Currently viewing the tag: “Constitution”
(Randy Barnett)
You have to hand it to Josh Blackman, and the Harlan Institute for its new project that is sure to appeal to Americans. A theme park based on the Constitution.
Constitution Land, a planned theme park from the Harlan Institute, will immerse “we the people” in the Constitution of the United States. Through virtual reality simulators, thrill rides, and entertaining shows, visitors will be able to experience our Constitution, and the Supreme Court, unlike ever before.“Constitution Land will be a one-of-a-kind experience,” said Josh Blackman, President of the Harlan Institute. “Only the Harlan Institute, and its innovative approach to civic education could create a theme park to inspire students of all ages to learn more our great Charter.”
The Harlan Institute, in consultation with leading academics, historians, engineers, and theme park enthusiasts, has prepared the plans for this groundbreaking education destination. In addition to exhilarating thrill rides based on landmark Supreme Court cases, Constitution Land will feature virtual reality simulators that explore how cases developed, and what will become of our law. Finally, shows, and first-rate accommodations will make a visit to Constitution Land a must for anyone who wants to learn more about the supreme law of the land.
You should definitely click through to read the descriptions of the rides, shows, and accommodations that are planned here.
UPDATE: Mike Sacks interviews Josh Blackman about the new theme park here.
Time waster.
The Congressman in question? Virginia’s Jim Moran, one of the members that could most use a refresher course on the Constitution. This is a fine eight-second clip, but of course it’s a little unfair. Moran is objecting to the time spent on reading the Constitution at the beginning of the 112th Session of Congress, not […]
Time waster.
The Congressman in question? Virginia’s Jim Moran, one of the members that could most use a refresher course on the Constitution. This is a fine eight-second clip, but of course it’s a little unfair. Moran is objecting to the time spent on reading the Constitution at the beginning of the 112th Session of Congress, not […]
So Herman Cain, former CEO of Godfather’s Pizza and Black Republican, recently went to Iowa and laid down some interesting tracks. I’m sure we’ll be hearing these songs again so here they are.
1)
KEYES: You came under a bit of controversy this week for some of the comments made about Muslims in general. Would you be comfortable appointing a Muslim, either in your cabinet or as a federal judge?
CAIN: No, I will not. And here’s why. There is this creeping attempt, there is this attempt to gradually ease Sharia law and the Muslim faith into our government. It does not belong in our government. This is what happened in Europe. And little by little, to try and be politically correct, they made this little change, they made this little change. And now they’ve got a social problem that they don’t know what to do with hardly.
The question that was asked that “raised some questions” and, as my grandfather said, “I does not care, I feel the way I feel.” I was asked, “what is the role of Islam in America?” I thought it was an odd question. I said the role of Islam in America is for those that believe in Islam to practice it and leave us alone. Just like Christianity. We have a First Amendment. And I get upset when the Muslims in this country, some of them, try to force their Sharia law onto the rest of us.
Ok so there are a couple of problems with Cain’s statement.
1) Won’t appoint a Muslim to office because of their religion? Such a move is expressly forbidden under the Constitution in a couple of places, especially
2) Who exactly is trying to force Sharia law on anybody? Muslims make up
And many European countries seem keen to push back on certain aspects of Islam, especially
3) 25% of American Muslims are African-Americans and many more are of African descent. In saying that he’d never appoint a Muslim, it’s a slap in the face to upstanding citizens like Rep. Keith Ellis, who happens to be Muslim. And it’s just straight up hatred directed at one’s own community of African-Americans. Is Shaq a danger to our nation? Or Jermaine Jackson? Kareem Abdul-Jabbar? I can see being scared of Dave Chappelle. But Snoop Dogg? I’m pretty sure he’s trying to get the herb legalized and that’s not likely to happen under sharia law, y’all! Here’s a
I have a cousin named Khalid. He’s not Muslim nor were his parents. He’s a taxpaying educator with a wife and 2 kids living in Baltimore. But I suspect that wouldn’t be good enough for Cain. Who knows: Khalid may harbor a secret wish to enslave all Americans in a new Islamic theocracy and is starting with indoctrinating our children!
That’s how crazy this type of logic and bigotry sounds when it’s played out. It disgusts me and we should call it out. Herman Cain now joins the ranks of Clarence Thomas in the hall of fame of black people who really really hate other black people…Congratulations, self-hater!
Seriously though — Herman Cain is brilliant. He got his
 Telegraph.co.uk |
Bonds surgeon: I gave legal steroids to slugger
Atlanta Journal Constitution AP SAN FRANCISCO — Prosecutors called Barry Bonds' orthopedic surgeon to the witness stand Thursday at the slugger's perjury trial. Barry Bonds, right, arrives at a federal courthouse for his perjury trial, Wednesday, March 30, 2011, … Live chat: Lunch at the Barry Bonds perjury trial with Mark Purdy, Day 8 Bonds Trial, Velarde Took Stand Bonds Trial Update: A very yawny Wednesday |
So Herman Cain, former CEO of Godfather’s Pizza and Black Republican, recently went to Iowa and laid down some interesting tracks. I’m sure we’ll be hearing these songs again so here they are.
1)
KEYES: You came under a bit of controversy this week for some of the comments made about Muslims in general. Would you be comfortable appointing a Muslim, either in your cabinet or as a federal judge?
CAIN: No, I will not. And here’s why. There is this creeping attempt, there is this attempt to gradually ease Sharia law and the Muslim faith into our government. It does not belong in our government. This is what happened in Europe. And little by little, to try and be politically correct, they made this little change, they made this little change. And now they’ve got a social problem that they don’t know what to do with hardly.
The question that was asked that “raised some questions” and, as my grandfather said, “I does not care, I feel the way I feel.” I was asked, “what is the role of Islam in America?” I thought it was an odd question. I said the role of Islam in America is for those that believe in Islam to practice it and leave us alone. Just like Christianity. We have a First Amendment. And I get upset when the Muslims in this country, some of them, try to force their Sharia law onto the rest of us.
Ok so there are a couple of problems with Cain’s statement.
1) Won’t appoint a Muslim to office because of their religion? Such a move is expressly forbidden under the Constitution in a couple of places, especially
2) Who exactly is trying to force Sharia law on anybody? Muslims make up
And many European countries seem keen to push back on certain aspects of Islam, especially
3) 25% of American Muslims are African-Americans and many more are of African descent. In saying that he’d never appoint a Muslim, it’s a slap in the face to upstanding citizens like Rep. Keith Ellis, who happens to be Muslim. And it’s just straight up hatred directed at one’s own community of African-Americans. Is Shaq a danger to our nation? Or Jermaine Jackson? Kareem Abdul-Jabbar? I can see being scared of Dave Chappelle. But Snoop Dogg? I’m pretty sure he’s trying to get the herb legalized and that’s not likely to happen under sharia law, y’all! Here’s a
I have a cousin named Khalid. He’s not Muslim nor were his parents. He’s a taxpaying educator with a wife and 2 kids living in Baltimore. But I suspect that wouldn’t be good enough for Cain. Who knows: Khalid may harbor a secret wish to enslave all Americans in a new Islamic theocracy and is starting with indoctrinating our children!
That’s how crazy this type of logic and bigotry sounds when it’s played out. It disgusts me and we should call it out. Herman Cain now joins the ranks of Clarence Thomas in the hall of fame of black people who really really hate other black people…Congratulations, self-hater!
Seriously though — Herman Cain is brilliant. He got his
Kansas City Star |
Ex-ref says Wilkins hit him first
Atlanta Journal Constitution The man charged with attacking NBA Hall of Famer Dominique Wilkins is disputing that he instigated the incident. Rashan S. Michel allegedly punched Wilkins after Wednesday night's Hawks-Magic game because, he said, … NBA Hall of Famer Dominique Wilkins Reportedly Attacked by Ex-Referee 'Human Highlight Film' Dominique Wilkins attacked at Atlanta Hawks game by … Injury to Chris Duhon might prompt Orlando Magic to sign another point guard |
Daily Mail |
PGA Championship already drawing Atlanta's interest
Atlanta Journal Constitution The attention of the sporting world will turn to golf and Georgia next week when the Masters tournament again takes place in Augusta. Just over four months from now, though, another major championship — one of only four in golf … Lee Westwood eyes Houston Open win ahead of Masters Sports enterprise for the weekend of April 3-4. Tip of the day |
From DPA:
Egypt’s military unveiled an interim constitution on Wednesday, in the wake of the ousting of president Hosny Mubarak, outlining the government’s powers and replacing the country’s 1971 constitution.
The declaration from Supreme Council of the Armed Forces asserts that Egypt is a democratic country and ensures freedom of religion and opinion, spokesperson Mamdouh Shahin said in a press conference.
Well, sort of.
In fact, Al Arabiya reports that the part of the constitution that has been most problematic – Article 2 – has remained intact:
(Article 2): Islam is the Religion of the State. Arabic is its official language, and the principal source of legislation is Islamic Jurisprudence (Sharia).
Coptic Christians in Egypt had objected to the part about Sharia. The Muslim Brotherhood was adamant it remain in place.
We see who won that battle.
The 2011 version of ENDA doesn’t have the remotest chance of passage and the Family Research Council knows it. Nevertheless, they have relaunched their campaign declaring that granting LGBT people to right to keep their jobs is nothing short of all-out assault on Christianity and the U.S. Constitution. And as an example of the coming ENDA-generated avalanche of anti-Christian discrimination, Tony Perkins again trots out Marcia Walden, who was terminated from her job as relationship counselor when she refused to speak with a lesbian client. Nationwide such cases number a mere handful (I can only think of two or three), which is why you see the same anti-gay “victims” over and over.
Subscribe to Joe.My.God.![]()
ThinkProgress filed this report from the NICHE Homeschool Day in Des Moines, IA.
One of the most powerful lines in Martin Luther King Jr.’s “I Have A Dream” speech was his call for racial unity even in Alabama, a state with “its governor having his lips dripping with the words of interposition and nullification.” Indeed, following the landmark Brown v. Board of Education Supreme Court case, nearly every southern congressman signed the “Southern Manifesto,” which asserted that states were free to ignore federal laws and directives. Now, 48 years later, the unconstitutional idea that states can invalidate federal laws which they don’t like is making a comeback in conservative circles.
This week, the nullification camp, led by right-wing historian Thomas Woods, got a boost from a sitting congressman: Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX).
Speaking at an Iowa homeschool event, Paul told the crowd that “in principle, nullification is proper and moral and constitutional.” “That is why,” Paul declared, “I am a strong endorser of the nullification movement, that states like this should just nullify these laws”:
PAUL: The chances of us getting things changed around soon through the legislative process is not all the good. And that is why I am a strong endorser of the nullification movement, that states like this should just nullify these laws. And in principle, nullification is proper and moral and constitutional, which I believe it is, there is no reason in the world why this country can’t look at the process of, say, not only should we not belong to the United Nations, the United Nations comes down hard on us, telling us what we should do to our families and family values, education and medical care and gun rights and environmentalism. Let’s nullify what the UN tries to tell us to do as well.
Watch it:
Despite Paul’s insistence that nullification is proper and constitutional, Article 6 of the Constitution clearly states that Acts of Congress “shall be the supreme law of the land…anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.” That’s why one of our founding fathers, James Madison, argued that nullification would “speedily put an end to the Union itself” by allowing federal laws to be freely ignored by states.
ThinkProgress legal expert Ian Millhiser noted that nullification isn’t just blatantly unconstitutional, it’s “nothing less than a plan to remove the word ‘United’ from the United States of America.”
ThinkProgress filed this report from the NICHE Homeschool Day in Des Moines, IA.
One of the most powerful lines in Martin Luther King Jr.’s “I Have A Dream” speech was his call for racial unity even in Alabama, a state with “its governor having his lips dripping with the words of interposition and nullification.” Indeed, following the landmark Brown v. Board of Education Supreme Court case, nearly every southern congressman signed the “Southern Manifesto,” which asserted that states were free to ignore federal laws and directives. Now, 48 years later, the unconstitutional idea that states can invalidate federal laws which they don’t like is making a comeback in conservative circles.
This week, the nullification camp, led by right-wing historian Thomas Woods, got a boost from a sitting congressman: Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX).
Speaking at an Iowa homeschool event, Paul told the crowd that “in principle, nullification is proper and moral and constitutional.” “That is why,” Paul declared, “I am a strong endorser of the nullification movement, that states like this should just nullify these laws”:
PAUL: The chances of us getting things changed around soon through the legislative process is not all the good. And that is why I am a strong endorser of the nullification movement, that states like this should just nullify these laws. And in principle, nullification is proper and moral and constitutional, which I believe it is, there is no reason in the world why this country can’t look at the process of, say, not only should we not belong to the United Nations, the United Nations comes down hard on us, telling us what we should do to our families and family values, education and medical care and gun rights and environmentalism. Let’s nullify what the UN tries to tell us to do as well.
Watch it:
Despite Paul’s insistence that nullification is proper and constitutional, Article 6 of the Constitution clearly states that Acts of Congress “shall be the supreme law of the land…anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.” That’s why one of our founding fathers, James Madison, argued that nullification would “speedily put an end to the Union itself” by allowing federal laws to be freely ignored by states.
ThinkProgress legal expert Ian Millhiser noted that nullification isn’t just blatantly unconstitutional, it’s “nothing less than a plan to remove the word ‘United’ from the United States of America.”
When Obama decided to go to war with Libya some Capitol Hill leaders in both parties decided to question whether the President had the authority to do so. When George W. Bush was president Obama once posed the same question, stating in 2007: “The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation.”
The Constitution clearly states that only Congress can declare war and it falls upon the Executive branch to direct that war once declared. The notion that the Commander in Chief, a title designated to the President by the Constitution, can command military action freely without any checks on his power negates not only the letter of our nation’s founding charter but betrays the very nature of American government. In fact, the Founders thought it particularly dangerous to give the President such power, a point James Madison reiterated in a letter to Thomas Jefferson in 1798: “The constitution supposes, what the history of all governments demonstrates, that the executive is the branch of power most interested in war, and most prone to it. It has accordingly with studied care, vested the question of war in the legislature.”
Nationally syndicated radio host and best-selling author Mark Levin disagrees with Madison. When members of Congress began to question the President’s authority to wage war without their consent in the wake of Libya bombings, Levin said on his radio program: “I don’t believe in politicizing the Constitution. I believe the Constitution is the rock of this society. So all this talk about the attacks on Libya are unconstitutional because we don’t have a declaration of war, that’s ridiculous. That’s absolutely ridiculous.”
Levin defended his position by saying that not every military action is necessarily full-blown war and said that there are numerous examples of American presidents operating outside of the Constitutional provisions concerning warfare. In his recent column “The Phony Arguments for Presidential War Powers” bestselling author Thomas Woods answers Levin’s latter justification:
This argument, like so much propaganda, originated with the U.S. government itself. At the time of the Korean War, a number of congressmen contended that ‘history will show that on more than 100 occasions in the life of this Republic the President as Commander in Chief has ordered the fleet or the troops to do certain things which involved the risk of war’ without the consent of Congress. In 1966, in defense of the Vietnam War, the State Department adopted a similar line… the great presidential scholar Edward S. Corwin pointed out that (with the exception of John Adams’ quasi war with France in which he did indeed consult Congress, despite portrayals to the contrary) this lengthy list of alleged precedents consisted mainly of ‘fights with pirates, landings of small naval contingents on barbarous or semi-barbarous coasts, the dispatch of small bodies of troops to chase bandits or cattle rustlers across the Mexican border, and the like.’ To support their position, therefore, the neoconservatives and their left-liberal clones are counting chases of cattle rustlers as examples of presidential warmaking, and as precedents for sending millions of Americans into war with foreign governments on the other side of the globe.
Woods is correct about the relative insignificance of these examples but there is also a larger point to be made about those who argue toward this end—particularly the arguments of right-wingers like Levin who push a neoconservative, hyper-interventionist foreign policy, while downplaying or patently ignoring the plain language of the Constitution that would impede this agenda.
Consider when then House Speaker Nancy Pelosi was asked by a reporter what part of the Constitution gave Congress the right to mandate nationalized healthcare, she simply replied “Are you serious? Are you serious?” The reporter replied that he was indeed serious and Pelosi simply ignored the question. When asked about it again later, a Pelosi spokesman reiterated that “It was not a serious question.” Pelosi’s view of the insignificance of the Constitution isn’t unusual and was also repeated by Congressman James Clyburn on FOX Business. When asked by “Freedom Watch” host Judge Andrew Napolitano what gave Congress the Constitutional authority to administer healthcare, Clyburn admitted: “There’s nothing in the Constitution that says that the federal government has anything to do with most of the stuff we do.”
Clyburn deserves credit for his honesty. The US Constitution is where each branch of our government is supposed to derive 100% of its authority, but today’s federal government has operated outside its legal bounds for so long that Constitutional questions are often considered an afterthought, if they are even considered at all.
Liberals often argue that the modern world demands government action that could not be foreseen by the Founders, and might even cite the lack of Constitutional authority to enact government programs such as Social Security or Medicare as justification for a program like Obamacare. Liberals’ typical rationale for the legitimacy of such programs is the implementation and political acceptance of older, similar government programs. But their justification is historical precedent, not legal authority. Indeed, the federal government has operated in this virtually lawless manner for so long that liberals find it quaint or “not serious” when anyone dares challenge them on legitimate constitutional grounds.
This is similar to the argument of conservatives like Levin in their defense of presidents who wield extra-constitutional powers when waging war. Levin might cite the Korean War or Vietnam as examples of such executive power, in much the same way liberals cite Social Security or Medicare to defend Obamacare. The actual constitutionality of each takes a backseat to the ideologies being promoted, whether the interventionist domestic government welfare state so many Democrats’ desire or the interventionist foreign warfare state endorsed by so many Republicans.
Despite the Constitution stating explicitly that President Obama is unlawful in ordering a strike on Libya without consulting Congress, Levin finds this contention “Absolutely ridiculous,” in the same way Pelosi asks “Are you serious?” of anyone who dares challenge Obamacare’s constitutionality. No doubt, both Levin and Pelosi rhetorically claim that they “support the Constitution,” but their personal, mostly imaginary constitutions are simply projections of what each respective liberal and neoconservative ideologue would like them to be, not necessarily what the Founders actually wrote and ratified.
For conservatives, such constitutional hypocrisy poses a crippling problem. American conservatives’ primary critique of today’s federal government is that most of what it does is not only intrusive, inefficient and expensive, but that if we were only to follow the Constitution again such statism would become a moot point. Liberals do not have this problem as their philosophy is based, in practical terms, on an ever expanding statism. Conservatives nearly uproot their entire argument for limited government, both domestic and foreign, when they concede the need for operating outside the Constitution in areas some right-wingers find necessary or desirable—per neoconservatives’ seemingly permanent push for perpetual war through unlimited Executive power.
But we either have a Constitution or we do not—and if we do not, as both Pelosi and Levin unwittingly concede from their own perspectives, there truly is no definable limit as to what destruction of liberty or imposition of tyranny our federal government is capable of.
When the 39 delegates signed the Constitution on a hot summer’s day in Philadelphia, not one of them believed their work was over. It was not until the document’s ratification the following year that Benjamin Rush declared, “Tis done. We have become a nation.”
Hungary, whose history predates America’s existence by a thousand years, is now working to pen a new constitution that reflects her independence from the former Soviet Union. Thus far, however, Hungary’s leaders have overlooked the essential importance of popular ratification. We support the Hungarian government in their effort to construct better safeguards for liberty, but the legitimacy of their work is in question if the people are not given a chance to ratify the constitution on its own merits.
In a recently published Backgrounder, Marion Smith presents the current situation and makes recommendations for the ongoing constitutional process in Hungary. Fidesz, the nation’s majority center-right party, recently won in landslide elections last year and soon after began drafting a new constitution. While the governing coalition has moved forward united in its goal to adopt the proposed text, the opposition parties have refused to participate. Unfortunately, the Constitutional Court in Hungary has previously ruled that a referendum cannot be held on a constitutional issue, thereby excluding that option. Because Fidesz has opted to ratify the document through Parliament, the leftist parties unfortunately can influence the future legitimacy of the new constitution by withholding their participation.
Instead, Smith argues, the governing party should organize a constitutional convention of delegates elected without party affiliation from local governments around Hungary. Even though there would probably be some overlap between the elected delegates and current parliamentary members, it would be still be an independent body elected for one purpose. “Parliament could continue its debate and drafting process and then submit its final constitution to the Hungarian people for a “yes” or “no” vote at a national, extra-parliamentary ratification convention.”
Hungary’s leaders need only look inside their own Parliament for the motivation to move the ratification of the constitution closer to the people. Inside the rotunda rests St. Steven’s Holy Crown, a symbol of the government’s “respect for the ultimate sovereignty of the Hungarian people.” If Fidesz transmits this symbolism into action, their constitution will rest on the solid, indispensable foundation of popular consent.
Michael Sobolik is currently a member of the Young Leaders Program at the Heritage Foundation.
CBC.ca |
Feds anti-doping expert recounts unmasking steroid
Atlanta Journal Constitution AP SAN FRANCISCO — One of the world's foremost experts in detecting performance-enhancing drug use among athletes recounted on Thursday for the Barry Bonds jury how authorities unmasked the designer steroid dubbed the "clear. … Bonds trial: Government witness hazy under cross-examination Lupica: Bonds & Rocket can't handle the truth Barry Bonds probably lied about steroids, but is proving that worth federal … |
