Skip to Content

Constitution

“God” Replaced With “Peace” In Pledge of Allegiance

From :

“One nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.”

For the past few years, this line in the Pledge of Allegiance has caused an increasing amount of debate among Americans. Despite this debate, , while only 8% do not. Forget the lawsuits, conflict, and uproar, saying that controversial line at schools daily is still part of the law.

Unfortunately, a Madison, Wisconsin high school has decided to go against that law over the past couple months.

Just last month, Samantha Murphy, a brave high school junior at Madison East High School, emailed me. In her freshman year, Madison East did not offer the Pledge every morning. Her family decided to talk to the principal and school board, reminding them that it is a state law to offer the Pledge every day. They pointed out , which states “Every public school shall offer the pledge of allegiance or the national anthem in grades one to 12 each school day.”

Preamble to the Bill of Rights

Another 2nd Amendment win in California

At :

Okay, someone has put something in the water at the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals; this is the where they’ve defended the right to bear arms in self defense against hyper-restrictive California laws. This time, they the Yolo County Sheriff:

Just weeks after striking down the San Diego County “good cause” requirement as burdensome to the exercise of the Second Amendment, the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals struck down Yolo County, CA’s requirement that a concealed carry applicant “prove they face a threat of violence or robbery” before being allowed to carry a gun.

The Court in its new-found crush on the Bill of Rights found that the application of the “good cause” rule in Yolo “impermissibly” infringed the plaintiffs 2nd Amendment rights. While the ruling only applies to the county in question, it seems to me this is another wedge in the door that opens the way for a state-wide ruling.

Civil liberties — what a concept!

Idaho senate votes to nullify any new federal gun control measures

From :

A proposed Idaho bill would nullify future federal gun laws by prohibiting state enforcement of any federal act relating to personal firearms, a firearm accessories or ammunition. It passed the state senate on Wednesday by a vote of 34-0, with one member not voting.

Introduced by the State Affairs Committee, the Idaho Federal Firearm, Magazine and Register Ban Enforcement Act, or , would

“protect Idaho law enforcement officers from being directed, through federal executive orders, agency orders, statutes, laws, rules, or regulations enacted or promulgated on or after the effective date of this act, to violate their oath of office and Idaho citizens’ rights under Section 11, Article I, of the Constitution of the State of Idaho.”

The legislation continues:

Conservative College Student Gives Liberal College a $50,000 Lesson

Fournd at :

Constitution ruling 500

A California college student who was blocked last year from handing out copies of the Constitution gave his school a lesson in civics and the law, winning a $50,000 settlement and an agreement to revise its speech codes.

Robert Van Tuinen, 26, settled with Modesto Junior College just five months after his run-in with school officials on Sept. 17 – National Constitution Day. Van Tuinen said he’s more excited about getting the school to revise its speech codes, which previously confined the First Amendment to a small area students had to sign up to use.

“They were maintaining an unconstitutional speech code, and now any of my fellow students can go out and exercise their right to free speech,” said Van Tuinen, an Army veteran who grew up in Modesto and now studies photography.

In September, 2013 Van Tuinen released a video he took of his confrontation with school officials. In the video, he is confronted by an unidentified campus police officer within minutes of passing out the pamphlets. When he protests, he is told “there are rules,” and is escorted to an administrators office who shows him a binder with rules she says govern free speech on campus.

Eric Holder To State Attorneys General: You Don't Have to Enforce Laws You Disagree With

Don't bother upholding the law, just do what suits you. Unbelieveable. At :

Attorney General Eric Holder is taking the lawless attitude of the Obama administration and passing it down to state attorneys general. Yesterday during an interview with , Holder said state attorneys general do not have to enforce laws they disagree with, specifically when it comes to the issue of gay marriage.

It is highly unusual for the United States attorney general to advise his state counterparts on how and when to refuse to defend state laws. But Mr. Holder said when laws touch on core constitutional issues like equal protection, an attorney general should apply the highest level of scrutiny before reaching a decision on whether to defend it. He said the decision should never be political or based on policy objections.

“Engaging in that process and making that determination is something that’s appropriate for an attorney general to do,” Mr. Holder said.

In 2011, the Obama administration announced attorneys in the Department of Justice would not enforce the Defense of Marriage Act, which was later struck down in 2013 by the Supreme Court.

Ninth Circuit Recognizes Right to Bear Arms Outside the Home

I'm surprised that this ruling came out of the 9th Circuit. Originally on :

The Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled Thursday that the Second Amendment endows the right to carry a gun outside the home. The opinion comes days before the Supreme Court  whether to review two other cases that ask the question of whether the right to “bear arms” extends beyond the home.

The California-based appeals court, in a 2-1 ruling authored by Judge Diarmuid O’Scannlain, delved into American history, from the Founding Era forward, and found support for the notion that “bearing arms” means carrying a gun in public:

So concludes our analysis of text and history: the carrying of an operable handgun outside the home for the lawful purpose of self-defense, though subject to traditional restrictions, constitutes “bear[ing] Arms” within the meaning of the Second Amendment.

The case comes from San Diego County, which, according to state law, requires residents to show “good cause” for carrying a concealed handgun. Personal safety alone does not qualify as good cause. The question for the court was whether the requirement infringes on the Second Amendment’s right to bear arms.

From the Ninth Circuit:

Syndicate content


deliciousness
by Dr. Radut