectively destroyed the businesses and farms in the south where the vast majority of Negroes worked and lived.

  • “they effectively destroyed the businesses and farms in the south where the vast majority of Negroes worked and lived”

    Yeah, Eisenhower’s armies did the same terrible thing to the Jews in WWII.

  • Sure, but the Jews weren’t happy in their work and were better suited for something else, like mercantile jobs rather than the extermination business.

Leave a Comment