Sound Off!: July 2005

Monday, July 25, 2005

The French Fry Case, or Why Can’t Law Be Perfectly Fair?

I am sending this to Fox News Channel's "Special Report with Britt Hume," because that is the program which triggered the thoughts, and copying the rest of you. If anybody can use it for anything, feel free to do so.

The French Fry Case, or Why Can't Law Be Perfectly Fair?

The opening salvos of the radical left’s assault on John Roberts as a potential Associate Justice of the Supreme Court have been fired. One subtle and polite shot was fired on Fox News Channel’s “Special Report with Britt Hume” on Wednesday evening, July 21, 2005. In taking that shot, Harvard Law School Professor, and liberal legal pundit, Laurence Tribe unintentionally highlighted the most serious problem in our legal system today, the passionate demands of modern liberal intellectual, academic, and legal elites for rules of law which never, ever, ever, lead to “unfair” results.

Hedgepeth v. Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority (D.C. Cir. 2004) (the “One French Fry Case”) involved a 12 year old girl who was arrested (and released three hours later to her mother) for eating just one french fry on a District of Columbia Metrorail subway station platform. Her mother (and, ironically, the conservative Rutherford Institute) felt that this was a case of bureaucratic over-zealousness and nothing short of suing would suffice to vindicate her supposed “rights.” She lost in U. S. District Court, and lost again on appeal to the U. S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, where Judge Roberts wrote the opinion for the court.

It was obvious that Professor Tribe considers the result in Hedgepeth to be unfair, and he implied that an undesirable judicial philosophy might lie behind Judge Roberts’ opinion. Tribe said to Mr. Hume “I'm not going to make a big deal out of just one french fry, or one case; I want to know what accounts for the philosophy that leads to such a case.” We can assume the Professor meant “that leads to such a result” rather than "leads to such a case." The accountable philosophy is not that of the District Court, the Court of Appeals, or Judge Roberts, but rather the “I've got rights” philosophy that holds that every perceived unfairness or unpleasant experience can and should be assuaged by legal action. But that is not the axe Professor Tribe was grinding so we must look further.

No human endeavor is perfect, and no understandable rule of law can be applied to all possible fact situations without occasionally creating a seemingly “unfair” result, even though “unfair” is a totally subjective conclusion. Unwillingness to tolerate a bit of less-than-perfect justice requires the abandonment of the “rule of law” and the embrace of a “rule of judges” who will parse, and compare, and weigh, and balance, and always always always come up with a “fair” result. Sandra Day O'Connor has been praised for having exactly that judicial philosophy. Her opinions are considered “nuanced,” she always carefully considers all of the facts, and it is difficult to predict how she will rule. Not every situation in life can be analyzed to exhaustion, nor can we afford to try, and being unable to predict with reasonable certainty how a court will rule is not a good thing; it is a terribly bad thing.

Professor Tribe’s concern over “the philosophy which leads to such a case” is triggered by Judge Roberts’ declining to reinterpret the Constitution of the United States to provide a rationale by which the plaintiff could win, that being the “fair” result Tribe wants. Let’s take a closer look at the Hedgepeth case. The U.S. District Court decided the case on “cross motions for summary judgment” which means that nobody was disputing the facts, just the legal effects of those facts. Judge Roberts summarized nicely at the outset of his opinion:

“No one is very happy about the events that led to this litigation. A twelve-year-old girl was arrested, searched, and handcuffed. Her shoelaces were removed, and she was transported in the windowless rear compartment of a police vehicle to a juvenile processing center, where she was booked, fingerprinted, and detained until released to her mother some three hours later — all for eating a single french fry in a Metrorail station. The child was frightened, embarrassed, and crying throughout the ordeal. The district court described the policies that led to her arrest as ‘foolish,’ and indeed the policies were changed after those responsible endured the sort of publicity reserved for adults who make young girls cry. The question before us, however, is not whether these policies were a bad idea, but whether they violated the Fourth and Fifth Amendments to the Constitution. Like the district court, we conclude that they did not, and accordingly we affirm.”

The plaintiff did not contend that the WMATA adopted the rules which led to her arrest out of dislike of children, sheer meanness, or for no reason at all. In fact, the WMATA had seemingly good reasons to take some sort of action, even if the particular rules adopted were a bit ham handed. “[I]t was the start of another school year and . . . [the] WMATA was once again getting complaints about bad behavior by students using the . . . Metrorail station. In response [the] WMATA embarked on a week-long undercover operation to enforce a ‘zero-tolerance’ policy with respect to violations of certain ordinances, including one that makes it unlawful for any person to eat or drink in a Metrorail station.” Adults who violated the ordinances were merely given citations subjecting them to fines of from $10 to $50. Minors who violated the ordinances were arrested.

The plaintiff sought a ruling that the policy of harsher treatment for minors than for adults violated her right to “equal protection” of the law under the Fifth Amendment to the U. S. Constitution, that her arrest was an unreasonable seizure under the Fourth Amendment, and also sought to have her arrest declared a “detention” and her arrest record expunged. Presumably because of the bad publicity resulting from the plaintiff’s arrest, the WMATA abandoned the policies in question quickly and four years before the case was decided by the Court of Appeals, so there was no practical reason for the plaintiff to maintain the equal protection claim (except as an additional chance to put the taxpayers on the hook for the plaintiff’s lawyers’ fees).

The ordinances of the District of Columbia, for reasons legislators believed to be sensible, did not allow the issuance of citations for non-traffic offenses to those under eighteen years of age, but rather provided that a minor who committed what an officer has reasonable grounds to believe was a delinquent act be taken into custody, and the parents or adults responsible for him notified to come get him. Violating any ordinance (e.g. eating on the subway) was defined as a delinquent act. Under well settled Constitutional law those facts alone were sufficient to dispose of the plaintiff’s Fifth Amendment equal protection claim.

Even though the plaintiff went so far afield as to cite the Magna Carta as authority to claim some kind of fundamental right of freedom against being taken or imprisoned, the District Court easily disposed of the plaintiff’s Fourth Amendment unreasonable seizure claim by reference to a 2001 Supreme Court decision (Atwater) which states “[if]an officer has probable cause to believe that an individual has committed even a very minor criminal offense in his presence, he may, without violating the Fourth Amendment, arrest the offender.” The plaintiff inventively tried to reason around the Atwater case with some rather tenuous arguments involving whether the arresting officer did or did not have the discretion to do anything other than arrest, but failed to persuade Judge Roberts to ignore the binding precedent.

Because she did not prevail on her Constitutional claims, the plaintiff did not get her arrest redefined as a detention and her arrest record expunged. However, she was twelve years old and it was a juvenile record. It will not follow her into adult life.

There is nothing in the Hedgepeth case, or in the way it was handled by some very able judges, which even remotely could be considered a “philosophy” which leads to “unfair” results. Professor Tribe simply doesn't like the result and would condemn any process that failed, or any judge who refused, to achieve the result he regards as fair. He would also countenance any necessary reinterpretation of the Constitution to get to that result. Reinterpreting the Constitution every time something tugs at our heart strings is the road to legal and social chaos, and the Supreme Court is already well down that road.

The process Professor Tribe would find more congenial would have paid great attention to facts such as: the plaintiff only ate one french fry instead of the whole order of fries plus ketchup; the plaintiff was handcuffed with her hands behind her instead of in front; her shoelaces were removed which probably made it less safe for her to walk; the rear compartment of the police vehicle in which she was transported had no windows, which must have been stressful; and the plaintiff cried throughout her ordeal. There would then follow many pages of convoluted prose of the sort that judges and professors use when they are trying to prove that when the Constitution says “Congress shall make no law” it actually means “if any judge really likes the results Congress may make law,” or when the Constitution forbids discrimination on the basis of race it really means that discrimination on the basis of race is just dandy so long as those doing the discriminating are good hearted liberals who sincerely believe they are doing it for the benefit of the downtrodden, and are self-righteously sure that bestowing such favors will make the world a better place.

The truly unfair aspect of the Hedgepeth case is that taxpayers had to pay the cost of defending against it, and the cost of the resources the judicial system spent carefully and conscientiously processing it, when it should never have been brought at all. The fact that it was, as a practical matter, brought by what claims to be a conservative organization (the Rutherford Institute) is a bit disappointing.

Glen A. Weeks
Manzanita, OR

Friday, July 22, 2005

The Silent Church and Human Rights Violations

Thank you for your article about the mainline church being silent about human rights around the world. I am taking your thoughts into consideration. However, in defense of the churches of America, I believe many times the government knows more about who is committing human rights violations around the world than the average pastor. That is why it takes political debates to get churches involved... that is when the violations are finally exposed. Furthermore, the church actually responding to the news about human rights violations should speak for itself that it is not silent and is not forgetting its principles. If anything, I think not enough Christians are speaking up for themselves, for Christ and the persecuted church all around the world.

Thank you for your time,

Amanda Hinson

Thursday, July 21, 2005

The Ten Commandments

Dear Rutherford Institute:

Recently, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled (by a 5-4 vote) on the presence of the Ten Commandments on public property. A display outside of the Texas Statehouse was allowed to stay; whilea display within a Kentucky courthouse was ruled "unconstitutional" on the grounds of "violation of the separation of church and state". The ACLU was the impetus behind the lawsuit.

In addition to this case, the ACLU is currently working to remove the Ten Commandments from a courthouse in Georgia on similar grounds. Elsewhere, the ACLU is seeking to have a plaque of the Ten Commandments removed from Bolin Plaza in Phoenix. Does the ACLU have something against the Ten Commandments? Or do they have some other goal, such as government neutrality in religion, in mind?

By contrast to the Ten Commandments, let us look at another government-funded activity--art. Consider, for example, the controversial work of Andres Cerrano, "Piss Christ", which featured a crucifix in a jar of urine. This art was explicitly funded by the government. Now was this an entanglement of government in religion, an attack on religion, or neutral towards religion? The apparent view of the ACLU in that case is that the juxtaposition of the sacred and the profane creates art, which must be funded, and nothing else, by the government. To do otherwise would be "censorship."

What do we do then, in the case where the artist wishes to portray the sacred as art, but without the urine? Why naturally, this MUST be an endorsement of religion. It cannot merely be art. (This despite the centuries of great art with religious themes, from Van Eyck, to Michelangelo, Rembrandt, and on to the 20th century artists such as Picasso.) According to the ACLU, a religiously themed object MUST be slathered in bodily waste (see also Chris Ofili’s "Mary" with elephant dung) in order to qualify as art, and to be “neutral” towards religion. Any display of the religious on its own must, must, must be an explicit endorsement. How curious! Does this apply only to religious figures, or also to any public personage? Imagine the accusations of "hate crimes" if this treatment were applied to an icon of the left, say JFK, Jesse Jackson, or Hillary Clinton?

Even if you agree in principle with the ACLU (and since when did they become wedded to "original intent" interpretation of the Constitution? Where are the "penumbras" thrown off by the 1st amendment? Or for that matter, the 2nd and the 10th amendments? But I digress), it is possible to disagree with them about what circumstances actually constitute government establishment of religion. Just because a statue is on government property, the government does not require me to endorse it before giving me access to the courthouse. If you want genuine establishment of state religion, try Saudi Arabia, where U.S. troops had to attend P, C, and J “morale camps” rather than religious ceremonies. If you want fusion of church and state, try the Taliban, which imposed sharia law on as many citizens as it could reach.

In order to find a way out of this lunacy, I propose that the government borrow a technique from the financial markets. I think almost everyone has seen a notice of the following sort, in the business section of their newspaper (taking up a quarter of the page, in bold type):

"20,000,000 shares convertible net debentures at 4.325% offered by Shearus Lemming Bros."

This is followed by a disclaimer in microscopic print at the bottom:

"The following is not an offer to sell, nor is it a solicitation of the offer to buy, the securities mentioned in this announcement. That offering is made only by
prospectus."

Why not put a similar disclaimer underneath any religious figures or plaques currently on government property? If such a disclaimer is sufficient for the financial arena (and what is more sacred in our society than money?), surely it would be sufficient for other areas of life. To wit:

"The work here depicted is not the property of the US government, nor is it intended to represent either a belief in or an endorsement of the creed represented by the work. That affirmation is made solely by the owners of the work."

If the ACLU balks at this, then it will be clear that it is not government establishment of religion that they oppose, but religion itself. By the way, where are all the ACLU attorneys and atheist busybodies protesting the U.S. government in Gitmo for distributing the Koran to Islamic prisoners?

Best Regards and "Keep Up the Good Work"!

Clyde S. Dale
Phoenix, AZ

Wednesday, July 20, 2005

editorials

Mr. Whitehead,

I have always enjoyed your frank editorials on human rights, especially the ones involving child slavery. I want to thank you for your wonderful work and for being brave enough to speak out.

I am a social worker in Virginia and out of curiosity I often quietly conduct my own little surveys among the staff here. I have found that most of them do not read a daily paper, but catch some of the news on the radio and TV. When the Iraqi war began almost all of my coworkers were gung-ho and still remain so, because they tend to believe anything their president says. My closest coworker, who has an incredible memory, can’t tell you anything about the Middle East situation, let alone where Iraq is even located on the map. When I asked what she thought of stem cell research she had not heard of it. When I discussed an adoption from Siberia with two other social workers they did not know where Siberia was. These are people with bachelor degrees. I have found that the average thirty-something and middle age American is consumed with their personal daily lives, not the world as a whole. They are insatiable consumers and while they are concerned with the rising costs of living, they can’t seem to connect the dots. I guess they will someday when we as a nation reap what we sow.

Ruth Ann Cumbo

Friday, July 15, 2005

FLAG

Subject: Flag Amendment Violates Free Speech

I think it takes one sorry person to burn our flag. I'd like to think I fought for something, NOT for some sorry a_ _ to burn old glory. I have a T-shirt that say's it all: Just try to burn this flag.

GOD BLESS AMERICA

Jerry Burchett
Cumberland,Ohio

FLAG BURNING FREE SPEECH?

I have read the U.S.Constitution quite thoroughly, and have studied the writings of the men who crafted that divine document, and I have concluded that: 1. It was written in plain English and requires no interpretation. 2. Amendment One is a restriction on Congress. It is the only one that is specifically directed at Congress; and says that "Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech, ..." Now, if a bunch of clowns in black robes think that says that people can burn a flag, or a copy of the Declaration of Independence, or the Constitution, or a bus, or whatever; we don't have a judicial system, we have a group of candidates for the "Booby Hatch," and we are in serious trouble.

Richard L. Partridge (Who still honors his oath to protect the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic.)

Tuesday, July 12, 2005

The American Flag stands for freedom

Subject: The American flag stands for freedom--yes, even for flag burners

The debate continues on whether or not the Constitution should be amended to make it unlawful to burn the American Flag. I completely agree that it should be unlawful to burn our Flag and I completely disagree that such burning is protected by the First Amendment. Those who claim protection under the so-called “freedom of expression”, relating this to the freedom of speech phrase in the First Amendment, are wrong.

A student of constitutional law I am not, but, I can read English. The First Amendment provides 5 items of “protection” as follows:

1. establishment of religion and free exercise thereof
2. freedom of speech
3. freedom of the press
4. right of the people peaceably to assemble
5. right to petition the Government for a redress of grievances

Notice that no form of the word “express” is included, therefore, “freedom of expression” is an invented phrase, and in this instance, is a perverted phrase.

I do not believe that the Constitution needs interpretation. We will never know what our founding fathers “intended” by the text. We can only know what it states. We should either abide with what it states or amend it with accompanying logic, detailed explanation, and limits of meaning.

If the First Amendment is interpreted to allow “freedom of expression” then what will be the limit on how one might “express” their disagreement? One person manifests their freedom of expression-based disagreement by burning the Flag. Does this mean that another might use the same interpretation to attempt to shoot the President by saying that they were only “expressing” their disapproval? Obviously the reply will be that it is against the law to shoot the President so that defense won’t stand up. Well, there is a law concerning treatment of the Flag. It is Public Law 94-344. Unfortunately this code does not impose penalties for the misuse of the Flag. That is left to the states. Likely they do not know this.

My answer to the debate is simple and will not require an amendment to the Constitution. If all of the states (and the District of Columbia) would simply put teeth in their responsibility under Public Law 94-344 and levy a serious penalty on anyone who chose to “express” their view by burning our Flag, such expression would likely end.

Sincerely,

Carroll D. Childers P.E.
Maj Gen (Ret)

Monday, July 11, 2005

HOW CAN THE COMMON MAN WIN?

I read in the latest news releases, that now the US Chamber of Commerce has joined the fight over the next Supreme Court justice, and has agreed to spend millions of dollars to back President Bush’s choice for the court. This promise of that backing though, comes with the demand that he appoint someone that has always been favorable to big business. Such favoritism being that the new justice is anti labor union; favoring strict limits to court awards on product liability; favorable to cheap alien labor (Wal-Mart, and other big employers), big tax breaks (kill the inheritance tax, for which they like to use the scare words “Death Tax”.)

And of course, those on the extreme religious right, which helped put him in office, are demanding that he appoint a justice, similar to justices Scalia and Thomas, favorable to their agenda of turning this nation into a Christian theocracy, patterned after the theocracies of those in the Muslim nations. Their agenda automatically means that a justice be against the pinciple of separation of church and state.

I wonder if the far right is happy now with the Bush "crusade" in the mid-east to rid the world of those heathen Muslims?

Lots of luck to us poor peasants.

Warren Ogren
Hayward, WI

Did You Know?

Did you know that according to the May 9th New York Times, the Bush administration has created a $1 billion program to pay for hospital care for illegal immigrants? When the cost of the invasion of Iraq is now over $200 billion and rising, (not to even count the horrible rising death and injured toll figures – and by the way they have cut the appropriations for the veterans benefits and hospitals, even with all the new candidates needing hospital care that the Bush war has added.) To add to the irony of that, there are millions of American citizens who cannot afford hospital care. There are at this time 84 hospitals in California alone that have had to close because of the free medical care to the illegal Hispanics and other illlegals that is mandated by the government.

Of course, there is logic to this legislation. There is a good chance that the push for amnesty for the nearly eleven million illegals in this country will create millions of grateful voters in the next election, so they must be kept healthy and happy.

Warren Ogren
Hayward, WI

Friday, July 08, 2005

Communion

Subject: First Liberties, Volume 29

Unfortunately, I like a radio station and listen to it almost exclusively that too often features comments from Mr. Whitehead that I and I'm sure others are getting tired of hearing. Your organization takes protecting our rights to a ridiculous end and will be getting a backlash from the silent majority when they wake up and realize what's going on.

Let me cite one particular comment that if thought through by your organization would not be aired. The Lutheran Minister and yourselves should realize that serving wine at communion is a symbolic gesture for it's use as the blood of Jesus Christ. Wine was used then because it was much safer than using water and more prevalent than other forms of liquid intake. Had lemonaide or soda pop been available it would have served the same purpose.

My wife as a child was given grape juice as the symbolic gesture for blood and I'm quite sure that her sins were forgiven at that time. How would you explain this?

Look up the definition of symbolic and you'll understand how silly your argument for this appears to those who have the patience to listen to Mr. Whitehead's comments.

Sincerely,

Murray Massier
Las Cruces, NM

PS Prisoners are in jail because they had no regards and violated the rights of others. Many of their rights should go on hold until they have served their sentence.

Thursday, July 07, 2005

An informed point of view

Although Canadian, I'd like to take the liberty of expressing an opinion. I lived in the US for eight years, in the late 1970's and early 80's (San Diego). My family has had strong links to America since 1920. The point I'm trying to make here, is the fact that you'd be hard pressed to find a non-American more pro-American, on the planet. I was quite taken aback at an article by John Whitehead, on the issues of gay rights. He refers to AT&T's apparent policy of tolerance and diversity in the workplace, and a case involving an employee with conservative religious beliefs; obviously in opposition to rights and equality for gay and lesbian Americans. I wouldn't begin to attempt trudging into the complexities of the law involved in such a situation. But at the grass roots level, I find it appalling that the issue of 'gay rights' is an issue at all. How on earth can the freedom and equality of people under the Constitution be viewed as left and right; conservative and liberal? Respecting an opposing point of view, as Mr. Whitehead puts it, is to lend credence to oppression, condemnation of one's state of being, and the demonization of thousands of good Americans. I know. I knew many of them. They served the free world and the US with distinction, in the USN or USMC. From a personal standpoint, they were military personnel that the nation could be proud of. Those I knew conducted themselves with a sense of honesty and integrity, and were fiercely patriotic. They would have given up their lives in an instant to defend the freedoms that Americans, even the likes of the extreme right, enjoy today. The concept of an opposing viewpoint to the entitlement of homosexual America is a travesty; translating into beatings, bashings, muggings and murder. You will remember, I'm sure, the brutal murder of a college student named Matthew Shepard in Laramie, Wyoming, a number of years ago. His mother said afterward that she didn't blame the young killers, so much as society for giving them permission to do so. This 'permission', as it were, has only intensified in recent years. We have seen the rise of a segment of people of faith, and spread not goodness, mercy and compassion but hatred and vitriol. Rather than being a 'light in the darkness' for humanity, they have been sledgehammers, destroying anything that disagrees with them. Particularly distasteful has been their adaptation of the term "Christian-bashing", from the trite and, I think, dismissive 'gay bashing'.

Criticism, or expressing an opposing opinion to their doctrines is hatred towards religion, according to them, as opposed to an informed opposing point of view. I'm not aware of any violence or bloodshed resulting from disagreeing with doctrine and dogma, but the prevalence of injury to body and psyche of gay/lesbian Americans is a way of life. To say nothing of the cadavers resulting from the negative mindset created by endless condemnation and hostility. It would appear that most conservative Christians see religious freedom as more than the ability to follow theological beliefs and the religious practices of their chosen faith group. Freedom to them also involves the right to take these beliefs and convert them into actions that harrass, hurt, or restrict the freedom of others. With all due respect, religion is based on faith, not facts.

Deeply held beliefs, as you well know, have been used to justify every major evil stemming from man's inhumanity to man. Across the western world, the previous practice of turning the other cheek, by homosexuals, and accepting discrimination as simply part of life is gone. It is no more. The use of lies and innuendo, as in - most gay men are paedophiles, and the agenda to recruit in schools, is, to put it articulately, crap. And it is made all the more odious by those claiming to represent the pinnacle of truth and mercy.

Thank you for your attention,

Hugh (Bart) Vincelette
Vancouver, BC

Sunday, July 03, 2005

Finally a REAL US Hero

Longer than the hallowed battles of any U.S. hero before him. Yes, longer than George Washington struggled to win the American Revolution so this country could begin. Longer than Abraham Lincoln spent agonizing about losing our first Civil War. Longer than World Wars I and II combined. Longer than the Great Depression. Longer than the Korean War and Viet Nam. Longer than Martin Luther King was at the helm of the Civil Rights movement.

Michael Schiavo stood by his principles and promises, almost alone, against hundreds of others who were threatening him, attacking him, investigating him, horribly slandering him, lying about him, demonizing him, taunting him for more than a decade. He stood solid in the face of constant financial uncertainty and hardship, and probable ruin. He bore his grief for the woman with whom he had exchanged vows largely in silence, and amidst a horrific battle to give her Eternity and Salvation with Dignity. He kept his course straight to the promise he gave his late wife even though he had ample opportunity to take much easier, and much more profitable ways out.

For more than a decade and under a firestorm from thousands of braying heathens, Michael Schiavo displayed for every man, every husband, the full, unabridged definition of "to Love and Honor." He gave every person in this country a crystal clear portrait of Courage and Principle and the religious tenets of "loving others more than thyself" and of Keeping one's Word. His determination and fierce integrity are to be admired and appreciated as much as that of any true Hero in our History, and more than most.

It is not enough for the rest of us to now simply allow Michael Schiavo to return to his private life and try to heal. We owe him more than we can ever repay for his example that most of us could never match.

His Devotion and Integrity have been so great we, as his countrymen, are duty-bound to ourselves as well as Michael, to set about honoring him just as we have honored other, even lesser, national heroes. His birthday needs to be National Courage Day and his home should be entered in the registry of Historic Landmarks. Exposition halls and schools and highways should be named after him and monuments should be built in his honor. He should be sought, and highly paid, as a speaker for graduations and marriage seminars and youth groups. His portrait should be displayed with respect in the foyer of every Christian university. His likeness should be on our $100 dollar bill and postage stamps.

I have never met or spoken with Michael Schiavo, only observed him going miles "above and beyond" to simply keep his word to the woman he gave it to.... observed him caring more to honor her than about anything he was suffering and risking... observed him living a life of Valor like this nation seldom sees anymore and that more than a few cannot even comprehend. For that rare and incredible display of pure courage and strength and goodness, I thank you Michael with all admiration, and may God Bless you and your family always.

Jim Moore
Indian Lake Estates, Florida

The Establishment Clause and Guantanamo Bay Cuba

The liberal elites of our nation for years have pursued every opportunity to misapply the "Establishment Clause" of the First Amendment to constrain, restrict, and prevent any and all expressions of our nation's Judeo-Christian foundation in our schools, courts, Government offices, and public buildings.

In recent months, the liberal elites have waged a campaign, with no basis in reality, against our nation's treatment of the enemies and terrorists who have been caught waging an illegal and undeclared war against our nation and our culture. Bowing to the pressure of the liberal's lies and distortions, our nation has gone out of its way to accomodate the beliefs of these terrorists by providing them with religiously compliant meals, copies of the Koran, prayer rugs, prayer beads, religious head coverings, signs pointing the way to Mecca, and calls to prayer five times each day, all at the public's expense.

Should our Government or any agency of the Government such as the US Army provide American servicemen or women similar accomodations for Christians or Jews, the American Civil Liberties Union, Americans for the Separation of Church and State, and other liberal organizations would not hesitate one moment before filing for injunctions from the courts preventing such accomodations to American Christians and Jews. In response, based on recent rulings of the Appelate Courts and the Supreme Court of the United States, I have little doubt that such accomodations would be found to be unlawful under the Establishment Clause.

A rare opportunity exists to take these two diverse and apparently unrelated liberal positions and use them against each other. I urge the Rutherford Institute to file suit in Federal Court requesting injunctive relief to prevent the US Government or any department or agency of the Government from providing such accomodations in support of Islamic law and scripture as a direct and clear violation of the Establishment Clause. The US Government should immediately cease and desist from providing any religious materials or support of terrorists being held by the US Government in Guantanamo Bay Cuba and anywhere else in the world under American supervision. Halal meals should be halted. Government provided Koran's confiscated, prayer rugs, beads, shawls, and head coverings should be confiscated. Signs pointing to Mecca should be removed and calls to prayer stopped. If private organizations wish to provide for some of these items, I am confident that our military can find a safe way to pass them on to the terrorists being held.

John W Stevens, Jr
Merritt Island, FL

Ah, Patriotism!

If you're from the government, I'm here to help you.

I'm here to help you increase your tax base and provide jobs in your community.

But not all communities. Specifically the communities where five Supreme Court Justices reside, have vacation retreats, or own investment property. These are the five Justices who agreed to let government take our property and give it to any developer who offered greater economic benefits.

Lucky you if David H. Souter, John Paul Stevens, Anthony M. Kennedy, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, or Stephen G. Breyer owns property in your jurisdiction.

This isn't a bloggy promise. I've been a real estate broker for 30 years and I'm familiar with drawing up development plans. I can show you how to bulldoze Ruthie Ginsburg's home sweet home and replace it - and her penny-ante real estate taxes - with the greatest boost to the local economy known in America.

Who pays more local sales taxes than anyone else in the US? Who provides more jobs to Americans than anyone else?

Wal-Mart. No one else comes close on either count. Whatever their faults, they pay the most taxes and provide the most jobs, and that's what it's all about now. A Supreme Court majority of one said that's the law of the land.

If you will write me and invite me, I will come to your community and draw up, in Justice Stevens's words of blessing, "carefully considered development plans" to replace the properties of those five Justices with efficient, economy boosting Wal-Marts.

It's the American way. God, do I feel patriotic.

Rey Barry
from the shadows of Monticello