The key to understanding the Presidential election this year is that the two candidates are diametrically opposed on almost every major issue. In probably no other election since the Civil War have the differences between the two candidates been so stark.
Last week saw three human rights episodes play out in Russia, China and the United States. These events show us how America stacks up against the rest of the world. This past week the world saw the resurgent danger of the old Soviet Union in the modern Russian Federation. Russian military forces invaded the sovereign neighboring nation of Georgia. Although Russia claims to be aiding people in the disputed Georgian province of South Ossetia, the reality is that covert Russian agents have been fomenting upheaval, and Russia had been moving forces into place for this invasion.
It behooves us all, especially in this pivotal election year, to reflect on the words of our nations Founders in light of medical sciences capacity to infringe upon the first human right, the right to life.
At this week's G8 Summit, the cost of gasoline is one of the main topics of discussion. With the price of crude oil hovering around $136 a barrel, the industrialized world is looking for answers. But none seem to exist right now.
On January 9, the U.S. Supreme Court will hear arguments for one of the biggest election law cases in years. This case might decide who becomes president of America, and shape the future of the country.
A federal judge in California has just accepted as constitutional a state law under which the cars of unlicensed drivers were seized for up to 30 days. “Civil rights attorneys” using arguments like the ACLU’s had challenged the law, especially in Escondido. Hundreds of accidents and apparently some deaths have been prevented by the use of this law.
The facts for this article, but not the legal conclusions, come from an article in the North County Times in California, on 12 September, 2008. Federal District Judge S. James Otero ruled that a California law allowing impoundment of cars with unlicensed drivers, was constitutional.
The police in St. Paul were well prepared for the protestors / anarchists at the Republican Convention in that City, because they had infiltrated the group. They knew their intentions to destroy property and attack police and delegates with wooden rods, and feces and urine, There is a question whether ACLU attorneys participated in planning these crimes. There is no question that the ACLU is trying to get the protestors off, and then sue for damages against the City.
* * * *
The facts for this article, but not the legal conclusions, come from an article on the website of Minnesota Daily on 8 […]
The California legislature has just passed two similar bills, intended to deal with the problem of street criminals stealing auto converters, air conditioner coils, and church roofs, and such, to sell as scrap metal. The only opposition to these bills is the ACLU, which objects to the requirement that sellers of scrap show government IDs, and provide a thumb print.
* * * *
The facts for this article, but not the legal conclusions, come from an article in the Recycling Today on 2 September, 2008. It is an unusual source to raise a constitutional issue, yet it is there. This national publication of the […]
"Presidential claims of a right to preserve the confidentiality of information and documents in the face of legislative demands have figured prominently, though intermittently, in executive-congressional relations since at least 1792. Few such interbranch disputes over access to information have reached the courts for substantive resolution, the vast majority achieving resolution through political negotiation and accommodation. In fact, it was not until the Watergate-related lawsuits in the 1970's seeking access to President Nixon's tapes that the existence of a presidential confidentiality Authority was judicially established as a necessary derivative of the President's status in our constitutional scheme of separated powers.
On August 18th, the California Supreme Court ruled on Benitez v. North Coast. This case tests the Freedom of Religion Clause of the California Constitution on the issue of whether a physician has a constitutional right to refuse on religious grounds to perform a medical procedure for a patient because of the patient’s sexual orientation.
The American Civil Rights Union filed an amicus brief supporting North Coast Women’s Care Medical Group.
Unfortunately, the California Supreme Court ruled in favor of Benitez, with Justice Joyce Kennard writing,
“A religious objector has no federal constitutional right to an exemption from a neutral and valid law of […]
