1. First Amendment

Category Archives: First Amendment

What would James Madison say to today’s Supreme Court? Burt Neuborne weighs in – Video

Posted on by


What would James Madison say to today #39;s Supreme Court? Burt Neuborne weighs in
In "Madison #39;s Music," author Burt Neuborne argues that judges must consider the full text and structure of the First Amendment in order to issue rulings in accordance with James Madison #39;s...

By: NYU School of Law

See original here:

What would James Madison say to today's Supreme Court? Burt Neuborne weighs in - Video

Why five police officers can sue the Chicago Sun-Times

Posted on by

Court rules that publishing drivers license details broke the lawand First Amendment is no defense

In what could prove to be a consequential decision, the US Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit ruled Friday that the Chicago Sun-Times improperly obtained and disclosed personal information from motor vehicle records, and that the papers actions were not protected by the First Amendment. The decision by a three-judge panel allows a lawsuit against the paper, brought by five Chicago police officers who claim their privacy rights were violated, to proceed.

With its ruling, the court tackled a question that US courts have rarely if ever addressed: whether the First Amendment protects the publication of material that the press itself has unlawfully acquired. In this case, the judges ruled, it does notpartly because, in the courts view, the material in question was of marginal public value.

The cases underlying facts are colorful and tragic. In 2004, R.J. Vanecko, a nephew of Richard M. Daley, then the mayor of Chicago, had been drinking for eight hours before he punched a 21-year-old man, David Koschman, outside a Division Street bar. Koschman fell and hit his head, and died days later of a brain injury.

The Chicago Police Department investigated the incident, and at one point placed Vanecko in an eyewitness lineup, with five officers acting as fillers. Eyewitnesses failed to identify Vanecko as the perpetrator, so no charges were filed and the department closed the investigation in March 2011.

But suspicions lingered that the department had manipulated its investigation to protect Vanecko because of his family connections. The Sun-Times dug into the case and published a series of reports criticizing the investigation, including a Nov. 21, 2011, story about the Vanecko lineup. Under the headline Daley Nephew Biggest Guy on Scene, But Not in Lineup, the story suggested that several of the officers too closely resembled Vanecko for the lineup to be reliable.

The Sun-Times published lineup photos and the fillers names, along with their birth months and years, their heights and weights, and their hair and eye colors. The paper obtained the photos and names from the police department through a public records request. But apparentlyand crucially, for the legal analysisthe paper obtained the officers physical information from motor vehicle records maintained by the Illinois Secretary of State.

Eventually, a special prosecutor investigated Koschmans death, and in December 2012, eight years after the fatal incident, Vanecko was indicted and charged with one count of involuntary manslaughterto which he pleaded guilty in January 2014.

Along the way, the case took a bizarre turn: The officers sued the Sun-Times, claiming the paper had violated the federal Drivers Privacy Protection Act (DPPA) by publishing their physical information.

The DPPA and personal information

Continue reading here:

Why five police officers can sue the Chicago Sun-Times

Twenty-first Amendment to the United States Constitution …

Posted on by

The Twenty-first Amendment (Amendment XXI) to the United States Constitution repealed the Eighteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, which had mandated nationwide Prohibition on alcohol on January 17, 1920. The Twenty-first Amendment was ratified on December 5, 1933. It is unique among the 27 amendments of the U.S. Constitution for being the only one to have been ratified by state ratifying conventions.

Section 1. The eighteenth article of amendment to the Constitution of the United States is hereby repealed.

Section 2. The transportation or importation into any State, Territory, or possession of the United States for delivery or use therein of intoxicating liquors, in violation of the laws thereof, is hereby prohibited.

Section 3. This article shall be inoperative unless it shall have been ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by conventions in the several States, as provided in the Constitution, within seven years from the date of the submission hereof to the States by the Congress.

The Eighteenth Amendment to the Constitution had ushered in a period known as Prohibition, during which the manufacture, distribution, and sale of alcoholic beverages was illegal. Passage of the Eighteenth Amendment in 1919 was the crowning achievement of the temperance movement, but it soon proved highly unpopular. Crime rates soared under Prohibition as gangsters, such as Chicago's Al Capone, became rich from a profitable, often violent black market for alcohol. The federal government was incapable of stemming the tide: enforcement of the Volstead Act proved to be a nearly impossible task and corruption was rife among law enforcement agencies.[1] In 1932, wealthy industrialist John D. Rockefeller, Jr. stated in a letter:

When Prohibition was introduced, I hoped that it would be widely supported by public opinion and the day would soon come when the evil effects of alcohol would be recognized. I have slowly and reluctantly come to believe that this has not been the result. Instead, drinking has generally increased; the speakeasy has replaced the saloon; a vast army of lawbreakers has appeared; many of our best citizens have openly ignored Prohibition; respect for the law has been greatly lessened; and crime has increased to a level never seen before.[2]

As more and more Americans opposed the Eighteenth Amendment, a political movement grew for its repeal. However, repeal was complicated by grassroots politics. Although the U.S. Constitution provides two methods for ratifying constitutional amendments, only one method had been used up until that time; and that was for ratification by the state legislatures of three-fourths of the states. However, the wisdom of the day was that the lawmakers of many states were either beholden to or simply fearful of the temperance lobby. For that reason, when Congress formally proposed the repeal of Prohibition on February 20, 1933 (with the requisite two-thirds having voted in favor in each house; 63 to 21 in the United States Senate and 289 to 121 in the United States House of Representatives), they chose the other ratification method established by Article V, that being via state conventions. The Twenty-first Amendment is the only constitutional amendment ratified by state conventions rather than by the state legislatures.

The Congress proposed the Twenty-first Amendment on February 20, 1933.[3]

The proposed amendment was adopted on December 5, 1933. It is the only amendment to have been ratified by state ratifying conventions, specially selected for the purpose.[4] All other amendments have been ratified by state legislatures. It is also the only amendment that was approved for the explicit purpose of repealing a previously existing amendment to the Constitution. The Twenty-first Amendment ending national prohibition became officially effective on December 15, though people started drinking openly before that date.[5]

The various responses of the 48 states is as follows:

Continued here:

Twenty-first Amendment to the United States Constitution ...

I wanted to question Petreus about ‘successes’ in Iraq, but got arrested – Ray McGovern – Video

Posted on by


I wanted to question Petreus about #39;successes #39; in Iraq, but got arrested - Ray McGovern
Former CIA analyst Ray McGovern will not let his First Amendment rights be infringed upon by the New York City Police Department or any other organization, the prominent anti-war activist told...

By: RT America

Read this article:

I wanted to question Petreus about 'successes' in Iraq, but got arrested - Ray McGovern - Video

Letter: Rooting for the Opportunity Scholarship Program

Posted on by

Published: Friday, January 30, 2015 at 05:25 PM.

On Feb. 17, the North Carolina Supreme curt is slated to hear two cases challenging the Opportunity Scholarship Program, which provides low-income families the option to receive vouchers of up to $4,200 for their child to attend a non-public school of the parents choosing. Staunch supporters of the United States Constitutions First Amendment and secularists have cried foul, as the program opens old wounds of Zelman v. Simmons-Harris by enabling public tax dollars to fund not only religious schools but schools that can discriminate against applicants based on religion and schools that cant be held to education performance standards.

I am one such secular, non-religious United States citizen and North Carolina resident who believes public tax dollars shouldnt fund education that simultaneously indoctrinates its students in religion (e.g. Greensboro Islam Academy or Victory Christian Center School).

However, despite my belief in the Constitutions First Amendment and my disagreement with Zelman v. Simmons-Harris, I want the Opportunity Scholarship Program to be ruled constitutional in the state supreme courts upcoming hearing and so should secularists everywhere.

I want taxpayer backed school vouchers to continue to enable attendance at private schools, because on average, the private schools these students attend will provide a better education than North Carolinas failing public school system. And that better education and the critical thinking it facilitates, coupled with the wealth of knowledge available on the internet, will allow these students, as they come into adulthood, to see past the very indoctrination religious schools hope to achieve.

Religion is giving way to reason in this country as youth have more and more access to knowledge and opinion outside of their towns and schools through the internet. All the secular, non-religious community has to do is enable critical thinking skills through education, and the internet will take care of the rest. The Opportunity Scholarship Program is one such enabling tool. Lets allow that affront to our First Amendment values teach children to reason and focus our efforts on improving the critical thinking skills of the children left in the public school system.

Matthew Lindauer, New Bern

Here is the original post:

Letter: Rooting for the Opportunity Scholarship Program

Former Pennsylvania First Lady Midge Rendell Takes On New Role

Posted on by

January 31, 2015 11:31 AM

(Judge Marjorie Rendell, at the National Constitution Center, during a break in a schoolteachers forum on the First Amendment. Photo by Pat Loeb)

Pat Loeb's radio experience has the makings of a country song:s...

By Pat Loeb

PHILADELPHIA (CBS) Pennsylvanias former First Lady, Judge Marjorie Rendell, is giving up her full-time seat on the federal Third Circuit Court of Appeals but shes hardly retiring.

Judge Rendell says she may be able to have a greater impact in her new role. Shell be a senior judge, with 80 percent of a full-time caseload, and shell be doing more work at the Rendell Center for Citizenship and Civics, an outgrowth of her focus as First Lady. She started the center just over a year ago with her husband, former governor Ed Rendell, from whom she is separated. Its currently piloting a fourth-grade civics curriculum and working with Annenberg on high school civics and a project on judicial independence.

Im looking forward to working with Annenberg to have impact, Rendell says. In fact, Im wondering whether that aspect of my life might have more impact than even what Ive been doing so far.

But giving up her seat now assures that President Obama will appoint her successor, a factor that she says figured into the timing of her decision.

Hes done a pretty good job, Rendell says. Were very fortunate that we have three new judges that Obama has picked, and our senators have been fabulous in agreeing on the nominees, because that can be an issue. So Im hopeful that my successor would be chosen fairly promptly.

Rendell will lose her vote on en banc cases, but she says shell still have a voice on the court where she served for 21 years.

See the original post here:

Former Pennsylvania First Lady Midge Rendell Takes On New Role


  1. First Amendment