The U.S. Supreme Court in 2010 held major portions of the McCain-Feingold Campaign Finance Act of 2002 an unconstitutional abridgement of the First Amendment's guarantee of "the freedom of speech." On Monday of this week, the Court also held a state law to be in violation of the same Bill of Rights guarantee, despite an attempt to justify it with the same high purpose the federal law proclaimed: an attempt to eliminate the corruption of elections by moneyed interests. In a 5-4 decision, the court ruled Arizona's 1998 Citizens Clean Elections Act unconstitutional because its effect, and its all but certain intent, is to punish candidates who spend their own or privately donated money on campaign advertising beyond the level of the public funding available to all candidates. Expenditures of private funds by a candidate triggered an increase of public funds to the candidate's opponent or opponents, who would receive the extra money without having to go through the work of soliciting it. Spending by independent groups supporting a privately financed candidate also triggered matching donations of public funds to opponents, despite Court rulings that independent expenditures are core political speech and do not give rise to corruption.
The Pledge of Allegiance continues to cause controversy, this time for the city council of Eugene, Oregon. The council debated whether or not the pledge should be recited before every council meeting, but the proposal was voted down. Instead, the council came to a compromise that apparently appeased no one. The compromise proposed that the pledge be recited at just four council meetings a year — those closest to patriotic holidays: the Fourth of July, Veterans Day, Memorial Day, and Flag Day. Reciting the pledge would be voluntary. Councilman Mike Clark had hoped that the board members would be pleased, but found that when it comes to the Pledge of Allegiance, no there is no simple solution.  
Somebody once said that making laws is a lot like making sausage, so we’re better off not watching the process.* But Texas’ bout with a bill to prohibit Leviathan’s lackeys from groping us at airports and elsewhere resembled opera more than sausage-making: the legislation was near passage, then it suddenly died before triumphantly resurrecting, only to limp mutilated and weakened from Texas’ Senate. The House votes on it again today – or never. Will it finally become law? It isn’t over till the fat lady sings. This bill should have generated no controversy whatever since it simply affirms the Fourth Amendment’s protection from unreasonable search and seizure:
Of the many things in which George Soros has been involved, critics now say he is working to “stack the courts.” Soros has already established a reputation for spending millions of dollars each year in support or political, social, and global issues. As he is well known for his financial ability as a political maneuverer, this latest revelation should come as no surprise. According to Fox News, Soros’ newest priority of "replacing elections for judges with selection-by-committee" has now drawn the attention of critics who are accusing him of attempting to stack the courts.  
On Monday, a federal judge blocked portions of a Georgia law that would crack down on illegal immigration, at least until a legal challenge is fully resolved. In his ruling, the judge asserted that the role of enforcing immigration laws should be left to the federal government. The order was handed down by Judge Thomas Thrash — a 1997 Bill Clinton appointee — who granted a request to block provisions in the law that would punish those who knowingly and willingly transport illegal aliens while committing another crime. Thrash also put a halt to the part of the law that would authorize police officers to verify the immigration status of someone who is unable to provide proper identification at the time of a stop.
Just one day after officially beginning her campaign for President in neighboring Iowa, Minnesota Congresswoman Michele Bachmann went to the East Coast and campaigned Tuesday in both northern New England and the deep South, speaking at rallies in the early voting states of New Hampshire and South Carolina and finding receptive crowds in both states. The Minnesota phenomenon, who has overshadowed both former Governor Sarah Palin, the celebrity on tour from Alaska, and rival candidate former Gov. Tim Pawlenty from her own state of Minnesota, appears to be on a roll, with at least one recent poll showing her in a statistical dead heat in Iowa with perceived front runner Mitt Romney, the multi-millionaire businessman and former Governor of Massachusetts. Her verbal gaffes notwithstanding, Bachmann seems to embody the very "Yes, we can" spirit that helped carry Barack Obama to the White House, even as she lashes out against the Democratic incumbent on everything from the bombing of Libya to the ObamaCare health plan to the joblessness that has resisted the hundreds of billions of dollars of "economic stimulus," as well as the "shovel-ready" rhetoric of the President's campaign of "hope and change."
For years I have been telling parents and educators that the kind of reading difficulties afflicting perfectly normal children in our schools today are being caused by the teaching methods and not by any defect in the children themselves. The educators have been telling us for years now that the reason why so many children are having problems learning to read is because of a learning disability they've been born with. In fact, the official position of the federal government on this issue is summed up in the 1987 Report to the Congress of the Interagency Committee on Learning Disabilities which defined "Learning Disabilities" as follows (p. 222):  
How time flies when you're under the boot! By now, most people are well-acquainted with the latest atrocities imposed in the name of crime and terrorism by our ruling class, exemplified most prominently this year by the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) and the Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA). In the most recent outrage, this June Mrs. Lena Reppert , a wheelchair-bound 95-year-old lady dying of leukemia, was forced to remove her soiled adult diaper, while her distraught daughter accompanied her from Florida to Michigan to be with relatives prior to a planned relocation to a nearby assisted-living facility. The TSA, as always, absolved themselves by alleging the woman “had other options.” Yes, indeed: Missing her flight — in this case not an option due to her precarious medical condition.
Rep. Charlie Rangel, D-N.Y., referring to his race and the Constitution on John Stossel's recent show "The State Against Blacks," said, "I wasn't even considered three-fifths of a guy." The Rev. Al Sharpton, debating on Sean Hannity's show, said, "Any black, at any age at any stage, was three-fifths of a human." Even eminent historian John Hope Franklin charged the Founders with "degrading the human spirit by equating five black men with three white men." Statements such as those either represent ignorance or are part of the leftist agenda to demean the founding principles of our nation by portraying the nation's Founders as racists. Let's look at the origin of the three-fifths clause. Northern delegates to the 1787 Constitutional Convention and those opposed to slavery wished to count only free people of each state for the purpose of representation in the House of Representatives and the Electoral College. Southerners wanted to count slaves just as any other person. By counting slaves, who didn't have a right to vote, slave states would have had greater representation in the House and the Electoral College. If slaveholding states could not have counted slaves, the Constitution would not have been ratified and there would not be a union. The compromise was for slaves to be counted as three-fifths of a person in deciding representation in the House and Electoral College. The compromise reduced the power of slave states relative to the South's original proposal but increased it over the North's original proposal.
Anyone who believes ObamaCare will mean lower healthcare costs and higher-quality healthcare has only to look to the state that has been suffering under the prototype for ObamaCare for the past five years to be disabused of such notions. Massachusetts’ healthcare costs far exceed those of other states; and now Bay State legislators and Gov. Deval Patrick (D) are resorting to the age-old, destined-to-fail approach to high costs: price controls. The result, of course, will be a shortage of quality healthcare. Since 2006, when then-Gov. Mitt Romney (R) signed Massachusetts’ so-called universal coverage law, Bay State spending for privately insured residents has “far outpaced national growth,” according to the Boston Globe, while access to healthcare has suffered. Last year the Wall Street Journal reported that average insurance premiums in Massachusetts are the highest in the nation; small business costs have increased by 5.8 percent since RomneyCare was instituted; and per capita health spending is 27 percent higher than the national average (15 percent higher when adjusted for local wages and research grants).
JBS Facebook JBS Twitter JBS YouTube JBS RSS Feed