We have for years been following the rising number of blasphemy prosecutions not only in the Muslim world but, even more worrisome, in the West. Now, an Egyptian court has added a new outrage in sentencing a 17-year-old Christian boy to three years in jail for publishing cartoons on Facebook deemed mocking of Islam and the Prophet Mohammad. It is the latest example of the abuses of Sharia law and the danger of intermingling religion and government.
Category: Constitutional Law
While the White House and the President backtracked from Obama’s recent statements regarding the Supreme Court, Attorney General Eric Holder succeeded in reigniting the controversy by calling the comments about judicial activism “appropriate.” As I noted earlier, the effort of the White House to modify the statement of the President notably did not include a retraction of the judicial activism statement. Holder’s statement appeared to reaffirm that the omission was intentional.
Continue reading “Doubling Down: Holder Calls Obama’s Judicial Activism Criticism “Appropriate””
Yesterday, we discussed President Obama’s comments on the Supreme Court and the pending health care litigation — comments I viewed as unwise and unfounded. In addition to wrongly suggesting that any justice voting against the law would be a judicial activist, Obama seemed to suggest that the law should be upheld on the ground that it is the result of a democratic process and the will of the majority. Putting aside the fact that all unconstitutional law were passed by a democratic process in this country, I noted that the comments were extremely unwise at a time when the Court appears split on the key issues and currently deliberating the outcome. Well, the Supreme Court is not the only court considering the health care law and the timing could not have been worse for Obama to hold forth on his view of the courts and the Constitution. While I do not agree with the order of the Fifth Circuit for the Administration to respond in writing to the court, some backlash should have been foreseen by the President in going public with the comments.
Continue reading “Federal Court Slams Justice Department Over Obama Comments”
Yesterday, President Barack Obama made the surprising prediction that the Supreme Court would uphold the health care law and further labeled those who would vote against it as judicial activists. I am not sure what he is basing his prediction on, but the comment on judicial activism is both unfounded and unwise.
In one of the most sweeping attacks on free speech in America, the Arizona legislature has passed a draconian bill that would criminalize speech on the Internet (“any electronic or digital device”) that prosecutors consider “obscene, lewd or profane language or . . . suggest[ing] a lewd or lascivious act if done with intent to ‘annoy,’ ‘offend,’ ‘harass’ or ‘terrify.’” The law is largely undefined and is in my view facially unconstitutional. The law would drive a stake in the heart of free speech. Yet, people like Bill Clinton have been calling for such a crackdown on Internet speech for years.
Continue reading “Arizona Passes Sweeping Law Criminalizing Internet Speech”
Over the years, I have not hidden my opposition to Sharia-based legal systems and the types of grotesque forms of justice that they mete out to their citizens. There is little good news from this area of the world as revolutions in Libya and Egypt go careening toward Islamic states. However, this week we have a modicum of good news. Tunisia’s governing Islamist party has decided to oppose a move to make sharia law the main source of legislation in a new constitution. They appear to be doing better than our allies in Iraq and Afghanistan who are increasingly applying harsh Islamic principles.
Continue reading “Tunisia Rejects Sharia As Basis For New Constitution”
by Gene Howington, Guest Blogger
On Friday, a small victory was had against the ever encroaching corporatism threatening our democracy. Rep. Chris Van Hollen (D – MD) brought suit against the FEC last year. In his suit, Van Hollen charges that in 2007 the FEC created a loophole allowing undisclosed donors to contribute money for “electioneering communications” to organizations like Karl Rove’s 501(c)(4) advocacy group Crossroads GPS and to 501(c)(6) business associations like the Chamber of Commerce for the purposes of by willfully misinterpreting disclosure requirements in the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 (a.k.a. McCain-Feingold). “Electioneering communications” are broadcast ads that refer to a federal candidate in the period 60 days before a general election or 30 days before a primary election. These ads may call for either the election or defeat of a specific candidates.
In 2007, the FEC added a regulation that complicated the situation. The rule in question – C.F.R. Title 11 § 104.20 (c)(9) – (found at 2 U.S.C. 434(f)) – says “If the disbursements were made by a corporation or labor organization pursuant to 11 CFR 114.15, the name and address of each person who made a donation aggregating $1,000 or more to the corporation or labor organization, aggregating since the first day of the preceding calendar year, which was made for the purpose of furthering electioneering communications.” Clearly the FEC is saying that disclosure is only required if a donation is explicitly made “for the purpose of electioneering communication.” Being that few, if any, donors to these groups ever earmark their donation for a specific election expense there has been little or no disclosure of the donors to these groups.
There is a problem with that regulation though.
Submitted by: Mike Spindell, Guest Blogger
A recurring meme used in American society by leaders and politicians is that certain acts must be done to “Defend Our Freedoms”. The use of this meme has occurred repeatedly in our history as a justification for certain governmental actions, particularly in defense of war. In some cases like our Revolution, or World War II its usage has been right on point, in others like Viet Nam, Iraq and Afghanistan it’s been used as untruthful propaganda. On national and local levels the meme has also had a mixed history. It has been used to persecute radicals, as a States Rights justification of “Jim Crow” and post 9/11 to enact “security” legislation that many of us think actually diminishes freedom in the name of saving it. Continue reading “Defending Our Freedoms?”
Some of the Supreme Court appear skeptical of the claim that, if they strike down the individual mandate provision, they must strike down the entirety of the Act. Early accounts of the justices from the courtroom appeared to be favoring severability but new reports have cast doubt — yet another example how artificial the denial of cameras and live coverage has become. As the argument unfolded, conservative justices appear to suggest that it really is an all-or-nothing proposition.
It appears that the Supreme Court justices did not hear about the results of the GW Supreme Court deliberations. Key conservative justices expressed notably skepticism about the constitutionality of the health care law. The statements of Roberts and Kennedy are particularly interesting. I will also note that the continued refusal of these justices to allow cameras into the courtroom is indefensible and insulting. The fact that millions of Americans have to wait for individuals to offer second-hand accounts is a ridiculous exercise that, I believe, would have been viewed as positively moronic by the Framers.
As I mentioned on Countdown last night, my Supreme Court class (which reviews the leading cases of the term and deliberates as an alternative Supreme Court) ruled on the constitutional challenge over the individual mandate provision (we will be considering the other issues in a separate class). The class ruled 12 to 2 to reverse the 11th Circuit and uphold the health care law. The class also voted on the ethical question of Kagan’s recusal as well as their prediction of what that other Court would do. The associate justices were not sway by the stated concerns of the Chief Justice (here and here) over the future of federalism if the Act is constitutional.
This week, the Supreme Court will take up its historic three-day consideration of the health care law. My Supreme Court class will be spending two weeks on the four insular issues before the Court, including the question of federalism.
-Submitted by David Drumm (Nal), Guest Blogger
Stony Brook University (SBU), in an effort to “maximum instruction for students in the most efficient and effective manner,” will no longer cancel classes on Rosh Hashanah and Yom Kippur and will not include Good Friday and Passover in their spring break. The American Center for Law & Justice (ACLJ) has sent a letter to Dr. Samuel L. Stanley, Jr., President of SBU, threatening noting that ACLJ attorneys have argued before the Supreme Court.
Continue reading “Stony Brook Calendar Changes Trample On Religious Privilege”
The House of Representatives has passed a controversial tort reform bill that contains serious flaws that would limit recovery of people harmed or kill by acts of malpractice. H.R. 5, the “Protecting Access to Healthcare Act” would impose a cap of $250,000 that would severely cut the damages of victims and make it far more difficult for such victims to secure contingency counsel. THe bill passed 223 to 181 with seven Democrats joining Republicans to pass the bill.
Continue reading “House Passes Tort “Reform” Measure That Would Slash Recovery By Medical Malpractice Victims”
We have previously discusses alarming moves in France to limit or deny speech through blasphemy prosecutions to hate speech to barring “antihistorical” speech. Now, in the wake of the recent killings by a Muslim extremist, the government of President Nicolas Sarkozy is proposing a new law that would jail repeat visitors to extremist web sites. It is a measure that strips away core free speech rights of citizens and gives the government a new ambiguous power to arrest people for the things that they read.
Continue reading “Sarkozy Proposes To Arrest People Who Visit “Terrorist” Websites”