WASHINGTON - The Supreme Court ruled Thursday that foreign terrorism suspects held at Guantanamo Bay have rights under the Constitution to challenge their detention in U.S. civilian courts.

In its third rebuke of the Bush administration's treatment of prisoners, the court ruled 5-4 that the government is violating the rights of prisoners being held indefinitely and without charges at the U.S. naval base in Cuba. The court's liberal justices were in the majority.

Justice Anthony Kennedy, writing for the court, said, "The laws and Constitution are designed to survive, and remain in force, in extraordinary times."

Kennedy said federal judges could ultimately order some detainees to be released, but that such orders would depend on security concerns and other circumstances.

Labels: constitution, Supreme Court

INDIANAPOLIS — A judge has upheld the issuance of Indiana license plates bearing the message "In God We Trust," dismissing a constitutional challenge by the American Civil Liberties Union of Indiana.

Marion Superior Court Judge Gary L. Miller wrote in a 13-page opinion that the plates were comparable to standard plates issued by the Bureau of Motor Vehicles and were created specifically as such by the Legislature.

"Courts are not to second-guess the Indiana General Assembly when it comes to calculations of this sort," Miller wrote, contrasting the `In God We Trust' plates with other specialty plates that require the payment of administrative fees.

Miller said the issuance of the plates did not violate the section of the Indiana Constitution that forbids the Legislature from granting special privileges or immunities not available to all citizens.

The ruling, issued April 10, denies a motion for summary judgment in the suit by the ACLU on behalf of Mark E. Studler, an Allen County resident who has an Environmental Trust plate for which he had to pay extra fees.

Labels: ACLU, constitution, religion, victimhood

I legally carry a concealed handgun on a daily basis. I don’t take my decision to carry lightly.

I’m not a police officer, a private investigator, a bail bondsman or a bounty hunter. I don’t deal with criminals on a daily or professional basis. I’m just an ordinary guy.

I don’t carry merely because it’s my right, although I’m within my rights to do so and I also believe that any right not exercised is a right in danger of being lost.

I don’t carry just because I enjoy firearms and shooting sports, although I do.

I don’t carry because I frequent “bad” areas of town, although in this day and age, any area of town can be “bad” at times. Crime can and does happen when you least expect it. [link]

Labels: 2nd Amendment, constitution, gun laws

You're sound asleep when you hear a thump outside your bedroom door. Half awake, and nearly paralyzed with fear, you hear muffled whispers. At least two people have broken into your house and are moving your way. With your heart pumping, you reach down beside your bed and pick up your shotgun. You rack a shell into the chamber, then inch toward the door and open it. In the darkness, you make out two shadows.

One holds something that looks like a crowbar. When the intruder brandishes it as if to strike, you raise the shotgun and fire. The blast knocks both thugs to the floor. One writhes and screams while the second man crawls to the front door and lurches outside.

As you pick up the telephone to call police, you know you're in trouble. In your country, most guns were outlawed years before, and the few that are privately owned are so stringently regulated as to make them useless. Yours was never registered.

Police arrive and inform you that the second burglar has died. They arrest you for First Degree Murder and Illegal Possession of a Firearm. When you talk to your attorney, he tells you not to worry: authorities will probably plea the case down to manslaughter.

"What kind of sentence will I get?" you ask.

"Only ten-to-twelve years," he replies, as if that's nothing. "Behave yourself, and you'll be out in seven." The next day, the shooting is the lead story in the local newspaper.

Somehow, you're portrayed as an eccentric vigilante while the two men you shot are represented as choirboys. Their friends and relatives can't find an unkind word to say about them. Buried deep down in the article, authorities acknowledge that both "victims" have been arrested numerous times. But the next day's headline says it all: "Lovable Rogue Son Didn't Deserve to Die." The thieves have been transformed from career criminals into Robin Hood type pranksters. As the days wear on, the story takes wings. The national media picks it up, then the international media. The surviving burglar has become a folk hero.

Your attorney says the thief is preparing to sue you, and he'll probably win.

The media publishes reports that your home has been burglarized several times in the past and that you've been critical of local police for their lack of effort in apprehending the suspects. After the last break-in, you told your neighbor that you would be prepared next time. The District Attorney uses this to allege that you were lying in wait for the burglars.

A few months later, you go to trial. The charges haven't been reduced, as your lawyer had so confidently predicted. When you take the stand, your anger at the injustice of it all works against you. Prosecutors paint a picture of you as a mean, vengeful man. It doesn't take long for the jury to convict you of all charges.

The judge sentences you to life in prison.

This case really happened. (link)

Normal constitutional argument begins with text.

The first question to consider, then, is:

What does the Constitution say about the right to keep and bear arms? There seem to be two main theories of what sense is conveyed by the language of the Second Amendment. The theory that is most often encountered by the intelligent lay public reads the words to say something like:

"In order to make themselves secure, states have a right to have a well regulated militia, and Congress may not restrict state regulation of militia members' weapons."

This is approximately the interpretation favored by most major newspapers' editorial writers, by gun control groups, and by a broad swath of conventional public opinion, running the partisan gamut from left (e.g., Rep. Charles Schumer of New York) to right (e.g., President Nixon) and most political shades in between.

But in places where close attention is paid to what words actually say, the states'-rights reading of the Second Amendment has attracted surprisingly little support. After all, the Second Amendment does not say;

"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, shall not be infringed."

Nor do the words of the amendment assert that;

"the right of the people to keep and bear arms"

is conditional upon membership in some sort of organized soldiery like the National Guard. Indeed, if there is conditional language in the Second Amendment at all, evidently the contingency runs the other way:

"Because the people have a right to keep and bear arms, states will be assured of the well regulated militias that are necessary for their security."

Some version of this reading is supported by almost all of the constitutional historians and lawyers who have published research on the subject. Indeed, this view is so dominant in the academy that Garry Wills, the lone dissenter among historians on the proper reading of "the right of the people to keep and bear arms," has dubbed it the Standard Model of the Second Amendment. (link)

Labels: constitution, gun laws, thaiphoon

More From The Press-Register | Subscribe To The Press-Register

Poll: Alabama supports Christmas expression

Sunday, December 24, 2006

By SEBASTIAN KITCHEN

Capital Bureau

People in Alabama overwhelmingly favor nativity scenes on public property and disapprove of stores mandating that employees use greetings other than "Merry Christmas," according to a Press-Register/University of South Alabama poll.

Eighty-eight percent of respondents agreed that nativity scenes should be allowed on public property, and more than half said the scenes need not include symbols of religions such as Judaism or Buddhism.

The statewide poll of 402 adults was conducted by telephone Dec. 13-17. The margin of error is plus or minus 5 percentage points. (link)

Labels: Alabama, Christmas, constitution

Power is a drug addiction of epic proportions in our government. We know that these same people will not surrender the power they have accumulated to themselves. We can conclude that these same lusty people will not remove the violations of our freedoms. The operative word both major parties are heard saying in regard to their electoral prospects is control. Both want control. That is the battle cry of both - control.

The main body of the Constitution defines the form of the federal government. The Bill of Rights explicitly identifies those activities of people which the federal government is forbidden to act upon. And just to make sure that the federal government knew its limits, the whole is capped off with the tenth amendment which reserves anything not directly apportioned to the federal government to remain within the purview of the States and the People.

Labels: Bill of Rights, constitution, federal government, unalienable rights